I guess 10 years in the Air Force makes that phrase meaningful to me. "Pass in review." So here at the end of 2020, perhaps I'll let it "pass in review."
I think we're all in agreement that 2020 has been some year. Of course, for almost all of us, the things that stand out are "pandemic" and "racial injustice" and "contentious politics" and "end of the world climate change" kinds of things. They were long and loud this year. We're still not clear what has done more damage -- the virus or the response? We're still grappling with "Do we need to be nicer to all races or should the white race just be eliminated?" (That sounds like hyperbole, I know, but there are voices out there calling for just that.) We're in a world that has changed radically in just 12 months, from stripping out sports to masking the world to rising Socialism as a norm rather than an outlier. I mean, how do we return to "normal" after 10 months without new movies in theaters? What does "normal" even look like anymore?
In 2020 I worked from home far more than I've ever done before. In June I had abdominal surgery that removed 20" of colon, making me, I guess, a semi-colon. In 2020 more people I know went without work for more time than I thought possible and actually survived better than I expected. My grandchildren endured very limited education this year. (I'm sorry, but virtual classes and online teaching are not substitutes for school or in-person teaching.) I know of at least one child that entered the world in March who does not know outside of her own house what people look like without masks.
This crisis year has had some positive effects. It has served to boil things down in some aspects. It turns out that we are social beings and we don't like being isolated from each other. We do need what seemed to be innocuous touches to feel connected -- a handshake, a brief hug, even a smile (impossible through a mask). It turns out that isolation is bad for us. We just weren't always aware of it. We are now. We have learned that there are a lot of people angry about their treatment that not all knew about. We've also learned that some are so angry that rational thought isn't possible although they believe theirs is rational. It turns out that sin rots the brain. Boys can be girls and girls can be boys and if you think otherwise you could very well be in legal trouble, you hater, you. The wrong use of "he" can get you sued for harassment, for instance. We thought "Work hard and earn your way" was good and now we've figured out it should be "You work hard and pay our way." All in 2020.
There is a lot more to 2020. The politics, the riots, the hate, the warfare. Very little in terms of "pop culture" because, after all, that is nonessential. Like your religion. But, hey, 2021 is looking bright. We have a new Democrat for president and his Socialist sidekick for VP and that should bode well for us, right? Expect big changes in 2021. Although, if you think about it, how big can they be in comparison to 2020?
Some are saying this has been "the worst year ever." I'd suggest this is very short-sighted. Try the 1940's with a world at war or the Dark Ages or ... lots of "worst year ever" options. I think it has been a good year. It has allowed me to exercise faith by giving thanks in everything. It has reminded me to not worry about anything but take it all to the Lord in prayer. There's nothing like crisis to get pushed into the arms of Jesus. I'm glad I'm not counting on this world to make things right. I have a better God than that. He never changes and He always does what He pleases and I can count on Him.
Thursday, December 31, 2020
Wednesday, December 30, 2020
Tuesday, December 29, 2020
This Maskerade
Yes, I know, that's not how you spell "masquerade." That's because I wasn't trying to spell masquerade. I want to talk about the travesty of masks.
I know people, Christians even, that consider masks evil. Masks are wrong. They're outlandish. I've heard more than once that they "cover the image of God." And I can't believe this is an issue. So, let's take a look at it. Is there anything biblical that addresses the wearing of masks?
Six times in Matthew 24 Jesus says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" (Matt 24:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29) The Greek word used there is ὑποκριτής --hupokritēs. It is a reference to one who plays a part. In the Greek theater of the day, hupokritēs referred to the actors who would wear masks to play the parts. One actor could wear multiple masks to play multiple parts. It refers to a actual two-faced person. So wearing masks is bad. And, of course, that's not the same thing as wearing masks in a pandemic. So?
What Scriptures cover it? Searching ... searching ... none. "Well," they tell me, "the mask covers the face, the principal place where we reflect the image of God." Okay, that would be an assertion that would be Scripture-related ... except that is not in Scripture. We are made in the image of God; that's absolutely clear. But the connection to the face doesn't seem to make the cut. And we are forbidden to walk around nude, so covering up the image of God isn't, apparently, a problem in the Bible. Others make it about the "veil" and refer to Christ's death on the cross as "tearing the veil from top to bottom." While He certainly did that, is that somehow a mandate not to wear masks for medical purposes? In some cultures, wearing masks is normal and practically an everyday occurrence. Where there is high pollution or other undesirable conditions, they just wear masks as a matter of practice. Would we argue that they're sinning in doing it?
Another common argument is not religious, but constitutional. Does the government have the constitutional right to mandate masks? I will state here and now that I won't answer the question. Not because I don't have an opinion and not because I don't have an answer, but because "constitutional" does not rise to the level of "biblical." As such, if it is or isn't constitutional would be my opinion and not binding. If it's in Scripture, that's binding.
So what do Scriptures cover? Paul argues in his first letter to the church at Corinth, "All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build up." (1 Cor 10:23) He points here to the principle of Christian liberty -- that which is not specifically commanded or forbidden is a matter of individual conscience. That being said, Paul goes on to argue, "Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor." (1 Cor 10:24) "Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved." (1 Cor 10:32-33) The concept of Christian liberty in one direction says, "I get to decide," and, in the other, says, "Don't decide to do what causes others to stumble." So he tells us, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." (Rom 12:18)
It is not the call of Scripture that Christians in America stand up and defend our 1st Amendment rights. It might be the call to citizens and it might be the call to Americans, but it's not the call of Scripture. Nor is it a biblical requirement that we keep our faces (or any other body part) uncovered. (It might be argued that women should wear hats and men should not (1 Cor 11:4-5), but I think even that is stretching a point.) I cannot find a biblical mandate to refuse to wear a mask in a pandemic. Mind you, I hate masks. They are uncomfortable. They are a serious hardship. I'm experiencing headaches and blurred vision, bad skin and rashes. On top of the physical, they are a detriment to communication and human interaction. I despise masks. Even so, because I think that Scripture commands that I do not use my freedom as a cause for stumbling or place my preferences over the good of my neighbor -- those around me -- I will submit to the indignity and discomfort and not wrangle a biblical argument against masks where there is none. But, hey, that's just me, right?
I know people, Christians even, that consider masks evil. Masks are wrong. They're outlandish. I've heard more than once that they "cover the image of God." And I can't believe this is an issue. So, let's take a look at it. Is there anything biblical that addresses the wearing of masks?
Six times in Matthew 24 Jesus says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" (Matt 24:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29) The Greek word used there is ὑποκριτής --hupokritēs. It is a reference to one who plays a part. In the Greek theater of the day, hupokritēs referred to the actors who would wear masks to play the parts. One actor could wear multiple masks to play multiple parts. It refers to a actual two-faced person. So wearing masks is bad. And, of course, that's not the same thing as wearing masks in a pandemic. So?
What Scriptures cover it? Searching ... searching ... none. "Well," they tell me, "the mask covers the face, the principal place where we reflect the image of God." Okay, that would be an assertion that would be Scripture-related ... except that is not in Scripture. We are made in the image of God; that's absolutely clear. But the connection to the face doesn't seem to make the cut. And we are forbidden to walk around nude, so covering up the image of God isn't, apparently, a problem in the Bible. Others make it about the "veil" and refer to Christ's death on the cross as "tearing the veil from top to bottom." While He certainly did that, is that somehow a mandate not to wear masks for medical purposes? In some cultures, wearing masks is normal and practically an everyday occurrence. Where there is high pollution or other undesirable conditions, they just wear masks as a matter of practice. Would we argue that they're sinning in doing it?
Another common argument is not religious, but constitutional. Does the government have the constitutional right to mandate masks? I will state here and now that I won't answer the question. Not because I don't have an opinion and not because I don't have an answer, but because "constitutional" does not rise to the level of "biblical." As such, if it is or isn't constitutional would be my opinion and not binding. If it's in Scripture, that's binding.
So what do Scriptures cover? Paul argues in his first letter to the church at Corinth, "All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build up." (1 Cor 10:23) He points here to the principle of Christian liberty -- that which is not specifically commanded or forbidden is a matter of individual conscience. That being said, Paul goes on to argue, "Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor." (1 Cor 10:24) "Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved." (1 Cor 10:32-33) The concept of Christian liberty in one direction says, "I get to decide," and, in the other, says, "Don't decide to do what causes others to stumble." So he tells us, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." (Rom 12:18)
It is not the call of Scripture that Christians in America stand up and defend our 1st Amendment rights. It might be the call to citizens and it might be the call to Americans, but it's not the call of Scripture. Nor is it a biblical requirement that we keep our faces (or any other body part) uncovered. (It might be argued that women should wear hats and men should not (1 Cor 11:4-5), but I think even that is stretching a point.) I cannot find a biblical mandate to refuse to wear a mask in a pandemic. Mind you, I hate masks. They are uncomfortable. They are a serious hardship. I'm experiencing headaches and blurred vision, bad skin and rashes. On top of the physical, they are a detriment to communication and human interaction. I despise masks. Even so, because I think that Scripture commands that I do not use my freedom as a cause for stumbling or place my preferences over the good of my neighbor -- those around me -- I will submit to the indignity and discomfort and not wrangle a biblical argument against masks where there is none. But, hey, that's just me, right?
Monday, December 28, 2020
Life's a Buffet
We seem to live in a buffet world in our society. You know how buffets work, right? "I like this. I don't like that. I'll take some of this and will completely ignore that." And in terms of food that can be fine. What about everything else?
You see the same thing in radical feminism these days. "We demand equality with men!!" Well, okay, that seems fair. So, we won't be opening the door for you anymore, right? "Um, well, sure! That's right!" And you'll be paying for our dates as often as we did, right? "Um, well, I guess so. I don't know." And when the ship is sinking you'll stay behind, right? No more of that "women and children first" stuff? "Oh, no. I don't think so. I think we'll keep that 'inequality'." And when it comes to checking that noise in the night, you'll do it? "No way. That's your job." Buffet feminism.
It's not just feminism, though. Take the LGBT stuff. "We demand that everyone be embraced for how they identify themselves!" Well, okay, let's give that a whirl. So if a biological male identifies as a female, you're all in. "Yes!" And if that same "female" later decides he was mistaken and wants to change back, you're still good with that? "Oh, no, that won't do." And if a white woman identifies as a black woman, you're going along with it? "Nope! That's stupid." And you think everyone should marry whoever they love? "Sure thing!" Even if it's two or three people? "Well, no." Or their pillow? "Absolutely not!" Buffet LGBT stuff.
It comes out everywhere, doesn't it? Racism is bad, but hatred for whites is good. Sexism is bad, but sexism against males is good. Inclusivity is good, and we'll exclude anyone that doesn't agree. The worst place, though, is in Christianity. "We are followers of the Word of God!" Oh, really? So what if it says that we're supposed to confront fellow believers with their sin? "Oh, well, no, that's probably not the right thing." What if it says that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands? "That's right out." What if it says that women aren't supposed to lead men in church? "What kind of a crazy are you?" Buffet Christianity. Take the stuff we like; ignore the stuff we don't. It's not a good look on anyone.
You see the same thing in radical feminism these days. "We demand equality with men!!" Well, okay, that seems fair. So, we won't be opening the door for you anymore, right? "Um, well, sure! That's right!" And you'll be paying for our dates as often as we did, right? "Um, well, I guess so. I don't know." And when the ship is sinking you'll stay behind, right? No more of that "women and children first" stuff? "Oh, no. I don't think so. I think we'll keep that 'inequality'." And when it comes to checking that noise in the night, you'll do it? "No way. That's your job." Buffet feminism.
It's not just feminism, though. Take the LGBT stuff. "We demand that everyone be embraced for how they identify themselves!" Well, okay, let's give that a whirl. So if a biological male identifies as a female, you're all in. "Yes!" And if that same "female" later decides he was mistaken and wants to change back, you're still good with that? "Oh, no, that won't do." And if a white woman identifies as a black woman, you're going along with it? "Nope! That's stupid." And you think everyone should marry whoever they love? "Sure thing!" Even if it's two or three people? "Well, no." Or their pillow? "Absolutely not!" Buffet LGBT stuff.
It comes out everywhere, doesn't it? Racism is bad, but hatred for whites is good. Sexism is bad, but sexism against males is good. Inclusivity is good, and we'll exclude anyone that doesn't agree. The worst place, though, is in Christianity. "We are followers of the Word of God!" Oh, really? So what if it says that we're supposed to confront fellow believers with their sin? "Oh, well, no, that's probably not the right thing." What if it says that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands? "That's right out." What if it says that women aren't supposed to lead men in church? "What kind of a crazy are you?" Buffet Christianity. Take the stuff we like; ignore the stuff we don't. It's not a good look on anyone.
Sunday, December 27, 2020
The Mark of the Least
In Matthew 25 Jesus famously refers to "the least of these." Much of the world thinks (and believers as well) that it's a reference to people in general and perhaps children in particular. It's not. The reference is to "My brothers" (Matt 25:40). Who are Jesus's "brothers"? Those who have believed and received the right to become the children of God (John 1:12). Christians. So, "By this," Jesus said, "all people will know that you are My disciples ..." What was "this"? What did Jesus say marked Jesus's disciples? What is that key difference between those who follow Christ and those who don't? "... if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) Now, clearly, Jesus meant (and John understood it as) Jesus's followers would love Jesus's followers in particular. Sure, anyone who follows Christ should love everyone around. "Your neighbor" was the standard. But Jesus suggested and John confirmed, "Everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of Him" in particular. (1 John 5:1) So here is my dilemma. Why is that so ... rare?
First, before you respond, I want to say I'm not asking for a defense. "Well, we do it in my church." Good. You're among the "rare." I'm not looking to point fingers or make accusations. I'm looking for answers, for solutions. And if you indeed are from one of those rare gatherings of believers who do indeed care about each other, you are exactly who I'm looking to for answers.
Let me illustrate my question with an example. At the beginning of this COVID junk I know a church that thought, "This could be bad, isolated and all that. Let's make sure everyone among us is in touch with someone." Good. That's caring. So they gathered a list of leadership and they assigned to them a list of church people to keep in touch with. They called it, appropriately enough, a "member care list." So far, so good. As it turned out, however, evidence would suggest that not all of those assigned to care cared. Contact was spotty. Swaths of the congregation went untouched, so to speak.
Now, let me, again, be clear. I'm not pointing fingers or making accusations. "Those leaders should be disciplined" or something like it is not in view here. I'm actually concerned about those leaders. Something went wrong. Something broke down. Somehow among the leadership of this particular example church there was a failure to demonstrate that they were Christ's disciples. So it is those leaders I'm actually concerned about as much as the congregation that lacked the care they needed.
In my long history of going to church, the majority of my experience has been that it's hard to break into a church. And I've had a lot of experience, moving from place to place, trying new churches, attempting to plug into rather than merely attend a church. Mind you, that's "the majority." I have been to churches that just sucked you in. You show up new and there is a vortex of caring and embrace and if you don't become part of this church it is due to extreme effort on your part to avoid it. But that has been rare; very rare.
My question, then, is why? What's wrong here? And, beyond identifying the problem, what solutions are there? Is it a leadership failure? Is it a massive problem of tares among wheat? Are genuine followers of Christ really that rare? (I don't think so. I'm just throwing out possibilities.) What causes this and what will fix it. You can see, then, those of you who initially rose to defend your particular faith family, I'm asking you. You have a working model. What makes it work? How do we export that? Any help?
First, before you respond, I want to say I'm not asking for a defense. "Well, we do it in my church." Good. You're among the "rare." I'm not looking to point fingers or make accusations. I'm looking for answers, for solutions. And if you indeed are from one of those rare gatherings of believers who do indeed care about each other, you are exactly who I'm looking to for answers.
Let me illustrate my question with an example. At the beginning of this COVID junk I know a church that thought, "This could be bad, isolated and all that. Let's make sure everyone among us is in touch with someone." Good. That's caring. So they gathered a list of leadership and they assigned to them a list of church people to keep in touch with. They called it, appropriately enough, a "member care list." So far, so good. As it turned out, however, evidence would suggest that not all of those assigned to care cared. Contact was spotty. Swaths of the congregation went untouched, so to speak.
Now, let me, again, be clear. I'm not pointing fingers or making accusations. "Those leaders should be disciplined" or something like it is not in view here. I'm actually concerned about those leaders. Something went wrong. Something broke down. Somehow among the leadership of this particular example church there was a failure to demonstrate that they were Christ's disciples. So it is those leaders I'm actually concerned about as much as the congregation that lacked the care they needed.
In my long history of going to church, the majority of my experience has been that it's hard to break into a church. And I've had a lot of experience, moving from place to place, trying new churches, attempting to plug into rather than merely attend a church. Mind you, that's "the majority." I have been to churches that just sucked you in. You show up new and there is a vortex of caring and embrace and if you don't become part of this church it is due to extreme effort on your part to avoid it. But that has been rare; very rare.
My question, then, is why? What's wrong here? And, beyond identifying the problem, what solutions are there? Is it a leadership failure? Is it a massive problem of tares among wheat? Are genuine followers of Christ really that rare? (I don't think so. I'm just throwing out possibilities.) What causes this and what will fix it. You can see, then, those of you who initially rose to defend your particular faith family, I'm asking you. You have a working model. What makes it work? How do we export that? Any help?
Saturday, December 26, 2020
News Weakly - 12/26/20
It's the morning after; I hope you all had a lovely Christmas. Now, to the impertinent stuff at hand. Did I say "impertinent"? I meant "impotent." No, wait ...
How Not to Read Your Bible
Over the last weekend the media widely reported that Brazil's president warned that the COVID vaccine could turn people into crocodiles. Wait ... what?! Let's see. What really happened was the president told his people that the vaccine was without promise. "In the Pfizer contract, it's very clear," he said. "'We're not responsible for any side effects.'" And that's true. He went on to say, "If you turn into a crocodile, that's your problem." There it is! He said it! Come on, people. He didn't say it would happen. He said, "If something goes wrong, you're on your own" and used hyperbole to illustrate the point. The media assumed he meant it, so they claimed he did. He clearly didn't. I guess this explains how so many people discard the Bible. They're not reading it for what it intends; they're assigning meaning on their own. "So, you actually are cannibals eating Jesus?" That's not how we should listen to people and that's not how to read your Bible (or anything else).
Science Myths
In his dedication to "believe Science" rather than myth, Dr. Fauci was eager to ease the fears of children that Santa wouldn't be around to deliver gifts in the pandemic crisis. He told CNN that he had personally vaccinated Santa Claus himself. Because everyone knows that a magical being who can visit every single house on the planet in one night and live in an invisible home at the North Pole is probably worried about a virus. Thank you, Dr. Fauci. I've always been concerned that telling kids there is a Santa will make them question if there is a Christ. This makes me question what other fairy tales Fauci may be giving us.
The White Girl Broke the Rules
She went and did it. She broke the rules. Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler is in a run-off in Georgia and she said that she was conservative and her opponent, Rev. Raphael Warnock, was a "radical liberal." Oh, bad mistake, white girl. White people are not allowed to say bad things about any black person at any time. If you do, it's obvious racism. In her case, it's also a slam against "Warnock’s religion and the faith of Black congregations," according to a letter signed by more than 100 religious leaders. Mind you, this "Christian pastor" (skin color is irrelevant) believes in expanded free health care, the murder of unborn children, all issues LGBT+ (including "gender inclusive policies"), "environmental justice" (his term), and ending "mass incarcerations." That is, he is farther left than, say, Biden, and, therefore, a "radical liberal." And that doesn't reflect on any other leaders, any race, or "the faith of Black congregations" (which, I believe, might include Christian Black congregations as opposed to Warnock's faith). Now, you may agree with Warnock's faith and you may agree with Warnock's undeniably liberal values, but there is no reason to drag race into it when a candidate who says their opponent believes the opposite of what they stand for. Unless you'd like to accuse Warnock of being racist and demeaning all whites and all white Christians because he has (quite understandably) opposed Loeffler's positions.
What's Good for the Gander ...
We're still not done with the conspiracy theories swirling around Trump's defeat nor the accusations that he's attacking democracy in his efforts to claim voter fraud. Oddly enough, a Democratic candidate in Iowa lost her bid for election and, after the count, the recount, and the certified results, is declaring that the vote count was faulty and she wants them to nullify the state-certified election results. Because it's anti-democracy when Trump does it but not when a Democrat does it.
News I Don't Understand
The news item is big. "This," they tell us, is the deadliest year in U.S. history." Alert! Alert! Big news! Except it really isn't, is it? They're saying that this year we will see perhaps 400,000 more deaths than 2019. Yes, that's a lot, but 1) they expect a 15% rise simply due to increased population, and 2) I seem to recall some sort of big, deadly thing going on. Let's see ... oh, yes! The coronavirus has, so far, killed 322,000. Well, look at that. Just about a perfect fit for the additional 400,000 deaths. That is, this story should say, "As expected," just like when they reported an additional $3 trillion debt increase just after they released a $3 trillion COVID relief package. This isn't news, is it? (I ask because it feels a lot more like terrorism to me. "The sky is falling!")
COVID Relief
The two sides fought about it for months and now they've given us "COVID Relief II: the Sequel" (said in a booming announcer's voice). What does relief look like? You'll be relieved to know that you'll all get a check for $600. That ought to ease the pain of 280+ days of "15 days to flatten the curve." All those who lost their jobs ought to be grateful for a check, right? (The president wants to make it $2000; that ought to fix things.) But wait! There's more! There is $300/week extended unemployment and $284 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program and an extension to the eviction moratorium. There is $22 billion for vaccines and $82 billion for school funding and $13 billion for nutrition and child care. All quite ... relieving. And $7 billion for broadband access, $45 billion for transportation, a provision for two new national museums, and a new law that makes illegally streaming videos a felony. Wait ... what? Yep, (back to the booming announcer's voice) that's the new "COVID relief." (End voice.) Take two and call me in the morning. Sometimes I think we need a new law that makes professional lawmakers illegal.
On Several Levels
I usually prefer the Bee, but this Genesius Times story was too much to pass up. The headline included, "Texas issues ‘stay at home’ order for entire state of California." That's funny right there. On several levels.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
How Not to Read Your Bible
Over the last weekend the media widely reported that Brazil's president warned that the COVID vaccine could turn people into crocodiles. Wait ... what?! Let's see. What really happened was the president told his people that the vaccine was without promise. "In the Pfizer contract, it's very clear," he said. "'We're not responsible for any side effects.'" And that's true. He went on to say, "If you turn into a crocodile, that's your problem." There it is! He said it! Come on, people. He didn't say it would happen. He said, "If something goes wrong, you're on your own" and used hyperbole to illustrate the point. The media assumed he meant it, so they claimed he did. He clearly didn't. I guess this explains how so many people discard the Bible. They're not reading it for what it intends; they're assigning meaning on their own. "So, you actually are cannibals eating Jesus?" That's not how we should listen to people and that's not how to read your Bible (or anything else).
Science Myths
In his dedication to "believe Science" rather than myth, Dr. Fauci was eager to ease the fears of children that Santa wouldn't be around to deliver gifts in the pandemic crisis. He told CNN that he had personally vaccinated Santa Claus himself. Because everyone knows that a magical being who can visit every single house on the planet in one night and live in an invisible home at the North Pole is probably worried about a virus. Thank you, Dr. Fauci. I've always been concerned that telling kids there is a Santa will make them question if there is a Christ. This makes me question what other fairy tales Fauci may be giving us.
The White Girl Broke the Rules
She went and did it. She broke the rules. Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler is in a run-off in Georgia and she said that she was conservative and her opponent, Rev. Raphael Warnock, was a "radical liberal." Oh, bad mistake, white girl. White people are not allowed to say bad things about any black person at any time. If you do, it's obvious racism. In her case, it's also a slam against "Warnock’s religion and the faith of Black congregations," according to a letter signed by more than 100 religious leaders. Mind you, this "Christian pastor" (skin color is irrelevant) believes in expanded free health care, the murder of unborn children, all issues LGBT+ (including "gender inclusive policies"), "environmental justice" (his term), and ending "mass incarcerations." That is, he is farther left than, say, Biden, and, therefore, a "radical liberal." And that doesn't reflect on any other leaders, any race, or "the faith of Black congregations" (which, I believe, might include Christian Black congregations as opposed to Warnock's faith). Now, you may agree with Warnock's faith and you may agree with Warnock's undeniably liberal values, but there is no reason to drag race into it when a candidate who says their opponent believes the opposite of what they stand for. Unless you'd like to accuse Warnock of being racist and demeaning all whites and all white Christians because he has (quite understandably) opposed Loeffler's positions.
What's Good for the Gander ...
We're still not done with the conspiracy theories swirling around Trump's defeat nor the accusations that he's attacking democracy in his efforts to claim voter fraud. Oddly enough, a Democratic candidate in Iowa lost her bid for election and, after the count, the recount, and the certified results, is declaring that the vote count was faulty and she wants them to nullify the state-certified election results. Because it's anti-democracy when Trump does it but not when a Democrat does it.
News I Don't Understand
The news item is big. "This," they tell us, is the deadliest year in U.S. history." Alert! Alert! Big news! Except it really isn't, is it? They're saying that this year we will see perhaps 400,000 more deaths than 2019. Yes, that's a lot, but 1) they expect a 15% rise simply due to increased population, and 2) I seem to recall some sort of big, deadly thing going on. Let's see ... oh, yes! The coronavirus has, so far, killed 322,000. Well, look at that. Just about a perfect fit for the additional 400,000 deaths. That is, this story should say, "As expected," just like when they reported an additional $3 trillion debt increase just after they released a $3 trillion COVID relief package. This isn't news, is it? (I ask because it feels a lot more like terrorism to me. "The sky is falling!")
COVID Relief
The two sides fought about it for months and now they've given us "COVID Relief II: the Sequel" (said in a booming announcer's voice). What does relief look like? You'll be relieved to know that you'll all get a check for $600. That ought to ease the pain of 280+ days of "15 days to flatten the curve." All those who lost their jobs ought to be grateful for a check, right? (The president wants to make it $2000; that ought to fix things.) But wait! There's more! There is $300/week extended unemployment and $284 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program and an extension to the eviction moratorium. There is $22 billion for vaccines and $82 billion for school funding and $13 billion for nutrition and child care. All quite ... relieving. And $7 billion for broadband access, $45 billion for transportation, a provision for two new national museums, and a new law that makes illegally streaming videos a felony. Wait ... what? Yep, (back to the booming announcer's voice) that's the new "COVID relief." (End voice.) Take two and call me in the morning. Sometimes I think we need a new law that makes professional lawmakers illegal.
On Several Levels
I usually prefer the Bee, but this Genesius Times story was too much to pass up. The headline included, "Texas issues ‘stay at home’ order for entire state of California." That's funny right there. On several levels.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, December 25, 2020
Christmas Words
English can be a fun language because it owes its existence to so many other languages. Take, for instance, the word Nativity. We know that to be a reference to that scene with Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger (Luke 2:16). (Oddly, I've never seen one of them with Mary and Joseph and the baby lying in the manger. The adults are always beside the manger.) The word, as it turns out, comes from "Old French nativité 'birth, origin, descent; birthday; Christmas'" which comes from "Late Latin nativitatem (nominative nativitas) 'birth,' from Latin nativus 'born, native'." Wasn't that an interesting trip? At the start, then, the word literally means "to become native by birth." Consider a second word: incarnation. That is a similarly interesting trip (which I'll spare you), but it means at its core "to be made flesh."
Put them together and you have a pair of almost synonyms, at least as they relate to Christ. On the day of His birth, Jesus, who was "in the form of God" (Php 2:6) became a native human by means of birth. Nativity. On the day of His birth, Jesus, who "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1), was made flesh. Scripture says, "And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, He has now reconciled in His body of flesh by His death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before Him." (Col 1:21-22)
Sometimes I think the magnitude of what is "Christmas" -- the birth of Christ -- is lost on us simply because of our familiarity with Christmas. God became flesh (John 1:14). He became a native human, entering this world He made (John 1:3) through a birth canal. And, not satisfied with that humiliation, He came for the express purpose of "becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Php 2:8) For me. And you.
Christmas Day is the celebration of that miracle. We refer to the "miracle of life" when we look at a baby being born. How much more of a miracle is the miracle of the birth of God in the flesh, the arrival of the Creator who became a native by being born? In that flesh He came to die in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach. Christmas is about miraculous Nativity, astounding Incarnation.
Put them together and you have a pair of almost synonyms, at least as they relate to Christ. On the day of His birth, Jesus, who was "in the form of God" (Php 2:6) became a native human by means of birth. Nativity. On the day of His birth, Jesus, who "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1), was made flesh. Scripture says, "And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, He has now reconciled in His body of flesh by His death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before Him." (Col 1:21-22)
Sometimes I think the magnitude of what is "Christmas" -- the birth of Christ -- is lost on us simply because of our familiarity with Christmas. God became flesh (John 1:14). He became a native human, entering this world He made (John 1:3) through a birth canal. And, not satisfied with that humiliation, He came for the express purpose of "becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Php 2:8) For me. And you.
Christmas Day is the celebration of that miracle. We refer to the "miracle of life" when we look at a baby being born. How much more of a miracle is the miracle of the birth of God in the flesh, the arrival of the Creator who became a native by being born? In that flesh He came to die in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach. Christmas is about miraculous Nativity, astounding Incarnation.
Thursday, December 24, 2020
Christmas Eve
Tonight's the night. It's not the night that angels sing or that Bethlehem receives her King. It's the night that a jolly fat man arrives at every single house at midnight to deliver toys to boys and girls around the world. It is the essence of Christmas.
I find the idea reprehensible.
What does this "Santa" teach us? Well, we know he knows. He's almost entirely absent and no one has ever seen where he lives, but he keeps a list of good and bad kids. You don't want to be on his "naughty list" because, well, just because. You see, the threat is "I'm gettin' nuttin' for Christmas, cause I ain't been nuttin' but bad," but the reality is that no kid ever gets coal in his or her stocking and "Santa Claus knows we're all God's children and that makes everything right." At least, so says the song.
From this we learn several important lessons. We learn that God might be watching, but He is certainly remote and certainly not present. We learn that to earn God's favor we must be good. Bad people don't get God's favor. We learn that being bad could result in a vindictive response from a mean-spirited God. We learn that good and bad are relative and literally of no consequence. We learn that justice is not to be had. We learn that God owes us good things. And if you were paying attention, we learn all this stuff practically in direct contradiction to this stuff. That is, God is mean and vindictive to bad people ... but there are no bad people. God is mean and loves everyone. God's favor is earned and it is given freely.
In short, Santa Claus teaches us the opposite of the Gospel. Instead of the good news, Santa teaches us the world's religion.
I find the idea reprehensible.
What does this "Santa" teach us? Well, we know he knows. He's almost entirely absent and no one has ever seen where he lives, but he keeps a list of good and bad kids. You don't want to be on his "naughty list" because, well, just because. You see, the threat is "I'm gettin' nuttin' for Christmas, cause I ain't been nuttin' but bad," but the reality is that no kid ever gets coal in his or her stocking and "Santa Claus knows we're all God's children and that makes everything right." At least, so says the song.
From this we learn several important lessons. We learn that God might be watching, but He is certainly remote and certainly not present. We learn that to earn God's favor we must be good. Bad people don't get God's favor. We learn that being bad could result in a vindictive response from a mean-spirited God. We learn that good and bad are relative and literally of no consequence. We learn that justice is not to be had. We learn that God owes us good things. And if you were paying attention, we learn all this stuff practically in direct contradiction to this stuff. That is, God is mean and vindictive to bad people ... but there are no bad people. God is mean and loves everyone. God's favor is earned and it is given freely.
In short, Santa Claus teaches us the opposite of the Gospel. Instead of the good news, Santa teaches us the world's religion.
- Only good people will go to heaven.
- All people are basically good.
- Therefore, all people go to heaven. So, go ahead and do as you please. "Santa Claus knows we're all God's children and that makes everything right."
Wednesday, December 23, 2020
The Mark of COVID-19
In Revelation we read a lot of strange things. Not the least among these is the thing about the "beasts." Revelation 13 details "the first beast" (Rev 13:1-10) and "the second beast" (Rev 13:11-18). Really odd stuff. Clearly it's not intended as literal, but, on the other hand, not intended as fiction, either. One of the most famous passages in Scripture is in here. Everyone seems to know about "666" -- "the mark of the beast."
There are voices today warning that this is coming true in our day. Back in July theologian and rapper Kanye West warned that the COVID-19 vaccine will be a method of surreptitiously putting a chip in us as the mark of the Beast. And not a few Christians are ... concerned. Is this a possibility? Since there is a warning -- "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God ..." (Rev 14:9-10) -- it might be important. Let's take a look.
First, what is absolutely clear is that the concept in view is not "tracking" or mere control; it is worship (Rev 13:12, 15). It is loyalty and devotion. The idea is worship of the beast as an identity (compare with Rev 14:1 and the "mark of the Lamb"). That can't be commanded. So in chapter 14 the warning is for those who "take the mark" (Rev 14:9), suggesting that it is voluntary and not either forced or secretly introduced. Second, if we're looking at what the text says, this "mark" is not in the blood stream; it is "on the right hand or forehead" (Rev 17:16). (Interesting that it is so specific as to be the right hand.) So if you're going with a literal "mark" of some sort and the idea that they're injecting it, are you suggesting they're injecting it in the right hand or forehead? Seems far-fetched. There is another interesting aspect of the text. In the translation of the text I put above we read that it is "the mark, that is the name" of the beast. The two terms -- "mark" and "name" -- are intended to be the same thing. In the original text there is no "or" or "and" between "the name of the beast" and "the number of its name." So if these two are the same thing, it would appear that the mark of the beast is his name. This coincides with Rev 14:1 that says the mark of the Lamb is the name of the Father.
With all of this in mind, I would suggest that, whatever the "mark of the beast" is, it is not a sneaky injection of a secret chip to control your mind and your wallet. Unless, I guess, you believe we can also get a sneaky injection at church to get the mark of the Lamb. Rest easy, brothers and sisters. It won't be done by stealth. The call is for allegiance, for worship. You don't do that with a vaccine.
Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. (Rev 13:16-18)Now "it" (or "he," depending on your translation) refers to the second beast, not the first. The second is the mouthpiece for the first who appears to be the leader. That's all well and good, but what is this "mark"? It is demonstrably obscure because John limits the understanding to a select group who can "calculate the number of the beast." Even so, no one is really clear on just what it means. (No one is really certain, either, whether it is 666 or 616. Latin has it as 666 and the Greek has it as 616. From there we degenerate into, "Yes, but what does it mean?") So we all know that "666" is a bad thing -- "the sign of the devil" -- but we're not at all sure what it is.
There are voices today warning that this is coming true in our day. Back in July theologian and rapper Kanye West warned that the COVID-19 vaccine will be a method of surreptitiously putting a chip in us as the mark of the Beast. And not a few Christians are ... concerned. Is this a possibility? Since there is a warning -- "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God ..." (Rev 14:9-10) -- it might be important. Let's take a look.
First, what is absolutely clear is that the concept in view is not "tracking" or mere control; it is worship (Rev 13:12, 15). It is loyalty and devotion. The idea is worship of the beast as an identity (compare with Rev 14:1 and the "mark of the Lamb"). That can't be commanded. So in chapter 14 the warning is for those who "take the mark" (Rev 14:9), suggesting that it is voluntary and not either forced or secretly introduced. Second, if we're looking at what the text says, this "mark" is not in the blood stream; it is "on the right hand or forehead" (Rev 17:16). (Interesting that it is so specific as to be the right hand.) So if you're going with a literal "mark" of some sort and the idea that they're injecting it, are you suggesting they're injecting it in the right hand or forehead? Seems far-fetched. There is another interesting aspect of the text. In the translation of the text I put above we read that it is "the mark, that is the name" of the beast. The two terms -- "mark" and "name" -- are intended to be the same thing. In the original text there is no "or" or "and" between "the name of the beast" and "the number of its name." So if these two are the same thing, it would appear that the mark of the beast is his name. This coincides with Rev 14:1 that says the mark of the Lamb is the name of the Father.
With all of this in mind, I would suggest that, whatever the "mark of the beast" is, it is not a sneaky injection of a secret chip to control your mind and your wallet. Unless, I guess, you believe we can also get a sneaky injection at church to get the mark of the Lamb. Rest easy, brothers and sisters. It won't be done by stealth. The call is for allegiance, for worship. You don't do that with a vaccine.
Tuesday, December 22, 2020
The Self-Berean
In Acts 17 we read of Paul and Silas in Berea. The text says of the Jews in Berea, "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." (Acts 17:11) "More noble." Nice. That's what we want; to be "more noble." So what did they do that made them "more noble"? They examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Great!
So we have this model. These Bereans didn't eject or embrace the message of Paul and Silas. They listened ("received the word with all eagerness") and then went home and diligently compared it to what the Bible said. The right response. "Therefore," the text goes on to say, "many of them believed." (Acts 17:12) Not merely because a reputable preacher said so, but because they could see it right there in their Bibles. Because they confirmed it for themselves.
It's a good model and we should embrace it. We should hear what preachers and teachers say and then compare it to Scripture and see if it stacks up. If it does, we should embrace it and believe it. But many of us, I daresay, don't do this. We often tend to imbibe of our favorite teachers and preachers and go with what they say. "My pastor said it, so it's true." We even get angry if someone questions it not because we've confirmed it with Scripture, but because that's "my pastor" and "Who are you to question the Lord's anointed?" Wrong response.
Worse, I think that most of us certainly don't do it with ourselves. We are not self-Bereans. We are not "more noble" than the rest because we simply accept what we think to be true without comparing it with Scripture. We "feel" that "this" is true and "that" is true and, because we do, we assume it is. "But," someone might say, "Scripture." "Oh, no," we retort, "don't go there! I know that 'this' is true and no amount of your Scripture will change that." Oh, if we're wise, we won't say "your Scripture." We'll say "your interpretation." But we do it without examining the Scriptures. We don't say, "Is that actually what it says?" We reject objections out of hand, refusing to consider the possibility that "I might be wrong."
The Bereans of Acts 17 were "more noble" because they listened, then compared the claims with Scripture, then embraced the claims that Scripture supported. Some of us understand that and will compare claims of teachers and preachers and the rest of those around us with Scripture to see if they're right. Good for us. Rarely do we submit our own beliefs to the same scrutiny. We limit our nobility, so to speak. And, when you think about it, I think you can see that it's sheer arrogance. "I don't need to compare my beliefs with Scripture." Maybe, if you hear that in the back of your brain, you might also see that it's a lie. We need to be self-Bereans, too.
So we have this model. These Bereans didn't eject or embrace the message of Paul and Silas. They listened ("received the word with all eagerness") and then went home and diligently compared it to what the Bible said. The right response. "Therefore," the text goes on to say, "many of them believed." (Acts 17:12) Not merely because a reputable preacher said so, but because they could see it right there in their Bibles. Because they confirmed it for themselves.
It's a good model and we should embrace it. We should hear what preachers and teachers say and then compare it to Scripture and see if it stacks up. If it does, we should embrace it and believe it. But many of us, I daresay, don't do this. We often tend to imbibe of our favorite teachers and preachers and go with what they say. "My pastor said it, so it's true." We even get angry if someone questions it not because we've confirmed it with Scripture, but because that's "my pastor" and "Who are you to question the Lord's anointed?" Wrong response.
Worse, I think that most of us certainly don't do it with ourselves. We are not self-Bereans. We are not "more noble" than the rest because we simply accept what we think to be true without comparing it with Scripture. We "feel" that "this" is true and "that" is true and, because we do, we assume it is. "But," someone might say, "Scripture." "Oh, no," we retort, "don't go there! I know that 'this' is true and no amount of your Scripture will change that." Oh, if we're wise, we won't say "your Scripture." We'll say "your interpretation." But we do it without examining the Scriptures. We don't say, "Is that actually what it says?" We reject objections out of hand, refusing to consider the possibility that "I might be wrong."
The Bereans of Acts 17 were "more noble" because they listened, then compared the claims with Scripture, then embraced the claims that Scripture supported. Some of us understand that and will compare claims of teachers and preachers and the rest of those around us with Scripture to see if they're right. Good for us. Rarely do we submit our own beliefs to the same scrutiny. We limit our nobility, so to speak. And, when you think about it, I think you can see that it's sheer arrogance. "I don't need to compare my beliefs with Scripture." Maybe, if you hear that in the back of your brain, you might also see that it's a lie. We need to be self-Bereans, too.
Monday, December 21, 2020
A Bigger Christmas
My youngest grandson heard his first rendition of Feliz Navidad this last week. He loved it. "DeDi DaDiDa" he cheerfully sang as he walked around the house. That was it. And no amount of explanation or enunciation would fix it. He understood Christmas and we couldn't tell him otherwise.
We all know about Christmas. We're all ready for it. We get it. The snow, the bells, the lights, the tinsel. The poor young woman on a donkey with her older husband walking beside, unable to find a hotel room for the night, so they have their baby in the barn. An overstuffed, bearded man coming down the chimney of every home on Earth in one night giving toys to good and bad children alike (because, although there is the threat of being on the "Naughty List," no one every really is). A star and 3 guys on camels with gifts for a baby. We get it. We're aware of it. We're ready for it.
I think we need a bigger Christmas. I think that most of that has so cheapened the story that the reality is obscured. And while we celebrate a false sense of "Peace on earth" (because that line is in some angels' song who didn't actually sing it (see Luke 2:13)) with blinking lights and digital candles and gifts given to each other rather than the "birthday Boy," I long for the magnificence that is Christmas.
Christmas is not a fairy tale. It isn't a jolly Saint Nick (brought to you by Coca Cola). It isn't tinsel and bells. It is so, so much bigger. The real Christmas is the fulfillment of a plan set in motion by God from the beginning (Titus 1:1-3). It is the arrival of God Himself -- God, the Son -- clothed in flesh to walk among us -- Emmanuel; God with us. It is the ultimate condescension (the 2nd definition now: "voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior") -- God surrendering Himself to take on human skin to live as a human to die as a human for sins He never committed -- the sins of a rebellious race.
That's big; really big. Much bigger than a twinkling tree or silver bells. Much more significant than donkeys or camels or three ships sailing into Bethlehem. Even more than a drummer boy playing his best. It is God's answer to the cosmic problem we have caused. It is this answer alone that can provide "peace on Earth." It cost Him His Son and they -- the Father and the Son -- did it willingly for enemies who swore their allegiance to the god of this world. Somehow decorations and silver bells and snow seem to diminish in the glow of this Christmas story. We need a bigger Christmas. You know what we really need? We need a dose of angels declaring His glory with such magnificence that we are terrified. Or awed, perhaps (defined as "an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by, among other things, the sacred"). It was no small Christmas for those shepherds, was it?
We all know about Christmas. We're all ready for it. We get it. The snow, the bells, the lights, the tinsel. The poor young woman on a donkey with her older husband walking beside, unable to find a hotel room for the night, so they have their baby in the barn. An overstuffed, bearded man coming down the chimney of every home on Earth in one night giving toys to good and bad children alike (because, although there is the threat of being on the "Naughty List," no one every really is). A star and 3 guys on camels with gifts for a baby. We get it. We're aware of it. We're ready for it.
I think we need a bigger Christmas. I think that most of that has so cheapened the story that the reality is obscured. And while we celebrate a false sense of "Peace on earth" (because that line is in some angels' song who didn't actually sing it (see Luke 2:13)) with blinking lights and digital candles and gifts given to each other rather than the "birthday Boy," I long for the magnificence that is Christmas.
Christmas is not a fairy tale. It isn't a jolly Saint Nick (brought to you by Coca Cola). It isn't tinsel and bells. It is so, so much bigger. The real Christmas is the fulfillment of a plan set in motion by God from the beginning (Titus 1:1-3). It is the arrival of God Himself -- God, the Son -- clothed in flesh to walk among us -- Emmanuel; God with us. It is the ultimate condescension (the 2nd definition now: "voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior") -- God surrendering Himself to take on human skin to live as a human to die as a human for sins He never committed -- the sins of a rebellious race.
That's big; really big. Much bigger than a twinkling tree or silver bells. Much more significant than donkeys or camels or three ships sailing into Bethlehem. Even more than a drummer boy playing his best. It is God's answer to the cosmic problem we have caused. It is this answer alone that can provide "peace on Earth." It cost Him His Son and they -- the Father and the Son -- did it willingly for enemies who swore their allegiance to the god of this world. Somehow decorations and silver bells and snow seem to diminish in the glow of this Christmas story. We need a bigger Christmas. You know what we really need? We need a dose of angels declaring His glory with such magnificence that we are terrified. Or awed, perhaps (defined as "an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by, among other things, the sacred"). It was no small Christmas for those shepherds, was it?
Sunday, December 20, 2020
Go to Church
It has been a challenging year. We've seen unprecedented (in our lifetime) sickness and unprecedented and unwarranted government overreach in response. We've seen riots and racist responses to racism in America. We've been through what at least feels like the most hateful political year in American history. "Your guy is wrong because he's speaking and he's evil." "Oh, yeah, well you are evil because you don't agree with me." The joke was that Trump had his finger on the red button all the time, but it feels more like America has had her finger on the red button for 2020. One of the biggest concerns of late has been the inroads into the elimination of your rights. Particularly your First and Second Amendment rights. Free speech? You Tube and Facebook Twitter don't care. You say what they agree with or you're out. Free exercise of religion? Don't you believe it; their sexual desires trump (no pun intended) your 1st Amendment rights. And, look, we all know that you don't need those guns to protect you from an overreaching government (as the government reaches farther and farther into your pocket of rights). (Hey, did you notice that there has been a real dearth of school shootings? Have we found the solution? Cancel schools? A thought.1)
So what have we done? In the face of being told, "You don't get to practice your religion" and "You don't get to go to church" and "You are not allowed to believe the Bible on matters we deem unacceptable" and "We insist that we should be allowed to kill babies and mutilate young people and demand that you not only allow it all, but embrace it all," we have ... acquiesced. We've stopped going to church. We've stopped reading our Bibles. We've stopped speaking out for our kids and our families and our beliefs. We've bowed the knee. We don't want to play "whack a mole" where we are the moles and the culture and its watchdog government are the ones wielding the mallet. Don't put your head up; they'll give you a real headache.
What then? What should we do? We should stop. We should stop surrendering to the god of this world. We should stop bowing to the idols of our age. We should pray. "Oh, yeah, like we didn't know that." Really? I ask because it seems to me that prayer is at an all-time low among believers in general. We should be gathering together often and praying. "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for [presidents] and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior." (1 Tim 2:1-3) And, yet, churches are not only closed, but haven't had prayer meetings for a long, long time. Why? Because no one was attending. We are told to "Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving." (Col 4:2) We "ought always to pray and not lose heart." (Luke 18:1) We should be outstanding -- outstanding in love for one another (John 13:35), outstanding in good works that glorify the Father (Matt 5:16), outstanding in showing honor (Rom 12:10). We should go to church where we can "consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Heb 10:24-25)
"Okay, so what are you recommending?" Pray, preach, practice. The way we respond to what we're seeing in today's world is not to fold and go along with this world. This cannot be "business as usual." I know; it can be tough to be asked to pray and pursue Christ. Do it. I know the types of people you're being asked (well, actually commanded) to love. People like me -- not so lovable. Do it. I know that there are no perfect churches and no perfect people, but it doesn't change the requirement or the need. Do it. We don't bear up under these trials by folding up. We do it by standing up, standing for Christ, standing by the power of Christ. Do it.
________
So what have we done? In the face of being told, "You don't get to practice your religion" and "You don't get to go to church" and "You are not allowed to believe the Bible on matters we deem unacceptable" and "We insist that we should be allowed to kill babies and mutilate young people and demand that you not only allow it all, but embrace it all," we have ... acquiesced. We've stopped going to church. We've stopped reading our Bibles. We've stopped speaking out for our kids and our families and our beliefs. We've bowed the knee. We don't want to play "whack a mole" where we are the moles and the culture and its watchdog government are the ones wielding the mallet. Don't put your head up; they'll give you a real headache.
What then? What should we do? We should stop. We should stop surrendering to the god of this world. We should stop bowing to the idols of our age. We should pray. "Oh, yeah, like we didn't know that." Really? I ask because it seems to me that prayer is at an all-time low among believers in general. We should be gathering together often and praying. "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for [presidents] and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior." (1 Tim 2:1-3) And, yet, churches are not only closed, but haven't had prayer meetings for a long, long time. Why? Because no one was attending. We are told to "Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving." (Col 4:2) We "ought always to pray and not lose heart." (Luke 18:1) We should be outstanding -- outstanding in love for one another (John 13:35), outstanding in good works that glorify the Father (Matt 5:16), outstanding in showing honor (Rom 12:10). We should go to church where we can "consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Heb 10:24-25)
"Okay, so what are you recommending?" Pray, preach, practice. The way we respond to what we're seeing in today's world is not to fold and go along with this world. This cannot be "business as usual." I know; it can be tough to be asked to pray and pursue Christ. Do it. I know the types of people you're being asked (well, actually commanded) to love. People like me -- not so lovable. Do it. I know that there are no perfect churches and no perfect people, but it doesn't change the requirement or the need. Do it. We don't bear up under these trials by folding up. We do it by standing up, standing for Christ, standing by the power of Christ. Do it.
________
1 I would suggest it's not as outlandish as you might think. Consider that the current quality of education is a constant complaint. Consider that public schools are teaching kids less and less and moving farther from reading, writing, and arithmetic and closer to teaching your children values that the modern educational system has which, by the way, are not likely yours. Consider that teachers are routinely underpaid and overmanaged. Consider that parents and not the government should be responsible for the education of their children but public schools see it quite the opposite.
Saturday, December 19, 2020
News Weakly - 12/19/20
It Just Goes On and On
He's on his way out -- not even a month left -- and the media Trump-hating doesn't let up. The headline on one story read, "White House Officials Who Completely Mismanaged The Pandemic Will Be Among The First To Get Vaccinated" and on the other story it was "Donald Trump's Delay to White House Vaccine Raises National Security Questions." No win. It's Trump, so it's wrong. Get the vaccine and it's evil because they "completely mismanaged" the pandemic (yet to be proven, but, hey, we don't let facts interrupt our stories) or don't get the vaccine and threaten national security. Make up your minds.
More COVID! Oh, My!!
I have long contended that the news media is a terrorist organization. That is, their primary approach is often to aim to terrify their consumers. This last year of COVID stories has illustrated my point. Recently Arizona has hit the news. On December 1 they reported 10,322 new cases of COVID, three times any previous single day report. On December 8 they reported another 12,314 cases, a new high. Most recently it was 11,795 on December 14. "If this keeps up," a neighbor told me, "we're all gonna die." He wasn't joking. He was wrong, but he wasn't joking. What do we know? More cases are being reported. Are there more cases or more discoveries of existing cases? We don't know. Was it a spike in numbers or a delay in reporting? We don't know. Is it due to increased spread or improved testing? We don't know. Are people being required to test and discovering they're positive (asymptomatic), or are they concerned that they've been exposed and getting tested? We don't know. (Note: None of these options are mutually exclusive.) But we do know that we're all going to die if this keeps up. No, we don't. Because in Arizona the incidence rate is less than 6% and the death rate from those cases is less than 2%. We're all going to die (death rate among humans remains at 100%), but not from COVID, and the media is refusing to present a fair and balanced story. That's terrorism. (As a clear example, a Florida lawyer has sued the governor to force him to close beaches (although the beaches are almost empty) and force stay-at-home measures because the governor is not doing enough about COVID.)
Gender Parity
City authorities in Paris have been fined for violating gender parity laws. They hired 11 women and only 5 men for senior positions. "This fine is obviously absurd, unfair, irresponsible and dangerous," the female mayor complained. The law there states that no single gender can have more than 60% of management positions. Now that's a gender parity law. Of course, the fine was for 2018 and the law has been repealed. Gender parity is not the aim. Female supremacy is. (As a thought exercise, would the mayor have complained if it was 11 men and 5 women? Likely.)
Baseless Claims
Everyone knows it. Trump et al has tossed out wild accusations of election fraud in key states such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan. (That is, they're not saying, "It was everywhere!" Just some key places.) Everyone one knows these claims are baseless. We know they are baseless because we reject the claims. Claims like this one from a forensic investigator in Michigan (released this week) who claims to have proof that the Dominion Voting System "is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results." Don't worry. You don't need to look at the evidence. We're operating on the certainty that it certainly did not happen, so no such evidence can exist. We're certain that questioning if there was such fraud is an assault on democracy (rather than the silly notion that voter fraud itself is an assault on democracy). It's what we do. See? Baseless claims.
NIMBY
Have you heard the acronym NIMBY? "Not in my backyard." Usually used in reference to sex offenders. "They can't live in my neighborhood." Or, in this case, Trump. Mar-a Lago neighbors are trying to demand that the town keep Trump from living there. The hate continues.
The Right Who Shall Not Be Named
I'm looking ... I'm looking ... nope ... no "Right to change my gender at will." There is a right to the free exercise of religion. It seems turned around, then, that the right that is being demanded at the expense of the other right is the one that isn't named. The HRC issued a list of policy priorities for Biden which included removing accreditation of religious schools that don't embrace "transgender rights." Still, the power of this 0.6% of the population is massive. Evidence the federal judge who has mandated that Ohio must allow residents to change gender on their birth certificates as a matter of constitutionality. Because as we all know, right there in the Bill of Rights, you will find the right to change genders at will. Nope, it's not. Someone should tell the judge. Oh, don't bother. Neither truth nor justice are the American way so much anymore.
Reverse Purge
In 2013 Hollywood gave us The Purge, a science fiction movie about a society that has a yearly 12 hour period to allow all manner of crimes without consequences. (It is, understandably, a horror movie.) Seattle, in view of "Defund the Police," is taking its cue from The Purge, but in reverse. They will have one night a year in which they will enforce laws.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
He's on his way out -- not even a month left -- and the media Trump-hating doesn't let up. The headline on one story read, "White House Officials Who Completely Mismanaged The Pandemic Will Be Among The First To Get Vaccinated" and on the other story it was "Donald Trump's Delay to White House Vaccine Raises National Security Questions." No win. It's Trump, so it's wrong. Get the vaccine and it's evil because they "completely mismanaged" the pandemic (yet to be proven, but, hey, we don't let facts interrupt our stories) or don't get the vaccine and threaten national security. Make up your minds.
More COVID! Oh, My!!
I have long contended that the news media is a terrorist organization. That is, their primary approach is often to aim to terrify their consumers. This last year of COVID stories has illustrated my point. Recently Arizona has hit the news. On December 1 they reported 10,322 new cases of COVID, three times any previous single day report. On December 8 they reported another 12,314 cases, a new high. Most recently it was 11,795 on December 14. "If this keeps up," a neighbor told me, "we're all gonna die." He wasn't joking. He was wrong, but he wasn't joking. What do we know? More cases are being reported. Are there more cases or more discoveries of existing cases? We don't know. Was it a spike in numbers or a delay in reporting? We don't know. Is it due to increased spread or improved testing? We don't know. Are people being required to test and discovering they're positive (asymptomatic), or are they concerned that they've been exposed and getting tested? We don't know. (Note: None of these options are mutually exclusive.) But we do know that we're all going to die if this keeps up. No, we don't. Because in Arizona the incidence rate is less than 6% and the death rate from those cases is less than 2%. We're all going to die (death rate among humans remains at 100%), but not from COVID, and the media is refusing to present a fair and balanced story. That's terrorism. (As a clear example, a Florida lawyer has sued the governor to force him to close beaches (although the beaches are almost empty) and force stay-at-home measures because the governor is not doing enough about COVID.)
Gender Parity
City authorities in Paris have been fined for violating gender parity laws. They hired 11 women and only 5 men for senior positions. "This fine is obviously absurd, unfair, irresponsible and dangerous," the female mayor complained. The law there states that no single gender can have more than 60% of management positions. Now that's a gender parity law. Of course, the fine was for 2018 and the law has been repealed. Gender parity is not the aim. Female supremacy is. (As a thought exercise, would the mayor have complained if it was 11 men and 5 women? Likely.)
Baseless Claims
Everyone knows it. Trump et al has tossed out wild accusations of election fraud in key states such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan. (That is, they're not saying, "It was everywhere!" Just some key places.) Everyone one knows these claims are baseless. We know they are baseless because we reject the claims. Claims like this one from a forensic investigator in Michigan (released this week) who claims to have proof that the Dominion Voting System "is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results." Don't worry. You don't need to look at the evidence. We're operating on the certainty that it certainly did not happen, so no such evidence can exist. We're certain that questioning if there was such fraud is an assault on democracy (rather than the silly notion that voter fraud itself is an assault on democracy). It's what we do. See? Baseless claims.
NIMBY
Have you heard the acronym NIMBY? "Not in my backyard." Usually used in reference to sex offenders. "They can't live in my neighborhood." Or, in this case, Trump. Mar-a Lago neighbors are trying to demand that the town keep Trump from living there. The hate continues.
The Right Who Shall Not Be Named
I'm looking ... I'm looking ... nope ... no "Right to change my gender at will." There is a right to the free exercise of religion. It seems turned around, then, that the right that is being demanded at the expense of the other right is the one that isn't named. The HRC issued a list of policy priorities for Biden which included removing accreditation of religious schools that don't embrace "transgender rights." Still, the power of this 0.6% of the population is massive. Evidence the federal judge who has mandated that Ohio must allow residents to change gender on their birth certificates as a matter of constitutionality. Because as we all know, right there in the Bill of Rights, you will find the right to change genders at will. Nope, it's not. Someone should tell the judge. Oh, don't bother. Neither truth nor justice are the American way so much anymore.
Reverse Purge
In 2013 Hollywood gave us The Purge, a science fiction movie about a society that has a yearly 12 hour period to allow all manner of crimes without consequences. (It is, understandably, a horror movie.) Seattle, in view of "Defund the Police," is taking its cue from The Purge, but in reverse. They will have one night a year in which they will enforce laws.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, December 18, 2020
Just Another Christmas
We're used to Christmas. We have our traditions, our "norm," our expectations. Recently my wife tried to find one of those online music providers that would have a "Christian Christmas" option. You know, just Christian Christmas songs. She found one that advertized itself as such, but what it had was a blend of songs done by Christian musicians. So we have a Christian singer singing Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas, that warm and cheery song that prays, "Someday soon we all will be together If the fates allow." "If the fates allow"?? What do "the fates" have to do with Christ and Christmas? You have Christian group playing Jingle Bell Rock because nothing says, "Christ has come" like Jingle Bell Rock. And so it goes. We have our traditions. We have our expectations. We have "Christmas as usual" including snow and bells and Santa Claus, none of which have any connection in the least to Christ.
I don't want just another Christmas. I don't want another "Christmas like always" that generally masks Christmas. I admit that Christmas can be a season of joy and kindness and all that, and I certainly don't want less than that. I want a different Christmas; something more.
I want a Christmas that commemorates "God become Man" -- Emmanuel -- God with us. I want a Christmas that exalts a Savior "who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." (Php 2:6-7) Your shiny tree and flashing lights and blow-up Santa are all cool and all that, but they don't hold a candle (pun intended) to the coming of the God-man, Jesus, sent here to live a perfect life, die for sins He never committed, and rise again to save us. Those twinkling penguins on the front lawn are cute and all (Seriously, what do they have to do with Christmas at all?), but I want a Christmas that takes me to my knees to worship the Servant King, the Messiah, Emmanuel. I want a Christmas that is not about me and all about Him.
I know. Too much to expect. You can't get away from the decorations and the gatherings and the gift exchanges. Well, okay, some of those Christmas cookies would be okay, but ... no! I need to be strong. More of Jesus; less of me. Not just another Christmas. I want to celebrate anew the birth of the King of kings. I want to return again to that first love.
I don't want just another Christmas. I don't want another "Christmas like always" that generally masks Christmas. I admit that Christmas can be a season of joy and kindness and all that, and I certainly don't want less than that. I want a different Christmas; something more.
I want a Christmas that commemorates "God become Man" -- Emmanuel -- God with us. I want a Christmas that exalts a Savior "who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." (Php 2:6-7) Your shiny tree and flashing lights and blow-up Santa are all cool and all that, but they don't hold a candle (pun intended) to the coming of the God-man, Jesus, sent here to live a perfect life, die for sins He never committed, and rise again to save us. Those twinkling penguins on the front lawn are cute and all (Seriously, what do they have to do with Christmas at all?), but I want a Christmas that takes me to my knees to worship the Servant King, the Messiah, Emmanuel. I want a Christmas that is not about me and all about Him.
I know. Too much to expect. You can't get away from the decorations and the gatherings and the gift exchanges. Well, okay, some of those Christmas cookies would be okay, but ... no! I need to be strong. More of Jesus; less of me. Not just another Christmas. I want to celebrate anew the birth of the King of kings. I want to return again to that first love.
Thursday, December 17, 2020
A Political Plan
Okay, so "your guy" didn't get elected and "the wrong guy" did. What now? What's a person to do? What's a Christian to do? I've heard news and talk of protest and even armed insurrection. Do we lie down like a doormat or rise up and fight and, if the latter, how? What does the Bible say? Oddly enough, as it turns out Trump is in the Bible. "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last Trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (1 Cor 15:52) Of course, we don't know if Donald is the last Trump, so ...
I am, of course, kidding. Donald Trump, democracy, the United States, these things are not in there, so what is in there? What does the Bible suggest we do? Better yet, what does God's Word command?
Written by Apostles living under worse governments than we've ever encountered here, we find things like, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Rom 13:1-2) and "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the [presidents] as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." (1 Peter 2:13-14) In that last one, Peter goes on to write, "For this is the will of God" (1 Peter 2:15) followed by "Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the [president]." (1 Peter 2:17) It appears that the Bible has very different ideas than our "armed insurrection" leanings. That's because God's Word sees God as Sovereign and not kings, presidents, or even voters, so we don't place our trust in them, but in Him. But you knew this was coming, at least from me, right?
So surely there's something more, something better. There is. We are to "Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God." (1 Peter 2:16) As such, our recourse is clear. "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for [presidents] and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim 2:1-4) Many of us would like to take our grievances to the nation. Many would like to protest the results. Fine. Many are even considering violent, even armed response. Not so fine. But the underlying issue is a deep and abiding concern that what Scripture says about government -- "for your good" (Rom 13:4-5) and "sent by Him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good" (1 Peter 2:14), a "peaceful and quiet life" (1 Tim 2:2) -- just might not happen. In fact, very likely won't happen. This current regime is leaning toward repressing freedom of religious exercise rather than praising those who do good. They're leaning toward calling good evil, in fact. So what are we to do?
Pray. Pray for those in leadership. Pray for those in office. Pray for law enforcement. Pray for the people. Pray for the hearts of the government and the hearts of the people. It's interesting that when Paul commands us to pray for government, the reason he gives for doing so is because God desires all to be saved. Apparently, then, your personal comfort is not in view here; the salvation of others is. Or, to put it another way, our idea of "good" isn't always the same as God's idea of good. So who are you going to trust?
Many are deeply concerned about the direction we're going. Biblically we have a mandate. "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (Php 4:6-7) Have trust in God. Expect Him to work all things together for good. Understand that He is good, that all He does is good, and that our version of "good" is often misguided. So pray. Pray for the government. Pray for each other. Pray that God will guard your heart. And practice. Practice honoring others. Practice doing good. Just before that passage I just quoted, Paul says, "Let your reasonableness be known to everyone" because "The Lord is at hand." (Php 4:5) We don't have to panic. We don't have to be angry. We don't have to worry. We don't have to rally to God's defense. We have something much more difficult to do. Have faith in God. He is at hand.
I am, of course, kidding. Donald Trump, democracy, the United States, these things are not in there, so what is in there? What does the Bible suggest we do? Better yet, what does God's Word command?
Written by Apostles living under worse governments than we've ever encountered here, we find things like, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Rom 13:1-2) and "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the [presidents] as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." (1 Peter 2:13-14) In that last one, Peter goes on to write, "For this is the will of God" (1 Peter 2:15) followed by "Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the [president]." (1 Peter 2:17) It appears that the Bible has very different ideas than our "armed insurrection" leanings. That's because God's Word sees God as Sovereign and not kings, presidents, or even voters, so we don't place our trust in them, but in Him. But you knew this was coming, at least from me, right?
So surely there's something more, something better. There is. We are to "Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God." (1 Peter 2:16) As such, our recourse is clear. "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for [presidents] and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim 2:1-4) Many of us would like to take our grievances to the nation. Many would like to protest the results. Fine. Many are even considering violent, even armed response. Not so fine. But the underlying issue is a deep and abiding concern that what Scripture says about government -- "for your good" (Rom 13:4-5) and "sent by Him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good" (1 Peter 2:14), a "peaceful and quiet life" (1 Tim 2:2) -- just might not happen. In fact, very likely won't happen. This current regime is leaning toward repressing freedom of religious exercise rather than praising those who do good. They're leaning toward calling good evil, in fact. So what are we to do?
Pray. Pray for those in leadership. Pray for those in office. Pray for law enforcement. Pray for the people. Pray for the hearts of the government and the hearts of the people. It's interesting that when Paul commands us to pray for government, the reason he gives for doing so is because God desires all to be saved. Apparently, then, your personal comfort is not in view here; the salvation of others is. Or, to put it another way, our idea of "good" isn't always the same as God's idea of good. So who are you going to trust?
Many are deeply concerned about the direction we're going. Biblically we have a mandate. "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (Php 4:6-7) Have trust in God. Expect Him to work all things together for good. Understand that He is good, that all He does is good, and that our version of "good" is often misguided. So pray. Pray for the government. Pray for each other. Pray that God will guard your heart. And practice. Practice honoring others. Practice doing good. Just before that passage I just quoted, Paul says, "Let your reasonableness be known to everyone" because "The Lord is at hand." (Php 4:5) We don't have to panic. We don't have to be angry. We don't have to worry. We don't have to rally to God's defense. We have something much more difficult to do. Have faith in God. He is at hand.
Wednesday, December 16, 2020
My Christian Christmas List
We know how kids do it. "What do you want for Christmas?" "Oh, I want a football and a rocket ship and pink unicorn." Cute. Not practical, but cute. So in 1990 Linda Thompson-Jenner came up with a more mature version. You know it as the song, "Grown-Up Christmas List." The song is to Santa (because that's much more mature) and offers a more mature list for Christmas.
Okay, so I'm nitpicking. Just the same, I wanted to come up with my Christian Christmas list, just for fun. If Christ were to ask me, "What do you want for Christmas?" what would I hope to answer?
No more lives torn apart,Popularized in 1992 by Amy Grant, it somehow became something like "the Christian version" of a Christmas list. It's not. It may be more mature than the kids' lists -- it's "for a world in need" -- but it's not Christian. Mind you, it's not anti-Christian, but it doesn't work in a Christian context. "Well, maybe in heaven." No, because in heaven there will be no "wrong" against which "right would always win." And time won't heal all hearts; God will.
Then wars would never start
And time would heal all hearts
And everyone would have a friend
And right would always win
And love would never end.
Okay, so I'm nitpicking. Just the same, I wanted to come up with my Christian Christmas list, just for fun. If Christ were to ask me, "What do you want for Christmas?" what would I hope to answer?
- That Your name -- Your character, all that You are -- would be regarded as holy. (Matt 6:9)
- That Your will would be done on earth. (Matt 6:10)
- That every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to God's glory. (Php 2:10-11)
- That we would learn to give thanks in all circumstances. (1 Thess 5:18)
- That Your people would learn to love Your people in a real and visible way. (John 13:35)
- That in all things You would be glorified. (1 Cor 10:31)
- Come, Lord Jesus. (Matt 6:10; Rev 22:20)
Tuesday, December 15, 2020
Uncomfortable
We all want to get along in this world. We want to be liked. We want to have friends. We want to avoid trouble. It's normal. So we figure out what people like and we try to do that. Or, at least, we do that as much as we can and, if necessary, mask the stuff we know they won't like. Can't we all just get along?
It's a little disturbing, then, that James writes, "You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." (James 4:4) Wow, James, why don't you tell us what you really think? James doesn't mince words. James doesn't suggest, "Can't we all just get along?" Nor does he merely recommend against such thinking. "You adulterous people" isn't a phrase that inclines toward ambivalence. Friendship with the world is hatred toward God.
Our general approach of "just get along," however, is worse than merely a wrong approach. It is a detrimental approach. We have good news to share with those around us. That good news begins with the bad news of the magnitude of sin and continues through the wonderful news that Christ died for that sin and offers us forgiveness by grace through faith in Him. That good news ends with "And we will be with Him in the end," but before it gets there, it goes through "All things become new." (2 Cor 5:17) Or, as Paul puts it elsewhere, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10) That is, those sinners who come to Christ in faith experience a radically changed life. Now, if that's the "good news" and we go out of our way to demonstrate that we're living the very same unchanged life that they are, what good news do we have? If there is no fruit in knowing Christ, what are we offering?
We are "born of God." (1 John 5:1) That has to change things. The first thing is love for God and love for His people (1 John 5:1-2). And "this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments" (1 John 5:3). We become living wtnesses to the power of God. Now, understand, we as a race (human) like "same" rather than "different." We are more comfortable with "like us" than "not like us." And the person that is occupied by the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and being transformed by the renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2) and operating under God's influence (Php 2:13) is not "like us." So if you are making all the worldly folk "comfortable" around you, there's a serious problem. As Jesus said, "Everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed." (John 3:20) What should be happening is people are asking, "There is something different about you. What is it?" We ought to be different and that likely won't make people comfortable with us. And that's okay, because "friendship with the world is emnity with God" and we are to live in such a way that "they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." (Matt 5:16)
It's a little disturbing, then, that James writes, "You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." (James 4:4) Wow, James, why don't you tell us what you really think? James doesn't mince words. James doesn't suggest, "Can't we all just get along?" Nor does he merely recommend against such thinking. "You adulterous people" isn't a phrase that inclines toward ambivalence. Friendship with the world is hatred toward God.
Our general approach of "just get along," however, is worse than merely a wrong approach. It is a detrimental approach. We have good news to share with those around us. That good news begins with the bad news of the magnitude of sin and continues through the wonderful news that Christ died for that sin and offers us forgiveness by grace through faith in Him. That good news ends with "And we will be with Him in the end," but before it gets there, it goes through "All things become new." (2 Cor 5:17) Or, as Paul puts it elsewhere, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10) That is, those sinners who come to Christ in faith experience a radically changed life. Now, if that's the "good news" and we go out of our way to demonstrate that we're living the very same unchanged life that they are, what good news do we have? If there is no fruit in knowing Christ, what are we offering?
We are "born of God." (1 John 5:1) That has to change things. The first thing is love for God and love for His people (1 John 5:1-2). And "this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments" (1 John 5:3). We become living wtnesses to the power of God. Now, understand, we as a race (human) like "same" rather than "different." We are more comfortable with "like us" than "not like us." And the person that is occupied by the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and being transformed by the renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2) and operating under God's influence (Php 2:13) is not "like us." So if you are making all the worldly folk "comfortable" around you, there's a serious problem. As Jesus said, "Everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed." (John 3:20) What should be happening is people are asking, "There is something different about you. What is it?" We ought to be different and that likely won't make people comfortable with us. And that's okay, because "friendship with the world is emnity with God" and we are to live in such a way that "they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." (Matt 5:16)
Monday, December 14, 2020
Pagan Christmas
I have heard it for most of my life. Christmas, they tell me, is pagan in its origins. Oh, the more generous ones admit that it is only in its date selection. You know, "The pagans at the time had a holiday for the god, Saturn, called Sol Invictus, a celebration of the death of the old and the birth of the 'unconquerable Sun,' so the Christians converted the pagan holiday to the celebration of the unconquerable Son." Others are, of course, far less kind and hang everything on pagan origins .. including the actual birth of Christ.
Of course, there are some ignored facts that cause problems with this notion. While the Puritans in early America did assign pagan origins to Christmas (the reason why they banned Christmas celebrations in America), it turns out that the early church had different ideas. The first Christmas celebration didn't occur until A.D. 336, but that's not because of ambiguity of the date or anything. It was because they didn't celebrate birthdays; they celebrated death-days. Irenaeus (130-202) held to the December 25th date. Hippolytus's Commentary on Daniel from the early 3rd century named December 25th as the birthday of Christ. (Hippolytus also names March 25, 29, as the day of Christ's death.)
There was a belief in early Christendom that people died on the day they were conceived. The early church knew the date of Christ's death because it was at Passover. If He died on the date of His conception, then, they could calculate His birth, according to Augustine, by adding "nine months and six days, which are reckoned, as it were, ten months for the travail of women." They set the date of His death and conception as March 25, so "He was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th." Clement of Alexandria wrote between A.D. 193 and 215 that Jesus was born on December 24th or 25th. (Hippolytus also believed that Jesus was conceived on the anniversary of the creation of the world.)
There is the other angle to consider. It turns out that the supposed pagan event that Christians stole from -- Saturnalia -- occurred on December 17 and lasted a week. That would mean that the celebration they hoped to steal was over by the time they stole it. The other possible pagan source is Dies Natalis Solis Invictus, celebrated on December 25th, but that celebration didn't begin until A.D. 354, after, the first Christmas celebration. Coupling this information with the fact that there is no historical evidence that the religious celebration of Sol antedated the Christian celebration of Christ's birth, we could well come to the belief that Christmas is not pagan in origin (although it could be argued that the Solis Invictus festival was a rip off of Christmas).
Now, it may be inconvenient for some to conclude that the early church celebrated Jesus's birth on December 25th because they actually believed that He was born on December 25th. It might shake some up to conclude that Christmas could be an actual celebration of Christ's actual birth. And, to be fair, the Puritan complaint that excessive revelry takes away from the worship of Christ is a demonstrated fact these days. Still, I would have to conclude that Christmas is not of pagan origins and that those who make the argument that it is don't generally do so out of a deep regard and concern for Christ. Which, of course, would be the point of an actual celebration of the birth of the King of kings -- a deep regard and concern for Christ.
Of course, there are some ignored facts that cause problems with this notion. While the Puritans in early America did assign pagan origins to Christmas (the reason why they banned Christmas celebrations in America), it turns out that the early church had different ideas. The first Christmas celebration didn't occur until A.D. 336, but that's not because of ambiguity of the date or anything. It was because they didn't celebrate birthdays; they celebrated death-days. Irenaeus (130-202) held to the December 25th date. Hippolytus's Commentary on Daniel from the early 3rd century named December 25th as the birthday of Christ. (Hippolytus also names March 25, 29, as the day of Christ's death.)
There was a belief in early Christendom that people died on the day they were conceived. The early church knew the date of Christ's death because it was at Passover. If He died on the date of His conception, then, they could calculate His birth, according to Augustine, by adding "nine months and six days, which are reckoned, as it were, ten months for the travail of women." They set the date of His death and conception as March 25, so "He was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th." Clement of Alexandria wrote between A.D. 193 and 215 that Jesus was born on December 24th or 25th. (Hippolytus also believed that Jesus was conceived on the anniversary of the creation of the world.)
There is the other angle to consider. It turns out that the supposed pagan event that Christians stole from -- Saturnalia -- occurred on December 17 and lasted a week. That would mean that the celebration they hoped to steal was over by the time they stole it. The other possible pagan source is Dies Natalis Solis Invictus, celebrated on December 25th, but that celebration didn't begin until A.D. 354, after, the first Christmas celebration. Coupling this information with the fact that there is no historical evidence that the religious celebration of Sol antedated the Christian celebration of Christ's birth, we could well come to the belief that Christmas is not pagan in origin (although it could be argued that the Solis Invictus festival was a rip off of Christmas).
Now, it may be inconvenient for some to conclude that the early church celebrated Jesus's birth on December 25th because they actually believed that He was born on December 25th. It might shake some up to conclude that Christmas could be an actual celebration of Christ's actual birth. And, to be fair, the Puritan complaint that excessive revelry takes away from the worship of Christ is a demonstrated fact these days. Still, I would have to conclude that Christmas is not of pagan origins and that those who make the argument that it is don't generally do so out of a deep regard and concern for Christ. Which, of course, would be the point of an actual celebration of the birth of the King of kings -- a deep regard and concern for Christ.
Sunday, December 13, 2020
Let Them Eat Pudding
You've probably heard the phrase, "The proof is in the pudding." The phrase originally was "The proof of the pudding is in the eating," but it's not much different. The idea is that you can figure out if something is good or bad or even factual (whatever needs "proof") by looking at the end result. Kind of like Jesus's intent when He said, "You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matt 7:16) or "Wisdom is justified by all her children" (Luke 7:35) or "The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." (Luke 6:45) All the same idea. You can figure out that false prophets are false prophets by looking at what they produce. You can tell wisdom by what it produces. You can get a glimpse into the heart by observing what comes out of the mouth. The proof is in the pudding. I wonder sometimes what's in our pudding. If we were to eat it, what would we find? I think we would be embarrased to find what our "tasty pudding" really tastes like sometimes.
We declare that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works (Eph 2:8-9). Does that reflect in our actions and attitudes? Are we worried about our salvation, worried about our works, worried about being worthy? We affirm that God is Sovereign (1 Tim 6:15). Can we find evidence of that in our daily lives? Do trials overwhelm us? Are we confident that God is in charge or questioning it? Are we angry when things don't go as we thought they should? We rejoice that God works all things work together for good for them that love God (Rom 8:28), but do we? Or do we respond differently when it doesn't seem so good? "We are more than conquerors," (Rom 8:37) we proudly declare, but do we actually act that way or are we dejected and defeated?
The Scriptures are full of these kinds of truth claims and we are supposed to be people of God's Word. Sometimes we're not aware of some of these claims. That's probably not good, but we can be diligent to remedy that, can't we? More often we are aware of the claims and even repeat them. It sounds good, but the proof is in the pudding. If we declare "Jesus is Lord," (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3) do we live that declaration? Or do we assume lordship? We always act on what we truly believe. Do our attitudes and actions reflect what we say we believe? It might be a good idea to look and see.
We declare that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works (Eph 2:8-9). Does that reflect in our actions and attitudes? Are we worried about our salvation, worried about our works, worried about being worthy? We affirm that God is Sovereign (1 Tim 6:15). Can we find evidence of that in our daily lives? Do trials overwhelm us? Are we confident that God is in charge or questioning it? Are we angry when things don't go as we thought they should? We rejoice that God works all things work together for good for them that love God (Rom 8:28), but do we? Or do we respond differently when it doesn't seem so good? "We are more than conquerors," (Rom 8:37) we proudly declare, but do we actually act that way or are we dejected and defeated?
The Scriptures are full of these kinds of truth claims and we are supposed to be people of God's Word. Sometimes we're not aware of some of these claims. That's probably not good, but we can be diligent to remedy that, can't we? More often we are aware of the claims and even repeat them. It sounds good, but the proof is in the pudding. If we declare "Jesus is Lord," (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3) do we live that declaration? Or do we assume lordship? We always act on what we truly believe. Do our attitudes and actions reflect what we say we believe? It might be a good idea to look and see.
Saturday, December 12, 2020
News Weakly - 12/12/20
The Grinch
Hospitals are filling up from Covid, so California is shutting down Christmas. That'll fix it. To be fair, the mandate is that you can't be together with anyone from your own household and not "You can't have Christmas," but it covers Christmas time and everyone knows that Christmas is hugely about getting together with friends and family. Well, everyone but California's leadership. They don't call him "Governor Grinch" for nothing.
Context Matters
The New York Times headline reads "Police in Indonesia Kill 6 Followers of Hard-Line Cleric." I think there is a subliminal "bad ol' police" in there. The actual story is that police were following suspected criminals when they were attacked. A shootout ensued in which 6 followers of said cleric were killed, not because they were followers, but because they were shooting at the police. Context is important.
Double Standard, Anyone?
Melanis Trump sent out her thanks to the hardworking people who had built a White House Tennis Pavilion and the country went crazy. "Tone deaf," CNN said. Bad timing said many more. "How many ICU beds will it hold?" complained one pithy Tweeter. Because, as we all know, anyone who is anybody stops all of normal life for themselves when a pandemic occurs. They don't eat out. They don't entertain themselves. They don't buy luxury items. Any good person would know that you just stop doing anything ... pleasurable when a pandemic is at hand. Right? I'm not defending a Trump; I'm calling out the hypocrites. Because I'm pretty sure that if she had built a hospital with her own two hands they would have complained. It's a Trump, after all.
Option B
It's not just me. It's not just a guy with questions. It turns out that 43,000 medical and public health scientists and medical practitioners so far have signed the Great Barrington Declaration. This document was created by and for scientists and experts as a recommendation to mitigate the damage being done by the Covid response. Neither they nor I are recommending no action at all. They're just recommending some common sense, some weighing of the facts, some thought rather than gut reaction. You know ... Science. Oh, but we'll have none of that when it is not part of our current narrative. Not even President-elect "I trust scientists" Biden.
Telling You the Truth
It look like we're going to change that phrase. "Telling you the truth" has been meant descriptive, but now we'll have to change it to prescriptive. "This is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be publicly deemed wrong (or worse). Facts don't matter." You can see this in You Tube's urge to purge their service of those who have questions regarding the election. No, the Dominion Voting System wasn't rigged. How do we know? We asked them; they said no. No, there was no voter fraud. How can we be sure? Well, they said so. Yes, "conspiracy" means "lie" ... well, of course, unless it's an accepted (even if debunked) conspiracy like "Russia and Trump collaborated to steal the 2016 election." So they're removing your options to consider possibilities that they deem not worth considering. They're telling you what facts to allow and what facts to dismiss. They will be telling you what is or is not true. Please be sure to adjust your beliefs accordingly.
Unbiased Reporting
MSNBC's headline reads, "Ludicrous Texas anti-election lawsuit jolts Republican politics." The epitome of unbiased reporting. The actual story is that 18 AG's are backing Texas's lawsuit challenging the election results, but what MSNBC (and others) assure us is that "When a political party decides democracy is a problem that needs to be contested, it's dangerous." Unlike the Democrats in 2016 against Trump, right? Texas is questioning the results, not democracy. Texas and 18 other states are wondering if there was something fraudulent going on, not democracy. In fact, if their contention is true, it is democracy that is at stake here. I'd say let them ask the question. Sure, it's "improbable" and, sure, it might be incorrect, but why not let them ask the question? Consider. Biden, aka "sleepy Joe" or "creepy Joe," managed to get voted in by a landslide even though his son was being investigated for using Joe to give access to the Russians and states flooded addresses with hundreds of thousands (at least) of faulty mail-in ballots and Trump was running away with the election on election night and report after report of ballots being tossed or tampered with kept pouring in and we're supposed to believe that "There's nothing to see here; move along"? At the insistence of the potential perpetrators and the social media moguls and the Left media? Because they know what's right and we don't. Don't be ... what was the term ... "ludicrous." But, hey, what do I know? I'm biased, unlike the unbiased media we have in this country that is so arrogant that they believe they can tell the American people what they must believe without regard for the facts.
(Note: The Supreme Court denied the suit. What most will take away is, "See? The court agreed with the outcome of the vote." The truth is the court said that "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections." They didn't have sufficient interest, not "They didn't have an argument." This is not the vindication you were seeking.)
Interesting Choice
I don't much care, but Time has made an interesting choice for their annual "Person of the Year." Interesting first because it's not a person; it's two -- Biden and Harris. Interesting second because it isn't clear in the least how these two people "affected our lives the most." Biden has long been a tepid factor in politics with his own party trying to alternately hide his gaffs and mask his anonymity. "Sure, he's like a creepy uncle, sniffing girls' hair. Sure he says some stupid things. But he's a really important and influential guy. Trust us." While the conjecture swirls about that the party will have him declared incompetent and put Harris in the position of president, Time thinks this is an influential duo. Interesting.
And You Thought "Pandemic" Was a Bad Thing
The Global Carbon Project is reporting that, because of the pandemic, global greenhouse gas emissions dropped by a record 7% this year, the largest drop ever recorded. Thank you, COVID-19. I guess we have our solution to global warming. Stop people from doing anything.
Not So Funny
As my regular readers know, I typically like to put some humor at the end of my News Weakly segments. Typically it's from the Babylon Bee or, rarely, Genesius Times. Unfortunately, it wasn't so funny. The Bee's story about a remake of "It's a Wonderful Life" in which the angel tells Bailey to kill himself because he is white was, perhaps, timely, but not that funny. Or the one about the progressive Santa who lectures girls who ask for a Barbie about harmful gender stereotypes. I'm not at all sure that wouldn't actually happen. In the wake of the "Elliot Page" debacle, Genesius had one about the "brave celebrity" who "comes out as a straight white male" and a more obscure one where Trump leaves a garage pull on fraudulent ballots to get the FBI to finally investigate. (You'd have to remember back when the FBI investigated a story about a garage pull that resembled a noose was found in a black driver's garage.) Not that good. Better luck next week.
Hospitals are filling up from Covid, so California is shutting down Christmas. That'll fix it. To be fair, the mandate is that you can't be together with anyone from your own household and not "You can't have Christmas," but it covers Christmas time and everyone knows that Christmas is hugely about getting together with friends and family. Well, everyone but California's leadership. They don't call him "Governor Grinch" for nothing.
Context Matters
The New York Times headline reads "Police in Indonesia Kill 6 Followers of Hard-Line Cleric." I think there is a subliminal "bad ol' police" in there. The actual story is that police were following suspected criminals when they were attacked. A shootout ensued in which 6 followers of said cleric were killed, not because they were followers, but because they were shooting at the police. Context is important.
Double Standard, Anyone?
Melanis Trump sent out her thanks to the hardworking people who had built a White House Tennis Pavilion and the country went crazy. "Tone deaf," CNN said. Bad timing said many more. "How many ICU beds will it hold?" complained one pithy Tweeter. Because, as we all know, anyone who is anybody stops all of normal life for themselves when a pandemic occurs. They don't eat out. They don't entertain themselves. They don't buy luxury items. Any good person would know that you just stop doing anything ... pleasurable when a pandemic is at hand. Right? I'm not defending a Trump; I'm calling out the hypocrites. Because I'm pretty sure that if she had built a hospital with her own two hands they would have complained. It's a Trump, after all.
Option B
It's not just me. It's not just a guy with questions. It turns out that 43,000 medical and public health scientists and medical practitioners so far have signed the Great Barrington Declaration. This document was created by and for scientists and experts as a recommendation to mitigate the damage being done by the Covid response. Neither they nor I are recommending no action at all. They're just recommending some common sense, some weighing of the facts, some thought rather than gut reaction. You know ... Science. Oh, but we'll have none of that when it is not part of our current narrative. Not even President-elect "I trust scientists" Biden.
Telling You the Truth
It look like we're going to change that phrase. "Telling you the truth" has been meant descriptive, but now we'll have to change it to prescriptive. "This is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be publicly deemed wrong (or worse). Facts don't matter." You can see this in You Tube's urge to purge their service of those who have questions regarding the election. No, the Dominion Voting System wasn't rigged. How do we know? We asked them; they said no. No, there was no voter fraud. How can we be sure? Well, they said so. Yes, "conspiracy" means "lie" ... well, of course, unless it's an accepted (even if debunked) conspiracy like "Russia and Trump collaborated to steal the 2016 election." So they're removing your options to consider possibilities that they deem not worth considering. They're telling you what facts to allow and what facts to dismiss. They will be telling you what is or is not true. Please be sure to adjust your beliefs accordingly.
Unbiased Reporting
MSNBC's headline reads, "Ludicrous Texas anti-election lawsuit jolts Republican politics." The epitome of unbiased reporting. The actual story is that 18 AG's are backing Texas's lawsuit challenging the election results, but what MSNBC (and others) assure us is that "When a political party decides democracy is a problem that needs to be contested, it's dangerous." Unlike the Democrats in 2016 against Trump, right? Texas is questioning the results, not democracy. Texas and 18 other states are wondering if there was something fraudulent going on, not democracy. In fact, if their contention is true, it is democracy that is at stake here. I'd say let them ask the question. Sure, it's "improbable" and, sure, it might be incorrect, but why not let them ask the question? Consider. Biden, aka "sleepy Joe" or "creepy Joe," managed to get voted in by a landslide even though his son was being investigated for using Joe to give access to the Russians and states flooded addresses with hundreds of thousands (at least) of faulty mail-in ballots and Trump was running away with the election on election night and report after report of ballots being tossed or tampered with kept pouring in and we're supposed to believe that "There's nothing to see here; move along"? At the insistence of the potential perpetrators and the social media moguls and the Left media? Because they know what's right and we don't. Don't be ... what was the term ... "ludicrous." But, hey, what do I know? I'm biased, unlike the unbiased media we have in this country that is so arrogant that they believe they can tell the American people what they must believe without regard for the facts.
(Note: The Supreme Court denied the suit. What most will take away is, "See? The court agreed with the outcome of the vote." The truth is the court said that "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections." They didn't have sufficient interest, not "They didn't have an argument." This is not the vindication you were seeking.)
Interesting Choice
I don't much care, but Time has made an interesting choice for their annual "Person of the Year." Interesting first because it's not a person; it's two -- Biden and Harris. Interesting second because it isn't clear in the least how these two people "affected our lives the most." Biden has long been a tepid factor in politics with his own party trying to alternately hide his gaffs and mask his anonymity. "Sure, he's like a creepy uncle, sniffing girls' hair. Sure he says some stupid things. But he's a really important and influential guy. Trust us." While the conjecture swirls about that the party will have him declared incompetent and put Harris in the position of president, Time thinks this is an influential duo. Interesting.
And You Thought "Pandemic" Was a Bad Thing
The Global Carbon Project is reporting that, because of the pandemic, global greenhouse gas emissions dropped by a record 7% this year, the largest drop ever recorded. Thank you, COVID-19. I guess we have our solution to global warming. Stop people from doing anything.
Not So Funny
As my regular readers know, I typically like to put some humor at the end of my News Weakly segments. Typically it's from the Babylon Bee or, rarely, Genesius Times. Unfortunately, it wasn't so funny. The Bee's story about a remake of "It's a Wonderful Life" in which the angel tells Bailey to kill himself because he is white was, perhaps, timely, but not that funny. Or the one about the progressive Santa who lectures girls who ask for a Barbie about harmful gender stereotypes. I'm not at all sure that wouldn't actually happen. In the wake of the "Elliot Page" debacle, Genesius had one about the "brave celebrity" who "comes out as a straight white male" and a more obscure one where Trump leaves a garage pull on fraudulent ballots to get the FBI to finally investigate. (You'd have to remember back when the FBI investigated a story about a garage pull that resembled a noose was found in a black driver's garage.) Not that good. Better luck next week.
Friday, December 11, 2020
Home
The story is told of President Teddy Roosevelt returning from a hunting trip with great fanfare while a missionary who spent his life serving God comes home without notice. He asks God, "Why is it that the president gets this great welcome coming home from a hunting trip while I spend my life serving you and come home without a peep?" God answered, "You're not home yet."
It's something we just don't seem to get. We just don't see it. We say things like "To die is gain" and we give lipservice to "She's in a better place now," but we don't really get it, do we? I know innumerable Christians who both affirm the wonders of heaven and decry death. Or even Christ's return. "Not yet," they say. "Not yet." Because we are so deeply rooted in our world. Well, now, that shouldn't be a surprise. "We live here. Of course we're deeply rooted here." But the Bible says, "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15) Now that's a bit disturbing. We spend most of our lives loving this world and the things we can get from it, and here we're being told, "Stop it!" John goes on to write, "The world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2:17) Or, "There's something more! There's something better than this world and its desires!" And we Christians nod our heads and applaud and pursue it anyway.
We are, in Paul's words, "ambassadors for Christ." (2 Cor 5:20) This world is not our home. Now, as ambassadors, it doesn't require that we disdain the blessings God gives us to do our jobs in this "hostile environment." He gives us food and shelter, gifts, pleasures -- lots of stuff. Solomon wrote, "There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God." (Ecc 2:24) It is not wrong to receive with gratitude what God gives us here. But we should still keep our eyes on the prize, and that isn't here. We should live in the present for eternity. We must not be in hot pursuit of applause or comfort now to the neglect of our eternal mission for Christ. And while we believers generally acknowledge this, our actions and attitudes generally do not. You can tell that when God takes a loved one home or denies us that promotion we hoped for or allows hardship in our lives and we do not respond gratefully with "The LORD gives, and the LORD has takes away; blessed be the name of the LORD." (Job 1:21) We're not home yet. We shouldn't live like we are. "There's something so much more!"
It's something we just don't seem to get. We just don't see it. We say things like "To die is gain" and we give lipservice to "She's in a better place now," but we don't really get it, do we? I know innumerable Christians who both affirm the wonders of heaven and decry death. Or even Christ's return. "Not yet," they say. "Not yet." Because we are so deeply rooted in our world. Well, now, that shouldn't be a surprise. "We live here. Of course we're deeply rooted here." But the Bible says, "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15) Now that's a bit disturbing. We spend most of our lives loving this world and the things we can get from it, and here we're being told, "Stop it!" John goes on to write, "The world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2:17) Or, "There's something more! There's something better than this world and its desires!" And we Christians nod our heads and applaud and pursue it anyway.
We are, in Paul's words, "ambassadors for Christ." (2 Cor 5:20) This world is not our home. Now, as ambassadors, it doesn't require that we disdain the blessings God gives us to do our jobs in this "hostile environment." He gives us food and shelter, gifts, pleasures -- lots of stuff. Solomon wrote, "There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God." (Ecc 2:24) It is not wrong to receive with gratitude what God gives us here. But we should still keep our eyes on the prize, and that isn't here. We should live in the present for eternity. We must not be in hot pursuit of applause or comfort now to the neglect of our eternal mission for Christ. And while we believers generally acknowledge this, our actions and attitudes generally do not. You can tell that when God takes a loved one home or denies us that promotion we hoped for or allows hardship in our lives and we do not respond gratefully with "The LORD gives, and the LORD has takes away; blessed be the name of the LORD." (Job 1:21) We're not home yet. We shouldn't live like we are. "There's something so much more!"
Thursday, December 10, 2020
Coming Soon to a Nation Near You?
Australia has already done it and Canada is on the cusp. Most recently Canada's Bill C-6 is aimed at banning all "conversion therapy." What is conversion therapy? According to the official explanation,
Just this year the "conservative" Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the definition of "sex" as it appears in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There we find that employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin is prohibited. SCOTUS redefined "sex" in that line to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." No argument can possibly be made that this was the original intent because neither concept existed when it was written. So, SCOTUS took a term -- "sex" -- with a definite and understandable meaning and redefined it to mean something else and then planted it back into law because, "Look, there it is right there in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So you have to abide by it."
Canada's new "conversion therapy ban" is loaded the same way. They ban any "counselling, behaviour modification techniques, administration or prescription of medication, treatment, service, practice, or tactic" that aims at altering a person's perception of their sexual attraction or gender identity. (Well, as long as it's opposed to same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. If you encourage someone to pursue same-sex attraction or gender bending, that's perfectly suitable. It's not "conversion therapy." Strange dichotomy.) But here's the real problem. Does that list of banned things include, say, a pastor talking to a person about their same-sex attraction? Does it prevent parents from praying for their son or daughter to be moved from it? Will it be illegal for a teacher at a Christian school to show a student who intends to engage in homosexual behavior the Scripture passages that oppose it?
Given the fact that "the sexual thing I want is the my right" rules today and the history of changing words to satisify that demand, I'm quite certain that the tiny step from "service, practice, or tactic" to "prayer and Scripture reading" will be crossed in a heartbeat. The explanation includes "parents, teachers, counsellors, and pastors." And people who seek to follow God and encourage others to do the same could face legal prosecution. Right now it's Australia. Tomorrow it's Canada. Who knows how long it will take for the current lawmakers to take it up in America?
Conversion therapy is defined broadly in recent laws to include any efforts to change someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Such efforts may include, to quote a British Columbia bill, "any counselling, behaviour modification techniques, administration or prescription of medication, treatment, service, practice, or tactic" to that end. According to this broad definition, conversion therapy may be something offered by medical practitioners or persons in positions of trust or authority (presumably including parents, teachers, counsellors, and pastors).So, what could go wrong?
Just this year the "conservative" Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the definition of "sex" as it appears in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There we find that employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin is prohibited. SCOTUS redefined "sex" in that line to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." No argument can possibly be made that this was the original intent because neither concept existed when it was written. So, SCOTUS took a term -- "sex" -- with a definite and understandable meaning and redefined it to mean something else and then planted it back into law because, "Look, there it is right there in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So you have to abide by it."
Canada's new "conversion therapy ban" is loaded the same way. They ban any "counselling, behaviour modification techniques, administration or prescription of medication, treatment, service, practice, or tactic" that aims at altering a person's perception of their sexual attraction or gender identity. (Well, as long as it's opposed to same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. If you encourage someone to pursue same-sex attraction or gender bending, that's perfectly suitable. It's not "conversion therapy." Strange dichotomy.) But here's the real problem. Does that list of banned things include, say, a pastor talking to a person about their same-sex attraction? Does it prevent parents from praying for their son or daughter to be moved from it? Will it be illegal for a teacher at a Christian school to show a student who intends to engage in homosexual behavior the Scripture passages that oppose it?
Given the fact that "the sexual thing I want is the my right" rules today and the history of changing words to satisify that demand, I'm quite certain that the tiny step from "service, practice, or tactic" to "prayer and Scripture reading" will be crossed in a heartbeat. The explanation includes "parents, teachers, counsellors, and pastors." And people who seek to follow God and encourage others to do the same could face legal prosecution. Right now it's Australia. Tomorrow it's Canada. Who knows how long it will take for the current lawmakers to take it up in America?
Wednesday, December 09, 2020
Is There a Problem Here?
Back in the late '60's the standard hymns of church music began to be augmented with more contemporary music. They called them simply "praise songs." That was then; this is now. What was once augmention for worship singing has turned to domination. In most churches contemporary worship music rules. I've been told by pastors, in fact, that if they did not use that music, they wouldn't be able to draw people into church.
So what's the difference, really? Is it significant? Or is it simply style? We know that congregations in, say, Africa don't worship in the same style we do. Does that make it bad or just normal? Is there a problem here or not?
There has been a surge in recent years in contemporary musicians writing old hymns anew. That is, they alter the music, perhaps, or, at least, jazz it up a bit or they write new music with the same lyrics. Quite popular is the mix version, where they write a contemporary worship song with some traditional lyrics mixed in. At that point, given the scarcity of hymns, most people don't even know they've been suckered into singing words from a --yuck! -- hymn. So to varying degrees, they're keeping hymns without actually keeping the hymns. Is that a problem?
The truth is there is nothing "sacred" about hymns. They are not "God breathed." (Well, some of the lyrics are from Scripture, but you know what I mean.) We don't have music from on high we're supposed to use for worship. So it's hard to say there is any problem with it despite the folks (like me) who think there is. Still ...
I've become aware that there is indeed a fundamental difference between classic hymns and modern worship music. I think it might be an issue. The problem with hymns in the eyes of modern church-goers is that "We can't connect with them." Hymns are too old, too stuffy, not catchy enough. "They don't move me." Maybe, but I think we're missing the point. Modern music is a performance. There is no getting around it. It's what we do. There is a band, performers, lead singers, all the trappings of secular music. Bad ones make it an outright performance. "Look at me! Ain't I singing pretty?" Good ones try to worship, leading by example. But in all modern worship music, it remains a performance. Modern music doesn't take into account a congregation; it takes into account a select group of singers. So there will be runs and deviations, bridges and musical pauses, singers "soloizing" their parts ... either as performance or in "personal worship." Hymns, on the other hand, aren't sung that way. Historically there might have been a choir or an organ (or both) and a single leader, but all of these were not done for show; they were done to lead. It was hard to make much of that a performance. (You don't, for instance, say afterward, "Didn't Sally sing a great alto part in that choir?") It's not conducive to individual attention. Traditional hymn singing doesn't lend itself to "look at me" in any sense. Nor is it aimed at being either entertaining or moving. It is aimed entirely at "You sing to God." It is aimed at directing the congregation (the performers in this event) to sing to God (the audience in this event). it is a different animal than modern music.
There is a sense that whatever moves us to worship should be used to move us to worship. We know, however, that this isn't actually true. That is, if you came from a culture that sacrificed babies to their deity, you wouldn't say, "Well, that moves me to worship, so I'll do that." If you came from a church that practiced orgies as worship, you wouldn't be able to port that over to worship of God just because "It moves me to worship." Why? Because worship isn't about what moves me. Worship is about what God wants to hear. Worship isn't intended to please us; it's intended to please God. So are we right in finding our worship in what pleases us? Is God more pleased when we set aside our "look at me" tendencies and pay more attention to Him? Is there a problem here? Not in style, but in attitude and motivation? I have to wonder if we've gone so far off the path for so long that we can't even see it anymore.
So what's the difference, really? Is it significant? Or is it simply style? We know that congregations in, say, Africa don't worship in the same style we do. Does that make it bad or just normal? Is there a problem here or not?
There has been a surge in recent years in contemporary musicians writing old hymns anew. That is, they alter the music, perhaps, or, at least, jazz it up a bit or they write new music with the same lyrics. Quite popular is the mix version, where they write a contemporary worship song with some traditional lyrics mixed in. At that point, given the scarcity of hymns, most people don't even know they've been suckered into singing words from a --yuck! -- hymn. So to varying degrees, they're keeping hymns without actually keeping the hymns. Is that a problem?
The truth is there is nothing "sacred" about hymns. They are not "God breathed." (Well, some of the lyrics are from Scripture, but you know what I mean.) We don't have music from on high we're supposed to use for worship. So it's hard to say there is any problem with it despite the folks (like me) who think there is. Still ...
I've become aware that there is indeed a fundamental difference between classic hymns and modern worship music. I think it might be an issue. The problem with hymns in the eyes of modern church-goers is that "We can't connect with them." Hymns are too old, too stuffy, not catchy enough. "They don't move me." Maybe, but I think we're missing the point. Modern music is a performance. There is no getting around it. It's what we do. There is a band, performers, lead singers, all the trappings of secular music. Bad ones make it an outright performance. "Look at me! Ain't I singing pretty?" Good ones try to worship, leading by example. But in all modern worship music, it remains a performance. Modern music doesn't take into account a congregation; it takes into account a select group of singers. So there will be runs and deviations, bridges and musical pauses, singers "soloizing" their parts ... either as performance or in "personal worship." Hymns, on the other hand, aren't sung that way. Historically there might have been a choir or an organ (or both) and a single leader, but all of these were not done for show; they were done to lead. It was hard to make much of that a performance. (You don't, for instance, say afterward, "Didn't Sally sing a great alto part in that choir?") It's not conducive to individual attention. Traditional hymn singing doesn't lend itself to "look at me" in any sense. Nor is it aimed at being either entertaining or moving. It is aimed entirely at "You sing to God." It is aimed at directing the congregation (the performers in this event) to sing to God (the audience in this event). it is a different animal than modern music.
There is a sense that whatever moves us to worship should be used to move us to worship. We know, however, that this isn't actually true. That is, if you came from a culture that sacrificed babies to their deity, you wouldn't say, "Well, that moves me to worship, so I'll do that." If you came from a church that practiced orgies as worship, you wouldn't be able to port that over to worship of God just because "It moves me to worship." Why? Because worship isn't about what moves me. Worship is about what God wants to hear. Worship isn't intended to please us; it's intended to please God. So are we right in finding our worship in what pleases us? Is God more pleased when we set aside our "look at me" tendencies and pay more attention to Him? Is there a problem here? Not in style, but in attitude and motivation? I have to wonder if we've gone so far off the path for so long that we can't even see it anymore.
Tuesday, December 08, 2020
Making Bigger Humans
Lots of people talk about "slip," about how life has changed over the years. "America," they say, "is less moral" or "has lost her values" or "just isn't what it used to be." Like the frog in the pot, sometimes it's hard to see that our goose is getting cooked. (Yes, a horribly mixed metaphor.) Nonetheless, I think it is absolutely true.
Earlier Christianity had a clear notion of human nature. The term itself was a synonym for the nature of that nature -- the sin nature. Christianity understood that humans were sinners by nature and sinned because of it. Sin was a violation of a holy God. The necessary remedy was forgiveness. The ongoing solution was better theology, a better understanding of God and His Word. We got all that. We don't anymore.
The world changed in the latter half of the 20th century. Instead of a common nature, our culture began to believe that each person had their own nature, their own core values, their own reality. "That's true for you" became a phrase with meaning, as if "truth" could be variable. Authenticity is "whatever I say it is." The problem, then, became less about a violation of a holy God but a deep concern about what others think of our impulses or behavior. The solution stopped being forgiveness and moved toward healing and therapy. Instead of better theology and a deeper understanding of God's Word, the aim became self-help, Bible verses that coincide with our feelings, and "spiritual formation." Bible bookstores became bookstores which became Christian trinket, poster, and potpourri stores. Pentecostalism could rise in this environment because it focused more on experience and feelings than text and context. Billy Graham preached repentance; Joel Olsteen preaches "your best life now." All structure has become "me" rather than "God and His Word."
We -- Christians in America -- have built bigger humans in the last 70 years or so. When we saw people as sinners in need of a Savior, we had to pursue a Savior rather than a self-sufficiency. Now that we've moved to bigger humans, we aren't nearly as concerned about saviors or even Truth. Rather than letting God determine worship and church and practice, we've let marketing forces and public opinion and "how we feel" do it. Instead of standing on the Word of God, we've shifted to standing on human feet of clay. We've built a structure that no 12-step program can fix. We don't need to progress to bigger and better humans; we need to return to Christ, to His church, to His Word, to knowing God. Doing so will be a swim against the tide ... even among Christians.
Earlier Christianity had a clear notion of human nature. The term itself was a synonym for the nature of that nature -- the sin nature. Christianity understood that humans were sinners by nature and sinned because of it. Sin was a violation of a holy God. The necessary remedy was forgiveness. The ongoing solution was better theology, a better understanding of God and His Word. We got all that. We don't anymore.
The world changed in the latter half of the 20th century. Instead of a common nature, our culture began to believe that each person had their own nature, their own core values, their own reality. "That's true for you" became a phrase with meaning, as if "truth" could be variable. Authenticity is "whatever I say it is." The problem, then, became less about a violation of a holy God but a deep concern about what others think of our impulses or behavior. The solution stopped being forgiveness and moved toward healing and therapy. Instead of better theology and a deeper understanding of God's Word, the aim became self-help, Bible verses that coincide with our feelings, and "spiritual formation." Bible bookstores became bookstores which became Christian trinket, poster, and potpourri stores. Pentecostalism could rise in this environment because it focused more on experience and feelings than text and context. Billy Graham preached repentance; Joel Olsteen preaches "your best life now." All structure has become "me" rather than "God and His Word."
We -- Christians in America -- have built bigger humans in the last 70 years or so. When we saw people as sinners in need of a Savior, we had to pursue a Savior rather than a self-sufficiency. Now that we've moved to bigger humans, we aren't nearly as concerned about saviors or even Truth. Rather than letting God determine worship and church and practice, we've let marketing forces and public opinion and "how we feel" do it. Instead of standing on the Word of God, we've shifted to standing on human feet of clay. We've built a structure that no 12-step program can fix. We don't need to progress to bigger and better humans; we need to return to Christ, to His church, to His Word, to knowing God. Doing so will be a swim against the tide ... even among Christians.
Monday, December 07, 2020
Infamy
On my wall at home I have a newspaper with the headline from that attack 79 years ago. The day, according to FDR, would be a day that would live in infamy. And, to some extent, it has. We still remember the stories, at least. We still have a memorial over the battleship, the USS Arizona, sunk in a surprise attack on a Sunday morning in 1941. "Infamy" is being "infamous" -- well-known and not in a good way. But we aren't as outraged at the Japanese anymore. And that's not a bad thing.
In 1941 Japan sent an attack force 4,000 miles from their home to sneak in and launch an air raid on unsuspecting American armed forces in Hawaii. They sunk or damaged 21 naval vessels (including 8 battleships) and destroyed more than 188 aircraft, but more than that, 2,400 Americans were killed -- roughly the same number as the deaths from the 9/11 attack. They say time heals all wounds. Well, maybe. Perhaps it is time that has healed the anger Americans felt after that attack on Pearl Harbor. But "forgotten" isn't necessarily forgiven. I suppose it's just that the event is so far removed that it isn't personal anymore.
In our current climate, though, it seems odd that we'd let that go. It seems odd that we'd be trading partners with Japan. It seems odd that we'd be allies with Japan ... and Germany and Italy. It seems odd because we are long past forgiveness for modern sins. A "microaggression" or a youthful crime or a view that was acceptable at the time but is no more will get you fired, frozen out, and flamed. Say goodbye to any more work. We can forgive the Japanese for 2,400 deaths and we can forgive the terrorists from 9/11 for so many deaths but we will not forgive a modern sexist or even an historic one. Strange sense of righteous indignation.
Jesus said, "If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matt 6:14-15) We don't decide what others will do, but we ought to be careful, as believers, to forgive. Often. From the heart. Whether it's a Japanese attack 79 years ago or a terrorist attack from 2001 or a personal slight from this morning.
In 1941 Japan sent an attack force 4,000 miles from their home to sneak in and launch an air raid on unsuspecting American armed forces in Hawaii. They sunk or damaged 21 naval vessels (including 8 battleships) and destroyed more than 188 aircraft, but more than that, 2,400 Americans were killed -- roughly the same number as the deaths from the 9/11 attack. They say time heals all wounds. Well, maybe. Perhaps it is time that has healed the anger Americans felt after that attack on Pearl Harbor. But "forgotten" isn't necessarily forgiven. I suppose it's just that the event is so far removed that it isn't personal anymore.
In our current climate, though, it seems odd that we'd let that go. It seems odd that we'd be trading partners with Japan. It seems odd that we'd be allies with Japan ... and Germany and Italy. It seems odd because we are long past forgiveness for modern sins. A "microaggression" or a youthful crime or a view that was acceptable at the time but is no more will get you fired, frozen out, and flamed. Say goodbye to any more work. We can forgive the Japanese for 2,400 deaths and we can forgive the terrorists from 9/11 for so many deaths but we will not forgive a modern sexist or even an historic one. Strange sense of righteous indignation.
Jesus said, "If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matt 6:14-15) We don't decide what others will do, but we ought to be careful, as believers, to forgive. Often. From the heart. Whether it's a Japanese attack 79 years ago or a terrorist attack from 2001 or a personal slight from this morning.
Sunday, December 06, 2020
Portion Control
The secret to dieting, they tell me, is portion control. You can eat a wide variety of things as long as you limit your portion. Well ... okay.
In Lamentations we read, "The LORD is my portion." (Lam 3:24) Well, that's nice. Just what does it mean?
Lamentations is a collection of laments from the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah spent the book of Jeremiah warning the people of God of impending doom and Lamentations is Jeremiah's "post game wrap up" -- the aftermath. Jerusalem has fallen, Babylon has wiped them out, Jeremiah is one of the remnant, and Jeremiah is weeping over the utter destruction. It is a thoroughly bleak lament.
In the third chapter he complains largely about God. God has afflicted him. God has shut out his prayer (Lam 3:8). God has torn him to pieces like a bear (Lam 3:10-11). God has ground his teeth down on gravel (Lam 3:16). "My endurance has perished," he says, "so has my hope from the LORD." (Lam 3:18) And then,
That's where I want to live. That's the "portion control" I want to exercise. I want more of Jesus. I want to enjoy pleasant things because I have Jesus and I want to endure catastrophe with joy because I have Jesus. I want to set aside the lies of the world that promise me comfort and pleasure if I just pursue this, that, or the other thing and find my perfect joy just in the LORD, my portion. I want to cease struggling and just know that He is God (Psa 46:10). In the midst of politics and pandemic, unrest and hate, upheaval and confusion, I want to have my hope in God as my portion rather than "better things" that, in fact, are not better. I suppose I'll have to come to a better understanding of the magnitude of God before I can arrive at the place Jeremiah did where that's all I need. I wonder if I'll need to hit rock bottom like he did. If so, let it come, because the LORD is my portion.
In Lamentations we read, "The LORD is my portion." (Lam 3:24) Well, that's nice. Just what does it mean?
Lamentations is a collection of laments from the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah spent the book of Jeremiah warning the people of God of impending doom and Lamentations is Jeremiah's "post game wrap up" -- the aftermath. Jerusalem has fallen, Babylon has wiped them out, Jeremiah is one of the remnant, and Jeremiah is weeping over the utter destruction. It is a thoroughly bleak lament.
In the third chapter he complains largely about God. God has afflicted him. God has shut out his prayer (Lam 3:8). God has torn him to pieces like a bear (Lam 3:10-11). God has ground his teeth down on gravel (Lam 3:16). "My endurance has perished," he says, "so has my hope from the LORD." (Lam 3:18) And then,
But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope: The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. "The LORD is my portion," says my soul, "therefore I will hope in Him." (Lam 3:21-24)Jeremiah doesn't foresee things getting better. At least, not in his lifetime. Jeremiah doesn't expect his fortunes to change. He doesn't anticipate a "happy ending." He isn't waiting for a good turn of events. All of his complaints are still in play. But, he comforts himself -- has hope -- with this: "The LORD is my portion."
That's where I want to live. That's the "portion control" I want to exercise. I want more of Jesus. I want to enjoy pleasant things because I have Jesus and I want to endure catastrophe with joy because I have Jesus. I want to set aside the lies of the world that promise me comfort and pleasure if I just pursue this, that, or the other thing and find my perfect joy just in the LORD, my portion. I want to cease struggling and just know that He is God (Psa 46:10). In the midst of politics and pandemic, unrest and hate, upheaval and confusion, I want to have my hope in God as my portion rather than "better things" that, in fact, are not better. I suppose I'll have to come to a better understanding of the magnitude of God before I can arrive at the place Jeremiah did where that's all I need. I wonder if I'll need to hit rock bottom like he did. If so, let it come, because the LORD is my portion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)