The Problem of the Deceitful Heart

God told Jeremiah,

The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer 17:9)

Starting from the basis that God's Word is true, we will have to, then, concede that the heart of natural man is deceitful. Knowing that might help. "Hey, I have a deceitful heart. I need to watch out for that." On the other hand, it should pretty easily be recognized that now we have a problem. If we admit that we have deceitful hearts, how can we know the truth? And if we figure out the truth, how do we know we're not being deceived ... by our deceitful hearts?

Scripture speaks a lot about truth. Jesus called Himself the Truth (John 14:6). The psalmist declared, "The sum of Your word is truth." (Psa 119:160) Jesus prayed, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:17) Falsehood is found in adulterating the word of truth (2 Cor 4:2), so we are to accurately handle the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). God's word is truth (2 Tim 3:16-17), so we have an external standard, outside of our own hearts, with which to determine what is true.

Well, that's certainly handy, but ... we still have a problem. While admitting up front that God's word is truth (and when they do not, you can immediately dismiss them, having only their own deceitful hearts as their standard), we are still left to our own wits, so to speak, to interpret God's word. The question, then, is not whether or not His word is reliable; the question is whether our understanding is reliable. Back to that pesky "deceitful heart" problem. Because, as we all know, it is quite common for people to cite the Bible for their truth claims in opposition to others who do the same. Who is deceived?

The problem seems sticky at the front, but I think with a little effort we can ease most of it. If the Bible is true, then it's pretty easy, in fact. First, is your understanding of the text consistent with the text? Considering the language, the content, the writing style (historical, doctrinal, hyperbole, poetry, etc.) -- considering it all, is your understanding consistent with the text? Next, is it consistent with the context? I've heard it said, "Never read just one verse." Does your understanding of a text take into account the context of that text and is your understanding consistent with that context? Third and obviously, is your understanding of the text and the context consistent with the rest of Scripture? If we assume up front that God breathed this book we call the Bible, it would have been done in truth, so nothing in it should contradict anything in it. Is your understanding consistent with that principle? In short, are you letting Scripture interpret Scripture? One more step. Jesus said, "When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth." (John 16:13) Now, we'll assume that the Holy Spirit came as Jesus promised and Scripture claims and we will assume that He has done His job. So, how does your understanding of the text, the context, and the Scriptures line up with the history of Christendom? Is your understanding novel? Does it contradict all prior understanding? Have you come up with a new and creative way to understand God's Word? Then you can be pretty sure your deceitful heart is doing its devilish work.

It is a valid concern. Unbelievers, Scripture says, are futile in their thinking (Rom 1:21; Eph 4:17). Believers are renewing their minds (Rom 12:2). As we grow, we are constantly washing out the old and replacing it with ... truth. If your understanding of Scripture is 1) in opposition to the text, the context, or the rest of Scripture and/or 2) in opposition to previous understanding, it's likely you've slipped a cog -- your deceitful heart has tricked you. John wrote that deceitful spirits have come out (1 John 4:1). "They are from the world," he wrote, "therefore they speak as from the world and the world listens to them." (1 John 4:5) If the world is consistently happy with your understanding of Scripture, chances are it's not the proper understanding of Scripture. Despite the concerns of the deceitful heart, we can eliminate most of those concerns if we allow Scripture to speak for itself, contradicting our world's views while consistently holding to God's truth. The tricky and innovative ways some are using to interpret Scripture in the face of Scripture and history don't bode well for them.

Evidence that Demands a Verdict

Faith, according to Scripture, produces obedience. Now, we know it's not the other way around. We're not saved by obedience. We're saved by faith. But this faith has an unavoidable result. If it does not, it is what James terms "dead faith" (James 2:17). So Paul talks about "the obedience of faith" -- the obedience that faith produces -- as fundamental to the gospel (Rom 1:5), John says that the one who is born of God does not make a practice of sin because he cannot (1 John 3:9), and Jesus says, "You will know them by their fruits." (Matt 7:16)

This is why John wrote his first epistle. He repeatedly points to "what you do" as evidence for who you are (1 John 1:6-7; 1:8-10; 2:9-11; 2:15; 2:23; 2:29; 3:4; 3:7-10; 3:14; 3:18-19; 3:24; 4:6; 4:7-8; 4:20-21; 5:1-3). Jesus said that the problem of sin was the heart (Matt 15:18-19), but regeneration brings a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek 36:26). Changed hearts make changed lives necessarily.

All this to say that "because I said so" is not a biblical reason to believe that anyone is a believer. We generally believe that we should never question the salvation of someone who claims to be a Christian -- and there is a wide range of people who make the claim. This simply isn't biblical. And, worse, it could be eternally fatal. Jesus warned about those who were completely convinced they had a relationship with God only to discover He never knew them (Matt 7:21-23). If we are to love (which, by the way, is the primary evidence of being a believer (John 13:35; 1 John 5:1-3)) we need to pursue the best for others, and ignoring the biblical evidence that someone who says they're saved with no such evidence can leave them on a path to hell -- surely not the best for them. If God's heart is that everyone should be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4), shouldn't we share the same desire? If so, applying biblical standards of evidence in the hope of bringing people to Christ is an act of love, not judgment.

More Pressing than our Common Salvation

Jude called himself "a servant of Christ" (Jude 1:1) even though he was actually one of Jesus's physical brothers. They shared the same mother. That's impressive. Jude wrote his letter "to those who are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ." (Jude 1:1) And what did Jesus's brother write to say?

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3)

Jude "was very eager" to write about his older brother who was his Savior as well as the Savior of all those who are called, beloved in God, and kept for Christ. It was exciting. It was a great topic. Let's dig in!! But, no. There is something else. There is something more pressing. There is a more immediate issue that needs to be addressed first. What? "Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3)

Jude's day was apparently facing a truth crisis. Jude's fellow believers were facing truth decay. When he writes that "certain people have crept in," he's referring to "crept into our churches." Some people were creeping in among God's children and perverting God's grace into sensuality and denying "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." (Jude 1:4) "Alert!" Jude cries. "I was eager to write about our common salvation, but this is a real problem!!"

These people, "relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones." (Jude 1:8) (Compare with 2 Peter 2:10.) They overthrow the authority of the Word and the authority of the church and the authority of God and speak evil of the respected saints and angels in favor of sensuality. "We know better," they boldly declare. "If it feels good, do it. We are ignoring the Bible and changing the church and throwing out old beliefs. We know better. We are on the right side of history."

Jude's time wasn't much different than ours, was it? In our very midst are those who call themselves believers while they turn God's grace into sensuality, reject the authority of God and His Word, and lean instead on their own dreams and ideas. Jude reminded his readers that the apostles had predicted, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions." (Jude 1:18) And it is so. We are to contend for the faith given once for all (as opposed to "being unveiled throughout time"). We are to build ourselves in the faith and pray and remain in the love of God (Jude 1:20-21). We have a job to do and can rest in the confidence that He "is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy." (Jude 1:24) So we stand ... in a world populated by unbelievers in and out of our churches hoping to persuade us of something else.

Fitted Together

In Ephesians Paul talks about how Christ has changed the existence of Gentiles. Originally they were "having no hope and without God" (Eph 2:12). "But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." (Eph 2:13) It is Paul's "gospel," His mission, His good news. According to Paul,

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. (Eph 2:19-22)

What is this "building"? It is "a holy temple." It is the Church. The foundation is "the apostles and the prophets." For us today that translates into the Word of God provided by God through those apostles and prophets. The cornerstone -- that which guides the entire building project -- is Christ Himself, against which all structures in the building are compared. And the building material? It's you and it's me. It is "living stones" (1 Peter 2:5). Not bricks, but oddly shaped and variably rough or smooth rocks "being fitted together." The language speaks of being closely jointed together. Very literally, it takes all kinds. This one fits just perfectly here while that one cannot go anywhere else but there. It fills that spot perfectly. No, the rock is not perfect, but as it is, it is perfectly suited to its purpose in this building.

We tend to think of church as that building on the corner because that's what the rest of the world thinks, but we're smarter than that. We know it's much more than that. It's all believers. I think, still, that we don't consider it far enough. The building that is being constructed to "house God," so to speak -- this God-designed temple -- is absolutely organic. It has nuances and variations. It has rough spots and smooth spots. It is closely jointed together, built of living stones, each with their purpose and role.

It's really breathtaking when you view it in that light. And, in that light, it's really sad when some of those living stones opt out. "Nope, I don't want to be a part of that." "I can't find a good church," they tell me, failing to grasp that the church is much more organic than that and their part in it is much more important than "Am I comfortable here?" A living stone in this building is of no use -- to the building or to the other stones -- if it is not closely fitted with other stones in this building. Opting out seems like a bad idea. (Yes, "bad idea" is a euphemism.)

News Weakly - 3/27/21

Media Oddity
This is strange. On the same day that CNN (and others) reported that there are "more than 5,000 unaccompanied minors in U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBD) custody, CBS and others report that there are 15,000 in custody. Now, admittedly, 15,000 is more than 5,000, so technically "more than 5,000" would be accurate, but surely that is a misleading story. Worse, "Biden officials are blaming the former Trump administration for the border crisis." I don't even ... how does this make sense? Thank you, President Biden. This situation is so much better than when the evil Orange Man was in charge. (Oh, sorry, I forgot the word "not" in that last sentence.)

Seems Fair
As expected, Evanston, Illinois, is the first U.S. city to offer reparations to black residents. So who is paying for the reparations? They're doing it from tax money gathered on a 3% tax on the sale of recreational marijuana. In other words, the users of recreational marijuana are paying reparations to black people in Evanston. If some of those users are black, they're paying for their own reparations. If others don't use marijuana but are guilty of the actions and attitudes for which the reparations are being paid, they're not helping pay for it. Seems fair to me. Or not.

You Keep Using That Word
The Atlanta shooter purchased his weapon of choice on the day he did the shooting, a 9mm handgun. The Boulder shooter bought a Ruger AR-556 rifle a week before the murders. This one is an "AR-15 type" rifle. Neither are automatic. So to fix this serious problem (and I'm not suggesting it is not a serious problem), President Biden is calling on Congress to ban assault weapons. If these shootings exemplify "assault weapons," I think you can begin to see that a ban on "assault weapons" would essentially include all guns. And, like "women's reproductive rights" means "killing babies in the womb," "banning assault weapons" takes on a whole different meaning, but sounds much better than it is.

Racist Anti-Racism
Oakland is planning to launch a "guaranteed pay plan" for low-income families of color. That's because if there are low-income white families, they just don't much care. It isn't a matter of "low income;" it's a matter of color. Of course, all of that is beside the point. Their "guaranteed pay plan" is for $500/month, which might give low-income families some assistance but won't make them less low-income, pay the rent, or anything truly useful. Mind you, I'm not opposed to giving aid like this to people who need it (although I wish we didn't have to be racist about it -- denying it to some people who do need it simply because they're white) and I'm really not opposed to it because it is privately funded. That makes it all right. Private people can fund what they want and I'm fine with that. I'm just pointing out that in our efforts to be helpful and anti-racist we're not being helpful and we're being racist.

Fault-Finding
There is an increasing number of voices -- within and without of the church -- who have discovered the real cause of the shooting in Atlanta. Yes, there is racism. Yes, there is mysogyny. Sure, sure, but the real problem is Christian ideology. They are citing radical beliefs like the call for sexual purity outside of marriage, the belief in the "saved" and the "unsaved," the concept of "good" and "evil," the promised return of Christ, and other "radical" Christian teachings that "radicalized" that good church kid into being a racist, woman-hating killer. Yes, the problem is the white race and the problem is males and the problem is capitalism and the problem is American Imperialism, but deep down at its core, the real problem -- at the core of all of these problems -- is anything approaching biblical Christianity. In short, the problem is those Christians who take Christ at His word -- His "incendiary rhetoric." (That was actually in the story.) They're already working on taking your 2nd Amendment rights. If it is biblical Christianity that is at fault, how long before they come for your 1st Amendment rights?

First They Came for the Basketball Team
Oral Roberts University just beat out #2 and #7 seated teams to get to the Sweet Sixteen round, and not everyone is happy about that. It's a Cinderella story that demands to be burned to the ground. "It is the school's discriminatory and hateful anti-LGBTQ+ policy that fans should protest." Like prohibiting sexual behaviors that are expressly prohibited in Scripture. Like holding to a biblical view of marriage. What they term "toxic notions of fundamentalism that fetishize chastity, abstinence and absurd hemlines." Oh, no, if they or anyone else opts for a biblical view on the current tide of "if it feels good do it," then beware. Hemal Jhaveri wants them out of the NCAA. Who knows what she wants for the rest of you who believe this "dangerous and hateful ideology," and we all know what today's cancel culture will do. (Note: It will likely be dangerous and hateful.)

Bee Good
You may have seen that Virginia abolished the death penalty. Now, it seems, the only crime for which you can be legally executed in Virginia is being an unwanted baby in the womb And the Bee points out that with so many 'Black Lives Matter', 'Asian Lives Matter', And 'Hispanic Lives Matter' Yard Signs in your neighbors' yards, it seems like they're getting dangerously close to "all lives matter" ... which, as we all know, is racist.

And I had to laugh at the all-too-true headline from the Genesius Times that read, "Dems shocked to find their lives still suck after Trump is no longer president."

Trust Science

When Biden took office, he promised to trust science. Now, of course, he doesn't actually mean that. What he means is that he will trust science when he concurs and ignore it when he doesn't. He'll trust the science that says we're in a global climate crisis and ignore the science that says fetuses are people, too. He'll trust the science that says that you can have a different gender than your biological one (what science?) and ignore the science that says you can't. To be fair, this isn't about Biden. We all do this. We give a nod to -- even pick up to throw in your face -- the science with which we agree and pooh-pooh the stuff we don't.

This isn't as outlandish as one might think. Consider, first, the definition of science. Science is an accepted way to explain nature. It is by definition a process of experimentation. People tout science as superior to faith because science claims to be fallible, always correcting itself. Take up this theory; reject that one. So a discipline that claims to operate solely on facts and admits to being quite possibly wrong seems like a good thing. Except that being quite possibly wrong by its own admission suggests that there is room to accept some and discard others.

Science has limitations. Science is limited to the physical world. If there is a spiritual world (and there is evidence that there is), science has nothing to say about it. Science can tell you the lifecycle of, say, an orca without commenting on the morality of its lifestyle -- hunting and killing for pleasure. Science has a really tough time proving a negative since the only way to do so is to eliminate all other possibilities. And in the case of a spiritual world, that leaves some big possibilities, doesn't it? Science can only describe what it sees; it can't tell the ramifications. Like, "This vaccine should prevent you from getting that disease" without actually knowing what else that vaccine will do.

Science has one other quite serious limitation. It is operated by human beings. So in our efforts to discover, to examine, to analyze, to come to conclusions, there can be and generally are competing agendas. It is quite common, for instance, for researchers to be somewhat less than entirely honest when they publish. They word their papers to bias the results, hide some data that might bring them into question, and even falsify other data to prove their point. Science tries to minimize this, but it's still run by humans and, therefore, subject to human failings.

So, let's take an example. Everyone knows that "the science says" that we are experiencing global climate change. All need to bow to the master. The first guy that loudly sounded the alarm was Al Gore who traveled the country (in private jets) and visited places (in SUVs) to warn everyone to repent or burn (almost literally) because of global warming. Given the truth about his own travel methods and living arrangements during his campaign to save the world suggest that he didn't "believe the science" he was touting.

Science has value, to be sure, but science is a poor deity. We're supposed to trust the science that proclaims and demonstrates that it changes continually and submit to the studies that vary and even self-consiously lie and do it all without question. "Trust science" is the demand ... from many who aren't doing so themselves. I work in a scientific field and find worth in science, but I think it's idiocy to trust science alone. In fact, that version of "trust science" appears to be more of a faith -- a credulity, a blind trust -- than a rational "trusting science" with eyes open for errors, limitations, and deviations.

Like a Good Neighbor

I give you that title line and I bet you can sing the rest of it. "Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there." That's advertising for you. Scripture talks about neighbors, too. There is the obvious one: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt 22:39) And, of course, Jesus had an expansive definition of "neighbor." In His "Good Samaritan" parable He asked, "Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" (Luke 10:36) The answer was so obvious that even the unbelievers got it. The neighbor, then, biblically, is whomever you come in contact with. Taking that "love your neighbor" thing, then, in terms of "whomever you come in contact with," there is certainly more on our neighbors in the Bible.

A major section is in Proverbs. Solomon writes about how we should act toward neighbors. "Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it. Do not say to your neighbor, 'Go, and come again, tomorrow I will give it' when you have it with you." (Prov 3:27-28) While this is couched in the negative -- "Do not" -- it is cast into the positive. Don't withhold ... give. Don't delay ... give now. Like "Do unto others ..." (Luke 6:31). It's about what we're supposed to do more than about what we're not supposed to do. Solomon, then, urges us to do good to those when it is in our power to do so and to give aid without delay. Like a good neighbor.

It seems like this isn't as common as you might think. If it was, wouldn't there be fewer poor, sick, and lonely? If we were natural good neighbors, wouldn't the needy be having their needs met? State Farm advertises that, "Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there." That is, "When you need us, we're there." Yet, how much of that is true of our neighbors? Should we be saying, instead, "Like State Farm, good neighbors are there"? More importantly, how about you? How about me? Pointing out bad neighbors is low hanging fruit. Am I a good neighbor? Do I do good to those to whom I can and without delay? Am I like State Farm? Or, rather, am I the neighbor God wants me to be?

Deception

In Paul's second epistle to Timothy he describes "the last days" in terms of their "difficult times." (2 Tim 3:1-9) Describing what people will become, Paul offers an alternative to Timothy. Beginning with "Now you followed my teaching ..." (2 Tim 3:10), Paul tells him what to expect -- persecution (2 Tim 3:10-12) and how to avoid the lies (2 Tim 3:16-17). Because the real problem, Paul says, is that "evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived." (2 Tim 3:13) Deception is the problem -- deception being perpetrated and deception being self-administered. Like God's description of the human heart. It is deceitful and sick and we can't even grasp how bad it is (Jer 17:9).

God's description of the human heart concurs with Paul's warning about the last times where deceit, both given and received, reigns. Jesus calls Satan "a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44) It is his nature, and he imparts that to sinful humans. Even we who are reborn suffer from the residuals.

So what are we to do? If we can't trust "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) and we can't trust our own hearts, where is our remedy? The followers of the god of this world would argue that it's in better thinking. Clearly a case of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. "You can't trust your thinking, so you need to think better." Of course, the argument isn't presented as contradictory and nonsensical as that. They simply deny that they can't trust their thinking ... which you would expect from someone who is self-deceived. John said, "If we say we do not err, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8) So if not DIY repair (an obvious foolishness), what?

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Out of hand, Natural Man will reject this (1 Cor 2:14). At first glance, it will be denied. "It's written by humans" (which is the remedy they are applying for themselves). "It's full of errors" (without regard to their own hearts full of errors). But even the God's people question it, not realizing what they are questioning. If the source of Scripture is the Divine Being (that we claim to embrace) and God is who He says He is (which we claim to embrace), then this book cannot be mistaken and this book is Truth with a capital "T". Ultimately, if Christ is the Truth (John 14:6), this book is our clearest way to Him. It is a standard against which we can measure our hearts, deceived as they are, and see where we are wrong. It is a sure thing, a reliable measurement, a means of modifying the deceived heart to more closely align with the Truth.

We have been given such a gift in the Scriptures. God breathed them (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). God superintended them. God maintained them. God said what we needed to know. God illuminates them for us (1 Cor 2:11-12). We have standards in our world -- time standards and measurement standards and standards of practice for various things. If ever there was a truth standard against which we can measure our own thoughts and the ideas of others, this is it. Or we can assume that our deceived and deceitful hearts can be the best standard of truth, snuff out the candle, and curse the darkness.

It's Not About You

How many times have I said that? "It's not about you." Probably more to myself than to anyone else. But I've shared that tidbit with friends as well. We know in our rational minds that it's not about "me." I am not the center of the universe. I am not God. Everything does not revolve around me, my desires, my preferences, my comfort, my wishes. We get that. But ... we don't. There are theists who are practical atheists. They gladly profess their belief in God and then live as if He doesn't exist. Most of us are practical "meists." We admit that it's not just about us, but we still live and think like it is.

It is insidious. It sneaks in everywhere. The parent who loves his children and punishes them for failing to show him proper respect, not because learning to show proper respect is important to their well-being, but because "I will be respected!" The wife who is kind and considerate to her husband, not to be kind and considerate to her husband, but in order to get him to be kind and considerate to her. Our entire free-world economy is built on the "me" mentality. Capitalism has market forces that regulate our economy on the basis of "what will work best for me." At a company I worked for we were required to attend a leadership seminar. In the seminar, the teacher did an exercise in which we all ran our own little companies. He demonstrated that if we surrendered some control and worked together, we could all get richer, but when the exercise was run, they wouldn't because "it's all about me," not us.

While it is manifestly obvious that we as individuals are not the center of the universe, suggesting specifics on this basis is generally met with disbelief, even outrage, even from Christians. Our values, our perceptions of our own importance, our wishes, our needs are all built on this anthropocentric (man-centered) theory. I deserve love, power, wealth, health, attention, significance ... the list goes on. The ridiculous principles of "humble yourself like Christ" (Php 2:3-8), of selfless love, of dying to self, and other biblical concepts are so foreign as to be offensive. That voice in the back of our heads -- "I will be like the Most High" -- is much more familiar.

So I suppose this won't come across well. I doubt this will be warmly received. "It's not about you" is true -- it is, in fact, all about God -- but we -- humans in general and even Christians in particular -- will struggle against it to varying degrees in this life. How much you struggle against it is determined by how central God is to your life. Because, after all, you can't serve two masters ...

Jesus the Racist

Recently, in one fell swoop, an openly homosexual man who has a degree in theology from Moody Bible Institute terminated Christianity as a possible true religion. How? No, not by being a "gay pastor." He accused Jesus of being a racist and then repenting of it later. If Christianity is based on "the perfect Lamb of God" who alone can take away the sins of the world and Jesus was not that man, we're done. We can all pack up and go back to ... well, hell in the end, I suppose.

The "pastor" was referencing the account in Mark when a Syrophenician woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter from a demon (Mark 7:25-30). You remember that somewhat stunning exchange. Jesus told her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Mark 7:27) Wait ... what? Jesus called her a dog? So he was racist and sexist?? (By the way, is "Syrophenician" a race? I don't think so.) Real problems. But is that really what happened?

Jesus offered a metaphor. Jews were not "children" and no one complained that He used that term in His metaphor. By the same token, then, there is no reason to believe that the metaphorical use of the term, "dog," required that He was referring to her as a dog. The function of a metaphor is to compare one thing to explain another. Jews are not children, so the woman is not a dog. Jesus was aiming for a comparison. This woman was to the Jews as a dog is to children. Interestingly, Jesus did not use the word for "dog" here. He used the word for "puppy." The imagery is not that of a wild cur (e.g., Matt 7:6; Php 3:2), but a favorite pet. It was not intended to equate the woman with "puppy;" it was intended to show the priority between the Jews first and then the Gentiles. That is, pet dogs were treasured and fed, just not before the children. Jesus, in fact, would have had a much harsher perspective on Gentiles than "puppies." Paul says that before Christ died and resurrected Gentiles were "separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." (Eph 2:12) "Favorite pet" doesn't seem harsh enough for that reality. No, Jesus didn't call the woman a dog; He called attention to the priority of ministering to the Jews -- doing as His Father commanded (John 15:10).

Now, maybe you think I'm just making that up. Maybe you think I'm just making excuses. Maybe you think the "pastor" did manage to skewer Christ as a racist (and a sexist, I suppose) and was tainted by the sin of the human race as the Huffington Post assures us. I disagree. Notice, first, that the woman didn't disagree with Him. The woman didn't take offense. She concurred. "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." (Mark 7:28) That is, "Yes, I see your analogy and I understand that You are sent first to the Jews. Can you please just throw me a bone?" Second, many conclude that her response changed Jesus's heart. He "repented." "For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter." (Mark 7:29) Assuming this to be "repentance" assumes the intial sin of racism (and sexism). If no such sin occurred (Heb 4:15), then no repentance was needed nor did it occur. Instead, as in the case of the centurion (Matt 8:5-13), Jesus simply responded to the faith that was demonstrated (Matt 15:28). She "passed the test," so to speak. "Right answer," Jesus seems to say.

Most people have no interest in maintaining the integrity of Christianity in general or the Bible in particular. That's because most people hate the light (John 3:19). That a man who identifies with the category of people that Scripture says have no part in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10) would accuse Jesus of sin, then, would not be an issue. "Jesus was wrong? No problem. We all make mistakes. Even he had to repent of a sin or two." The Bible doesn't subscribe to this notion. The concept of a sinful savior is contradictory to God's justice. And this serves as a great lesson for us all that if we discover something in Scripture that contradicts the basic truths of Scripture, the need is not to jettison the Bible; the need is to realign our thinking.

Knock, Knock

We recently watched a movie, freely available on YouTube, titled The Perfect Stranger, the story of Nikki, a troubled attorney, who gets a dinner invitation from someone calling Himself "Jesus Christ." The movie takes place primarily in the restaurant where they meet and talk. Interesting movie, mostly. In the end he told her they would do it again sometime and she finds a note from Jesus that quotes Revelation.

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with Me. (Rev 3:20)

Cute, coming from "We'll do this dinner thing again sometime." And we're familiar with the quote. How many times has that been offered as an invitation at an altar call or a revival meeting? How many times have we given that quote to encourage unbelievers to come to Christ? We even have a famous painting of the event. It goes right along with the whole "God is a gentleman" routine. There's only one real problem: It's not in there.

The text in question is found in a letter from Jesus to the angel of the church in Laodicea (Rev 3:14-22). The letter to this church is one of seven to various churches. Most of the letters include both commendations and condemnations. "You're doing this well, but you have that to work on." Not this one. Laodicea has nothing to commend them and Jesus's recommendation to them is "be zealous and repent" (Rev 3:19) or there will be dire consequences. So when He says, "I stand at the door and knock," He is speaking, figuratively, of standing at the door of the church at Laodicea and knocking. "Is there anyone in this church who hears My voice?" It is not a call to believe. It is reminiscent of Jesus's words in John's gospel, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." (John 10:27) (See also John 10:3-4, 16.)

The church in Laodicea that Christ addressed was "wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked." It's not that there were no believers present. It's that they were lukewarm (Rev 3:16) and wrapped up in self-confidence (Rev 3:17) rather than trusting Christ (Rev 3:18). The "I stand at the door and knock" speech wasn't a warm and friendly invitation for the unsaved. It was an ominous call to repentance and return for wayward believers. It did indeed offer hope (Rev 3:20-21), but to suggest this is an "altar call" and the meek and mild Christ is being a gentleman misses the point entirely. The message is clear. Jesus is saying, "Open the door, church, because right now I'm outside and that doesn't bode well for you." We should probably check ourselves and see if we're listening, too.

News Weakly - 3/20/21

It's Official?
The current pope has made some statements that have led people to think that he was in the process of changing the Catholic church, so it is with sadness that they read that the Vatican says it will not bless same-sex unions. Worse, they called homosexual unions a "sin" and a "choice." (The story said that the Vatican called homosexuality a sin and a choice. The Vatican actually called the behaviors a sin and a choice.) There was an interesting line in the CNN story. "The decision is a setback for Catholics who had hoped the institution would modernize its approach to homosexuality." Because, apparently, the truth in general and God's truth in particular are variables that we can "modernize" if we wish to. (Jer 17:9) And, as the Babylon Bee reports, God is still stubbornly refusing to change with the times.

Truth Crisis
Facebook is promising to "counteract the spread of false information about vaccines" by labeling posts that discourage people from getting vaccinated for Covid-19 as "false information." Now, that's all well and good, but it seems to me that in a society of "deepfakes" and heavily biased media dictated by heavily biased Twitter users, it could easily be asked, "Who gets to determine what is false and what is true information?" I'm just baffled by the folks that are shocked that anyone would question the government, the media, or science. Are we not the Pontius Pilate society (John 18:38)? "What is truth?"

Changing the Rules
A filibuster is a procedure used to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote in the Senate. Rules for this have changed over the years. In the classic movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Jimmy Stewart plays a freshman senator that goes on a marathon filibuster to prevent a project from going forward long enough to get the votes back that would halt it permanently. Currently the filibuster has been used by the minority party to stave off being steamrolled by the majority. Now that the Democrats are an overwhelming majority in the House and a 50-50 proposition in the Senate (where the Democratic VP breaks the tie), Joe Biden thinks it's time to change those rules. "I can't get my way if that's in place. A reform (that gives the Democrats all the power) is in order." You know, in the name of diversity, inclusion, and unity. I don't see why this would be a surprise.

Oh, Yeah, Much Better
Trump was castigated for his border rules, so Biden tossed them out. Now more than 13,000 unaccompanied minors are in custody, eclipsing the evil Trump's numbers. Data indicates a direct connection between the overwhelming number of children in custody and Biden's reversal of Trump's policies. Much better.

And this related odd story is out. Apparently a caravan of migrants disappeared overnight at the Mexican/American border leaving only a giant wooden horse. Go figure.

Trump Hate Lives
"Silly you," you say, "Trump hate isn't a thing. It's over now that he's gone." Really? How about this military veteran that decided to lob a smoke bomb onto Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort because the guy hadn't received his stimulus check yet? Umm, excuse me ... you know Trump isn't sending checks anymore, don't you? You know he's not in power anymore, don't you? No, I guess not. Trump claimed to have actually won the election and I guess this is just one Trump hater who believed him.

Just What We Need
Now, I'll be honest. I haven't been a big fan of comic books. Still, I can't recall a single built-for-teens comic book that told me about the sex life of, say, Superman or Batman. Were they heterosexual? I don't know. I guess they probably were. No one cared; it wasn't the point. Well, now it is. Marvel Comics wants to jam a brand new gay Captain America down your kids' throats. You will consume it and you will like it because "gay" is what they want you to embrace. Just what we need.

The Unforgiveable Sin
Alexi McCammond was born in 1994. In 2021 she was named Teen Vogue editor. In 2016 she covered the presidential debates. She started college in 2011. At the age of 17 she tweeted some stupid things. Now she's out of a job. Apologies are irrelevant. That she might have matured since high school is pointless. There is no room for forgiveness in our cultural climate. It's okay, Alexi. There is still forgiveness in Christ. (I'm just wondering who spends their days hunting down ancient tweets in an effort to harpoon anyone possibly succeeding.)

Reverse Psychology
In an act of pure evil, former President Trump urged people to be vaccinated against COVID, saying it was "a great vaccine" and "a safe vaccine" and "something that works." As a result of the standard Trump-hate backlash, Fauci declared the vaccines unsafe, Democrats urged people to stay away, and vaccinations have come to an end.

Look Where You're Going

Yesterday we looked at Hebrews 12:1 from the perspective of the "cloud of witnesses" who did what the writer of Hebrews was telling us to do by faith. Let's look at the rest of the thought.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, Who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider Him who endured from sinners such hostility against Himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. (Heb 12:1-3)

So, the thought is there. We're running a race. What race? It's a spiritual race for which we have a starting point -- coming to Christ -- and an ending point -- being with Christ for eternity. Unfortunately we don't know if it's a 5k or a marathon or the Self-Transcendence 3100 mile race. So we just run. The author urges us to take into account those who had already done it -- the "cloud of witnesses." They gave up a lot (Heb 11) and not all of it had a pleasant outcome, but they were faithful and ran to the end. We are told to lay aside those things that weigh us down -- even good things -- and we are told to set aside the sin that entangles us. That's what we lay aside. What do we replace it with?

Setting aside those things that tie us up, we are to look to Jesus (Heb 12:2). We are to "consider Him." (Heb 12:3) Why? He is the originator and finisher, the "author and perfecter," the One who started our faith and the one who will bring it to the end. That seems like a logical choice. There's more. He endured worse hardships than He is asking us to endure when He endured the cross and the shame. He counted the shame to be of no value. Literally, He "disesteemed" it. His preference was God. So consider Him ... so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.

We have a race to run. It will be daunting. You may be tempted to grow weary. You may become fainthearted. But we have examples that have run it before us. We have to make efforts to dislodge the things that hold us back. And we have the "ultimate Marathoner" -- the One who did what we're supposed to do. He showed us that we must consider of no value the hardships and count on the joy that being with God will bring. Yes, we will face hostility, but trust Him. The natural tendency of all humans is to go where you are looking. "Don't watch the parked cars when you drive," my driving instructor told me, "because if you do, you will drive into them." We need to be keeping our eyes on where we want to go. That would be toward Him, the Author and Finisher of our faith. Look where you're going.

Laying Aside Encumbrances

In the 12th chapter of Hebrews we read,

Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us. (Heb 12:1)

It starts with "therefore," but who is this "great cloud of witnesses"? The "therefore" tells us that he's referring to those who went before -- chapter 11. This "great cloud of witnesses" is a reference to the "Halls of Faith" people in Hebrews 11. They are the witnesses that surround us. So ...?

He says we should do likewise. "Let us also ..." What did this cloud of witnesses from the "faith chapter" do? They laid aside every encumbrance and sin which so easily entangles us and they ran with endurance the race before them. So, you do that, too.

I had never thought of Hebrews 11 in this light. These faith folks were walking in faith, obviously, but this verse paints it in a new light. We understand the need to set aside sins. We get that. But we're also supposed to lay aside "encumbrances." They are, apparently, not the same as sins. They are, then, things that aren't necessarily sin, but they are slowing us down in our faith walk. Like what?

Look at Abraham (Heb 11:8-10). God told him to leave his family and go to a place he had never seen. He laid aside the people and places he knew and obeyed in faith. Encumbrances. Take Sarah (Heb 11:10). She believed that a woman of her age could not have children. Reasonable belief. But she laid it aside by faith. Encumbrances. Take Abel (Heb 11:4). He laid aside his life on faith. Encumbrances. Or how about this one? Abraham offered his son, Isaac, to God (Heb 11:15-19). Abraham's son, Isaac, was an encumbrance to Abraham's faith walk. He laid it aside. Encumbrances.

We understand that we need to lay aside sin. It is an entanglement. It gets in the way. It hinders our relationship with God, blocks our prayers, damages our minds, and clouds our vision. We're clear on that. What I think we often miss is that we can easily allow neutral and even good things to become hindrances. It's good to love our spouses, our children, our families, for instance, but when they eclipse our love and devotion to God, they are "encumbrances." Laying them aside doesn't mean losing them or even leaving them. When Abraham laid aside the encumbrance of his promised son, he did so believing that God was able to raise him from the dead (Heb 11:19). He wasn't going to lose him; he was giving him up to God. We should also consider what good things we carry around that might stand in the way of a faithful run to Jesus. Some of them might surprise us.

A Strategy in a Hostile World

So, sure, we here in America don't face the persecution that, say, those in North Korea or Iran or China face. They tell me that in the 20th century more people died for being Christians than in all centuries prior ... combined. That's startling, but it didn't happen much in America. So, no, we aren't ready to call the negative responses we experience here "persecution," but Christ was (Matt 5:10-12). Even if it's not religious persecution, we all experience abuse in some way or another. We all have enemies. So, what's a Christian to do?

We know the basic rule, right? Jesus said, "For 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) Forgiveness would be our first order of business. Now, of course, that's not always easy. I mean, sure, we can forgive ... right up until the perpetrator repeats the perpetration. And now we're struggling with the same problem. Jesus said to forgive them "seventy times seven" times. That's not a numerical limit; it's a concept. Keep on forgiving. So we scrape off the scab of the old wound and begin our healing process anew. It's not always easy.

So is there something else that will help? I would argue there is.

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor" and hate your enemy; but I say to you, Love your enemies; bless those cursing you, do well to those hating you; and pray for those abusing and persecuting you, so that you may become sons of your Father in Heaven. Because He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and unjust. (Matt 5:43-45)

Did you catch that? "Pray for those abusing and persecuting you." Now that's an approach I rarely hear. Pray for them? Are you serious?? It's what Jesus prescribed. Pray for those who make you their enemy.

Can you imagine what that would look like? I would think that an effort to ask God for their best would change how we think and feel about them. I would think that forgiving them would be easier if we were urgently bringing their needs befor the Father. I would think that continuous prayer for those who are persecuting you would probably show on the outside as well. "What, aren't you mad at them?" I would think that this kind of behavior -- praying for those who abuse you -- would be the kind of good work that would glorify the Father (Matt 5:16). I would think that this would be a much better demonstration of love for your enemy than, say, beating them over the head, even if it's just verbally. I can see all sorts of possible benefits here. I wonder why we don't do that very often.

Superman Wrapped in an Analogy

Superman is walking down the street. He has a bag hanging from his belt. Someone asks, "Hey, Superman! What's that bag on your belt?" Superman gets a gleam in his eye. "Oh, this? It's my most precious possession! Want to see?" "Sure," the questioner replies. So Superman opens up the bag and shows him. It's a bag of charcoal lumps.

"Really?" the questioner asks. "Your most precious possession is a bag of charcoal?"

Superman smiles and pulls out a single lump. "Oh," he says, "don't misunderstand. It's not the charcoal." He closes his hand over the piece of charcoal, applies pressure only his superpowers can supply, then shines his laser-beam eyes on it and superheats it. When he opens his hand again, he's holding a diamond. "It's not the charcoal," he says. "It's what I can make of it."

We tend to think that we are God's prized possession. I think it's much more like that Superman illustration. Apart from Him, we're lumps. We are His prized possessions because of what He can make of us. He loves us for His purposes for His glory. And what He makes from sinners is truly precious to Him.

The Problem of the Evangelical Party

It doesn't make sense. I don't really know how it happened. I'm really baffled how it has become such a "thing." Still, it is undeniable. In many circles "Evangelical," "right wing," and "white" are irrevocably linked, and not in a good way. That is, the tag of "Evangelical" -- a purely religious term -- has become thoroughly equated with things like "Trump" and "QAnon" and other conspiracy theories and even "white supremacy."

First, what do I mean by "Evangelical"? I'm not talking about evangelistic. I'm talking about those who classify themselves as "Evangelicals," a term defined by adherence to the authority of Scripture and a firm belief in salvation by faith in Christ. So this seems ludicrous on its face. Since a prime defining concept for the term is an absolute belief in the authority of Scripture, how do we end up linked to politics at all? If Evangelicals believe that Jesus is "the Truth" (John 14:6) and that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth (John 16:13), how do we end up pulling truth from the lips of Trump or favored political conspiracy theories? If Evangelicals believe that salvation is only found in Christ, how could we possibly be expecting salvation in a political party or perspective? And don't even get me started on any supposed connection between "Christian" and racial bias.

So, I'm baffled. We are routinely connected with "that political view" when our source authority warns us not to put our trust in princes -- in earthly authorities (Psa 146:3). We cannot put our faith in Christ and in "our guy" any more than we can trust in God and riches. Jesus told us, "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." (Matt 6:24) And, yet, here we are, apparently trying to straddle the line. We are told to submit to government (Rom 13:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-15) and pray for those in authority (1 Tim 2:1-4) and we are moaning and complaining about the "current administration." Some are even seeking to figure out how to eliminate it. How do we lay these two -- "Evangelicals" dedicated to the authority of the Word and trust in Christ and right-wing politics -- side by side and consider them equivalent?

It might be a shock to many American Evangelicals, but America is not God's chosen people. The Bible does not classify democracy as the best choice for government. There is nothing in Scripture that makes capitalism the "Christian" choice. The Republican party is not mentioned in the Bible anywhere. Instead, it looks a lot like the link between "Evangelicals" and "right wing" is a lie, perhaps even idolatry, putting trust in politics rather than Christ. The evidence I would cite for this is the fervor and heat applied by those in the "Evangelical Party" for all things political over all things Christ. I would argue that the anger we see among many who consider themselves "Evangelicals" is in direct opposition to biblical warnings like "the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God" (James 1:20) and commands like "Love your neighbor as yourself." On the other side, too many "Evangelicals" are scared and worried about the future of America under the "current regime" as if God was bound to human whim (Eph 1:11) and worry was biblical (Php 4:6). And the Bible is abundantly clear that racial bias has no place in the faith (e.g., Gal 3:28; Rom 2:11; Acts 17:26; Rom 10:12-13; Acts 10:34-35; Col 3:11). Brothers and sisters, if that's where we are, "we do not well."-

The Beatific Vision

Theologians speak of "the Beatific Vision." The term refers to that time when we will each be in direct communication with God -- "We will see Him just as He is." (1 John 3:2) Most Christians sare looking forward to it ... sort of.

I say "sort of" because it seems as if a lot of Christians give a nod to this being a good thing, but live otherwise. We fear and are dismayed by death. We are most concerned with our own comfort. Some think that "sitting around on a cloud and playing a harp" will be boring. Some are looking forward to the benefits of heaven without an eye to Christ's presence in heaven. You know, "streets of gold," "no more tears," all that sort of thing. Ask yourself. If you knew that going to heaven meant you would have no more sadness and you would have eternal joy and comfort but Christ wouldn't be there, would you want to go? If your honest answer is "Yes," then the time that we will see Him as He is -- be eternally in His presence -- really isn't the big thing for you.

It's strange when you consider that we were made for this. We were made for the presence of God (Gen 3:8). We are blessed by the face of God (Num 6:24-26). We are being shaped into the image of His Son (Rom 8:29). The Beatific Vision isn't minor; it is our ultimate purpose.

What does it mean, then, if it just isn't that important to us? You know, "Yeah, sure, I'm in favor of that, but ..." What does it say about us if we don't find the immediate presence of our Lord and Savior our ultimate pleasure? It may mean that we don't actually have a relationship with Him. Jesus said it wouldn't be uncommon for people to think they did when they didn't (Matt 7:21-23). That's something that needs to be remedied immediately. Maybe it means we're being idolaters, pursuing as god one who is not God -- comfort, fame, power, wealth, the things of the world. That can't go on (1 Cor 6:9). It may be that we've been distracted by the world. That's something that we can work on. But let's not just shrug it off. If we are made to be in the immediate presence of God and, if we don't care, it does not speak well of us or our current relationship with the King.

News Weakly - 3/13/21

Good News, Gen Next
You'll be happy to hear, future Americans, that Biden and Congress have agreed to tie you up for the rest of your lives with a debt you can never pay (the debt before this was about $225,000 per taxpayer) in order to give us each a $1400 check, not because we actually need it or that it will actually remecy anything, but, well, because some will certainly feel happier with Democrats somehow. Oh, no, you won't get that federal $15/hr you hoped for. No, you won't get as much for unemployment as promised. Oh, no, this won't solve the COVID crisis. In 1960 the debt-to-GDP ratio was 53%. In 1980, it was 34%. Today it is 130%. Good luck with that. But, hey, at least we won't have to pay up in the end. That's your problem. We're a year and $2.7 trillion into "15 days to flatten the curve." Biden says, "Just $2 trillion more should do it."

Pardon Me. Your Bias is Showing
Forbes reported on Biden's orders this week addressing gender inequality and sexual violence. Oddly, not a word about Cuomo. Wonder why? The report said he would "focus on changes imposed during the Trump administration." Why, do you suppose, does this Forbes writer not view Biden as "imposing changes"? Of course, none of this is a surprise. He is pushing "reproductive rights" which is always code for "killing babies in the womb" and, of course, the rights of transgender people over the rights of the rest of the world. What does surprise me is the number of Christians who switched from Republican to Democrat to support this kind of thing.

The Latest Victim
The latest victim of the Cancel Culture after last week's execution of Dr. Seuss appears to be Pepé Le Pew. You remember Pepé Le Pew. He was the skunk with the French accent on the quest of misguided love with a black cat that accidentally got a white stripe painted down her back. Hilarity ensues. Well, it did. Now they say he "normalized rape culture." Now, I've seen a lot of those cartoons and I don't recall a single rape, but, hey, what do I know? "To the pure, all things are purel."

Pro-Life
Arkansas passed one of the very few actually pro-life bills in existence in America. Arkansas Governor Hutchinson signed into law legislation that allowed abortion only in the cases of a risk to the mother's life. It excludes rape or incest because, if you're going to be pro-life, rape or incest don't qualify as a threat to life. It won't last, of course. The courts will preclude it. The fight will escalate. It will eventually go to the Supreme Court ... which is the real aim. The simple fact that Arkansas assembled "overwhelming legislative support" for a pro-life stance is quite amazing in this day and age.

But ... I Thought He Was Going to Fix This
Ding, dong, the wicked Trump is gone, and our savior (lowercase "s") has come to save us from the Trump. Specifically, Biden has acted to save migrants from the mistreatment of the former administration. So ... how is it that a record number of migrant children are now being held in facilities ... even beyond the 3-day limit? The number tripled in the last two weeks! A warning for those who put their trust in princes.

And On That Note
Similarly, the governor of Mississippi also signed a controversial bill into law. This one prevents biological males from playing on women's sports teams. As it turns out, it's only haters that want to protect women's sports. The open-minded, inclusive, tolerant people have no concern at all for subjecting women to the biological disparity.

Warning Bells
Beth Moore has left the building. Moore announced leaving the Southern Baptist denomination (SBC) because of things that "haven't remained in the past." She has complained about "an evangelical culture that demeans women, promotes sexism, and disregards accusations of sexual abuse." She condemns "Trumpism" and "Christian nationalism." Not being a Trump supporter myself, I understand some of that. Being a follower of God's Word, I don't understand some of that (like when "demeans women" is used to describe the biblical restrictions to the role of women in the church). Whether she is going off to do God's work somewhere else or going off the rails is yet to be seen. We should surely be conscious of Galatians 6:1 if necesssary.

Covidiocy
The headline reads, "Mount Everest to reopen for first climbers post-pandemic." Apparently the remoteness and wide open spaces weren't "masked and socially distanced" enough. In the same vein, a grandmother got a prescription for a hug so she could see her grandchildren for the first time in a year. I know that "Covidiot" means something different to most people, but this truly is "Covidiocy."

Speaking of ...
And Evanston, Illinois, has become the first American city to make modern Evanstonians (Is that the right term?) pay for the sins of their fathers for "the city's past discriminatory housing policies," giving $25,000 to black families for housing. Not even God does that (Deut 24:16).

Not All Satire is Humor
In light of the several women who have come forward with accusations of sexual harrassment from Governor Cuomo, the headline from the Babylon Bee makes sense ... but it's more chilling than funny: "10,000th Victim Comes Forward To Accuse Cuomo Of Inappropriately Killing Her Grandma."

Semper Reformanda

It's a Latin phrase (of course). It was popularized by Karl Barth who supposedly got it from St. Augustine. Apparently it actually came from a book written in 1647. It means "always reforming," so it might seem odd that it came from a minister in the Reformed Church in the Netherlands. "I mean, aren't you already reformed?"

The Reformation is sometimes misunderstood because of our current use of the term "reform." When we use it we think of simply improving something or someone. To those in the Reformation they were more specific. They intended to re-form the Church to its original beliefs. They wanted to "reset to default," so to speak. They didn't want to improve it; they wanted to return it from whence it had strayed.

It seems like this has always been the case. From the beginning, there was a constant need to push back on straying. So Paul pushed back on Corinth's gross sin and on Galatia's legalism and on Colossae's gnosticism and so on. Jesus told the Ephesian church, "I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first." (Rev 2:4-5) Reformation. Not as much of "Improve" as a "Return." It was necessary before the close of the canon and it continues to be necessary today. But ... how?

Paul wrote,

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Given the source of Scripture -- "breathed out by God" -- note the benefits of God's Word. There is teaching -- "This is the way." There is reproof -- "You've strayed from the way." There is correction -- "This is how to get back to the way." And there is training in righteousness -- "This is how you stay in the way." All the necessary components to learn what is God's truth, what constitutes error, how to correct error, and how to stay in God's truth are contained in God's Word. The Bible is God in our ears saying, "This is the way, walk in it." (Isa 30:21)

The world is constantly at odds with God and His people. That's not a complaint, nor is it a surprise. It is expected. As such, we need to constantly be aware that the natural tendency is to synchronize with the world -- to conform to the world -- and not with God's Word and we need to constantly fight that tendency. Paul warned, "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall." (1 Cor 10:12) If you think, "I've got this; I won't slide," think again. It has always been the tendency to slide from good to bad, so we need to be semper reformanda -- always reforming back to God's version of good and bad, truth and lies. There is no improving on God's version. If we are not vigilant, both for ourselves and for our churches, like a poorly aligned vehicle if we take our hands off the wheel we'll drift. And that can have catastrophic consequences.

Losing My Religion

The debate has gone on literally for centuries. Millennia, in fact. Can you lose your salvation? "Well, of course you can!" one side asserts confidently while the other is aghast. "What? Of course not!" So, like gunfighters in fabled Westerns, they grab for their swords (okay, the metaphor doesn't quite work ... give me a break) and start slinging verses.

"Hebrews 6 speaks of those who fall away and cannot be restored to repentance!" (Heb 6:4-6) "Jesus said, "I gave them eternal life and they will never perish and no one will snatch them out of My hand'!" (John 10:28) "Paul said you must test yourself to see if you're in the faith!" (2 Cor 13:5) "Paul said he was confident that He who began a good work in you would bring it to completion!" (Php 1:6) And each "round" pings harmlessly off well-built defenses because the goal is not unity or understanding, but positioning. That is, so few are seeing, "Wait a minute, if these are both in Scripture, don't we have a genuine contradiction???"

I think the question goes farther back. How are you saved? "Oh," some might say, "I was saved by being good." You might lose that salvation. "No," others might counter, "I was saved apart from works, but I continue to be saved by my faithfulness." You might lose that salvation. You see, when it depends on us, it is entirely possible that we can lose it ... because we are not entirely dependable. And the biblical tension around that concept is clearly present. As much as it depends on me, there is a constant concern about retaining that salvation. In fact, it's pretty sure that salvation will be lost. (And according to Hebrews 6:4-6, if it is, that loss is permanent.)

If, on the other hand, I'm saved as a gift (Eph 2:8-9), then that's an entirely different proposition. If I'm saved apart from works (Rom 3:28), then that's a different concept. Many like to change tracks in the middle. "I'm saved as a gift but maintain it on my own." If that's so, it cannot be said that we're saved apart from works, since those works maintain that salvation.If someone gives me gas for my new car and I drive on that, when I have to put gas in on my own, I'm no longer operating on that gift; I am supply the fuel that makes that car go. That's not "saved apart from works."

There is, of course, another question in here. What is salvation? It's not a thing; you don't have it in a basket that you might misplace. It includes eternal life, but if you can lose that eternal life, how is it eternal? Salvation accompanied by eternal life is not a thing, but a condition. It is a condition we cannot cause, so it is a condition we cannot interrupt. Either we are saved as a gift apart from anything we might do or choose (John 1:13; Rom 9:16, 18), or we are not. If we are, then the texts that warn us to work out our salvation and examine ourselves to see if we're in the faith are aimed at our own efforts while the texts that refer to God's work (which never fails) show a trustworthy God that saves first on the basis of His grace and not our actions and saves continuously based on His grace and not our actions. This salvation is sure. This version says to you, the saved, that you must "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Php 2:12) with an eye toward the reality that "It is God who is at work within you both to will and to do His good pleasure." (Php 2:13) If we don't hold both in proper tension, we lose something important. If we do hold them in proper balance, we can actually have assurance.

Enough

"Greed is good," Gordon Gekko in the movie, Wall Street, boldly declared. Of course, the Bible disagrees. Paul wrote that greed amounts to idolatry (Col 3:5; Eph 5:5). The Greek word is pleonexia (translated "covetousness" in some places) and simply means "desire to have more." Well, that seems harmless enough. Don't we all want more? But, of course, "Everybody is doing it" does not constitute an argument for morality, so apparently everyone in this case is doing it wrong.

So why is greed wrong? Why is desiring to have more a sin? No, the question is, how does that amount to idolatry? "Well," they will tell us, "this 'greed' isn't simply wanting more; it is an excessive love of wealth. You know, 'the love of money is the root of all evil.'" And, of course, we wouldn't want to deny that the love of money is the root of all sorts of evils (1 Tim 6:10), but is that what is being stated here? It doesn't look like it. I would suggest that this additional descriptor -- "excessive love of" -- is the product of a wealthy society trying to justify their desire for more.

So what else? Maybe it means that greed is as bad as idolatry or leads to idolatry. or is service to wealth. Maybe it means that greed is slavery to an economic system or maybe it's putting your trust in wealth. Maybe it's a combination of all that. But most of those require steps of interpretation that the text doesn't offer. If we pursue the easiest line of thinking, greed is a motivating desire for more because we believe we don't have enough. And that would indicate that 1) we aren't trusting God and 2) that "enough" is what we trust in. In this version of greed, we can find an explanation for the correlation of adultery with idolatry found elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Jer 3:8-9). "It's that woman/man You gave me, Lord. She/he is not enough. I'll find something better." Which appears to be the very idea of greed. "God, you haven't given me enough; I'll go and get something more."

It boils down to that fundamental question: Is God enough? Are His grace and mercy, His love and compassion, His power and His wisdom, His character and His gifts enough? Or are we looking for more? Is the life He is providing sufficient, or is He lacking and we need to do something more? (I'm not suggesting a passivity -- "I'll just let God do whatever He's going to do." We certainly have to do things, but are we doing them for our own gain or are we doing them in service to God and others?) Is God enough? It is my deep concern that for most of us at some time or another the truthful answer would be "No" and that should horrify us about ourselves.

The Danger of Regulating Free Speech

We all know that one of our fine 1st Amendment rights is the right to free speech. And, just as much, we know that we do not have an unrestricted right to free speech. You cannot, for instance, yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Or urge your followers to "Stop the Steal!" ... even if you tell them to do it peacefully. That speech is not free.

But why? Why do we have free speech? What is it good for? Some think that it's good because we all have good ideas and so we should all be allowed to contribute. From a strictly biblical perspective, that's not quite right. From a strictly biblical perspective, the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). From a strictly biblical perspective, out of the heart the mouth speaks (Matt 15:18-19). From a strictly biblical perspective, "no human being can tame the tongue." (James 3:8) So, no, it's not because we all have good ideas so everyone should have their opportunity.

I would contend that it is precisely because we are sinners, because we have deceitful hearts, because we need a renewed mind that we must not regulate free speech. It's precisely because we can't do it well or right. It's because, as fallen humans, we'll begin to regulate based on what we like or don't like, accept or don't accept, allow or don't allow. You know, like they're doing today.

Now, now, don't get your knickers in a twist. They've done it all along. From a strictly biblical perspective, you find a perfect example in Acts when the council warned the disciples, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us." (Acts 5:28) Unacceptable speech -- speech that can save your soul -- banned. That's why regulating free speech is a bad idea ... and an idea that is finding growing popularity today.

What a Day!

I've recently noted the passing of two family members -- one to COVID and one to cancer. Both knew Jesus, so both are in a better place. So it might seem unnecessasry to mourn their passing. Both are no longer sick, in pain, suffering, any of those unpleasant things -- only good things. Still, we mourn their passing. Paul says told the Thessalonians "not grieve as others do who have no hope." (1 Thess 4:13) That is, he did not say not to grieve; he said we grieve with hope.

Why is that? Well, if we're considering it with sanity, it's not because they died and went to heaven. We're not mourning that they went on ahead. No, it's our loss we mourn. It's their presence with us. It's the ways in which they enriched our lives by being here. And I don't see any problem with that particular reason for mourning their deaths -- our loss.

Two of the very commong things Christians will tell each other in these situations to ease the pain are "They're still watching over us" and "Someday we'll be with them again." As for the first, I don't know. I know that Scripture says that the angels watch, but is there anything in Scripture that suggests the dead in Christ watch? There is that reference to the martyrs who cry out, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before You will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" (Rev 6:10) Does that mean they're watching or does it just mean they're aware that it's not done yet? In Hebrews there is the reference to us being "surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 12:1), but that doesn't mean they are witnessing us, but rather are witnesses to faith (Heb 11) -- reasons for us to trust God. David was certain that his lost child wouldn't return to him (2 Sam 12:23). And, seriously, is it possible for our loved ones to look down on our lives in this sin-sick, tragic world and not have tears? So the jury is still out on that one.

The other one -- "We'll be together again" -- is all well and good, I suppose, but, to tell the truth, I just don't see it. I don't mean I doubt it. My loved ones will be there and I'll be there, so, together! See? But I have trouble imagining being in the unmitigated presence of my Savior and thinking, "I wonder what Mom's doing?" It is my conviction that when I get to heaven my primary focus will not be to catch up with loved ones who went ahead, but to worship with extreme focus the Lord of all.

Paul's comfort to the Thessalonians regarding "those who are asleep" (1 Thess 4:13) (those who have died) was about the return of the King.

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words. (1 Thess 4:16-18)

Yes, we will be "caught up together with them." Praise God! But "together with them" is not our final destination. Our destination is "to meet the Lord in the air" and to "always be with the Lord." So, as I consider the recent passings of our dear family members and celebrate their going home to glory while we are saddened by our own losses, I won't be comforting myself with "I'll see them again some day." I might be a little jealous -- "to die is gain" -- but my ultimate comfort will be the day when I will always be with the Lord. Oh, what a day that will be!

Making Music

The church has always had discussions (or worse) about music. Earlier it was, "You know, instruments in worship are a sin." (Hard to imagine, given the psalms that call for it.) Then it became, "You know, rock music in church is a sin." Right, because as we all know that particular chord progression and/or rhythm pattern is of the devil. Now they're telling me, "It's wrong to have that old, stodgy, traditional music in church because that just puts people off." It would seem that we are often haggling over "worship music" -- what is and is not genuine worship.

What does Scripture say? I think you might be surprised. In his letter to the church at Ephesus Paul wrote,

... Be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Eph 5:18-20)

You see the concept of "addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." That seems a bit strange, perhaps. I mean, how do we address one another ... with music? Paul offered the same idea in his letter to the Colossians.

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Col 3:16)

Again we have this notion of communicating with each other with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. How does that work? Well, since he wrote it and repeated it, maybe we should take a look.

Both tests talk about interacting with each other with music. Both include the same three versions -- psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Psalms are generally accompanied by an instrument and likely come straight from the Psalms. As such, they are inspired by God. Hymns (in the biblical term) are a direct praise to God. They may incorporate Scripture and they may include instruments, but the primary thrust is singing directed toward God. Spiritual songs would be any songs with sacred subjects. They might be direct praises (hymns) or psalms or exhortations or teachings or other spiritual matters. It begs the question: how many worship leaders aim to include music in worship that are specifically these types, and how many just aim for "something that moves me"?

So we have the medium settled. Now ... what is it? Note that the first text references addressing one another and the second speaks of teaching and admonishing one another. We are commanded to use these musical mediums to do that with each other. But how? Well, in the Colossians verse it is predicated on "thankfulness in your hearts to God." Thus, God is, first and foremost, in view, and, in particular, thanksgiving is important. The Ephesians text includes that "giving thanks always for everything" as the Colossians passage did, so they're both in agreement there. Now, I think we gain some real insight from the Ephesians text. It begins with being filled with the Spirit. That's actually a continuous present tense -- "be being filled with the Spirit." So as we're being being filled with the Spirit, we're now going to communicate in song. The next thing to notice there is that it is first "making melody to the Lord with your heart." It is first an inner thing between you and God. In this version of the concept, then, we are interacting with each other when we are making melody to the Lord.

Isn't that interesting? Apparently we are communicating with each other when we worship God together. We are intended to address one another and to teach and admonish one another in our singing to the Lord. Many of us try to block others out. Even worship leaders seem prone to try to eliminate the awareness of those around in order to focus on God, and, while that seems perfectly suitable on the surface, these texts seem to say that our worshipful singing to the Lord is as much a communication with each other as it is with God. How we worship, how we participate, how grateful we are to the Lord, and how much worship is coming from the heart are all significant in this transaction, because while worship focuses on God, God intends it to speak to those around us as well. I'd suspect that, in our "worship wars" about the proper music and setting and all, very few of us consider what we're saying to God and to others in our worship.

News Weakly - 3/6/21

On the Prowl
Perhaps you've heard. Amazon is deciding what you can and cannot think by deciding what you can and cannot read. They've removed Ryan T. Anderson's book, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment. "No, we will not discuss it. No, we will not refute it. No, you cannot read it. We are not interested in free speech; we are interested in removing those who don't agree with us." Couple that with their current "Buy through black owned businesses" option (no "Latinx" or "Asian" or "Native American" and certainly no "white"), and you see a company blatantly telling you how to think. (Troubling since they still offer Mein Kampf.) Like a roaring lion.

The Latest Casualty
Beloved Dr. Seuss is the latest to be canceled in our cancel culture. Why? Because Seuss opposed the Japanese during World War II. Privately, but too much. So they're ceasing sales of 6 of his books because of "racist and insensitive imagery." (The offending image in his first book was an Asian man with squinty eyes and a coolie hat and chopsticks -- clearly racist since no Asians have squinty eyes, wear those cone-shaped hats, or use chopsticks.) This way, no parents today will be able to examine this stuff with their children to see for themselves what is appropriate or not, and learn from the mistakes of others. If we can successfully erase history, we will successfully control your thoughts and certainly repeat history. In modern America, the aim is to remove the "offensive" rather than deal with it. Before, we had to think it through and accept or reject it; now our benevolent overseers will tell us what we can and cannot think. (Hey, just wondering here. In Horton Hears a Who, Horton claims that "a person is a person no matter how small." Why haven't they banned that one? Clearly Seuss hated women's rights and wanted to control their bodies.)

And Anna Makes Three
New York's governor "Sure my policy killed 10,000 more people than I allowed them to report" Cuomo now has a third accuser for "unwanted sexual advances," but, after roundly denying it, he has apologized and he is a Democratic politician, so that should be it, right? I mean, if he was a Republican or some sort of serious conservative we'd be looking at Cancel Culture, but, surely, his status as a Democrat is only bolstered by his "I am truly sorry" to make this all go away, right?

When "Spiritually Fatal" is Viewed as "Safe and Stable"
Bethany Christian Services is the largest Protestant adoption agency in the U.S. They announced that they would be dropping their belief that marriage was the union of a man and a woman and would be including LGBTQ people in their adoption services. Historically an evangelical organization, they've decided that biblical marriage and morality around the topic of LGBT is not a place that they can claim a position because "Christians may disagree." "Our sole job," they said, "is to determine if a family can provide a safe, stable environment for children." One primary reason, ">Joe Carter points out, is that self-professed Christians have largely jettisoned their own beliefs in biblical family and sexual morality -- basically an "everybody else is doing it" approach. Al Mohler is (understandably) concerned. I'm fascinated by this idea that doctrine that doesn't have full agreement must be questionable and the notion that God's idea of "a safe, stable environment" would include the environment that has no part in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).

Debt Relief
College students are crying out for debt relief. Bankruptcies are high. America is currently $28 trillion in debt. The goal of the Democrats is to push that over $30 trillion. Understand that this is a debt that cannot be repaid. There is no debt relief for this one. People are complaining about the world we're leaving our children. America is aiming to leave them a bankrupt (economically and morally) nation as well.

Banning Assault Weapons
Eight people in Sweden were injured by an axe-wielding attacker. Sweden is now looking for better axe control measures and considering possibly outlawing axes as assault weapons. What ... no?

Obviously a Hater
According to a study in early 2020, the "achievement gap" -- the discrepancies between scholastic achievements between people of color and white students -- is not a matter of race. The study indicated that "if an African American or Latino student was a person of faith and came from a two biological parent family, the achievement gap totally disappeared." Oh, now, hold on. You can't be saying things like that. That's too ... well, it's not anti-racist enough. Obviously a hater did that study.

The Real Reason
The Bee has figured out the real reason Texas is lifting the mask ban. It's not to give freedoms; it's to scare off all the Californians. Good luck, Texas. Let us know if that works.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

Death Penalty

I think one of our fundamental shortcomings as humans as we consider God is our understanding of sin. We think of it as a goof, a faux pas, a blunder. How bad can it be? We make a mistake like everyone else and we apologize and move on. You know, try to do better and all that, but, seriously, on what basis would Hell make sense as righteous judgment for our little errors? So we struggle with God over this, moved by compassion for folks that are under the threat of damnation and not fully grasping how that can be right.

I struggled with the notion of hell for sin for some time until it dawned on me that I had a short-sighted view of sin. When I came to terms with sin as Cosmic Treason, then hell made sense. Here's an explanation of why sin is Cosmic Treason, rebellion against the Most High. Perhaps you, like me, will benefit from getting a clearer picture of what is at stake and the seriousness of sin. Perhaps you, like me, can get an understanding of why the ultimate violation would require the ultimate death penalty.

Who You Know

They say, "It's not what you know; it's who you know." Maybe. Maybe networking gets you in where, perhaps, your skills wouldn't. Maybe knowing someone important gets you in here or there. But when it comes to the essential question, it is not what you know or who you know.

The essential question, of course, is eternity -- where are you going to spend it? We can wrangle over the importance of a lot of stuff in this life, but if you lay less than 100 years of living against the eternity that follows, all of those 100 years pale in comparison. So that essential question is critical.

Of course, we all know this: works don't save. Well, we do, but most don't. Most believe -- every other world religion or philosophy, it seems -- that the way you come out okay in eternity is by being good in this life. "It's what you do." But Scripture is not ambiguous. "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Eph 2:8-9) The message, clearly, is "It's not what you do." Repeatedly (Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16, 21; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:4-5). (Something repeated that often ought to leave a mark in our thinking.) It's not what you do.

"See," you will say, "it's who you know." Well, not yet. In his letter to the churches of Galatia Paul spoke about "you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God." (Gal 4:9) Interesting correction. So Paul believed it was not as much knowing God as being known by God. He approached the same idea when he wrote, "For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers." (Rom 8:29) That word is foreknown -- known before. Jesus referenced the same concept when He warned of those who thought they had a relationship with Him but He told them, "I never knew you; depart from Me." (Matt 7:23) It wasn't that they never knew Him; it's that He never knew them.

So it turns out that in terms of the most critical question of this life -- where will I spend eternity? -- the questions of "what I do" versus "who I know" are not nearly as important as "Who knows me?" In order to end up in the presence of God in eternity, God must first know us. And that's not merely, "I have a record of your existence." That's a living relationship. That's to know in a biblical sense. God must initiate the relationship and God must complete the relationship and, in the end, we will know Him (John 17:3), but it all starts with Him knowing you.

Leaning

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

It's not an obscure text. We're not likely to say, "Wow, I never noticed that one before!" Many of us can quote it verbatim. And yet ...

We're in favor of "Trust in the LORD." We urge everyone to "acknowledge Him." God's a pretty good guy, and we're confident that others will benefit from this message. Except, too often, we tend to weaken it by ignoring parts.

So we "trust in the LORD," but not really with all our hearts. Most, at best. We have a lot of other people and things around to trust in and we'll parcel out a portion of trust to the LORD, too, rather than a wholesale all. We certainly acknowledge Him, but in all our ways? Don't be ridiculous. God doesn't care if we acknowledge Him in how we dress or whether or not we take small office supplies from work, right? I mean, surely God is fine with it if I'm not entirely honest in my IRS forms. "Look, God, if you could just look away for a moment, I'm going to be doing my taxes and I have no intention of acknowledging You when I do, so ..."

But I think the phrase I've skipped so far is easily the hardest one for us to accept -- "Do not lean on your own understanding." I mean, come on, don't we have to lean on our own understanding? That's all we really have. Now, on the face of it, it makes perfect sense, of course. God's ways are always perfect (Psa 18:30). Our ways seem right but are generally flawed (Prov 14:12). God's decisions are always right (Psa 145:17). Our thinking comes from deception (Jer 17:9). We can figure out what we want, but God always has the last word (Prov 16:1, 9). Scripture says the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom (1 Cor 1:25). It is only reasonable to go with a wise, loving, merciful, gracious, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, holy God than ... our own limited selves. But, really? Do we not engage our own understanding?

We must realize that the text does not actually tell us to avoid thinking, evaluating, reasoning, or understanding. God urges reason (Isa 1:18). Jesus commended the Pharisees for being able to decipher tomorrow's weather from the signs (Matt 16:2-3). If "Don't engage your brain" was intended, He wouldn't have said, "You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky" as if it was a good thing. What the text actually tells is not to lean on our own understanding. Instead, we would trust the Lord with all our hearts and acknowledge Him in all our ways. Our weight would be on Him as we seek to understand. Our first premise would be that we're flawed as we examine and reason and we would need to count on Him rather than lean on our own understanding.

The text is easy; the application is not. Humans are a pretty self-confident race. So if God's thoughts are not our thoughts and God's ways are not our ways (Isa 55:8-9) and you find yourself resting comfortably on an understanding that the world embraces just as comfortably, you might want to consider the possibility that you are leaning on your own understanding. If you're willing to reinterpret Scripture to make it align with your own thinking rather than reinterpreting your understanding in order to align with plain Scripture, you may very well be leaning on your own understanding. If you're not willing to let Him arrange your paths, you may not have the relationship with God that you think or need. Something to consider for those interested in following God and His Word.