Parents

The pastor preached a sermon recently from Proverbs about creating family traditions. Well, specific traditions, like teaching your kids wisdom. He started off with the observation that parenting has decayed over time. It seems as if each subsequent generation of parents gets farther and farther removed from good parenting skills until very few these days even know that that means. For the vast majority, it's just, "Whatever I decide is best."

I observed that at my church there are no parenting skills being taught. There is no class for moms or dads to learn how to be good mothers and fathers. The Bible urges older women to teach younger women (Titus 2:3-5), and I think some of that is going on, but what are the older women teaching younger women about being good moms? What is their source of information? I ask because most of what I see and most of what I hear is our modern world's ideas. "You have to make 'me' time." And no one is teaching dads.

I raised a couple of boys. They're men now. They tell me I was a good dad. Now, I don't know if that's ignorance talking or actual. They told me that because I apologized to them for the mistakes I made as their father. But, thinking about "no one is teaching dads," I don't know if I would qualify myself as a good person to teach other dads, even with my sons' endorsement. Where do we get good parenting instruction? Where do we find good parenting principles? Where do we get good teachers and mentors for this? And if these are lacking as they appear to be lacking, is there any wonder that today's parents lack the skills and knowledge required to be godly parents? What I see offered most of the time is simply a secular notion of "good parenting" without any biblical backing.

Understand. I'm not complaining about "these modern parents." I'm not whining about "they're doing it all wrong!" I'm asking who has the secret code, the tribal knowledge, the experiential and biblical know-how to pass on to parents what God expects of them? I'm not complaining about "sin in the camp." I'm worried about families who don't seem to have the resources available to do the job. Parenting is a critical task in all societies. Christian parents should be the best informed and the most correct because they should have access to God's plan for that. I'm just concerned that they don't.

His Great Love

Ephesians 2 begins with a serious problems for humans.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins. (Eph 2:1)

That can't be good. And Paul spreads it on thick in the next 2 verses so that it looks like no hope for the home team, so to speak. But then, writing to "the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus" (Eph 1:1), he offers hope, he turns the corner, he shares the good news.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ... (Eph 2:4-5)

It is astoundingly good news. Thus, the "But God." In opposition to everything we could have anticipated, God did something else. Because He is "rich in mercy." "Because of the great love with which He loved us."

This idea left its mark on Paul. He says this in Romans:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person — though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die — but God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:6-8)

There it is again -- "but God." "Here's the problem," Paul is saying, "but God ..." The problem? We were the ungodly. We were sinners. We were enemies of God (Rom 5:10). This is not rational, Paul is saying. You don't die for those kinds of people. But God.

Paul magnifies God here. No, he doesn't make God bigger. He simply shows us how big He already is. If we don't believe the problem -- "dead in sin," "ungodly," "sinners," "enemies of God" -- then it's not a big leap, and "but God" has no real impact. However, in both of these texts, the really good news is that there is a serious problem, but God remedies it. And in both of these texts, there is the same back drop -- God's great love for those He redeems, for enemies He rescues.

Maybe you're like me. I know where I stand. I am no prize. I'm no great catch. I'm a sinner. If you are, "but God" is huge. And it has a big impact on how you live (Luke 7:47). On the other hand, if sin isn't that big a deal, then God is just being a wise investor in you. No big deal. And no major impact.

Radical

We're Christians; we know. Sin is a bad thing. Don't do it. Well, if by "we know" I mean "we acknowledge" then we know because we don't act like we know. We sin. Despite all the places in Scripture that warn, order, command, cajole, urge, and demand that we avoid sin, we sin. Sin of all types. We are forgiven sinners, but we still sin. What are we to do?

We have strategies. Read our Bibles. Get in an accountability group. Memorize verses. Get counseling. We've got a million of them. And how is that working for you? We still sin.

So what does the Bible recommend? Scripture takes a somewhat radical approach. While we're trying to legislate and mediate and provide therapy for our sin, God urges us to kill it. You can find things like "I am crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ in me." (Gal 2:20) Or, "You have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God." (Col 3:3) The command is "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me." (Matt 16:24) Jesus said, "Whoever would save his llife will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it." (Mark 8:35) We must "lay aside the old self" (Eph 4:22-24) and "consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed." (Col 3:5) Paul wrote, "I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship." (Rom 12:1) "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." (Gal 5:24) "If you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live." (Rom 8:12-13)

There is a pattern, and it is radical. Do you want to beat sin? Die. Don't medicate it. Don't treat it. Don't give it therapy. Don't send it to reform school. Kill it. Take it out back and beat it to death with a shovel. Then burn it and bury it. Hyperbole? Sure, like Jesus's, "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell." (Matt 5:29-30) Radical? Absolutely. Literal? I don't think so. But to take it as anything less than serious is to ignore it completely, and we've gotten to be pretty good at that.

By What Measure?

In anything we measure we have to have a standard against which to measure it. For length, then, we might choose inches or meters or some such -- standard measurements of length. For sound we often use decibels (although most of us don't really know what that means). Oh, I know a good example. For sin, we use God's law. You see, that last one is illustrative of the point because we can use God's law which isn't changing or we can use Man's law which changes daily ... almost literally. Which means Man's law can't be a standard ... because it's changing continuously. And that's a problem.

In everything that we measure there must be a standard. The trick, then, is picking a good standard -- a good means of measurement. So for business you might use profit and growth, but not for charitable organizations. Those would look at wise spending for the broadest effect. So what standard we use varies by application. "Good" is a valuation that requires "bad" to define it, because a "good pizza" and a "good dog" and a "good man" are not the same things. Standards.

Paul wrote:

When they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding. (2 Cor 10:12)

Welcome to our nightmare. Here we see the problem that nearly all of us face. How do we measure our success? Am I a good _____? A good father/mother, good son/daughter, good worker, good Christian ... on and on. How do we measure that? By what standard? Almost without exception we do it by comparing ourselves to others of the same type. Which would normally seem like a good idea and even normally would be, except not in this case. Because we have genuine, reliable standards, and they aren't each other. Do you want to know if you're successful as one of those types of things? Compare yourself to The Standard. Look to Jesus (Heb 12:1). Find what God says. "By this we may know that we are in Him," John wrote. "Whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked." (1 John 2:6-7) Paul told the Corinthian Christians, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." (1 Cor 11:1) We have the seemingly impossible command to "be imitators of God, as beloved children." (Eph 5:1) It is, in fact, God's plan for your life (Rom 8:29). "As good as your neighbor" is not the standard we are handed. "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" is (Matt 5:48).

We have a lot of problem with standards. Typically it is precisely the problem of comparing ourselves with each other. Then I'm not so bad. I'm more middle. Maybe even a little better. But not bad. It's the wrong standard. And that's where we get tripped up. We even have the audacity to judge God by our own standards. Now that's arrogance.

The Harm Principle

For those of you who know who "Dan" is, you'll likely be surprised to hear this. There is something that he and I agree on. Seriously. Dan argues that morality is based on harm. Without quite agreeing with that, I believe that harm is a principle that is involved with morality. Unfortunately, at that single point of agreement ... we diverge. Dan believes, next, that we can reliably figure out what "harm" is so we can reliably determine what should or should not be moral. I don't.

Generally, people think that "immoral" is a violation of some rule or another. I don't think so. I think that the rule documents what is immoral, but it was immoral before the rule was given. It's like the conscience. Sometimes we know things are wrong somehow without even being able to quote the rule or reason. Scripture talks about how Gentiles "show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness." (Rom 2:15) Adam and Eve ate from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen 2:17) which meant that from hence forth, with or without "Thus saith the Lord," we would instinctively know before the law was ever given. Now, we can sear our consciences (1 Tim 4:1-3), so conscience is not foolproof, but neither is it absent. Sin, then, is a violation of what is good or bad, not "harmful or harmless."

So how am I agreeing about sin and harm? Because I'm absolutely convinced that what is moral and immoral is either helpful or harmful to us. I am certain that God's "Ten Commandments," for instance, weren't some sort of morality game He was playing. They were more of a user's guide to the human being. "Don't do these things; they will hurt you. Like "You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me." (Exo 20:5) "Do those things; they will be good for you." Like "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you." (Exo 20:12)

This leads to an alternative to "judgment." Some people point to Scripture and say, "This says what you're doing is sin." And others wail, "You shouldn't be judgmental" If the aim was to try to eliminate sin in the world, it would be judgmental. If the goal was to squash evil wherever you find it, it would be misguided. But if I believe -- and I do -- that God commands what He commands for our best interest, then my intent would not be to kill sin where I find it. My intent would be to help people wherever I find them. "You know, if you do that or don't do this, I have it on good authority that it will hurt you." It's not judgmental. It's not even my own idea. It is concern for others.

Dan and I both believe that morality and harm are interlinked. The difference is that Dan is absolutely certain that he has the ability and wisdom and far-reaching understanding to determine what constitutes harm, and I'm just not that good. So I tend to rely on the Manufacturer, the Maker of humans. If He says, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? ..." (1 Cor 6:9-10) (for instance), I'm not going to castigate Him for saying so. I'm going to warn those I love. "Watch out! This will hurt you!"

A Circumcision/Baptism Connection?

Is there a correlation between New Testament baptism and Old Testament circumcision? Some say, "Definitely not!" I would have to disagree.

In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)

Paul clearly draws a parallel between circumcision and baptism here. The connection is in regards to "the putting off of the flesh." Baptism, in this text, is the sign of having had a spiritual circumcision that parallels Christ's "circumcision" where He "put of the flesh" in His literal death and we show the same in being "buried with Him in baptism" and then "raised with Him through faith."

So, just what was circumcision all about? Recently someone asked me, "How did that work? Instead of 'Show me your papers' it was 'Whip it out and show me you're a Jew'?" That is, not a very good sign, right? Whose crazy idea was this? Oh, not crazy; it was God's idea. He instituted it as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham and his offspring (Gen 17:10-11). It was to be accomplished on the eighth day of the boy's life (Gen 17:12). And Abraham obeyed (Gen 21:4). When Moses didn't, it was nearly fatal (Exo 4:24-26).

But what was that all about? In what way would circumcision be a sign? Well, first, it was clearly a cutting away the flesh (Jer 4:4). Just the phrase should give you an image that helps you understand. We need to cut away the sinful flesh. God does it to us spiritually. But even modern medicine understands the situation. According to the Mayo Clinic, circumcision makes for easier hygiene, decreased risk of urinary tract infections, decreased risk of STDs, and decreased risk of penile cancer. Foreskins, then, are problematically dirty and potentially dangerous. And being located where they are located (trying to be delicate here), there is an unavoidable suggestion of cutting away sexual immorality in particular (a common (universal?) problem for males in particular). Beyond this, Scripture is clear that salvation requires the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22). Zipporah cut off her son's foreskin and declared her husband "a bridegroom of blood" (Exo 4:26) because it was clearly a bloody process, and without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins. There is a third sense here. In a very real way, being included among God's children is a form of procreation (Gal 3:7; Rom 9:8). Paul referred to Timothy as his "beloved son" (2 Tim 1:1). We know Paul wasn't his physical father; he was his spiritual father. We understand that a father might bring you to faith or raise you in Christ. It is a procreation parallel, and circumcision hints at that.

So why do people resist the correlation between baptism and circumcision? This would generally boil down to the paedobaptism-vs-believer's-baptism debate. Paedobaptism is infant baptism. If there is a correlation between the two and infants were circumcised in the Old Testament, then shouldn't we baptize infants now? I don't think so. First, New Testament baptism is displayed as a sign of being immersed into Christ's death and resurrection, and that doesn't happen until ... you are mmersed into Christ's death and resurrection. Second, circumcision occurred in the Old Testament when you were born and became part of the family; shouldn't New Testament "circumcision" -- baptism -- occur when you are born again and become a part of the family? Third, circumcision was a sign of a covenant between God and His people. Baptism is the sign of a covenant between God and His people. In the Old Testament, they became "His people" by being born into the family (or converted). In the New Testament the covenant is with "the one who shares the faith of Abraham" (Rom 4:16). So in order to have the sign (baptism), you'd need to have the faith. I think that makes more sense than identifying a baby with Christ's death and resurrection even if they never do. So I have no problem finding a clear and biblical correlation between the two. I do wonder if we're not waiting too long between coming to faith and getting baptised. What was it ... eight days?

News Weakly - 4/24/21

As Predicted
Long Beach, California, passed a city ordinance that would require grocery stores to pay their workers an additional $4/hour "hero pay" due to COVID. What could go wrong? Well, grocery company, Kroger, says they can't afford it in that area and has opted instead to close two stores. Good job, Long Beach. (See what I did there? "Good job," as in "they don't have jobs anymore"? It's really bad when I have to say, "I'm being funny" because apparently I'm not.)

Inflammatory
Who in Brooklyn Center said, "We've got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."? That would be California congresswoman Maxine Waters. "Of Chauvin, Waters said: 'I hope we're going to get a verdict that will say guilty, guilty, guilty. And if we don't, we cannot go away.'" But, of course, since she's black, it's not inflammatory. It's not inciting violence. Only orange-colored white men can be inflammatory.

Blessed Are The Peacemakers
Another tragic police shooting in Columbus. A black 16-year-old girl, Ma'Khia Bryant, was shot by a police officer after she lunged at two women with a knife. He ordered her to "Get down!" and, when she didn't, shot her. Her mother said her daughter was a “very loving, peaceful little girl" and "promoted peace." Just for the sake of clarity, while I'm unhappy about a young person shot by police, wielding a knife and lunging at people with it doesn't really qualify as "peacemaker."

The Verdict
I'm sure you've all heard: Derek Chauvin was convicted of two counts of murder and one of manslaughter. Biden called it "a step forward" although we need to continue to deal with "systemic racism." And America nods and agrees. So I'm baffled. If George Floyd's death was part of systemic racism, especially in the police, why was Chauvin not convicted of a hate crime? Why was there no charges and no evidence offered? If this was a crime of racism and we were hoping this verdict would address that, why wasn't it in there? "It was a murder in the full light of day, and it ripped the blinders off the whole world to see," Biden said. "Systemic racism is a stain on our nation's soul." Really? I didn't see that in the verdict. Neither did anybody else, and, yet, everyone else did, too. Chauvin was convicted of a crime of which there was no prosecution or proof since he was clearly guilty without any possibility of innocence.

Canceled by "Freethinkers'
Richard Dawkins, the darling of atheists (aka "freethinkers") everywhere, transgressed the religious rules of his clan and got canceled. Dawkins received the 1996 American Humanist Association "Humanist of the Year" award only to have it revoked by the AHA because he suggested that Rachel Dolezal identified as black and some men identify as women and some women identify as men but "You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as." Oh, bad form, Richard. Denying that a transgenders are not actually, scientifically, precisely how they identify themselves? "You believe there is no God? Yes! You're one of us. You believe that truth is not how he/she defines it? You're out of here!" As Stephen McAlpine put it, Dawkins got blindsided by the Sexual Spaghetti Monster. Yes, Freethinkers, there is a god -- the god of your own making. Dawkins thought it was Reason. He was wrong. Currently it's sexual identity, apparently. Dawkins was a sexual identity fundamentalist, and they shot him dead. So much for "freethinkers."

Words Mean Something
A high school in South Dakota is changing their plans for a "slave auction." What??!!!" I can hear you say. "They were planning to auction off slaves??" No. They weren't. They were planning to auction off student workers who would give a day's labor in exchange for contributions to the club. Not slaves. But they're changing the name because "This is a term that is so demeaning of black culture and humanity." I thought the same thing when, in electronics, they taught us about devices that had a "race condition" that was solved by a "master/slave relationship." Racist electronics. Must be white.

Insurrection
Following up on my concerns (above) about inflammatory speech, the FBI is seeking information about the insurrectionist pictured here.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

About God

Paul's lengthy diatribe on Man's sin in Romans covers Romans 1:18 through Romans 3:20. That's some diatribe. He wrote the epistle to talk about the gospel, "For it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes ... For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith ..." (Rom 1:16-17) So, there he is, ready to extol the good news and God's righteousness -- God's justice -- but he starts with

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Rom 1:18)

Ouch! I thought we were going to "good news." Now we're at "the wrath of God"? So, Paul, what truth is suppressed that makes God so angry?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom 1:19-20)

Interesting. According to Paul, there is no such thing as an atheist. All we have are ... liars. Why would I say such a thing? It says, "What can be known about God is plain to them." Why? "Because God has shown it to them." He concludes, "They are without excuse." So here's the real question. What can be known about God and how has He made it known?

He made it known "in the things that have been made." It's called "Natural Revelation." David wrote about it. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. (Psa 19:1-3) Simply put, "Look around you!" But what can be known from that source of revelation? Paul said, "His eternal power and divine nature." Okay, good! Some of that is easy. Look around and you will see that it took some serious power to make all that is -- power we can't even comprehend. And knowledge. Even the ardent atheist can hardly resist referring to the universe as "designed." And what design? Beauty, practicality, intricacy, wonder upon wonder. My doctor told me this week that there are 13 components in the blood to get it to produce a scab -- that thing that prevents you from bleeding to death at the drop of a hat but doesn't cause your blood to harden in the body. Irreducible complexity! Design. Smart God. We know that God is gracious because of the rain that falls on the good and the wicked. Natural Revelation tells us that this God is worth our ultimate attention. There is none like Him. Creation tells us that God is uncreated (Acts 17:24), the Creator (Acts 14:15), the Sustainer (Acts 14:16; 17:25), the universal Lord (Acts 17:24), self-sufficient (Acts 17:25), transcendent (Acts 17:24), imminent (Acts 17:26–27), eternal (Ps. 93:2), great (Ps. 8:3–4), majestic (Ps. 29:4), powerful (Ps. 29:4; Rom. 1:20), wise (Ps. 104:24), good (Acts 14:17), and righteous (Rom. 1:32); He has a sovereign will (Acts 17:26), and should be worshiped (Acts 14:15;17:23) ... for starters.

What don't we learn from Natural Revelation? We don't learn the law (Psa 19:7-9) -- God's standards for right and wrong. Without that, we don't learn about God's mercy, not knowing how far off we are. We can't know the Trinity. We don't learn about Jesus who was sent, the Scriptures tell us, by God. We wouldn't be aware of salvation in Christ. These kinds of things require words to explain them. That's called "Special Revelation." In former times it came through prophets and apostles. Now it's found in the Scriptures. Natural Revelation, then, has its limits. So if you're happy with God's power and knowledge and beauty and wisdom and grace, but don't really need mercy or salvation, I suppose you can wing it without the Bible. Of course, given Paul's premise -- that we suppress the truth about God -- I'll wish you good luck with that because it won't likely end well.

Blessed Are You ...

I've written more than once on what is looking like a coming persecution of Christians. I've pointed out that Jesus said, "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on My account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matt 5:11-12) That is, being reviled and falsely accused is persecution. I've shown that we should expect it (John 15:20; 2 Tim 3:12). Scripture promises it and our current social climate leans toward it, so don't be surprised if it happens.

I suspect, however, that, like so many other such times, I've been misunderstood. There are those who cry a warning so that you can gear up and get ready to defend yourself. There are those who tell us it's coming so that we can prevent it. And I get that; it's just not me. That's not my aim.

If, as I believe, God's word teaches us that all who wish to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (2 Tim 3:12), the remedy is easy. Don't live godly in Christ Jesus. Of course, that's just foolish. All followers of Christ must wish to live godly in Christ. So that's not an option. Now what? Prepare to take a beating. Notice that nowhere in that last sentence did I suggest that you prepare to defend yourself from taking a beating. Nowhere did I recommend you get some good lawyers and some like-minded lawmakers and some reasonable judges and some good friends and set about making sure it doesn't happen. I mean get ready for it.

Jesus said it best. "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matt 5:12) The call here isn't "What must we do to prevent this travesty of justice?" No. The call here is to "Rejoice and be glad." The recommendation from God is to be other-worldly. Set your sights elsewhere. This world is not our home, but we sure work hard to make it feel that way. God has provided something better for us. (Heb 11:40) Hebrews 11 talks about "the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God." (Heb 11:10) It talks about the people of faith who "desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one." (Heb 11:16) This world is not our home.

That's what I'm urging. Paul said, "This light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison." (2 Cor 4:17) So ask yourself, what does that look like? What does life lived here for there look like? How would I live differently if I didn't live for this world? How do I need to change to do that? Hard questions.

Wasting God

High on God's list of "10 Words" -- the Ten Commandments -- is "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain." (Exo 20:7) Well, we know what that means. "Don't use the word, 'God,' in a flippant manner. Good. We can avoid that. Move on." The Jews took it further, trying to avoid using it at all. So you'll see them writing "G_d" so as not to actually spell it out just to be sure it's not used in vain. Very diligent. And missing the point.

It misses the point on two counts. First, God's name is not "God." That's His title. His name is the Tetragrammaton, the famous YHWH that He gave to Moses at the burning bush. "I am." He is the self-existent One, depending on no one, without beginning or end, the uncaused Cause, the unmoved Mover. That's who He is. Second, in Scripture the use of the concept of "the name" wasn't merely a word that designated you. When Jesus said, "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it," (John 14:14), He wasn't requiring an obligatory, "In Jesus's name, Amen" at the end of every prayer. There is no magic in repeating a word that designates Jesus. "The name" meant something. It meant "Who I am." So His name "is Holy" (Isa 57:15) and "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isa 9:6) Joseph was told, "You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." (Matt 1:21) He was named "to deliver" because He was the Savior. Names were not mere designators; they were descriptors of who they were.

Feed that back into that commandment, then. "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain." That is, "You shall not take the nature of the Lord your God in vain. You shall not take all that He is in vain. You shall not take anything about the reality of who the Lord your God is in vain."

Now it gets hard, doesn't it? Don't take Him in vain. Don't minimize His power. Don't ignore His wisdom. Don't claim to follow Him while pursuing other "gods." Don't ignore His commands. Don't act as if He's not there. Don't fail to glorify Him at all times.

If "no other gods before me" is first on the list (Exo 20:3) and actually represents our #1 sin -- we routinely have other gods that precede Him -- then taking who He is in vain would likely be an equally inclusive problem for us. We routinely minimize God in our lives. "Oh, He didn't mean that when He said it." "Well, sure, I know what He commanded, but it isn't particularly suitable in today's culture." "Obedience is hard; I think I'll try for fun instead." We daily take the Lord our God in vain. We constantly love Him too little. It is, then, an astounding mercy to be forgiven by the blood of Christ and calls for daily efforts to stop that kind of blind sin. If He is indeed Lord, we owe Him much more than we're giving Him.

The Fundamental Problem

The Bible is clear. All human beings share a basic problem. It's called "sin." With the sole exception in all of history of one Person, all have sinned. The basic problem for humans is sin. Jesus came to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15). Now, we're all pretty clear what "sin" is. It is "lawlessness" (1 John 3:4) -- the violation of God's law. But it's not merely "doing bad things." The root of violating God's law is the violation of God's glory (Rom 3:23). So it is there that we find our basic problem -- the failure to honor God or give thanks to Him (Rom 1:21). A big problem.

Now, for the world, not honoring God is of no consequence. They don't care. But to the believer, it's bad. I mean, we are offended by our own failure to honor God. We are offended by our own sin. So what do we do? Well, we work hard at not sinning. We read the Bible and we find someone to help us with accountability and we get in groups and we pray and we seek God's help and ... lots of really good things. I'm here to offer one more -- something you may not have thought about.

According to Paul, God's wrath is "revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." (Rom 1:18) He even tells specifically what truth is suppressed -- "what can be known about God" (Rom 1:19-20). The rest of that first chapter is a series of steps we humans have accomplished in our suppression of the truth of God that has precipitated our demise. Now, if the suppression of the truth about God is the primary cause of our sin problem, then it would make sense that the reception of the truth about God would be a solution.

It could be an interesting approach. "I'm tempted to ____." You know that however you might fill in that blank, it is sin. We might ask, "What is it about that sin that entices us?" But what if we asked, "What does that temptation tell me about what I think about God?" Is He not enough? Is He not sufficient? Is He not competent? Is He not capable? Is He not wise? Is He not loving? Is He not aware? I think if we thought about it in this light, we might begin to see that it is a deficient understanding of who God is that drives us to pursue those things God tells us not to. I think we would see that, when we're tempted to sin, we're suppressing the truth about God ... to ourselves. We're lying to ourselves about who God is and, therefore, feel the need to fill that void that God has failed to fill. I wonder if that approach might help us in times of temptation and in struggles against sin.

The Bible is Not Reliable

It is a common notion today, offered by skeptics and Christians alike. From the far left to the near right, lots of people tell us, "You can't take the Bible at face value." There are, of course, degrees of that claim. Some discard it altogether. Some think it's sort of a "nice book," as it were, with some good ideas in it, but certainly not truth. Moving up this ladder, there are those who believe that the Bible contains God's word but is not itself God's word. Some point to actual quotes of God in the Bible and argue that those are the only actual "God's word" contents. Others stretch it further and say that, sure, it's in there; you just have to figure out what is and is not God's word. Accumulating these notions, you find that the largest number of people, whether they utterly disregard it or have some respect for it, still hold that the Bible is not completely reliable and you're a fool if you think otherwise.

We believe otherwise. We believe that, as the Bible claims, the Bible is "God-breathed" -- the actual word used in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. "Inspired" is okay, but the idea conveyed in the word is that God actually "exhaled" it in a sense. Authors of the Bible claim divine direction. Peter assured his readers that Scripture is not a matter of one's own interpretation, nor was it produced by the will of man, "but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21) So we believe that God breathed His word to the authors and God has superintended it since, so that, if God is to be trusted at all, we can be absolutely confident that what we have today in our Bibles is genuinely God's reliable word.

But, you knew that. I mean, you knew that this is what we believe. If you count yourselves among "we," that's what you believe. We're not "bibliolaters," worshiping a book. We don't regard the Bible as "holy" like Islam does. But as worshipers of God, we have absolute respect for His word commensurate with our respect for God. If you do not count yourselves among "we," you at least know that's what we believe.

So, what if you place yourself in the "Christian" category but not in the "we believe the Bible is God's word" category? So what? On the face of it you might be tempted to think it's a mere disagreement over which we can disagree without division. Like Paul's "whether or not to eat meat sacrificed to idols." I would argue that this is not that. If the Bible is accurate in its claim to be God-breathed -- if Jesus was right when He said, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17) -- and you deny that, you've managed to "pull an Aaron." What's that? Well, after God gave Israel His word (Exo 20), Moses went up to talk with God and the people demanded an idol. Aaron, like the fabled rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick, pulled one out of their gold (Exo 32:1-5; Exo 32:24). He created an image for them to worship instead of God Himself. If you disregard God's word as genuine truth, you've set yourself up as the image to be worshiped. You've set yourself as the ultimate arbiter of truth. You've made an idol of yourself. "No, it's not actual truth. I'll tell you what is and is not." I would argue that this is not trivial and it's not a safe place to stand.

Love One Another

I've had the same doctor for probably 15 years. This year I tried out a new doctor. He did his exam, analyzed the tests and blood work and history, and immediately prescribed new drugs and gave me referrals to a hematologist, a dietician, a cardiologist, and a dermatologist.

I, of course, as you can understand, was offended. "Can't you be my doctor without being so judgmental? Can't you just be nice and smile and tell me you like me? Why do you have to be so negative? Why do you feel the need to impose your version of reality on me? I think you should be more 'embracing,' more affirming. What is wrong with you doctors, anyway? Can't you just be accepting of people rather than so narrow-minded and 'judgy'? Why all the hate?"

I, of course, as I'm sure you guessed, did no such thing. The fact that someone pointed out potential problems and offered genuine solutions in terms of health does not translate to hate, judgment, or unkindness. Just the opposite. If you had a doctor who saw things that concerned him and he failed to bring them up to you, you'd fire him. Reporting negative things is not, by definition, hate. If those negatives are true, failing to report them would be. "Sure, I knew you had conditions that could kill you, but, hey, I didn't want to upset you or hurt your feelings, so I didn't say anything." Thanks, but no thanks.

I'm sure you can see where this is going. We are told, by those "within" and without, that we should be more accepting, more loving, more embracing. We shouldn't be pointing to sin. We shouldn't be recognizing what's wrong. We should be ... how does the song put it ... "friends of sinners." Not enemies, pointing out what's wrong. We should tell ourselves, "Pay no attention to that fatal belief they have and just be loving." Like that makes some sense somehow.

It is true that we should be more loving. It is true that we can be too judgmental. It is true that we can often thrive on "righteous indignation," and it is true that that's wrong. The answer, however, is not to stay silent. That would be evil. That would be hateful. "Sure, I have it on the best authority that you have no place in the kingdom, but, don't worry. I won't warn you at all. I'll just pat you on the back and watch you walk into the fire." That is not what friends do. Our approach admittedly often falls short, but that means we need to correct our approach (and our attitude), not ignore the reality. That isn't loving and if we get to heaven and hear God tell one of those we "loved" that way, "Your sin has condemned you to hell," they won't turn to us, give us a wink, and say, "Thanks for being so loving and not telling me about this."

News Weakly - 4/17/21

Paging Dr. Dolittle
Actor Hank Azaria voiced the animated character, Apu, on The Simpsons for years. Now he has apologized to "every single Indian person" for doing so. It was a racist caricature of the "Kwik-E-Mart" kind of owners we've seen in so many 7-11's and such. "Azaria said that he now supports people of color voicing characters of color." Because what we want out of our animated shows is realism and diversity, not humor. The industry will now move to have cats voicing cats, dogs voicing dogs, and so on. Let's not take jobs away from those who don't have enough jobs. (I'm not opposed to this in principle, but do you suppose if they had a white character voiced by a Latinx anyone would complain? So do you suppose it's actually about having the proper people voicing the characters?)

We've Got Your Back
In February the Supreme Court lifted California's ban on indoor church services for something silly -- the First Amendment. Then this last Friday they again told the state you can't ban home Bible studies or prayer meetings ... again, for that crazy First Amendment. So, California, out of their deep and abiding respect for their citizens' rights and the need for religious gatherings, lifted worship-related restrictions. "Because, don't worry, Californians, we've got your back. (Pay no attention to the Supreme Court standing over our shoulders telling us we have to. Or the multiple knives we've stuck there so far.)"

New "Family Values"
Since they opened, Disney has been known as a special place. It has been known as a "family" place, an ultra-conservative place with fairy princesses and friendly animal characters and all. If you wanted to work at Disney, you had to conform to their strict, conservative policies, which may, at times, appear narrow and austere, but resulted in a family place where kids could feel safe and parents didn't have to worry. In their ever changing approach, Disney has decided to jettison that image. Now they're going "gender inclusive" ... so that employees can "feel a sense of belonging at work." That means LGBTQ Mickey ears and tattooed vendors. (I'm not joking; that's actually in the story.) I'm picturing a Cinderella character with beard, a cigar, and tattoos asking in a gruff voice -- "Hey, little girl, wanna sit in a princess's lap?" What could go wrong?

Legal Hate?
I will be honest. I'm a little confused. The Senate is debating a new hate crime bill to protect Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Now, I'm not in favor of hate crimes and I'm not in favor of hate crimes against the people in this bill, but I'm completely lost here. The Congress has passed hate crime legislation before. So far it is a hate crime to cause or attempt to cause harm or injury to people on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Now, I'm pretty sure "Asian American" is encompassed in that list. So what are they trying to outlaw that is not specifically outlawed? (Interestingly, it is also a hate crime "for two or more persons to conspire to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or the laws of the U.S." Like when Congress conspires to block First or Second Amendment rights?)

Legal Murder
While we're all upset about the (accidental) shooting of the young black man in Minnesota on one hand -- "We demand justice!!" -- we are not all upset about the intentional shooting of an unarmed white woman in Washington D.C. The Capitol police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt January 6 when she was trying to go through a door will not be charged. The white woman who accidently shot Daunte Wright will be charged. I see how this goes.

Cancel Culture and the Free Press
An officer who was shot in the Breonna Taylor debacle (and who did not shoot Taylor) is writing a book to tell the story. Publisher Post Hill Press believes the officer "deserves to have his account of the tragic events heard publicly." The public disagrees. They petitioned to ban the book and Simon and Schuster has agreed. Let's not have an open dialog. Let's not hear all sides. Let's not examine the case. Let's simply block the press (which, by the way, falls under the existing "hate crimes" law).

Off the Internet
You remember last week that the New York Times reported that white evangelicals will prolong the COVID crisis because they're opposed to the vaccine for religious reasons. I think the Babylon Bee has discovered the real reason. Conservatives are deciding not to get vaccinated after they learned that liberals will stay away from them. A more likely reason, I think.

In other news, Ben and Jerry's is planning to fight white supremacy by discontinuing vanilla ice cream. Seems reasonable given today's version of "reasoning."

Finally, the military is announcing that they will accept anyone who identifies as a good soldier even if they're a "no-skill fat slob." I'm not sure, given today's idea that "reality is what I think it is," how to refute the logic.

Sort of Sovereign

In 1 Timothy 6:15 Paul refers to God as "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords." The "only Sovereign." The Bible claims that God is Sovereign. And, in fact, most Christians agree on that. They just disagree (sometimes wildly) on what it means. There are all sorts of "sovereign."

On one end of the spectrum there is the "None" version. "No, He's not Sovereign. Not at all." Generally that would be the atheist's view, but I've heard it from a few self-professed Christians. At the far other end of the spectrum there is the "full Sovereign" version, where humans have no choices and no input. God causes and controls all things and any sort of "free will" or choices or the like are pure illusion. It's called fatalism. Fatalism is the view that human beings are powerless to do anything other than what they actually do. I've certainly heard that from some Christians as well. Then there are the middle ground views. One says that God sovereignly surrendered His Sovereignty to humans, at least to some degree. This, perhaps, is the most popular. So God wants to accomplish some things, but is dependent on human free will to accomplish it. Without it, He just can't. The other side of the middle ground is that God is Sovereign in the sense that He allows humans limited free will and allows those things that contradict His commands (a type of will) as long as He can use it. Of course, there are lots of nuanced versions in the middle. So ... which is it? What sort of Sovereign is "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign"?

One way to answer that is from philosophy. So we debate about "free will," what it means, what it doesn't mean. We debate about what God is and is not allowed to do. We dicker over details. Perhaps there are some valid points in there, but wouldn't it be better if we went to God's word? We have what Scripture says about God and nature (e.g., Psa 147:8-9, 14-18; Psa 148:1-12; Job 9:5-10; Job 26:7-14; Job 37:2-24; Job 38:8-41). We have what Scripture says about God and our choices (e.g., Psa 33:10-11; Prov 20:24; 19:21; 21:1) God even claims to make people deaf or dumb or blind (Exo 4:11). The Bible says that God planned and predestined the murder of His own Son (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28; Isa 53:10). In short, according to God's word, He works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11; Psa 115:3; Job 42:2). On the other hand, we clearly have choices (e.g., Josh 24:15; Job 34:4; Prov 1:29; etc.). And we know that God does not cause sin (James 1:13).

So, what sort of sovereignty do you find in Scripture? Or is your view of God's sovereignty based on philosophy and reason rather than Scripture? How well does your view of God as sovereign line up with the Bible's view? Questions we should ask ourselves.

The Boasting Chisel

Imagine you had the opportunity to go back in time and visit Michelangelo. You go into his workshop to observe his work and you say, "Can I please see the chisel? I think that's really marvelous!" Wait, what?? No, of course not. You want to talk to the sculptor. You want to know the guy using the chisel. The chisel isn't very special; it's the master you want to know.

Paul wrote,

I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me. (Rom 15:18)

To you and me, that might sound like fake humility. But Paul is being a boasting chisel. It's not the tool Christ uses that is of interest; it is Christ. Paul is the tool -- look at what Christ can do with such a tool.

You remember Paul. He called himself "the least of the apostles" (1 Cor 15:9). He sought to murder Christians (Acts 9:1-2). He wasn't a "magnificent tool." So Paul doesn't get (or give himself) any credit for what Christ was doing. It wasn't false modesty or fake humility. It was fact.

We who are believers know that we can't lead a single sinner to salvation; that's the Holy Spirit's work. We know that our righteousness is as filthy rags (Isa 64:6). So when we start to think, "Hey, I'm doing a pretty good job for God, if I say so myself," we become arrogant tools. And if we are to do all to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31), perhaps we ought to start by admitting that He is the master sculptor, not us, His tools.

Motivation Matters

Paul wrote the epistle to those called by God at Rome to people he didn't know. His goal was to make sure they got the clear gospel (Rom 1:16-17). So he laid down 11 chapters of doctrine before he ever got to the "practice" part. In the 15th chapter he told them, "On some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder ..." (Rom 15:15) "Boldly"? Indeed. He warned of God's wrath (Rom 1:18) and the extent of sin (Rom 3:9) and the seriousness of the sin problem (Rom 3:10-12). He warned the Jews about their self-righteousness (Rom 2:17-24). He urged his readers to stop sinning (Rom 6:11-14). He asked them to give their bodies as a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1). He was, indeed, bold.

We are told, loudly and often, that we shouldn't be "judgmental." By that they mean we shouldn't be pointing out anyone else's "sin," perceived or genuine. We should keep silent about it. To do otherwise is to be hateful. You cannot call out sin and be kind. These twp things are in opposition. But Paul disagreed. Here's what he actually wrote in that verse in Romans 15.

But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God. (Rom 15:15)

Yes, he wrote "very boldly," calling natural man "fools" and idolaters (Rom 1:21-23). He called homosexual sex "shameless acts" and "contrary to nature" (Rom 1:26-27). He told Jews who violate the Law, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." (Rom 2:24) But note what he says about all that and more. He did it "because of the grace given me by God." Paul spoke boldly on the basis of grace.

Sometimes we humans can do the right thing for the wrong reason. Did I say "sometimes"? More like "often." But the fact that sometimes we point out error in others with bad motives is no reason to assume that all such effort is with bad motives. Paul considered it grace. We even know it can be "tough love." Perhaps, before you accuse someone of being hateful, you should find out their motive.

Of First Importance

We know that "the Gospel" refers to "the Good News." Now, to be sure, there is a lot of "good news" in the Bible. Beginning with "God created" (Gen 1:1), we learn lots of "good news." He walked in the garden with Adam and Eve. He met and redeemed people throughout history. He is a God known for love and grace and mercy. He causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust (Matt 5:45). He sustains all existence (Col 1:17). He sent His Son (John 3:16). Lots of good news, no doubt. But when Paul refers to "the gospel of God" (Rom 1:1) or "my gospel" (Rom 2:16), he is not referring to generally good news, but a very specific good news. It was, in fact, his specific commission from God to take that particular good news to Gentiles (Rom 1:14-15; Eph 3:1-7). It was his primary reason for writing to the Romans (Rom 1:16-17). What was that particular good news?

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you -- unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared also to me. (1 Cor 15:1-8)

This was a specific gospel -- good news -- "the gospel I preached to you." This was "of first importance" he said. What was?

1. Christ died for our sins.
2. He was raised on the third day.
3. He appeared to witnesses.

Of first importance, then, was that Christ died for our sins. He didn't die to be an example. He didn't die just as a matter of injustice. He died because we sinned and payment was required. Of first importance, He was raised. He didn't stay in the grave. He wasn't a good man mistreated and dead. He rose again. Without that, we have no hope (1 Cor 15:14-19). Of first importance, He appeared to witnesses. When Paul wrote it, "most" were still alive. "Go ask them. Check it out for yourself." Critical for faith -- the gospel -- then was the evidence that a man was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again as witnesses can attest. Three items. Not really that hard. So why do you suppose that each one of them is cause for contention even among those who call themselves Christians?

We shouldn't be surprised. We are guaranteed that this particular good news is "folly to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). Expect it. When they tell you He did not die for your sin, they undercut the gospel. Scripture says, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us." (Gal 3:13) Scripture says, "In Him we have redemption through His blood." (Eph 1:7) Paul wrote that we "are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith." (Rom 3:24-25) Oh, and that "propitiation" thing? That refers to appeasing God's wrath. Yes, a God angry at sin. When they eliminate Christ dying for our sins, they eliminate the gospel. When they eliminate the Resurrection, they eliminate the gospel. When they deny the witnesses, they deny the gospel. These are not peripheral; they are "of first importance."

It is foolishness and a stumblingblock (1 Cor 1:22-23) to those who don't believe. It is salvation to those who do (1 Cor 1:18). Your call. If it is foolishness or a stumblingblock to you, you might need a Savior even if you don't think so.

Unity

Paul says that the purpose of the church is "the unity of the Spirit" (Eph 4:3). The purpose of the church is to "equip the saints for the work of ministry" (Eph 4:12), to "attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God" (Eph 4:13), "so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes." (Eph 4:14) Unity. What does that mean?

Well, first, it does not mean that we're all the same -- that we all think the same and speak the same and do the same. That's obvious in the text of Ephesians 4. "He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers" to accomplish His work withn the church (Eph 4:11). Not all the same. And when biblical writers encounter variants, they warn believer to believer to avoid harming the faith of the weaker brother (Rom 14:1-3; 1 Cor 8:13). There are acceptable differences. Unity does not require lockstep thinking.

Paul said we were to "be eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit" (Eph 4:3). He urged "the unity of the faith." (Eph 4:13) So the Spirit is the source of this unity and the faith is its conduit. Notice how that works. We are to "live in harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus." (Rom 15:5) That is, we don't negotiate to the least common denominator. We aim for Christ Jesus (Heb 12:1-2). We share a common love (John 13:35). We contend for a common faith (Jude 1:3).

For the Christian, then, unity would not look like uniformity (e.g., 1 Cor 12:4-7). It would look like a common direction with a common source (the Spirit) and a common end (Christ) and a common aim -- love. When we aim to correct fellow believers, we aim not to beat them into submission or win the case, but to urge them together with us from the Spirit in the faith toward Christ in love. I believe that kind of unity would be less devisive and less virulent and much, much more helpful than the popular and prevalent finger-wagging and pointing in righteous indignation (Gal 6:1; 1 John 5:16).

God Loves the World

John 3:16 is perhaps one of the best known verses in the Bible ... even among non-Christians. It has been shown in football stadiums, plastered on billboards, and tattooed in conspicuous places. It is a warm message.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

God loves the world and that is undeniable. "God ... loved the world," it says. But does He love the world unilaterally and equally? It seems like it in that phrase, but there's that pesky "so." What is that there for? That "so" is not a reference to quantity -- "so much" -- but quality. In what way did God love the world? Just so. How? "He gave His only Son" Okay, that seems universal, equilateral. But there was a purpose -- "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." Okay, now there's a shift. Now there's a qualification. Now there's a limitation. God loved the world -- everyone in it -- enough to send His Son for them, but it was ultimately aimed at "whoever believes." So it would appear from this beloved verse that, yes, God does love the world, but not everyone equally.

You can see this in Ephesians. After telling us that we were dead in sins, Paul writes,

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ... (Eph 2:4-5)

That is good news indeed, but notice what it says about His love. He did this marvelous thing "because of the great love with which He loved us." Now, Paul didn't write this to the world; he wrote it to "the saints" (Eph 1:1). So it is not aimed at everyone because not everyone has been made alive together with Christ. God made "us" alive together with Him -- that same "us" who are the recipients of His "great love."

It is absolutely true that God loves the world. Or rather, those in the world. He gives them rain and sun. He gives them forbearance, withholding immediate judgment so that they might repent. He sent His Son. And more. All good things. But, believers and saints, remember that He loves His own with a "great love." He loves all, but He especially loves some. Become one of that "some." Believe in His Son.

News Weakly - 4/10/21

Pandemic Danger
On the front page of the New York Times this week was a friendly little story about the real threat to the world in this pandemic. It was about how white evanglicals could prolong the pandemic because they're refusing to take the vaccine. Nice. Some object because of perceived "aborted cell tissue." Some object because "It's not trusting God." Some are warning that it's "the Mark of the Beast." So a tiny sliver of a tiny population in America could kill us all. I'm pretty sure the fact that it is "white" and not all evangelicals and that it is "evangelicals" and not all Christians is irrelevant. Wait ... no, I'm not.

What's in a Word?
In a bold move last week, Arkansas's governor vetoed a bill from the legislature that would restrict health care procedures for transgender youth. In a surprising turn, then, the lawmakers overrode his veto, making it illegal for people under 18 to get "gender-affirming treatments." Wait, now, hold on. "Gender-affirming treatments"? Yeah, you know, like cutting off body parts and using hormone therapy to disrupt their development. Gender-affirming. If, by "gender-affirming treatments," they meant "treatments that help a young person to accept and embrace the gender they were born to," I'd be all for it. I just can't read, "Maim them while they're young because they feel like it" as anything "affirming."

Cancel Culture On Parade
The story is actually that it ended, but for awhile San Francisco was working hard at changing the names of schools with offensive names -- names like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Paul Revere. Oh, and Dianne Feinstein. Nice. Because, you see, someone somewhere had come to believe that all of these (and more) had at some point done something that someone found offensive. Like Dianne Feinstein who, when she was mayor in 1984, made the decision to replace a vandalized Confederate flag that was part of a longstanding display outside city hall. Cancel her. So they stopped the effort ... for now. Got to get kids back to school before they correct all the errors of history. Having never learned, I suppose, the principle of "He who is without sin cast the first stone."

Fair is Not Necessarily Fair
In their attempt to be ever gracious and fair, Senate Democrats have figured out how to work around the filibuster so they can get their agenda passed with a simple 51 votes ... which is what they have available. "This way we can help Americans rather than throw them to the wolves like the Republicans want," a Schumer aide said. To be safe, they're voting next (requiring a just 51 votes) to pass a rule that if Democrats in the Senate become a minority, then the minority vote is the one that passes. Just to be safe.

I Heard No Immunity
Wikipedia defines "qualified immunity" as "a legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violated 'clearly established' federal law or constitutional rights." New Mexico decided that was a bad idea to protect officials doing their job from legal action, so they removed qualified immunity. I understand that this is designed to protect people from officials who do the wrong thing, but if I was a police officer in New Mexico, I'd get out immediately since "qualified immunity" means you can't be prosecuted for doing your job and New Mexico will not protect you for that.

We Have Re-Gretas
She's at it again. Greta Thunberg, now 18, has found a cause more important than saving the planet from climate change. It's COVID vaccine inequality. She won't attend the climate summit in Glasgow in November until countries stop vaccinating young people before the at-risk groups in the world are vaccinated. Umm, Greta, isn't that inequality -- demanding that one group get vaccinated (worldwide) before another? Okay, she's demanding equal vacine distribution. Not even sure how that works. (Seriously. I'm not at all sure how that works.)

Back to Normal
As states begin to ease back to normal conditions, Texas says they will return to shooting people wearing masks on the assumption that they're stagecoach robbers as before.

Bruce Caitlyn Jenner is planning to run for governor in California. He She plans to save the state money by making only 77% of the usual pay.

Meanwhile, President Biden has outlawed guns for everyone except criminals and people guarding him. Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Suppressing the Truth

Romans is an interesting epistle. It was written by Paul to people he had never met. It was written to a church he had never visited. Paul's intent was simply to lay a groundwork of solid doctrine for them in advance of him going to visit. So he has to be as clear as he can possibly be for this group whose doctrinal training and standing is unknown. As such, he explains at the outset,

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. (Rom 1:13-15)

"Under obligation," he says, "to preach the gospel." This epistle, then, is written about the gospel. Paul strongly affirms that he is not ashamed of the gospel "for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom 1:16), and "in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith." (Rom 1:17) Great, so we're all clear at this point. His aim is the gospel because the gospel is the power of God for salvation because it reveals God's righteousness (or justice).

And then he launches into the bad news.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19)

There's the problem. There's the starting point. You see, what makes the "good news" really good is the bad news. In that contrast this "gospel" -- this "good news" -- is huge. What is it that has raised God's wrath? The suppression of truth. What truth specifically? The truth about God. And it is that suppression of truth that causes all the other problems we see listed in the rest of the chapter.

This isn't, really, a surprise, is it? We are not really caught off guard by the claim that humans suppress the truth, are we? All you have to do is look at the media, look at the culture, look at society. Look at higher education, orginally intended to provide the free exchange of ideas, now blocking and banning such things. Look at everyday conversations and relationships. Lots and lots of deception. Lots and lots of hiding the truth, consciously or unconsciously. We are really, really good at suppressing the truth. We spin stories to arrive at a particular conclusion. We edge facts out with emotions that support our aims. We label things as "fake" and "hate" that just aren't necessarily so. We suppress the truth to others and we suppress the truth to ourselves.

But, remember, while the suppression of truth is pretty normal in everyday human beings, it isn't mere suppression of truth that has stirred up the wrath of God. It is truth suppression that produces "ungodliness" -- the failure to relate properly to God -- and "unrighteousness" -- the failure to do what's right -- all of which is based on the suppression of the truth about God. As a species, we are very, very good at suppressing the truth about God. We replace Him as supreme with just about anything else ... starting with ourselves. We deny His expressed characteristics. We deny His existence. We disregard His instructions. We do all this in word, to be sure, but more importantly in deed.

The gospel is that God has provided a way to avoid His righteous wrath and have peace with Him. Our lives are lived every day demonstrating that we deserve His righteous wrath in the everyday ways we suppress the truth about Him. The more clearly we see that in ourselves, the more we will appreciate "the Gospel" -- the magnitude of that good news. But, of course, if suppressing the truth is our problem, then it is not at all unlikely that we won't see the magnitude of the problem in ourselves or the wonder of His Gospel ... because we don't see Him as He is.

We Need Climate Change

After a fire in Rome in 64 AD, Emperor Nero, covering up accusations against himself, designated Christians as the cause. Then, to assuage the fears and outrage of the people, he tortured and executed them where he could find them.

In the 1930's Hitler and the Nazis fingered the Jews as a major threat to the safety and security of the region. The outcome was the Holocaust where millions of Jews were rounded up and executed to calm the fears of the people and secure the society.

The New York Times reports that white evangelicals could prolong the pandemic because they are refusing to take the COVID vaccine. Now, the notion that "white" has anything to do with the question is nonsense, and it's not that everyone who identifies as "evangelical" actually fits in that category, and it's not like "white evangelical" is anything close to a major portion of the nation. The Pew Research Center says that there are 41 million white evangelical adults in the U.S. and are "least likely to get the vaccine." That would be roughly 10% of the nation -- nothing like a majority.

It's interesting to note in the story that there is no data about vaccine hesitancy among evangelicals of other racial groups. Apparently no one is looking at other races as a threat. And religious hesitancy spreads beyond white churches. Apparently that fact is irrelevant to the question. So why is this story out there? Why is the New York Times pinning the problem on "white evangelicals"? I would be classified as a "white evangelical" (even though I'm moving farther and farther away from "evangelical" as "evangelical" moves farther and farther away from ... "evangelical"), and I don't object to the vaccine on religious grounds. Do you suppose their complaints about "white evangelicals" will bypass me? I'm not morally opposed to it. Will they give me a pass? I don't think it's "the Mark of the Beast" or "contains aborted fetuses." Will they cancel me anyway?

Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that a Nero-style persecution is coming. I'm not suggesting that a "Christian Holocaust" is just around the corner. I'm not expecting anything like that. All I'm saying is that the easiest way to be allowed to use excessive force against those we don't like is to classify them as an "enemy combatant" of some sort and then it becomes "okay." And all I'm saying is that to do so in such an ill-informed manner is as offensive as locking up all Japanese in America because some Japanese bombed Hawaii. Unfortunately I don't believe that our society is wiser on this kind of thing than Nero, or the Nazis, or the Americans in 1942. I am not at all optimistic given the current climate of hate. But Jesus said, "I have said these things to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33) Expect it. Don't worry about it. Know where your peace comes from. (Hint: It's not in a friendly social climate.)

Tightly Wound

In a rope, you have a bunch of strands that are twisted together around a common core. The strength of the rope is in the cohesion of those strands. As long as all the strands continue to be tightly wrapped together, the rope remains strong. As soon as one lets loose, you have the beginnings of a disaster. Soon others in the vicinity of that one will also let loose. They will become frayed. The rope weakens. And eventually with sufficient outside pressure and sufficient strands that have let loose, you have a break.

This is also a description of Christian orthodoxy. To the extent that each individual is wrapped together with each other individual to a common core, Christian orthodoxy is strong. All believers, clinging together as one (what the Bible terms "unity"), are strong. When one lets loose of that core, you will begin to see an overall weakening. What core? "The foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone." (Eph 2:20) What do we have today of the Apostles and Prophets and Christ. We have God's Word. As long as the strands remain tighly wrapped around that core, there is common unity and common orthodoxy -- strength.

The strands unravel. They unravel by letting loose of the core. Oh, usually it's not all at once. "Yes, the Bible is God's Word. I'm just not convinced that I need to hold to every aspect." For instance, some argue that Paul's writings preempt all other texts. The strands loosen. "Yes," it might start, "the Bible is 'God's Word,' but not the entire Bible. It contains God's Word." Parts of our Bible are and parts are not God's Word and we have to identify which is which. The strands loosen. Or "Sure, the Bible is God's Word, but it's not the entirety of God's Word. God is constantly revealing new things to us today." As they contradict the Bible, the strands loosen. And so it goes.

It seems to be an unavoidable sequence. Over and over we've seen self-professed believers who appear to cling tightly to God's Word until they come across something -- often just one thing -- that they feel they need to deviate on. "It's okay. It's just one thing." But it's not long before it's two, then more. It's not long before it's peripheral, then important, then essential. It's not because there is disagreement. It's because of the heart that has let loose of the core and is ready to travel its own path. The strands loosen, then they take other strands with them, then there is a break.

We are a building being fitted together into a holy temple of the Lord (Eph 2:21). As such we ought to be wrapped around a common core -- the Apostles, the Prophets, and Christ at the center. That core cannot be variable or subjective. "What's true for you may not be true for me." It cannot be or it is not a foundation. We are assured that many will go out from us (1 John 2:18-20); no need to be surprised that it happens. What is critical is that we continue to cling to the core, the common faith, the Word of God. It is dangerous to let go, dangerous for us and dangerous for those around us.

Christian Extremists

Wikipedia has an article on Christian terrorism. This last February Politico magazine had an article about "violent Christian extremism." In 2016 Barna reported that "nearly half of non-religious adults perceive Christianity to be extremist." In the January riot in the D.C., signs were carried proclaiming messages about Christ amidst the violence, suggesting the insurrection was God's idea. After the shooting of massage parlor workers in Atlanta, a prominent theologian posted a picture of the shooter's church, stating the shooter "was radicalized here." While I understand that awful and violent things can be done in the name of religion and I understand that awful and violent things have been done with reference to religious source material (for instance, the Qur'an has many passages requiring violence against infidels.), I'm deeply concerned about this trend regarding Christianity and "terrorist," "violence," and "extremist."

As in so very many cases, our world accepts as reality the statements made publicly and loudly as fact. They don't actually need evidence; the statement alone is sufficient. When loud voices like the media (which now extends to the radical world of Facebook and Twitter and the like) get to say what they want without being actually challenged and they want to say that Christianity is extreme and evil, the anticipation is that the public will accept this at face value and run with it. And, as we all know, if the public outcry is loud enough, "innocent until proven guilty" has no part of our society. In cases like this, you should not expect a plain examination of the facts or the evidence.

You see, here's the problem. Terrorism, violence, murder, insurrection, all that stuff has nothing at all in connection to Christian. Better, all of that has nothing at all to do with Christ. The bottom-line Christian ethic is "Love God" and "Love your neighbor." "Burn 'em to the ground" doesn't fit. "Let's overthrow the government in the name of Jesus" is a non sequitur. It just doesn't make sense.

In a new job back in the '90's I met a coworker who, when he found out I was a Christian (because that was his first question), told me how much he hated Christians. Why? "Because they cause so much violence." I told him that made no sense and I offered him an allegory. "Are you married?" "Yes." "Are you happily married?" "Yes." "Good. So let's say I show up to work next week with a pistol. I walk up to you, point it at you, and inform you, 'I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to kill you.' You say, 'Hey, wait! Why?' I tell you, 'Your wife told me to.' And you reasonably reply, 'That can't be. My wife would never do that.' So why is it that you can deny the motive I offered for shooting you on the basis of what you know about your wife, but you gladly embrace the motive some people offer as 'Christian' even though you know it's in direct contradiction to anything 'Christian'? If you know Jesus never would do what they are saying He told them to do, why don't you refute them on the same grounds?"

Lots of people have come to the defense of Moslems when it appears that Islam can be violent even though Muhammad was violent and their book calls for it. Lots of people come to the defense of other extreme reactions to current conditions (think LGBT, sexism, racism, etc.) even though extreme reactions like that are consistent with their philosophies. But when a belief system includes basic commands like "love" and "turn the other cheek" and "pray for your enemies," that religion is branded publicly as "extremist." It doesn't seem reasonable. It appears as if, professing to be wise, they've become fools.

Is Christianity extreme? Yes. No doubt. But absolutely not in the way the word is used today. Extremely self-sacrificing, loving, humble, patient, tolerant (in the actual definition of the word), and so much more. And I would suggest that those who call themselves Christians while carrying out actions and attitudes in direct contradiction to biblical commands need to check themselves, because it's not Christ telling them to do that, so it cannot be "Christian." As one singer put it, "Perhaps it was the devil who whispered in your ear." When you find the Christian who is loving, caring, humble, generous, gracious, kind, selfless, and more, you've found a genuine reflection of "Christian" against which to compare claims of "Christianity." And there is no doubt that that is extreme in this world.

It's Not In There

How many times have I heard it? "It's not in there. The Bible doesn't say that." Most of the time I can point to the places that it actually does say that, but sometimes it is not in there. Is that a problem? It depends on who you're talking to.

"The Bible never, ever once uses the word 'Trinity' in describing God. That was made up." That's true. You won't find that word. Does that mean it's not in there? Absolutely not. The Scriptures are full of texts that demand the conclusion that God is a Trinity -- a single God of three personas. Over and over again, Old and New Testament, the Three-In-One is present.

"The Bible never claims to be infallible." No, indeed, you will never find the phrase, "The Bible is infallible." You will find the claim that God breathed it (2 Tim 2:16-17). I suppose, depending on the reliability of your God, that might allow for errors. You will read Jesus's words to God, "Your word is truth." (John 17:17) Depending on that fallible God and, therefore, His fallible Son, that might allow for errors. You will find God's word declared over and over as reliable, trustworthy, inviolable, wise ... but, I suppose, "and fallible" might fit if you disregard ... you know ... the word of God. Does the Bible claim to be infallible? Not in so many words. But God is infallible and the Bible claims to be God's word. I think the logic is unavoidable ... not a matter of opinion.

There are certainly many more things that we get from the Bible that are not, word for word, in there. They are rational. They are consistent with the text and context. They make sense. There are, however, things that are not in there that many commonly accept and can't figure out why you don't. The "marginalized" does not appear in the pages of Scripture. There is no conversation about child abuse. Oh, and, as it turns out, Easter isn't in there, either. "Wait ... what??!" Maybe the translators of the King James Bible had some antisemitic tendencies because the word translated "Easter" (only once) is actually "Passover."

What am I saying? I'm not saying that the Bible has nothing to say about the "marginalized" or that child abuse is okay or that there is no Easter. I'm saying that the clear truths of Scripture are found in what it says and not in a purely literal fashion. The Bible clearly speaks of a Trinity without using the word. Scripture clearly declares itself as God's actual word without demanding the precise phrase. God's word clearly tells us to care for the poor and for children without the need to use our current phrasing. Rather than denying clear biblical truth because the specific words we're looking for aren't in there, perhaps we should see what is in there and learn from it.

Easter Sunday

Easter, as we all know, is originally premised on Eostre, the name of the German goddess of fertility and spring. Or do we? As it turns out, the exact origins are unknown. Some trace the origin to the Latin words, Hebdomada Alba, meaning "white week." (Seriously, I dont get the connection.) As we all know, the word, Easter, is in the Bible. Well, sort of. As it turns out a few early English translations had it but no modern ones do. That's because the only reference -- Acts 12:4 (Herod had arrested Peter and was "intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.") -- doesn't actually translate a word for "Easter." Instead, it translates a word translated everywhere else as "Passover." Again, the reasons are unclear.

So, what about Easter? I personally couldn't care less. The church didn't borrow the word from the pagans because the text from which it is translated didn't have it. The intent was never to copy the pagans because no one at the time the word was used was practicing the pagan practice. I'm all in favor, in fact, of dropping the word.

Why? Well, the event that Easter celebrates is radically important, but the name seems like more of a distraction than an aid. I mean, nothing says, "He's alive!" like a Sunday morning Easter egg hunt at church. Nothing says, "Jesus rose from the dead!" like an egg-laying bunny and lots of candy. So, in my opinion, I would think that the Sunday that recognizes the Resurrection should have more significance than lilies and colored eggs.

Paul wrote, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins." (1 Cor 15:17) That is, no Resurrection, no hope. What could be more significant? You see, "God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8) Christ's death is proof of God's love. But Christ's Resurrection is proof of His efficacy. Paul prayed that the Ephesians would know "the immeasurable greatness of His power toward us who believe." (Eph 1:19) What power was that? Specifically, the power "He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places." (Eph 1:20) And why is that so significant? Because "you were dead in the trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1), "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ." (Eph 2:4-5) The power we need to know is the power to raise from the dead because we desperately need that power to work in us. Christ's Resurrection tells us that God can save spiritually dead people.

Describing the imagery of baptism, Paul says, "We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with Him in a death like His, we shall certainly be united with Him in a resurrection like His." (Rom 6:4-5) Our celebration today isn't about Spring or fertility, bunnies or eggs. It's not even about family. Our celebration today is about our only hope -- resurrection. Humans, dead in sin, are without hope, but God demonstrated His love by sending His Son to the cross on our behalf and by raising Him from the dead, proving absolutely that our sins are paid and He has the power to raise us from the dead. Hallelujah! What a Savior!

News Weakly - 4/3/21

Jesus Wept
RZIM, Ravi Zacharias's organization, will no longer do apologetics. Mind you, when Ravi was alive, his apologetics ministry was dazzling. Both from his clear logic and from his kind demeanor, Christ's name was advanced. After his death, his sins found him out and RZIM will be no more. They are not just dropping the name; they are dropping the ministry. They are, ironically, committing a standard logical fallacy, the Ad Hominem fallacy, where the person making the argument is wrong because of their personal character. RZIM is saying they can't continue defending the faith because Ravi sinned.

Hate Crime
The horrific, racially-based attack on an Asian American woman was caught on video this week. It was bad enough that the guy assaulted a 65-year-old woman out of the blue, stomping on her head several times after knocking her down. It was made worse that he was hurling anti-Asian epithets while he did it. To top it all off, although several onlookers were there, no one stopped to help, and the security guard in the building outside of which it occurred simply closed the door. What no one appears to be upset about is that the perpetrator was a black man. News outlets are quick to seize on "white" when they do something wrong, but avoid entirely people of color Why is it that "racially-motivated" does not translate to "racist" when it's a person of color doing it?.

The Pink Panther Strikes Again
Taken From The Pink Panther Strikes Again, but with different characters.

Staffer: [gesturing to the president's dog] Does your dog bite?
Agent Dog Walker: No.
[Staffer bends down to pet the dog; it attacks and viciously bites him.]
Staffer: I thought you said your dog did not bite!
Agent Dog Walker: That is not my dog.

Fiendishly Clever
We have a big problem in America. It's in one word -- infrastructure. Dating back to 1956 when so much of today's roads, bridges, and pipes began all the way to today's broadband, things are doing what things do -- decaying -- and now we need to do repairs ... a lot of repairs. Mr. President has a plan. A $2 trillion plan. All he has to do is charge the nation's corporations $2 trillion in additional taxes and -- poof -- problem solved. It is a clever plan. Working on "infrastructure" which is required for workers to go to work looks good, but doing it by taxing to death the corporations for which people go to work will eliminate the problem. No work, no need for infrastructure. Either way the problem gets solved. Ingenious.

Fair is Fair
In 2020 Democrats used filibusters 327 times while the GOP used it once. But now another Democrat has come out in support of ending the filibuster. "If we can use it to stop the GOP, it is a fair and righteous tool. If they can use it to stop us, it is evil and must be eliminated. Fair is fair. What double standard are you referring to?" But if, as the Dems are claiming, the filibuster is racist, what does that say about the 327 times they used it versus the one time the GOP did?

When Defending Women is Hate
Recently Arkansas, Tennessee, and South Dakota signed bills that ban transgender athletes from playing in female sports teams. CNN assured us that "It's not possible to know a person's gender identity at birth, and for some people, the sex listed on their original birth certificate is a misleading way of describing the body they have." I would like to point out to CNN that "gender" and "sex" are technically not the same thing. Gender refers to masculinity and femininity -- traits and mannerisms and such that correspond to male and/or female. "Sex" refers to biology, which is pretty much fixed. Take a so-called "transgender woman" and do an XY chromosome test and that person's sex will be XY -- male -- because biology says so. It's not ambiguous. You can determine sex at birth. Remember? "Believe the science." Oh, right. "Not so much when we don't approve." I forgot.

Working for a Promotion
President Biden got promoted to from ex-VP to president in January. Since then he's managed to lock up 18,000 children from south of the border among other things. Now he's hoping for a promotion. Biden is trying to figure out how to get legal authority to cancel student debt. Student debt is largely owned by third-party loan companies like Wells Fargo or Discover as well as quasi-government groups like Sallie Mae, so if the president can require the private sector to take the $1.6 trillion student debt loss, I think he'll be officially "Emperor Biden."

Sex Bias
Turns out that animal lovers are sexist to the extreme. A comprehensive study from natural history collections of birds and mammals shows that more males are collected than females. (Hmm, that can't possibly be because in much of the animal kingdom male specimens are more colorful than female specimens, could it? Nah!)

They're At It Again
Those closed-minded Southerners are at it again. First it was limitations to dismembering children in the womb. Now it's being haters of someone trapped in the wrong body. Arkansas has passed a law banning chopping off a little girl's legs if she thinks she's a mermaid. Of all the narrow-minded, bigoted ideas.

In other news, CNN is reporting that apples and oranges are a social construct and there is no difference between them except in the minds of the culture of the day. Any suggestion that "You're comparing apples and oranges" is the product of binary thinking, limited to mere biology. CNN says, "You know you can't trust the science, right?"