Why Did He Do It?

Jesus said, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) Did you ever wonder why? Why did He give His only Son? Why did God grant the gift of salvation?

We aren't left to guess. Scripture gives us the answer. But before we look at that, you might be tempted to say you know. Paul Baloche and Lenny LeBlanc wrote a popular song -- "Above All" -- about how Jesus took the fall and "thought of me above all." It is certainly a warm and pleasant thought, but is it biblical? Did Christ save me for my sake?

It is certainly entirely possible for God to have more than one reason to do something, and I'm sure that He does, but I think we often miss the primary reason that is listed. According to the Bible, God "made us a alive together with Christ" (Eph 2:5) when we were dead in sin (Eph 2:1, 5) "so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." (Eph 2:7) That's not vague. That's not hard to figure out. It's quite explicit. Paul here lists a couple of other reasons -- His rich mercy and His great love -- so we know there is more, but I think we generally miss that first, stated reason. God's intent in saving us was to demonstrate the riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

There is, I think, one other clarification that we should notice. If I were to ask the question, "Who saved us?" most of us would answer, "Jesus Christ." This passage says something different. This passage says that God made us alive together with Christ. Like that passage at the beginning where God gave His only Son. We tend to think that the Son saved us. And it is true. We were saved by His blood. But the gift of salvation that we are given comes through Christ from God who saves us. That is, the God whom we hated (Rom 8:7) and whose righteous wrath we have earned sent His Son so that He could save us from His righteous wrath.

God had more than one reason to save us. He is rich in mercy and great in love and has immeasurable grace. But at the core of it all, God intends His own glory to be displayed. Always. That's why He does anything.

News Weakly - 1/30/2021

Negativity
Disney is revamping the Jungle Cruise ride both in California and Florida to eliminate "negative depictions of natives." We are still waiting to hear from the animal kingdom and their negative depictions of hippos. (Titus 1:15)

Why It Matters
On the day of his inauguration Biden signed his "Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation" executive order, legislating from the Oval Office what America will be required to believe about gender identity and sexual orientation. Carl R. Trueman at First Things gives some answers to the question, "What is that to you?" You might take a look. (For a humorous-but-serious take on it, you might look at the Genesius Times look at the story.) And Joe Carter at TGC writes about "The Radical Incoherence of Biden’s Transgender Policy." Another offering worth the read.

Who Would Have Thought?
Who would have thought that a modern European country would be on this list, but Poland has affirmed its near-total ban on abortion when the courts ruled that the abortion of congenitally damaged fetuses is unconstitutional. In some places in the world human life is still valuable.

Priorities
In case anyone was not clear, more than half of Americans voted in this new president who, based on the things he is doing at the outset, is most concerned about LGBT issues, providing them with the greatest freedoms and protections in opposition, say, to the protections provided in the Constitution, and killing babies. He promised before the election to make Roe v. Wade "the law of the land" and he is consistently moving toward less religious freedom, more power for LGBT, and more dead babies ... in accordance with those who voted for him. That is, it's not merely an indictment of the president or his political party; it's a commentary on the majority of Americans.

Partisan
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has leveled an accusation against Senator Ted Cruz, suggesting (after he agreed with her on a subject) that he almost got her killed in the Capitol riot. "If you want to help," she tweeted to Cruz, "resign." This ought to go a long way toward avoiding partisan politics, right?

Equivalence
The story is simple. The University of Wisconsin-Madison's police chief has banned officers from using the "Thin Blue Line" imagery. So, first, that image resembles an American flag, but has a blue stripe to show police solidarity. (Other versions have other lines for things like federal agents, search annd rescue, correctional officers, breast cancer survivors, and first responders.) Oh, no, that will never do. Apparently support for police is classifed as "white supremacy." The fix is not to correct the idea that solidarity with the police is racism, but to eliminate the symbol and, more importantly, the concept. Now, let's see ... there are those who (absolutely wrongly) link Christianity with "white supremacy," so we can see where this is headed.

To Bee or Not to Bee
They're planning to impeach a civilian, not a president, and the Babylon Bee presents the tongue-in-cheek possibility that they might just go further and retroactively impeach all former Republican presidents. Why not?

On other topics, the Bee reports that Biden set the record for most COVID deaths in the first week of office. And in the another fun story we read a commentary on Biden's intolerant refusal to accept the world climate's decision to transition.

Among other fun stuff from the Babylon Bee.

Alive Defined

Since I just explained "dead," it might be helpful to explain "alive," right? Paul says,

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ — by grace you have been saved — and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:4-7)

You see in that sentence that God "made us alive together with Christ" when we were dead in our trespasses. In what sense did God make us "alive"?

Clearly nothing changed in the physical. That is, when we were spiritually dead, our hearts were still beating, our blood was still flowing in our veins, we had brain waves -- we were physically alive. If we were physically dead, there would be nothing more to do but to "Go through his clothes and look for loose change." (Sorry ... a Princess Bride quote.) But we were spiritually dead. So what does this "alive" look like?

The first, easiest answer is "raised with Him" and "seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ." Kind of vague, though, isn't it? Well, in the first chapter of Ephesians those "heavenly places" were also significant. Paul wrote, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places." (Eph 1:3) He goes on from there to describe many of these blessings, but note that He has blessed us -- past tense -- and those blessings reside "in the heavenly places" -- the place the text says He has seated us in Christ. So this "alive" includes those blessings.

Still a little vague? Well, let's try this. If "dead" was described in Ephesians 2:1-3, then "alive" in this context would be the opposite of "dead." What is the reverse of "dead" in this context? Well, it would mean that we no longer walked in trespasses and sins. We might stumble across them, perhaps badly sometimes, but it would not be our direction, our aim, our life's arc. (See, for instance, 1 John 3:9). We would not follow the course of this world. Remember, the course of this world is set by the prince of the power of the air (Satan). So 1) this world by definition is opposed to God (Rom 8:7; 1 John 2:15-17), and 2) our new life would not be informed, directed, or following the world. Here's a real bit of good news: this "alive" means we are no longer disobedient in our spiritual DNA. We seek instead to please our Father. "Dead" in this context included the concept of living in the passions of our flesh, so "alive" in this context would mean we are not living in the passions of our flesh. Our passion would no longer be for sin. Our deepest desires would no longer be informed by body and mind -- pure human nature. The deepest desires of this living person is God and His glory, not "me and what makes me feel better." This "alive" is, at its core, a change of nature. We are no longer "children of wrath" but children of God.

I don't think we have a good grasp on "dead in trespasses and sins" and, thus, we don't really have a good grasp on "made alive." I think if we can get a glimpse of it -- its scope and magnitude, the differences between the two -- we would be permanently changed. Jesus said, "He who is forgiven little, loves little." (Luke 7:47) But He also said, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) Maybe, just maybe, if we had a better grasp on our sin condition -- dead -- and God's act of making us alive, we might be much better at loving one another as His disciples should.

Dead Defined

You know me. I am always concerned about definitions. So when I came across this passage ...

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Eph 2:1-3)

... the definition of "dead" became important. Just what did Paul mean when he said, "You were dead"?

It seems silly, but I first must point out what Paul did not mean. He clearly did not mean "stone-cold dead, not breathing, not functioning, completely lifeless." He couldn't mean that with his descriptions of "you once walked" and "following" and "carrying out the desires of the body and mind." Those are doing things, so this "dead" is not "not doing anything."

So what did he mean? I think he laid it out there for us. When Paul says that "you" (natural human beings) "were dead," he explains it. This "dead" is walking in trespasses (transgressing known commands) and sins (willful violation of God's will)¹. It is following the course of this world. It is following the prince of the power of the air. (Note the structure of those two -- they are intended as parallels, where one expands the meaning of the other. Following the course of this world and the prince of the power of the air are the same things, where the course of this world is set by the prince of the power of the world.) He describes natural man as "sons of disobedience." That is, we are, in our spiritual DNA, disobedient. Dead. He goes on to explain that this kind of "dead" is operating in "the passions of our flesh," where our prime directions come from our sin nature (the flesh). These "dead" people carry out "the desires of body and mind." It is an image of a purely humanistic, materialistic base of operations. What I feel and what I think is God. Nothing else matters. The motivations and directions are purely "my body" and "my self." Dead. Paul's final characteristic of this "dead" is "by nature children of wrath." Note first that it is "by nature." Not something learned or acquired, but something that is natural to us. What is natural to us? Our heritage is that we have incurred God's wrath by our "dead" condition.

This "dead" condition is a universal condition for all human beings. It isn't negotiable. It isn't variable. We are without hope and rightly subject to God's wrath. Dead men may tell no tales, but dead people also can't fix themselves. Thus, that "But God" that follows in the next sentence ...

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ — by grace you have been saved — and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:4-7)

... is huge! He acted "when we were dead" -- that dead Paul just described. He operated that same immeasurable power that raised Christ and seated Him in the heavenlies above all (Eph 1:19-23) towards us and made us alive, raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in heavenlies. It is hardly possible to overstate the magnitude of that good news given the magnitude of the bad news that we were dead.

If you're not amazed that you are a believer, saved by grace, then you likely aren't aware of what you were -- dead. Really, badly, completely, spiritually dead. Without hope; without options. And it was only God -- His mercy and His "great love" and His grace in conjunction with His power -- that changed that because without His action you'd still be ... dead.

________

¹ Think of Genesis 1-4. Adam had one primary command -- "Don't eat of that fruit." He violated that one primary command. That would be a trespass. In the next chapter, Cain killed his brother. There was no command not to murder, but Cain still knew it was wrong (he hid the body and denied any involvement). That would be a sin. All trespasses are sins; not all sins are trespasses. For instance, "That which is not of faith is sin" (Rom 14:23)

Great Love

Most of us know that God is love (1 John 4:7). Most of us know that "God so loved the world" (John 3:16) One of the great lines I find in my Bible is in Ephesians. The second chapter begins with a description of the desolate state of Natural Man.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience — among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Eph 2:1-3)

Truly bad news. The "you" at the beginning there refers to the Gentile believers in Ephesus and the "we" a short distance later refers to the Jews, so Paul points out that Jews are "like the rest of mankind" in this "dead in trespasses and sins" condition. No one starts out without it. It's bad. So the magnificence of the next sentence is huge.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ — by grace you have been saved — and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:4-7)

That is a big "but." Over against "dead in trespasses and sins" you have "but God." Over against "following the course of this world" you have "but God." Over against living in the passions of our flesh and carrying out the desires of body and mind, you have "but God." And what "but" is that? Based on His rich mercy (not mere mercy, but rich mercy) "because of the great love with which He loved us," God acted. He took dead people and made them alive together with Christ. He took sinners and raised them up with Him. He took people following the prince of the power of the air and seated them with Him in the heavenly places. HUGE.

There is an interesting note in all this about God's "great love with which He loved us." We tend to think that God loves everybody the same. We know that God loved the world from John 3:16 and we think, "He loves everyone equally." But that's not what this text says. This text says that because of His love for us He accomplished things for us that He doesn't do for everybody. Because of His great love He made us alive together with Christ (past tense) and because of His great He love raised us up with Him (past tense) and because of His great love He seated us with Him (past tense). Because of His great love and His rich mercy, He accomplished all of this for us, for those whom He chose before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before Him (Eph 1:4). This is great love and this is special love, reserved, as John 3:16 tells us also, for those who believe and not for everyone.

Sometimes I think we're too used to our salvation. Sometimes I think we find God's grace and mercy and love to be passé. Sometimes I fear it becomes boring or, in the common vernacular of the day, "meh." It must not be. If we don't have an awesome fascination with this great salvation handed to us by grace -- unmerited favor -- then we just aren't grasping how rich His mercy is, how great His love is ... and how bad off we were. And that failure to grasp and be grateful, as it turns out, is a great loss.

Pie in the Sky

Sometimes we Christians are accused of being "pie in the sky" thinkers. "Some day my prince will come," where "my prince" is Christ and He will return ... eventually ... we're all pretty sure. We'll live these lives of ours and eventually die and then, out of sight of anyone else, we'll find our bliss. Some day. Pie in the sky, by and by. But it's just not true, and to the extent that we buy that thinking, we are shortchanging ourselves. Jesus said, "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly." (John 10:10) "These things I have spoken to you," He said, "that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full." (John 15:11) He added, "Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full." (John 16:24) The fruit of the Spirit includes love, joy, and peace at the outset (Gal 5:22-23). Scripture does not describe a mere "by and by" Christian existence. God's Word describes a "here and now" life of abundance and reward with only more to follow.

Interestingly, most of us think the reverse about the reverse position. If Christians get "pie in the sky by and by," we're expecting this life to be ... a little ho-hum at best. On the other hand, if unbelievers get "Hell in the end," they certainly get their kicks now, don't they? I mean, they don't pursue all manner of sin because it's unpleasant. The sinners life is alluring because it appears so pleasant. And that's not true, either.

As it turns out, when we buy that line, we're buying the line of the Deceiver. "Sin for a season" is not a happy season. Scripture characterizes that pursuit as "futile" and "darkened" (Rom 1:21), stupid in its aims (Rom 1:23) and self-defaming in its processes (Rom 1:24). God's Word says it gives people "a debased mind" (Rom 1:28). They can't even think straight, leaving them "full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness." (Rom 1:29) Sure sounds like a party over here, doesn't it?

Our current society illustrates the real-time damage the pursuit of sin produces. That includes a right wing that thinks it's perfectly suitable to "storm the castle" and a left wing that things they can better serve the people if they deny science and eliminate their gender. We've embraced "a better life by profligate sin" and wonder why there's such hate and crime rates and disease and loneliness and high suicide rates and ... on and on.

The Christian life is not drudgery now for a pie in the sky later. Nor is rejecting God a load of fun now even if the payout is a bit unpleasant. Both have eternal consequences, to be sure, but the rewards of following Christ are not merely future nor are the consequences of refusing. God doesn't offer us a mere "pie in the sky." He offers joys now and forever. Why we don't seem to experience it or are not feverishly passing it on to others is a testament to the lies of the god of this world.

Fools Despise

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Prov 9:10)

We know this verse. It comes up several times in the Bible. The exact same first phrase, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom," is in Psalm 111:10. A similar phrase -- "The fear of the LORD is the instruction for wisdom" -- is in Proverbs 15:33. And another similar phrase -- "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge" -- is in the introduction to Proverbs (Prov 1:7). The fear of the Lord is critical for knowledge and wisdom.

So it is a little concerning when we see what Scripture says about the fool.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Prov 1:7)

That's actually quite ominous if you think about it. The fear of the Lord is where knowledge and wisdom -- where all the important instruction -- begins and from which it proceeds. That is, the knowledge, the wisdom, the instruction that the fool despises is the knowledge that proceeds from the fear of the Lord. To expand that, we can simply read Scripture's indictment of natural man -- "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom 3:18)

The fool despises wisdom and instruction. This kind of fool despises wisdom and instruction because he has no fear of God. So what is this "fear of God"? The word "fear" in both Old and New Testament uses can mean actual terror or it can mean more at awe, that feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder. You see, there, that "fear" in the word "awe." It's a kind of bipolar pull. On one hand, you want to run; on the other hand you can't take your eyes off it. That's precisely the sense in "the fear of God." He has the capacity to wave us out of existence and that might even be the most just thing He could do, but the one who fears God in this biblical sense is also enraptured by Him -- terrified but captivated.

That, my friends, is a seemingly rare thing. I know lots of people who "love God" by which they mean, "God thinks I'm okay and so we're pals." They see Him as their buddy. God doesn't have any of that stupid wrath the preachers of old used to conjure up (where "preachers of old" include the biblical ones ... including Christ). No, no, He's a nice God and we're all okay. That is not "the fear of God." And this is the person that will despise wisdom and instruction. You can see it plainly. "Don't give me that stuff from the Bible. I don't need that for wisdom or instruction." They don't need divine wisdom. Why? Because they don't fear God. And they're just fine, thank you very much.

We have a natural, sinful tendency to think we've got this. We are prone to believe we're doing fine with God. No need to fear Him. And when we don't have that fear, we don't have the proper respect for actual wisdom or instruction that comes from Him. As such, we end up classified as fools. It's a bad place to be, first because it's foolish and second because it sets us apart from wisdom and into the path of being God's opponent. We think we're pals, but if we have no fear of God, we don't know Him at all. Don't be that person. Check yourself.

Shall We Gather at the River?

It's 2021 and the debate continues. Should we ignore the rules of the government and the instructions of Romans 13 and meet or should we observe the rules and ignore the Scripture that says that we are not to neglect to meet together (Heb 10:25)? Both sides are adamant. Which is it? I'm not going to tell you. I will take a look, though, and see what I see. I begin this with the clear statement that lots of genuine believers that I respect disagree on this question. Keep that in mind.

First, the Romans 13 (et al) rule. "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) What's interesting to me is that almost without exception the first response to the simple presentation of that text is, "Yes, but, we know that's not always the case." Genuine, God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians immediately go to the exception rather than the rule. So, please, pause a moment. Take in the intensity of the statement. Include the fact that Paul was writing during a period of very bad government. Include Peter's "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor 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) Remember that this same Peter was the one that gave you your "exception clause."

Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20)

But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

So this is the exception rule and not the standard rule. When human authority commands obedience that requires disobedience to God's direct commands, then we have an exception. In no other case do we find such an exception. (You won't find a "right to bear arms" command in Scripture, for instance.)

So, does Scripture give us a command from God regarding church-going that would be the exception rule? When the government tells us, "You can't gather in your churches" are we receiving a direct contradiction to a command from God or are we simply responding as "Americans with rights"? (Violating my constitutional rights is not in the biblical exception clause.) Well, perhaps there is such a command. The author of Hebrews told us that we must not be "neglecting to meet together" (Heb 10:25). Well, there it is, plain as day. It is our biblical command from God to gather enmasse on Sunday at our local church. And we will do it because "We must obey God rather than men."

Interestingly, we have largely rejected that argument until COVID. Church attendance has declined. While some studies suggest 40-50% of Christians attend church regularly, others suggest it's closer to 20%. If you modify that to "belong to a local church," the numbers decline even further. Until COVID, more than 80% of self-professed Christians were largely keeping church at arms length. Now we're taking the holy high ground?

Then we consider the text itself. Turns out it does not say we need to attend church on Sundays. It doesn't specify how many we are supposed to gather with. It doesn't say where we are supposed to gather. It does say that the point is to encourage one another (Heb 10:25), that it should be "to stir one another to love and good works" (Heb 10:24), and that it is to "hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering" (Heb 10:23). Seems like we're much more concerned about taking back a building than engaging in the biblical purpose of that meeting together thing.

I see mistakes here on both sides. One side says, "No church is a good thing." They are perfectly contented to neglect gathering at all for fellowship. This is clearly and absolutely a violation of Scripture (read "sin"). On the other side, they are using the phrase "meet together" to mean a much more detailed thing -- "gather on Sunday morning at the address of our local church building without restriction" -- than the text allows. And in neither case is the point being observed -- to hold fast the confession, to stir up love in one another, and to encourage one another.

As I said, I'm not answering the question for you. I think, personally, there are deeper problems at hand and whether or not you attend the local Baptist building on Sundays with the Christian minority is not the first one. I think we believers need to reconsider what Scripture says church is for and what we're supposed to be doing there. (Hint: It isn't aimed at the coolest band or the most charismatic preacher or even "our 1st Amendment rights".) Perhaps there is some thought and prayer and repentance that needs to be occurring over there, first.

News Weakly - 1/23/2021

The Story Under the Story
The story on the face of it is that Biden has named his science advisor. Fine. Whatever. Behind the story, however, is Biden's claim that "Science will always be at the forefront of my administration." That will be amazing. So he'll seek to stop killing what science terms human beings even if they're in the womb and he'll stop pandering to "gender fluidity" since science says no such thing actually exists in science ... right? Oh ... no? Of course not. It's a lying claim. That's the story under the story.

Guilty and Can't Be Proven Innocent
As expected, we're not done in this country with tearing down people at whim over our favorite hate points. GOP Congresswoman Lauren Boebert was seen conducting "reconnaissance" tours for rioters days before the Capitol riots. Actually, the story says the accuser "could not name the exact date and said he did not know if anyone in the crowd was involved in the attack on the building," but rest assured, she's GOP and pro-gun and she'll go down for this insurrection because they said so. (She claims she was giving her family a tour just before her swearing in. Yeah, right, likely story. What white GOP member has family that would support them? Get real.)

Bungling Unity
Biden's appeal for unity ought to hearten the worst losers. He has big plans to "heal America." Trump withdrew from WHO due to their bowing to pressure from China, but Biden prefers China as well, so we're going back in with WHO. Trump exited the Paris Climate Accord because of the overwhelming burden placed on the U.S. alone, but Biden isn't concerned about overburdening the U.S., so we're going back into the Paris Accord. Trump placed travel bans on places that were known sanctuaries for terrorists, but Joe isn't worried about a few radical bombs as long as it looks like he's pro-Muslim, so he's eliminating the ban on traveling from terrorist countries. (Note: Despite media claims, not all the places banned were Muslim nor were all Muslim countries banned. That is, it wasn't a Muslim travel ban.) Trump worked hard to bring back a strong economy; Biden plans to put an end to that immediately with another $2 trillion deficit piled on last year's fiascos and pushing a $15/hr minimum wage requirement on the federal government. Biden said in his speech, "The dream of justice for all will be deferred no longer." Right. Unity. "We don't care about the babies you'd like us to stop killing. We aren't concerned about your 1st, 2nd, or most any other Amendment rights. We don't care about businesses or taxpayers who will bear the brunt of a mandatory, arbitrary wage hike. We don't care abour your concerns at all. We care only about ours. If you didn't vote for us (and that's almost half of America), we just don't care. Be united in that, why don't you?" Unity. You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

The Lightbulb Goes On
As a side note, I just figured out why the Left hates the Bill of Rights so much. (Note: It's biblical; look it up - Eccl 10:2)

One More Thing
In his sweeping efforts to legislate from the Executive Branch, Biden has brought us one more thing -- a new definition. Okay, not new. The Supreme Court threw it out there last year. Yes, that Supreme Court -- the "conservative" one brought to us by Trump. So while the laws are supposed to be made by the Legislative Branch, approved by the Executive Branch, and confirmed or denied by the Judicial Branch, in this case we have the Judicial Branch making the law, the Executive Branch activating it, and the Legislative Branch sitting on their hands (because, frankly, they're no longer needed, are they?). Biden issued an executive order redefining the word "sex" (which meant "male" or "female" when the law in question was made) in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mean "gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation." The HRC calls it "the most substantive, wide-ranging executive order concerning sexual orientation and gender identity ever issued by a United States president." The amendment Congress has been debating for years is now law without Congress and you can expect that any objection (such as your stupid 1st Amendment religious rights) will be brushed aside ... in the name of "unity."

As Expected
The headline reads, "Kamala Harris Stays Up Late Working Ahead On Biden’s 25th Amendment Proceedings." Probably doesn't surprise anyone. But Joe might want to take note that the presidential restroom was just replaced with a women's restroom. Just sayin'. Meantime, I wanted to ask the same thing the Bee did. Why was America's most popular president ever inaugurated behind unscalable walls and protected by a large armed force? Strange.

On an unrelated note, apparently theologians have found that going to church via Zoom will only get you access to heaven via Zoom. That does not bode well for some.

The Bible is Silent

It's always interesting to me when people use a "The Bible is silent" argument for their favorite issue. "Jesus never said anything about gays." "You won't find a single word in the Bible prohibiting transgenderism." "The Bible does not have one word on the topic of child molesting." That last statement, in fact, is absolutely true and illustrates the danger of "The Bible is silent" kinds of arguments. They are often blind and misguided arguments aimed primarily at admitting "my pet sin." They are typically arguments produced with blinders -- "Don't look over there for that principle; you just might find it." And, perhaps most telling, they are almost exclusively offered by people who argue "You can't take the Bible as literal truth" while they're arguing that "the Bible doesn't make that literal argument."

Take the most recent objection to my blog -- transgenderism. "It's not in there," they tell me. "Jesus never said one word about the 'T' of LGBT." You know, they're right. The word is not found in any translation of the Bible. So what is in the Bible? While 1 Cor 6:9-10 includes a denial of the "effeminate" in some translations, it is most clear in the Old Testament when God told His people, "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God." (Deut 22:5) "Oh, don't be silly," I can already hear, "that's Old Testament." So, God no longer finds it abominable? We're not talking preferences here; we're talking hate from God. "Yeah, I think the idea eventually grew on Him and He wised up and found it perfectly suitable." Jesus said, "The Scripture cannot be broken". (John 10:35) At its core, then, Scripture recognizes two genders: male and female. Nothing in between. Nothing changing (Gen 1:27; Gen 5:2; Matt 19:4). And God assigned roles for each sex that differ based on their design (e.g., Gen 2:18; 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Cor 16:13; Eph 5:22-31). (Critical in those roles, by the way, is a male and a female being married and becoming one (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5-6; Eph 5:31-32) and producing offspring (Gen 1:28; Gen 8:17), something made absolutely impossible in a transsexual.)

Ultimately, the question is "Who are you going to believe?" Are you going to go with 6000 years of biblical morality or the most recent 20 years of "new morality"? Are you going to buy science (which only recognizes two genders) or modern myth which allows for any range of possibilities (without any method of measuring or quantifying)? (Note: Intersex is not transgenderism and is not the question being discussed here.) Is God's opinion of any value or not? Does how we feel determine what is right or wrong? (Consider that one with care. If you're not careful you open the door to that "The Bible doesn't say anything about child molesting" question and more.)

In the end, they tell me, "If you're really kind and really caring -- if you really love your neighbor -- you won't say bad things about their life choices. (Of course we are perfectly free and correct in telling you that your life choice of believing the Bible as you do is evil and ought to be eliminated, and we have no intention of admitting to that double standard.) If you really care about people, you'll only say nice things about their gender identity and sexual orientation and so on. That's the real loving thing to do." I suppose that appears reasonable (despite the obvious double standard) to many, but if God is to be believed, then I'd suggest that doing things that God hates might not end well for them. I'd offer the perspective that "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10) is not a positive outcome. I would argue that a person who loves another person -- truly loves; cares about their best interests -- would be evil if they knew the negative results and patted them on the back and said, "Be fed and warm." It would be like, "Oh, no, don't you worry your little head about that cancer diagnosis. It's just those crazy doctors that say silly things like 'It can kill you so you'd better take the treatment.' No, no, be yourself. Embrace the cancer. It's not as bad as they say it is. You just be you." I guess I'm just not "loving" enough to consign people I care about to God's wrath. The Bible is not as silent as they want you to believe, and I can't be as silent as they want me to be.

Not Mysticism

It used to be that some of the finest educational edifices came from Christianity. Think Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, once schools that proclaimed the Bible as true and now proclaim religion as false. In that devolution, it seems as if there was an unexpected consequence. While the modern world moved to reject faith, Christianity moved to reject intellect. Today's modern Christianity now has a definite anti-intellectualism flavor if not a rule. It's as if we saw the lunatics take over the asylum, so we abandoned asylums as useless, even bad.

Part of the problem, I think, is that we're not too keen on thinking too deeply. We come by that naturally. Sin rots the brain (Rom 1:28). (That's why our world is so crazy. Feed the "debased mind" with more sin and you get "crazy.") We are "recovering crazies," so to speak, so we might naturally tend to avoid thinking too deeply. So we find our comfort and solace in places that not only avoid deep thought, but find protection in being without thought. We discard "think it through" and replace it with "feel it." Oh, we use more spiritual terms, of course. "Feel the Spirit." "The Spirit moves me." That kind of good, religious stuff. This kind of thing, you see, is unassailable by "thinkers." "You wouldn't understand; you don't have the Spirit." So we cloister ourselves in our safe, anti-intellectual, faith-versus-reason world so we don't have to ... you know ... reason.

It is a sad and even slanderous way of thinking. We are commanded to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37) but we think we're superior by dropping that last bit. The very word for "faith" in Scripture means "to be convinced (by evidence or reason)" but we think the only right way to go is "blind faith" (a plain contradiction to biblical faith). We've preferred to move to mysticism over against reason while Paul "reasoned" with the people he preached to (Acts 17:2, 17; Acts 18:4, 19; Acts 24:25). I don't know how to say it any clearer. The Christianity given to us by the Godhead is not anti-intellectual; it is reasonable and even requires reason (1 Peter 3:15).

The problem, of course, is much more basic than faith versus reason. The problem is we've missed the point of the Christian faith. The point of Christianity is Christ. That's a relationship, no doubt. It's also a truth claim -- His truth claim (John 14:6). It is an everyday, real, living, breathing fact. We don't believe it by some mystical means. It is true. We believe it as we believe any other point of data, only better. So when we cede the Word as "okay" or "somewhat man-made" or "it contains God's Word, but it's not actually God's Word," we give up rational thought and a reason to believe. We need to "take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Cor 10:5) and surrendering thought to mysticism is not the way that's done. That, as it turns out, is surrender to a lie.

In Moments Like These

Things look bad. COVID is not abating. Political unrest is not easing. Sin is not decreasing. We don't live in a world more friendly toward Christ or His people. And it's not a surprise ... or, at least, shouldn't be. As a forerunner to Robocop ("There will be ... trouble."), Jesus said, "In the world you will have tribulation." (John 16:33) And certainly not just Jesus (as if "just Jesus" was a reasonable phrase) (e.g., Psa 119:71; Rom 8:18; Php 1:29; 2 Tim 3:12; 1 Peter 3:14; James 1:12). Peter said, "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you." (1 Peter 4:12) It only makes sense from the pages of the Bible; expect trouble.

Many Christians cringe at this. They are disappointed when friends turn against them and deeply discouraged when things go bad and even angry with God when "bad things happen to good people." I would suggest that in moments like these we can actually shine. It is in our harshest circumstances that we can stand best and glorify God the loudest.

Paul experienced much hardship in his life. In fact, it ended up being fatal. But he said, "For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal." (2 Cor 4:17-18) He understsood the afflictions he endured to be "light" and "momentary," "transient." He understood that they were necesssary to prepare for us "an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison" and far outweighed any temporal difficulty. James believed trouble to be necessary, a tool of God that produces perseverance that produces perfection, worthy of "all joy" (James 1:2-4). Peter told us to "rejoice and be glad" as we share Christ's suffering "when His glory is revealed." (1 Peter 4:13)

Many Christians I know today are scared. Things look bad. Things look bleak. Paul, on the other hand, said, "I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me" because God says, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor 12:9) In that first passage I quoted above from Jesus, I left out most of the verse.

I have said these things to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world. (John 16:33)

We aren't warned about troubles and tribulations so we can be either scared or militant. We are told about it because it's no problem. We are informed on the matter so that in Christ "you may have peace." We can "take heart" because we know something others don't: Christ has overcome. That includes sickness and calamities and the politics and all. In moments like these our confidence in our Savior is shining proof that we have an actual Savior.

How Times Have Changed

No, this isn't one of those "When I was young" complaints. Think farther back.

Scripture describes a beautiful friendship back in 1st Samuel. There we read of David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of the king, Saul, who would become the sworn enemy of David. Still, After David killed Goliath, we read, "The soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1 Sam 18:1) Their friendship lasted until Jonathan's death (and beyond) despite the hatred of Jonathan's father. They served as a prototype for male-bonding.

Oh, but times have changed. Today there are voices that assure us that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship. Why? Because the only possible understanding of "loved him" is "had sex with him" under today's standards. Now, mind you, it has not always been the case. Other cultures routinely have men hugging and kissing men without the slightest hint of sexual attraction. The shift away, I would argue, is a blatant result of an oversexualized society that finds sex as its apex predator and everything about it is sex. How else could you explain the woman who wrote about a relationship with God as sexual because, after all, even Jonathan Edwards wrote about "intercourse with God." It is myopic.Things now are not how things have always been in all times for all people. Indeed, the life and times in which we live are foreign to everything that has come before, it seems.

We complain that gender is a social construct. We complain that what constitutes "masculine" and "feminine" is purely societal. While it's certainly not necessarily the case, at the same time we have certainly defined certain behaviors as purely and only sexual. You can't hug without intending sex (which is really sick if you hug your mother). You can't kiss if you aren't planning a night of passion (even though Paul commanded them to "greet one another with a holy kiss" (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26)). In other words, we have allowed a God-hating (Rom 8:7), sinful world to define relationships by their sinful standards.

The cost, I think, is too high. We've redefined male friendship as tough and stoic and certainly at a distance. Real men don't love real men. We've been social distancing before COVID made it cool. At more of a distance, then, we're expected to "bear one anothers burdens" (Gal 6:2), but that's not really happening because, hey, we don't want to get too close and be thought of as effeminate. Men showing men love and tenderness and kindness is all wrong in our society not because it is homosexual, but because they say it is.

I think it's part of a battle plan. I think it's part of the assault on men that we see in society and in churches. I don't think it's a female conspiracy; I think it's a satanic one. And we men are taking the knee to it because that's about as "tender" as we can get and not be "gay."

Marching to the Beat of a Little Drummer Boy

Trump's "insurrection" is all the news these days, but I've been surprised by the vice president. When Trump told him to go overthrow the Electoral College vote, he refused. There was nothing in the Constitution that would allow for such an action and Pence stood on his vow to defend the Constitution. When Trump urged his fans to march on the Capitol (not raid it; march on it), he included a label of "coward" for his previously reliable vice president, and the crowd chanted "Hang Pence." When it was clear that the vice president was in danger, Trump dutifully ... remained silent. With figurative knife still protruding from Mike Pence's figurative back, the president's figurative fingerprints clearly visible on it, Pence opted to ... refuse to evict the president with a 25th Amendment approach. Instead, he chose to meet with the president and have a "nice conversation." What is it that enables Pence to "remain steadfast in his devotion to Trump"?

Mike Pence defies the logic of the media, his detractors, and even most of his supporters because Mike Pence marches to the beat of a different drummer. It isn't "devotion to Trump" or even to the Constitution. Mike has a higher calling. He serves Jesus. Trump's cowardly accusation of cowardice doesn't even approach the truth. Mike walks with great courage in the service of God. That means that his yes must be yes (Matt 5:37) and the Constitution must be defended because he said he would. That means that he must "honor the emperor" (1 Peter 2:17) even if the "emperor" is a jerk and only the president because that's what Mike is commanded to do.

Mike Pence has gotten lots of bad press of late, both from the media (no surprise there) and from the right. Genesius Times skewered him with the headline "Mike Pence only gets 1 piece of silver for his betrayal" and slandered him "for his betrayal of President Donald Trump and the US Constitution," neither of which occurred. Mike has stood for Christ. Like the little drummer boy of song, Pence has offered what he has to His Savior, and he's done it with respect, gentleness, and courage. And the world around him doesn't know what to do with that.

Sanctity of Life Sunday 2021

This is the Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. It's the day that many rise up to recognize that human life is special, is set apart, and in that sense, is sanctified. The primary focus on this, the third Sunday in January, isn't solely, but it is largely abortion. In the majority of places in the world, it is perfectly legal to murder unborn children at will. It is only in roughly a dozen country that children have legal protection from being murdered in the womb.

Why is this so? Why is this such an issue? Why are women campaigning in the streets to be allowed to freely kill their babies? Why does our current society ask first, "Are you going to keep it?" Why do "pro-choice" folks seem to leave women with only one choice -- abort or expect a miserable life? How can we make sense of this?

Studies indicate that more than 99% of all abortions are performed for social or economic reasons. In the less than 1% category are things like saving the life or health of the mother, rape or incest, fetal birth defects, or a combination thereof. Almost without exception, then, the reason women need the right to murder their babies in the womb are things like, "I can't afford it right now," "I'm not ready to be a mother," "I don't want another child," "A baby would interfere with my career/education," and "Someone (parents, husband, boyfriend) told me to." That is, they refer to it as "reproductive freedom" because it is their last line of "contraception" and not "to save lives."

"Well," they tell us, "what do you expect? Those 'abstinence-only' programs aren't working." They're right; those programs statistically don't work. Whether it is due to pressure or due to desire, women are still having sex even when they "can't afford" it or "don't want a child" or "it would interfere with my life." Bottom line, then, the reason women need the right to kill babies on demand is to allow them to have unrestricted sex on demand without being ... inconvenienced.

So, in the U.S. in 2020 while COVID killed a reported 350,000 people, more than 800,000 babies died in the U.S. (42 million worldwide) so women could have sex on demand. Around the world, the numbers just skyrocket. While a reported 1.8 million people have died of COVID in 2020, an estimated 42.5 million babies died for mom's sexual freedom. Mind you, that's the estimated number; no one knows how many "morning after" babies or fertilized embryos were dislodged by "contraceptives." (I put that in quotes because many modern "contraceptives" don't counter conception; they counter gestation.) You can imagine that the numbers are staggering. According to WHO, approximately 125,000 babies are killed every day around the world by abortion. Mostly for the freedom to sleep with whomever whenever.

If this was about race or gender, the world would be up in arms. There would be rioting in the streets. If the world was legally murdering millions every year because they're a minority or a particular gender, there might be armed revolt. But they're unborn babies. (I'm using that term, but it's their term as well, except for when it doesn't suit their narrative.) But, as it turns out, it is much more about minorities and gender than most realize. Statistically, 55% of all abortions are for black and Hispanic women. Doing the math, of those more than 800,000 babies killed this year in America, some 440,000 of those babies were minorities. (Note: Statistically, black and Hispanic women make up about 29% of the U.S. population.) Gender-based abortions are not uncommon in China and India, but it's perfectly legal in the U.S. as well. And this is disturbing because around the world where it is legal and/or practiced, the preference is for males over females. When gender-based abortions occur, the vast majority are girls being executed in the womb. Wait ... is that crickets I hear? Yes, no one cares because the right to have unrestricted sex is god in our world, even if it means killing minorities and girls at disproportionate rates.

People try to paint Christians as "right-wing" by which they mean "whackos." We're "radical." Bible-believing Christians who see human life as intrinsically valuable simply because humans are made in the image of God are "outlandish" and "narrow-minded." So because I oppose killing babies I'm the fanatic. An estimated 1.6 billion babies have been killed since 1980 and I'm the crazy one. An estimated 18 million black babies have been killed in the U.S. since 1973 and I'm the bigot. Well, okay, I'll wear that tag if I must. I'm crazy about human life and bigoted against killing babies, minority or female or otherwise. I expect it won't be too hard to see that when "Because I want to have sex" is the rule over the value of human life, it's not difficult to anticipate that "Killing people so I can have the sex I want" wouldn't be far away. In the meantime, it's only the "fanatics" that stand for the most vulnerable humans against the "liberal" folks who don't much care if you kill those but complain if you don't do what they want for their favorite "marginalized" people. ("No, not those billions of kids. Get real.") In the meantime, it is this particularly small faction of fanatics that know Christ that actually have the answer to "because I want to have sex." Perhaps we ought to be sharing that good news with more people around us? Political action is fine; changed hearts is better.

News Weakly - 1/16/21

True Colors
I have long complained about the double standard approach of the Left. Inclusivity by exclusivity, tolerance by intolerance, stop the hate by hating, and on and on. So it's sad to see it this clearly on the Right. The FBI is warning of armed invasions in every capitol in the country if Trump is removed by the 25th Amendment or impeachment. Because, as we know, the best defense of democracy is to override all its rules and use force to set up your own government -- democracy by force. And any sense of Trump's "WE are the Party of Law & Order" is right out the window. Just shows that the Left is not the only lunatic in the asylum. Sadly, it appears as if there is no party of law and order in America today.

Hate Crime
The president has been impeached ... again. According to the articles, they impeached Trump for "making repeated false claims about widespread fraud in the US election, inciting his supporters to interrupt a vote on President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory in Congress last week, and pressuring Georgia’s secretary of state to overturn Biden’s win in the Peach State." I will point out again that Trump called for peaceful protest. I will also point to the transcript of the Georgia call in which Trump asked the secretary of state to look at the ballots and not overturn the vote or manufacture votes. He believed there was fraud -- people voting in place of other people -- and he wanted the fraud investigated. It is only a seething hatred of Trump that allows these allegations to go unquestioned and, baby, America has it. A loss of the collective mind to the hate. I hold high hopes for the future of America. (That last was sarcasm if you missed it.)

Oh, the tragedy of it all!
Some horrendous criminal "harmed" a manatee in Florida by writing "Trump" on it. The story says, "'It's heartbreaking that this manatee was subjected to this vile, criminal act,' said Jaclyn Lopez, the Florida director at the center in a statement. 'It's clear that whoever harmed this defenseless, gentle giant is capable of doing grave violence and needs to be apprehended immediately.'" Of course, the very next paragraph points out, "The manatee does not appear to be seriously injured, officials said. It appears that the word was written in algae that had grown on the animal's back, not scratched into its skin." So wiping off some algae is "vile", "harmful," and an indicator of "grave violence." Arrest the buffoon, by all means, but let's avoid incendiary rhetoric, okay?

Controversial
Of all the "controversial" things Kamala Harris might be accused of, this seems absolutely ludicrous. She is pictured on the cover of Vogue for February "in a more casual black Donald Deal jacket, wearing matching Converse Chuck Taylors, pearls around her neck, and standing against a pink and green backdrop." I know! How could she?? Wait ... what? Apparently the lighting was less than blackening. The image "was deliberately washed out to lighten her skin." "Disrespectful," is the accusation, although what or who, exactly, is being disrespected I'm not clear. We are a lunatic society when this is the stuff that upsets us.

No News Would Be Good
A stunning no-brainer headline tells us "President Trump’s job approval rating plummets after mob attack at the Capitol." Given we are a nation that assumes guilt before innocence and try our enemies via public media -- instantaneously -- this is a silly story. Now, something like, "The nation calmly mulls the facts and waits for reason to prevail" would be news. Or even, "Science discovers unicorns." Equally fantastic.

Solutions
In case the $3 trillion instant deficit boost (on top of its existing $23.5 trillion from March, 2020) from last Spring and the additional $1 trillion boost just recently wasn't enough, President-elect Joe Biden is offering an additional $2 trillion "economic relief plan" that will include, among other things, another $1400 check in your account. Because, as everyone knows, it's the government's job to pay your bills and you couldn't have possibly lost more than, what, $3200 during this crisis, so, there ya go. (I think it's hilarious that it was Trump who asked for the additional $1400 just last month, but Biden is calling it a good idea and taking the credit.) All fixed. (Seriously, how does bankrupting the country for the longterm foreseeable future constitute "economic relief"?) (As a sidenote, do you know how the nation tolerated crises like these before big government ruled in America? It was the churches.)

I, For One, Embrace Our New Overlords
Genesius Times is reporting that Biden has finished reading the classic governing manual, 1984, and plans to put it to use during his administration. He has already tapped Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook CEO) and Jack Dorsey (Twitter CEO) to head up the Ministry of Truth Deparment. Better fasten your seatbelts. (I suppose you would have had to know about 1984 to get this.)

And From the Bee
It's obviously a flashback, but I wanted to remind Christians. The headline reads, "God Unsure How He's Going To Accomplish His Eternal Purposes If Republicans Lose Congress." Of course, they have. So ... who are you gonna rely on?

Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Out of the mayhem at the Capitol last week there were reports of people with explosives and weaponry in their cars. That's bad. But ... I'm a little confused. There were, as far as I can tell, two groups of protesters. One group was already at the Capitol ready to protest, waiting for the other, much larger group at the rally down the street. It was this rally down the street at which speakers made inflammatory statements, the worst of which seems to have been Trump's instructions to march peacefully. So this second group at the rally then marched to the Capitol and chaos ensued. So far, so good. We have our facts, such as they are.

The first question I asked myself was, "How many of the rioters came from the rally down the street?" Clearly in the assault on the Capitol building a relatively small number of people actually entered the building. Most protesters remained outside. How many of the actual offenders came from the rally and how many were already there? You see, if it was largely those who were not at the rally, then the speeches at the rally had nothing to do with this group's assault.

Then it occurred to me about those stories of people with weapons, explosives, and incendiary devices in their vehicles. If they showed up with this stuff, this clearly demonstrates that this was all premeditated. They arrived planning mayhem. So these people could not have been merely spurred by anything at a rally moments before. This was planned in advance. And then the FBI reports that they were investigating the possibility of this kind of violence three weeks before. Clearly it wasn't the speeches at that rally that spurred this on despite the certainty that everyone seems to feel that it was.

I know. Unacceptable. The use of logic and facts will not be allowed in this question. I get it. So, go on about your day. Be warm and fed. I'll just sit over here in my quiet corner and be skeptical of the narrative we're being fed.

Meme Theology

The meme has a picture of John Calvin and a "quote": "When God wants to judge a nation, He gives them wicked rulers." Okay, clever, even timely. Hits in all the right places, you know? Whether you're looking at Trump or Biden, et al. Look, no sane Christian would be able to deny that America is due. It has been said, "If God doesn't judge America, He'll owe an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah."

But, as it turns out, Calvin didn't say it. What he did say was, "[T]hey who rule unjustly and incompetently have been raised up by Him to punish the wickedness of the people." He did say, "[A] wicked king is the Lord’s wrath upon the earth." (Calvin's Institutes, Book 4, chapter 20, section 25) So, Calvin didn't say it (word for word), but he sure intended it.

Years ago we had a young Chinese university student living with us for a few months. It was a real joy. He was brought over along with 5 others to work for the company I was with and we got the privilege of putting one of them up. At work one day, a friend of mine asked my "roommate," "So, are you a Communist?" My Chinese friend was aghast. "No! Why would you think that?" "Oh," my friend backed down, "I just assumed that since your country is Communist, you would be, too." "No," he replied, "in China we don't choose our government."

It really struck home. They don't; we do. Their government does not reflect the Chinese people; ours reflects Americans. Well, we knew that, right? It's a "representative government." They represent us. As such, we could say that, generally, we get the government we deserve.

Which only goes to drive home the point. If we -- Christians -- look around, we'd have to agree that we as a nation have earned at least a good spanking from God. God judges people in the last judgment, but He judges nations temporally. To put it another way, God's promise to God's people in Israel --

[If] My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chr 7:14)

-- is a promise to God's people in Israel and not to us. Nonetheless, the principle remains. This land is not "ours," but if we believers have any sense of patriotism and compassion for our nation, it would probably behoove us to humble ourselves and pray and seek His face and turn from our wicked ways. Note: That's us, not them. That's the people of God, not the world. The fact that we're having so little effect on our nation does not speak well of us Christians in America. We don't currently appear to be very good ambassadors, do we?

In Such Times

"Your Honor, I will prove that sin rots the brain. I will submit, as my primary evidence, America."

The Left is up in arms against people who are up in arms. They're lobbing shots over the wall at the president to get him out of office because if they can just eliminate this loon and firmly ensconce themselves in power, the world will be safe once again. Sin rots the brain.

I spoke to a fellow Christian who told me with great relief that he was finally at peace amidst the political turmoil of the last 12 months. "I got a word from God that Trump will be our president for the next 4 years." Mind you, he didn't have a "how" in hand -- "It's a God thing" -- but he was supremely confident that the Constitution and the laws of the land would all be suspended for the betterment of him and America. Sin rots the brain.

According to the FBI, "Armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitols from 16 January through at least 20 January, and at the US Capitol from 17 January through 20 January." Because nothing says "rule of law" and "democracy" like nationwide armed insurrection. Sin rots the brain.

President Trump called on his vice president to overrule the Electoral College vote even though no such possibility exists in the Constitution and Pence stood instead on his vow to defend the Constitution, so Trump called him a coward (for upholding the Constitution against the president) and the crowds sought to hang him for it because they were the defenders of the Constitution (by ignoring everything in it and storming the Capitol). Sin rots the brain.

And how about that show? "We're the side of right and law and peace, so we'll invade the Capitol, assault the police (and kill one), bring guns and fire and explosives to threaten every member of Congress because, if we do this just right, they'll all say, 'Well, since you put it that way, we will indeed eliminate the Constitution and vote the way you tell us to.'" Sin rots the brain.

"America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." Welcome to the new america (lowercase because she is working hard to cease to be good). If the goal was to "make America great again," descending into armed revolt and incendiary rhetoric on both sides goes a long way toward the opposite. Demonstrating that sin rots the brain.

Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.

The Transsexual

I had a Zoom meeting at work recently. I was early and was joined by someone from the other group that I hadn't met before. She struck me as clearly coming across as female -- name, clothing, etc. -- but with a somewhat masculine face. No matter. I hadn't met her, and since the other company had two locations, I asked her which one she was at. Her response removed all doubt. I was talking to a transgender. Now, to be fair, I don't know how "deep" that went. It could have been just surface -- clothing and make up -- or it could have been down the the last surgical alteration, but there was no doubt about the intent. This person was not presenting herself in the gender to which he was born.

It was interesting to observe the "side conversation" I had with myself. (Our actual conversation was done since others joined the meeting immediately.) I have made it absolutely clear that I am opposed to transgenderism. Some call it "hate." I am unrepentantly opposed to other things, like abortion, homosexual behavior, adultery, murder, and a list of other "acceptable sins" of our day. So I imagine people hearing that I had a face-to-face encounter with such a person might either cringe or delight in what fire I might have unleashed on such a person. And you may be surprised to learn that I did no such thing.

Our culture has long contended that to oppose homosexual behavior or gender issues or abortion is "hate speech." You are "homophobic" (which means, oddly, to hate, not fear those who identify as homosexuals) or "transphobic" or "misogynistic." To name a few. They assume, "Hate the deed, hate the one doing it." And I have long contended that it just ain't necessarily so. And right there in that singular moment in a brief dialog with a transgender where I have no thinking time and only reacted on reflex, my reflex said to hate the sin but not unleash said hate on the sinner. Brief as it was, I practiced what I preach.

Think about it. I hate cancer. I hate it with a passion. I hate it in all its forms. Whether mild or fatal, I hate it. On the other hand, I have nothing but compassion for its victims. I don't hate those caught up in cancer; I hate the cancer itself. In the same way, I despise the concept, but not the one in it.

Okay, probably most of you who are still thinking it can't be done, so consider a direct biblical version. Paul said, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) Obviously I take that at face value as true. So ... what is the right response if I encounter, say, a fornicator? Scripture says, "The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil." (Prov 8:13) The psalmist says, "Hate evil, you who love the LORD." (Psa 97:10) So it would seem obvious that I would hate the evil -- in this case, the fornication. However, it does not follow that I would hate the fornicator. No, that person is in a bad place and if nothing is done, it will only get worse. Compassion would require that I engage said fornicator with the Gospel and urge them to come to Christ. I would love my neighbor as myself. I'd want to flag them down, warn them, encourage them, whatever I could to get them to shift away from the thing that would drag them to Hell. Hating them would serve no purpose. Hating the person would provide benefits to no one.

I am not saying that there are no people who hate homosexuality and, as a consequence, homosexuals. I am not claiming that no one hates transgenders. And so on. I am saying that 1) hating the sin does not require hating the person in the sin, and that 2) compassion for sinners is required if anyone is going to be benefited. You may not believe that. Maybe you're your own living example of hating the person because the person believes something you hate. I guess that's your problem, then. It's not mine.

Cool Guys

 

The meme says,

Guess that makes me cool?

(Hey, it is an explosion of color.)

(Taken last year in Sierra Vista, AZ, while hiking in the Ramsey Canyon Preserve.)

God's Bizarre Plans

Predestination can be a real problem for real believers. What is it? What does it mean? How does it work? There are lots of questions, lots of opinions, and lots of mistakes. One thing we can't do is dismiss it. It's clearly in Scripture (e.g., Eph 1:4-5; Rom 8:28-30; John 15:16; John 6:44; 2 Tim 1:9; Prov 16:4; Eph 1:11; Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28). To disregard this you will require the latest Ronco Eraseable Bible so you can erase the parts you don't like and write in what you do. It's foggy and odd and hard to fathom, but it's in there. Predestination refers not just to Election, but to all of God's plans -- things He intends to accomplish. Some of them seem ... bizarre. Is it just a matter of interpretation, just opinion, just personal ideas?

We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (Rom 8:28)

There, that's something we can know. Not question. Not come up with an opinion about. We know this. But ... what is His purpose? Great! Now we're back into questions and opinions. Sigh!

Well, not quite. You see, for this verse we get an actual answer to the question in the next.

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren. (Rom 8:29)

Okay, so His purpose is stated clearly: to conform us to the image of His Son. Still, we're not really clear on God's plans and sometimes, in all honesty, we aren't sure we concur. Take, for instance, God's plan in the Exodus.

According to Scripture, God wanted to free Israel from slavery in Egypt. But, that was not His only plan. If it was, He could have done it in a second (Exo 9:15). Kill the slavers and release the slaves. He didn't because that was not His primary plan. He knew that "the king of Egypt will not let you go unless a mighty hand compels him" (Exo 3:19), so He planned to ... compel him. But wait! Even that wasn't His primary plan. God specified to Moses, "Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you so that My wonders may be multiplied in Egypt." (Exo 11:9) What followed was ten plagues interspersed with Pharaoh's hardened heart. In the account, Scripture gives 15 references to Pharaoh's hardened heart (Exo 7:13, 14, 22; Exo 8:15, 19, 32; Exo 9:7, 12, 34, 35; Exo 10:1, 20, 27; Exo 11:10; Exo 14:8). Early on it appears to be Pharaoh doing it but as time passed the hardening is explicitly attributed to God. That isn't really a surprise since God stated at the outset, "I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." (Exo 4:21) Paul considers this good and right. He is not apologetic when he quotes Exodus (Exo 9:14).

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (Rom 9:17-18)

God claims to have hardened Pharaoh's heart and He claims to have done it so that Pharaoh would not let God's people go and He claims to have done it to multiply His wonders and that His name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. Putting it another way, Pharaoh hardened his heart for evil, but God hardened his heart for good.

Obviously this is going to cause us problems. "Hang on! Does that mean that God made Pharaoh sin? Does that mean that God caused evil? How is it fair for God to hold Pharaoh responsible for what God did?" That last one, in fact, is biblical. When Paul quotes Exodus and answers that God "hardens whom He desires," he offers that very objection.

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" (Rom 9:19)

Paul's answer to the objection is our first question for ourselves when we encounter God's "bizarre" plans.

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? (Rom 9:20-21)

Is our first response to God's "bizarre" plans "Whatever God does is good" or are we going to submit His plans to the court of public opinion and see if we concur? Do we let God be true though every man a liar (Rom 3:4), or do we put God on trial? Is He truly the Potter and we the clay, or do we demand our own values be recognized and followed?

God's plans will certainly appear bizarre to a sinful world, including sinful believers. And there are right and reasonable considerations and answers to why He does what He does, even if we don't know all of them. If we start with "Whatever God does is good," we still have room to move on to "How does this fit in with the rest of Scripture and God's character?" I'm pretty sure that this approach will also end up correcting our own thinking that we didn't even know was amiss. On the other hand, if we choose to force God into patterns and plans that we approve, we will miss out on God. Surely that's not a good thing.

News Weakly - 1/9/21

Where Governing and Logic Don't Mix
Follow the logic. "Gender-inclusive language" is language that excludes gender. And that's a good thing ... right? The House of Representatives is trying to say it is. They intend to eliminate all gendered language. Pelosi calls it "bold reforms" while House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy calls it "stupid." The House hopes to eliminate "father," "mother," "he," "she," and anything else that carries a hint of gender in it to be "more inclusive," along with the establishment of an Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Because if there's anything we know, it's that the Congress knows best about these things and if they can't monitor their own "diversity and inclusion," how can they pass laws? Apparently the government's inability to govern has been due to "he" and "she" pronouns. This is just for their use -- they're not planning to make it national law -- but I am a father, a husband, a brother, and a son -- and, most importantly, the son of my Father -- and I have no intention of giving up my identity in order to include someone else's exclusive inclusivity. On the upside, Biden was planning to mandate masks for all, but can't now because there is no gender-neutral term for "mandate."

Sense of Humor
One may be forgiven for wondering whatever happened to the concepts of "common sense" or the "sense of humor" these days. Evidence an ad in Australia for an outdoor equipment store. The story says, "In it, a man jokes that the pandemic was caused by someone eating a bat." It's humor. Indeed, it's humor aimed at the conspiracy theorists and not bats or China. But people are complaining and the Ad Standards department is assessing the complaints. The ad encourages people to stay home and explore their own backyard (like any good COVID ad would), but you cannot do that with humor anymore. Laughter, they say, is the best medicine. No longer, I guess.

Ruling against the God, Science
They're concerned about this new EPA rule. "They're limiting the use of science!" they're saying. Well, not really. The EPA has instituted a rule that limits the types of studies the agency can use when crafting policies. Excluded are studies that won't give you their data. And this is bad. Because we all know that scientists don't lie. Much. Well, they don't get caught. I don't see an issue. Share the data and get heard; hide the data and don't. Or is that too much like "science"?

The Mirror
In Venezuela things are going from bad to worse. In 2013 Nicolás Maduro was elected president. He has remained since, often by means of power or subterfuge. Venzuela's government has been flooded with accusations of violence, corruption, and scarcity of basic goods even after the National Assembly was taken by the opposition. In 2018 Maduro "won" the election again, but much of the world's governments called it fraudulent and recognized Juan Guaidó as the rightful president. Now Maduro allies have seized the National Assembly. Analysts expect a purge including Guaidó and those who oppose Maduro. "Socialist party boss Diosdado Cabello rejected criticisms that they’d been elected in a fraudulent election." Man, oh, man, all this "election fraud" and "no it's not" and taking over the National Assembly (the equivalent of our Congress) and Socialism over Democracy all sounds like something familiar. I just can't seem to place it ...

Not a First
The election is officially over. The Electoral College vote is finalized and certified and verified or whatever other terms you'd like to use. If there was voter fraud, it's moot now.

Interestingly it was the Republicans that held on to the very end, fighting the legitimacy of the Electoral College vote on the basis of voting irregularities. I say "interestingly" because the first time the system was challenged was in 1969 when two Democrats raised questions. The next time it was the Democrats again with George W. Bush's win in 2004. In that instance Senator Barbara Boxer cited "voting irregularities" without offering evidence and suggested possible illegal disqualification of provisional ballots and voting machine problems. And it has been largely been the Democrats in other races, such as Stacey Abrams's refusal to concede in 2018 for unfair election proceedings. Oddly, no one accused them of being "anti-democratic." So if Trump and company simply took a page from the Democrat playbook, it might be understandable.

Nor is it really surprising (saddening and maddening, but not surprising) that pro-Trump protesters would engage in a "mostly peaceful" protest which resulted in deaths (1 shooting and 3 medical emergencies) and arrests (mostly curfew violations), taking their cue from antifa and other liberal protesters over the last year. Violent protest seems to me to be deplorable by default, Left or Right. Of course, in these cases the Left violence is Trump's fault and Right violence is Trump's fault. Hey, wait ... oh, yeah ... double standard. "The rioting from the Left was caused by Trump ... but in a good way." The Right mimicking the Left is absolutely not laudable from my perspective, but also not surprising. (Note: The way to avoid the "double standard" charge is simple. Did you protest the violence of BLM, etc. from 2020? Did you protest the protests of 1969 or 2004, etc.? Then you can rightly protest the violence of January 6 and the protests of the Right against the election. If you did not protest the violence of 2020 or the earlier election protests, you have no standing to protest these current events.) Just a question: Is the attempt to eliminate the president two weeks before we legally eliminate this president not an attempt to circumvent democracy?

Are You Kidding?
Democrats are calling for the vice president to remove Trump and assume the presidency because of the riot in Washington D.C. Yeah, right, got it. That shouldn't take more than, say, 2 weeks to accomplish. So, by 1/21/21 Pence should have relieved Trump and taken ... oh ... wait ... that will be a bit too late, won't it? Ilhan Omar is drawing up impeachment articles. Apparently the Dems aren't aware than in less than 2 weeks they will own the U.S. government. Trump told his supporters they had been cheated. Some of them protested angrily. It's Trump's fault. Now, no one is blaming the massive riots in Portland (Democrat Land) or Minneapolis (Democrat Land) or the others on the people in charge in those places who agreed with the violent protesters that they had been cheated out of something. The timing is stupid and the double standard reeks to high heaven.

Sidenote
Normally I try to insert some humor here. Not this time. Looking over the news, I am reminded of an important thing to remember. Yes, we are living in an insane world where gender is irrational. Yes, people seem to have lost common sense. Yes, the god Science is always challenging the God YHWH even while the challengers challenge their own god. Yes, concerns about the government in the U.S. and elsewhere look bleak. Yes, we're living in a world of double standards encouraged by evil people ... on both sides. Yes, things look bad. But God works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). God always accomplishes whatever He plans to accomplish regardless of what is going on around us or what it looks like ("all things"). Just offering a bit of stability in turbulent times.

Waiting for Cooler Heads to Prevail

Well, apparently I made Dan mad by not talking about what he wanted me to talk about. He wanted me to rage about "my president" (that is, the one I didn't vote for in 2016 nor support for the last 4 years nor urge anyone to vote for this last year) and his culpability in the recent "unpleasantness." (In case you're not aware, that's called a "euphemism" and does not begin to express how bad it was.) So, because I care deeply what Dan thinks (snicker), I'm actually making a second post in one day. Fortunately for you all, it's somewhat long, so "TL/DR" might just work for you. We'll see. So, herein, just from the news and my pea brain, is my two cents on the topic. No Scripture. No claim to "God said." Just one man's opinion.

Here's what we know. On Wednesday, January 6, 2021, Congress met to count the Electoral College votes. Down the street, President Donald Trump gave a speech to supporters. Retaining his claim to voter fraud and "stolen election," he told them, "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." And they marched down the street and stormed the Capitol building. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos resigned Thursday (along with a host of others in the Trump administration) citing Trump's rhetoric that brought about "unconscionable" behavior. We all know who the problem is and we all know what we have to do about it. Except I'm not at all sure we're accurate.

UK Home Secretary Priti Patel states categorically, "His comments directly led to the violence, and so far he has failed to condemn that violence and that is completely wrong." Time has written up the story in an article entitled, "Incited by the President, Trump Supporters Violently Storm the Capitol." Clearly they believe the president incited the invasion of the Capitol building. Wikipedia's account of the event includes the BBC and Time stories as proof that "The riots were incited by comments made by Trump at an earlier rally." Yet, from the Time story we read

During the melee, Trump tweeted pleas to the crowd to "stay peaceful," adding "No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order." As the confrontations continued, the President tweeted again, posting a video of himself. "You have to go home now," he said, adding, "We don’t want anybody hurt." But he also doubled down on his claims the election was "fraudulent," and told his supporters he loved them.

and the BBC story admits

The president has now said there will be an "orderly transition" to Democrat Joe Biden.

In the "inciting" speech to his supporters Trump said,

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

There is no question that Trump's rhetoric is horrible. We can all agree on that -- well, mostly all. Not the ardent Trump supporters, I suppose. Lots of voices besides Trump had much more inciting rhetoric. Louie Gohmert told us, "You got to go to the streets and be as violent as Antifa." Ted Cruz said, "We will not go quietly into the night. We will defend liberty." Eric Trump threatened to "defeat every single Republican Senator/Congressman who doesn't stand against this fraud." Don Trump Jr warned that if they didn't do anything, "We're coming for you." Rudy Giuliani said, "Let's have trial by combat." Those are all inflammatory and openly violent, as opposed to Trump's final instructions "To peacefully, patriotically make your voides heard."

There is no defense for what happened that day. There is no excuse for the shooting of an unarmed protester or the murder of a US Capitol Police officer. There is no excuse for invading the Capitol or threatening lawmakers. Mike Pence has said, "Peaceful protest is the right of every American but this attack on our Capitol will not be tolerated and those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." No excuses. I cannot even fathom what they hoped to accomplish. On the other hand, I was long concerned about threats of civil war that I had heard from just before the November election if Trump should lose. I am not defending Trump nor the rioters. All I'm saying is that it is not as clear as you're being told that Trump caused this atrocity. I suspect the Trump Derangement Syndrome is still in full effect. There is a logical fallacy referred to as reductio ad Hitlerium or "playing the Nazi card" where you can shoot down anyone's argument simply by suggesting that they are as bad as Hitler. It looks like Trump is the new logical fallacy. "If Trump was involved, it's his fault."

One might be tempted to ask, "So what? What if it isn't exactly Trump's fault? He was still a major contributor with his rhetoric." Here I see two problems. First, if rhetoric is the crime here, what about all the rhetoric, say, of BLM? There are people demanding riots and violence, people calling on the end of capitalism, of democracy, of liberty, of white people. There are people urging violence against police and against government. Where are the criminal charges for this obviously blatant violent rhetoric? Not coming, is it? Second, and probably more important, if Trump contributed to but was not the real cause of this violent event and we string him up for it, then where's the justice? What about those who are the real causes? What about the leaders? What about those others that specifically called for violence? What about the actual sedition rather than the possibly implied sedition from Trump? If we satiate the nation's demand for blood by removing Trump (less than two weeks before we remove Trump anyway), where is the justice for the rest? For the real problem people?

In my view, we're starting to look like an angry lynch mob. We're not looking at clear thinking and the examination of facts. We're just mad. Let's pull him out of his house and hang him by the closest tree. Surely that isn't a better look for the American way, is it? Unless that's the new look we hope for from the new administration. I don't think that will bode well for a lot of people. But, again, I'm just whistling in the wind, because for Americans today all truth is by media (For instance, all accounts on the media refer to Trump's claims of election fraud as "baseless" when the truth is they are not based in anything they accept and not that they have no basis.) and whatever they say we'll believe without even noticing our disregard of our laws and our rights.