Memorial Day, 2021

More than 3500 individuals have been awarded the military's highest honor, the Medal of Honor. Only around 100 are currently alive. First authorized in 1861, it was first awarded to an Army Private named Jacob Parrott. He was part of some Union volunteers who road a train into Georgia, stole the train at a stop, and wreacked havoc on the rails until they were caught. Then there was Dr. Mary Walker, a Union field surgeon at a time when women weren't allowed to serve or even be doctors. Still, she treated civilians and soldiers regardless of their associations. She was shot at and even captured, but she kept it up. The award was rescinded in 1917 and restored in 1977 and Mary remains the first woman to receive it.

During a suprise attack of Japanese forces one night in Iwo Jima, Corporal Charles Berry found himself juggling grenades. Japanese soldiers would lob them into his foxhole and he'd scoop them up and throw them back. When he was unable to reach one in time, he dove on top of it and took the blast to save the men in the foxhole with him.

PFC Bryant Wornack was drafted at 18 and sent to Korea with a medical company. On foot patrol his squad was outnumbered. He was wounded but went on treating wounds, refusing medical attention himself. At one point, a mortar shell exploded near him and took off his right arm. He didn't stop, but continued to direct others to help the wounded until he passed out from blood loss.

Sgt Matthew Leonard served in both Korea and Vietnam. In 1967 he took command of a foot patrol when his commander was wounded. He set up a defensive perimeter and fought off the first assault. When he saw a wounded man outside of the perimeter, he crawled to drag him to safety, getting wounded by a sniper in the process. When the enemy set up a machine gun to finish off the squad, he charged the emplacement receiving multiple mortal wounds and killed the gunners. He killed several more enemy soldiers before succumbing to his wounds.

MSgt Roy Benavidez is a particularly outstanding story. In 1965 he was evacuated to the U.S. from Vietnam after stepping on a landmine. They told him he would never walk again, but he was back in Vietnam in 1968. On May 2, 1968, Benavidez jumped from a helicopter armed only with a knife to help 12-man Special Forces patrol surrounded by 1000 enemy soldiers. Shot seven times, wounded with shrapnel, and stabbed in multiple places, Benavidez managed to save the lives of 8 of his comrades. At one point he was stabbed with a bayonet which he proceeded to extract from his body and turn it to stab the attacking soldier. When it was all over, the doctor was zipping up the body bag when Benavidez spat in his face, letting him know he was still alive. He recovered and retired in 1976.

That's five -- five of the more than 3500 stories of outstanding bravery, heroism, and honor from those who have served with distinction in the U.S. Armed Forces. They acted in keeping with the most cherished traditions of the military service and reflected utmost credit on themselves and the U.S. military. Men, women, all colors and creeds, from all walks of life and in all places that the military fought, there have always been people of valor who have been willing to give all for higher than themselves. It is these and more that we honor on Memorial Day.

The Gospel is Not "Inclusive"

I've been working through Romans of late, Paul's epistle to a group of people he didn't know. So he penned this letter to inform them of the Gospel (Rom 1:16-17) so they could have a solid basis for moving forward in their Christian walk. Keeping that purpose in mind, I've found that the Gospel that Paul offers to the Romans is much bigger than "Believe and be saved." It is, in fact, huge.

Paul begins this letter with a bold declaration that he was not ashamed of the Gospel (Rom 1:16). That might sound odd to us, but it shouldn't. How many of us are ashamed of the Gospel? Why? Well, included in "the Gospel" -- the good news -- is a whole lot of bad news (Rom 1:18-3:20). That's not pleasant. We don't want to tell people "Claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:22), the litany of evils we do (Rom 1:28-32), the certainty of God's judgment (Rom 2:2), the fact that there is none righteous (Rom 3:10), one who seeks for God (Rom 3:11), or even one who does good (Rom 3:12). We really don't want to tell them they have earned God's wrath (Rom 1:18). Then there's this whole "we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" thing (Rom 3:28). At first blush that seems wonderful, but it runs absolutely contrary to all standard thinking about what it takes to be justified. You earn it, don't you? Of course you do! People are pretty sure they're okay with God because, "I'm not as bad as most." Every other religion on the planet teaches that you earn heaven and here we are, Gospel in hand, telling them it is a gift accepted by faith.

It only gets worse from there. "So, you're saying that if someone doesn't believe, they don't get this gift?" Yes, that's what we're saying. That's what we're saying because that's what it says. So in a world driven by "inclusion," we are suggesting an exclusive salvation. If we are to be Christians, we have to follow Christ who said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). We're forced to agree that "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). The Gospel is truly grand and generous, but it is not inclusive. It includes everyone who comes by faith, regardless of origin, status, gender, or anything else (Gal 3:28), but excludes those who don't believe ... regardless of origin, status, gender, or anything else. And exclusion is the cardinal sin of our day.

There are plenty of voices out there to warn us away from the Gospel. That kind of exclusivity is evil. That kind of salvation is foolishness (1 Cor 1:23). The cross is folly to those who are perishing (1 Cor 1:18). So, like Paul, we present it and let it lie where it falls. We present it as clearly and completely as we can, sure, but it will take a miracle for anyone to accept it. Fortunately, the Author of the Gospel is a Miracle Worker, and in that we have hope.

News Weakly - 5/29/21

It Had to Happen
Australia's The Bachelorette will star a 26-year-old indigenous bisexual woman. They will include men and women to try to win her heart. This illustrates, once again, the inequity of the LGBT movement. They've done nothing for the "B's." Sure, a lesbian can wed a lesbian and a gay can wed a gay and a transgender can wed a transgender, but a bisexual cannot wed one of each gender. The LGBT group still opposes polygamy. Can you say "double standard"?

New Religion Banned
The Texas Senate passed a bill banning schools from requiring teaching critical race theory (CRT). Now, think about that for a moment. They didn't ban the teaching; they banned the requirement. Their thinking: Stop teaching white children they are responsible for slavery. And, of course, the "woke" are now also the outraged. Now, mind you, I think that if you're going to allow (not require) teaching of CRT (theory), then you'll have to allow (not require) teaching of other theories ... like Intelligent Design. But, of course, the "woke" want to require teaching white children they are responsible for slavery while refusing to teach them the theory that everything that comes into existence must have a cause. That's just too radical for them. (Note: It is a mistake to term this a "ban" on CRT theory. It is a removal of the requirement to teach it, not the teaching itself.)

What Scandal!
Rand Paul made the news by refusing to get vaccinated for COVID. Why? He had it already. Natural immunity. The story rightly points out that he is going against the CDC's recommendations. Experts don't know how long natural immunity will last. Oh, and there is "a rare risk that those who've already had COVID-19 could become infected again." But wait! Isn't there "a rare risk" that those who have been vaccinated could get it? (Is it rare?) It's hard to believe the science when the science doesn't actually know what to believe. (Like Fauci's 180° turn on whether COVID was natural or engineered.)

COVID-Related
I was always a bit confused about "COVID-related" when it came to "deaths." There was a stampede that killed 12 in a bar that was raided because it wasn't supposed to be open during the COVID lockdown. COVID-related? Now we have this news: "Pandemic has fueled eating disorder surge in teens, adults." The pandemic did it? People who got COVID gained eating disorders? Or is it more accurate to say that the prevention attempts did it? No, not the pandemic; the "treatment." And eating disorders are just one of the side effects.

We Know What's Best For You
Meet Patrisse Cullors. She is a founder of the BLM movement. The first term she uses to describe herself is "activist" and it spreads from there. She defines herself as a prison, police and "militarization" abolitionist. She opposes capitalism and cites Karl Marx, Lenin, and Mao Zedong as people who provided a new understanding of what economies could look like. Oh, and she just resigned from BLM when it was reported that she was so richly benefiting from white capitalism with a $1.4 million luxury home and three others around the country. Financial impropriety? I don't know. But certainly the absolute opposite of what she says she believes is a better way of life.

Just Curious
Seriously, just wondering. Why are so many states having to work so hard to get people to get vaccinated for COVID? Oregon offers a lottery with prizes up to a $1 million jackpot. California is offering a $116 million vaccine incentive program. (You'd think they could do better than that with their $76 billion budget surplus including $26 billion in COVID rescue money from Biden.) Minnesota offers the chance to win up to $5 million. CVS offers a chance to win trips. Krispy Kreme offered free donuts. Is not "This will keep you safe from dying of COVID" insufficient incentive? Or is it the mixed messages and dubious reports that make people hesitate?

Big Government
The president has unveiled his first budget for the nation -- $6 trillion. That sounds like a lot, but the current budget is $4.8 trillion, so this is just $1.2 trillion more. Now, if that sounded reasonable to you, you're not thinking about $1.2 times a 1 with 12 zeroes after it. But don't worry; he's just planning to cover that with your money. If you spread that out over the number of employed people in America, that only comes to a little less than $7,000 each. You won't mind, right? I know ... he'll take it from the rich and the corporations. I can't think of a better way to "grow the economy" than to stick to the wage payers. And all without keeping up our national security. Besides, what does he care if our grandchildren will never be able to pay this off? What we want is big, fat government, you see?

Sad News
True story: John Cena, actor and WWE wrestler, apologized to China for referring to Taiwan as a "country." Satire story: The Babylon Bee is reporting that he will undergo a spine transplant to remedy his lack of backbone. And speaking of backbone, the keeper of all truth, Facebook, is reminding users they can be banned for saying anything false ... or anything too true.

Must be true. I read it on the Internet.

Who Shall Separate Us?

At the end of Romans 8 Paul lapses into a glorious revery of the love of God for His people in a series of rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions are designed to 1) state obvious truth while 2) leading the listener/reader to participate in agreement. So, "If God is for us," he asks, "who can be against us?" (Rom 8:31) A rhetorical question if I ever heard one. "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?" (Rom 8:33) Another. And then this marvelous, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" He answers this one for the next 4 verses. The final answer? No one shall separate us from the love of Christ.

It's interesting there, though. The question is not about the love of Christ. The question isn't "Will He love me forever?" There is no question of His love. The question is my experience. Will I continue to experience His endless love, or can something or someone intervene to prevent me from experiencing it at some point? To that question the answer is "No." And that's a good thing.

Before we gloss it over, consider the implications. Paul lists things -- tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, sword (Rom 8:35) -- things that might be thought to separate us from the love of Christ. He concludes, "No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:37). So, the answer is clear, but consider the conclusions. If "For Your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered," (Rom 8:36) is true and it is equally true that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ, it is an unavoidable conclusion that these things are a very manifestation of the love of Christ. If God's love can be viewed as a river flowing from Him to us, those trials and distresses, those famines and nakedness, those persecutions and swords, death itself -- all are in the river of God's love for us, not outside of it. And we can see that elsewhere.

Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. (Rom 5:3-5)

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. (James 1:2-4)

Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin. (1 Peter 4:1)

Just some quick examples. Scripture again and again tells us that God uses tribulation and sorrow for our benefit, so it is purely rational to conclude that the things we suffer aren't distinct from Christ's love, but part of it.

In fact, it is that reality that allows us to conclude that "in all these things we are more than conquerors." It makes sense, then, to "give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (1 Thess 5:18). Sure, the moments are hard, but "this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison" (2 Cor 4:17), and in that we are, therefore, far more than conquerors.

Solomon's Solution

Wise Solomon spends much of the early part of Proverbs giving wise counsel to his son. A significant portion is warnings against sexual immorality. Young men apparently had the same sexual-sin tendencies ours do today. In Proverbs 5 we find Solomon's remedy.

Drink water from your own cistern and fresh water from your own well. (Prov 5:15)

Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times; be exhilarated always with her love. (Prov 5:18-19)

A cistern was, in Solomon's day, a method of storing rainwater. They would likely be underground, lined with lime to prevent the water from leaking out -- an excellent source of drinkable water in a dry area. Each house had its own -- "your own cistern." But ... what's with the water metaphor? Solomon was facing a young, hormone-driven son. This fire inside would be strong. What quenches fire? What satisfies a powerful thirst? You're going to need a lot of "water." The solution: drink your own water.

I thought it was strange when I read, "Let your fountain be blessed." What? Well, consider. If "fresh water" is in view as a metaphor for his wife, then she is the fountain. So it makes sense that if he is going to find his full satisfaction in his wife, he had better provide for her full satisfaction. "Let your fountain be blessed" ... as a part of being satisfied at home and avoiding sexual sin.

"Rejoice in the wife of your youth." Youth? Solomon clearly was expecting (at the time) one man and one woman for life. That "wife of your youth" was the one and only. We see this in Ecclesiastes.

Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun; for this is your reward in life and in your toil in which you have labored under the sun. (Ecc 9:9)

It's easy to miss it there, but Solomon wrote "the woman" -- singular -- and expected you to love her all the days of your life. That is, when you die, you part. I suspect if "all the days of your life" was the requirement, you might work harder at making it better, don't you think? (Oh, by the way, that is the requirement.)

You don't often hear sermons preached on this text. "Let her breasts satisfy you at all times" isn't really "church" material. Except that, obviously, it is. And the meaning isn't obscure. Instead of seeking for "just the right one" -- losing interest in this one because there are flaws or something else -- be satisfied with her. Be satisfied sexually. Be satisfied emotionally. Be satisfied socially. Don't look anywhere else.

I was interested to read the actual translation of the word "exhilarated" there. It means literally "to stagger" with the suggestion that it is intoxication. Figuratively, it means "be enraptured" or "captivated" as some translate it. In a very real sense, Solomon is urging his son to be drunk on her love. "I can't get enough of her. I can't even think straight when I'm around her. I can't imagine being away from her." You can see, I'm sure, if that is the way you see your wife, sexual immorality wouldn't begin to make sense.

We live in troublesome times, sexually speaking. God's version of the correct use of the gift of sex in marriage is out -- way out. In our day "good" is "Whatever I want." I can't imagine a time when this kind of advice is more needed. If husbands find their full satisfaction in their wives, there would be no need to stray. Conversely, if they find their full satisfaction in their wives, they would be fully satisfied. And if, as Scripture says, it is God who joins two together (Matt 19:6), then to do otherwise than be fully satisfied with your wife would be an affront to God. "That woman You gave me is not enough." I'm pretty sure you don't want to go there.

Sex in Marriage

Yeah, sure, nice expansive title. I don't actually intend to go there. But I do intend to look at one aspect.

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Cor 7:3-5)

Now, you have to admit that verse 4 is, well, a paradox at best. If the wife doesn't have authority over her own body, the husband can say, "Come on over here and do this act to me that I love and you hate," and, taken at face value, she'd have to do it. Except that she could then say, "Well, your body belongs to me, so go put it in a cold shower." And, again at face value, he'd have to do it. Stalemate. This, of course, was not the intent. But did you notice the attitudes on either end? "I want what I want" and "I don't want what you want." Perhaps there is a clue in there for what it does mean.

The initial concept: Husbands and wives need to fulfill their duty to each other. Oh, and what "duty" is in mind isn't ambiguous (1 Cor 7:1-2). He's talking about sex. He mentions sexual immorality in verse 2. To avoid that, fulfill your duty, husband and wife. I suspect that the next thought of the husband would be, "Oh, yeah, now I get what I want!" You might even conclude that from "The wife does not have authority over her own body," but that would be a mistake. Why? Because a wife has authority over her husband's body, so it's an impasse. If he says, "Come over here and do this act with me," he's taking authority over her body and his. He's not fulfilling his duty to his wife.

What is his duty? Sacrifice. "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). That is not "I get what I want." That is "She gets what she wants." Perhaps better, "She gets what she needs." "She gets what's best for her." Something like that, but it's not about him. He has given himself up for her.

Paul wrote, "Outdo one another in showing honor" (Rom 12:10). This passage has a similar feel. Outdo one another in giving yourself to each other. Outdo one another in surrender to each other. If my duty to my wife is to sacrificially love her and honor her (1 Peter 3:7) -- providing what is best for her, even in the bedroom -- then "I want what I want and you'd better give it to me" has no place. Sex in marriage, in this context, is about giving each other the best. That's why it's so strange that so many people think that Christians are uptight about sex. Maybe some are, but that's because they're not paying attention. Husbands and wives who obeyed God on this would be the most sexually satisfied couples on the planet.

Just Don't Think About It

Back in 1995, Mark Noll released a book titled The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. The opening line was, "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind." Mind you, Noll was not anti-Evangelical; he was concerned that his own "clan" was being ... stupid. There is no doubt that conservative Christianity suffers from an anti-intellectual bias. It's ironic, too, because 1) the world says "Faith and reason are in opposition" and we have to fight that nonsensical notion and 2) the Bible is full of commands to use our minds -- commands ignored by anti-intellectual Christians. So, too many of us have allowed the world -- the anti-God forces -- to define faith for us. In the words of the Great Theologian, Archie Bunker, "Faith is something you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." And apparently we just won't think that through.

Having bought that false dichotomy of faith versus reason while recognizing the lies of scientific anti-God pursuits from the 19th century on, we've opted to be skeptical of any reasoning and scholarly pursuits. So we've moved on. Faith is better than reason. Feeling is better than thinking. If you want to truly understand what God is saying, you need to "be led by the Spirit" by which we mean "Just don't think about it." Genuine theology, genuine doctrine, even genuine worship are all obtained by a moving of the soul and not some reading of an old book or rational analysis or something.

To be fair, it's not just Christians. Psychology Today argued that "anti-intellectualism is a very deep problem in America." Reading and critical thinking skills are on the decline. Common sense isn't common. We've decided that truth is relative and feelings determine what is or is not true and any disagreement on that is hate. So anti-intellectualism in the church is, in some sense, merely an extension of the anti-intellectualism we see in our modern world. The message is, "Just don't think about it." The Bible disagrees.

Think About It
It should come as no surprise, but the Bible is full of "think" commands. It does come as a surprise because, in our anti-intellectual path most of us have given up examining deeply God's Word. So while we might know the command, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2), we don't really take it seriously because that sounds a lot like thinking. We know that we are commanded, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37), but we don't put much effort into it. Scripture is crystal clear. "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) The fundamental human sin problem is suppression of truth, specifically about God. And the basic judgment about us is "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). So we have a thinking problem and we don't want to think about it.

Let me make this clear. There is no contradiction between faith and reason. It is unreasonable (see what I did there?) to suggest that the Bible commands both faith and thinking which are mutually exclusive. "But if we're deceived and out of whack in our thinking, how can we do it?" Reasonable question. Paul told Timothy, "Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything" (2 Tim 2:7) Do you see that? Both/and. "Think." Think about what? What Paul said. Paul wrote Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So do it. But note that the fruitfulness of doing it is supplied by the Lord.

In the end, it turns out that 1) we are commanded to think and 2) thinking is commended (e.g., Matt 16:2-4). Who are we to presume that God is wrong in this? Is faith the opponent of reason? No! Faith sustains us through faulty reasoning, but faith means "to be convinced by the evidence" and that includes reason. So when God says, "Come now, let us reason together" (Isa 1:18), perhaps we ought to obey. To think or not to think; that is the question. The obedient believer will embrace loving God with all his mind and reason is no longer the enemy.

Jesus and the Bible

We are all aware of the conflict. Conservative Christianity holds that the Bible is the Word of God -- God-breathed -- and, as such, since God is infallible and inerrant, what God breathed in the pages of the Bible is infallible and inerrant. "Nay, nay," counters Progressive Christianity. "The Bible is a mish-mash, a conglomeration of 'the words of God' perhaps along with other human ideas interjected. As such it is absolutely not inerrant or infallible." The dividing line isn't vague or trivial. But both sides claim to like Jesus well enough, so I have to ask, what did Jesus think about it?

Ironically, at the first, the only source we have about what Jesus thought about the Bible is ... the Bible. Now, if the Bible is indeed the Word of God, that's not a problem. If, however, it is not, then arguing for Jesus while arguing against the Bible as wholly reliable leaves you in a wholly unreliable position. But, we have to try, right? Consider, also, that Jesus is God (e.g., John 1:1-3; John 10:30; John 8:58). Thus if "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16-17) and Jesus is God, all Scripture comes from Christ, and not just the "red letters."

So what do we know about what Jesus believed about the Bible? Jesus understood that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (e.g., Mark 7:10; Mark 10:3; Mark 12:26). In fact, He attributed to Moses what God said (Mark 7:10; John 7:19, 22) and attributed to God what Moses said (Matt 22:31). Jesus saw these two sources as interchangeable. Jesus believed that the Scriptures were authoritative (e.g., Matt 8:4; Matt 22:29; Mark 10:3; Mark 12:26; Luke 16:29; Luke 24:44; John 5:46). He believed the Scriptures were enduring (Matt 5:18). He believed the Scriptures represented unmitigated truth (John 17:17). In the end, then, based on the infallibility and inerrancy of God, Jesus believed in the same for the words God had breathed.

It should not come as a surprise, then, that the "Christian Left" disagrees with Jesus on the concept of Hell and judgment (e.g., Matt 5:29; Matt 7:21-23; Matt 23:33; Matt 25:41; Mark 9:47-48; Luke 12:5; 2 Thess 1:7-8). They disagree with Jesus on the problem of sin (e.g., Luke 13:1-5). They disagree with the Jesus with whom they claim to agree, a necessity if they disagree with Jesus on the fundamental nature of God's Word.

Let's not be deceived here. I'm not saying those dirty, rotten Progressives need the Gospel. I'm saying that we all need the Gospel. Every day. All the time. So don't follow their perspectives on these things knowing that they are in opposition to Jesus. On the other hand, don't suppose that because you aren't doing the same, you're better than them. We all need the Gospel. All the time.

Missing It

The Greek word translated "sin" in most English translations is ἁμαρτία -- hamartia (or some form of it). It means, most literally, "to miss the mark." You know, like a target you're supposed to hit and you miss.

I gotta be honest. "Miss the mark" just doesn't sound like that big of a deal. Like, "I was shooting for a 100% on that test and only got 99%. I missed the mark." Yeah, so? In the famous words of Maxwell Smart, "Missed it by that much." How is this significant?

But you have to ask yourself, "What mark am I missing?" One person may be playing one of those games in a store where you drop that claw and try to win a prize. "Oops! Missed the mark." No big deal. Someone else might shoot for that perfect score on the final. "Oops! Missed the mark." Could be of some importance, but not too much. You could be a police officer and you're tasked with shooting someone before they kill someone else. "Oops! Missed the mark." Now, this is more serious. "In fact, I accidentally shot the victim." Now we're really getting serious. Thus, "missed the mark" changes its gravity by the significance of the mark that is missed.

So, in biblical terms, when we sin -- when we miss the mark -- what mark are we missing and how significant is it?

Paul wrote to the Romans, "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen." (Rom 11:36) To Him be glory forever. In fact, that is the primary purpose of creation. David wrote, "All Your works shall give thanks to You, O LORD, And Your godly ones shall bless You. They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom And talk of Your power; To make known to the sons of men Your mighty acts And the glory of the majesty of Your kingdom. (Psa 145:10-12) We all know, "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." (Psa 19:1) And we are commanded, "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31) To Him be glory forever. That's why it is so significant that the verse we all know -- "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) -- lists that last phrase. Sin is falling short of the glory of God. Or, in terms of missing the mark, the mark we miss is God's glory and our proper recognition and acknowledgement of it. And that's our entire purpose here, the highest importance.

This, then, is the mark we miss. It's not small. It's not insignificant. It can't be overlooked. And the fact that we don't seem too concerned about it only makes it worse. We have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Rom 1:25) If you count that as a mere "oops," a faux pas, then you have no notion of how significant this issue is. If you do see it, you can begin to see the magnitude of sin. And, consequently, the magnitude of the Gospel.

News Weakly - 5/22/21

Haters Unite!
Joining the BLM movement to declare, "We hate police," the organizers of New York's gay pride parade have opted to ban police from their upcoming event. The message was not ambiguous. The NYPD is entirely corrupt; they need to "acknowledge their harm and to correct course moving forward." The gay pride folks do not need to acknowledge the good work that the NYPD as a whole has done or correct their own course moving forward. The police officers who are gay are "disappointed," of course. But I'm wondering how wise it was to announce, "We are removing law enforcement, so feel free to break the law here."

No Justice, No Peace
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) opted to boycott the traditional White House Eid celebration in protest of Biden's argument that Palestinians and Israelis "deserve to live in dignity, safety and security." So many surprises. The White House has a traditional celebration of breaking the fast of Ramadan? People are upset that anyone would think that people deserve to live in dignity, safety and security? Someone cares what CAIR does? So many surprises. (Note: let's be clear. The protest of this position says clearly that Israel has no right to live in dignity, safety, or security. Those who defend the Palestinians against Israel's efforts to defend themselves side with those who wish to eliminate Israel.)

Statue-tory Sexism
A 26' tall statue of the famous Marilyn Monroe pose standing over the subway grate (from the Seven Year Itch) is taking up residence in Palm Springs, California, and not everyone is pleased. The statue will face away from the front door of the Palm Springs Art Museum so people coming in will see her, but that means that people going out are going to be looking up her dress, a misdemeanor in California. The museum isn't happy and others are objecting to "objectifying" Marilyn. Now, of course, everyone knows about that photo and it has been iconic for ages, so why, all of the sudden, the "#Metoo Marilyn" crowd objects eludes me. It is "blatantly sexist," they say, and I'm not disagreeing, but is the plan to erase history (again) and the minds of most people (male and female, because objectification is not a gender-exclusive thing)? Obviously Marilyn didn't object to the pose.

Follow the Money
Governor Andrew Cuomo, under investigation for multiple accusations of sexual abuse, is the guy that is known for causing the deaths of tens of thousands of elderly New Yorkers from COVID. So it seems really off that he has a $5 million book deal on his leadership in the COVID pandemic. How many ways is that wrong?

More Pronoun Trouble
Singer Demi Lovato has announced that she is now non-binary. You know, not male or female, but both ... or neither. She's going with "they" and "them" for her pronouns. And the press is bowing to the lunacy. She decided after "a lot of "self-reflective work," apparently without the use of a mirror.

What's in a name?
I suppose we could either change with the tide ... or teach people the truth. Penn State is choosing the former. They are replacing "sexist and classist" words like "freshman" because that has "man" in it and "junior" because that follows western male father-son naming conventions ... and no one knows that "man" also refers to "members of the human race" and "junior" only follows naming conventions when someone uses it that way. (No one ever heard "My wife is 2 years my junior" and thought "western father-son naming convention?".) The terms are only sexist or classist if you choose to take them that way. You could teach your students the truth at this school or you could cater to emotional lies. This "higher learning" institution chooses the latter.

Equal Right to Die
Bernie Sanders seeks to work at crippling Israel in their efforts to defend themselves from constant attack. A report from May 8 said that Palestinian militants have fired more than 1,600 rockets from Gaza at Israel. Now, 400 went down in Gaza and 90% of the ones that didn't were interecepted by Israel's missile defense system, but that doesn't constitute "not an attack." That is good defense. In response, Israel has attacked 600 targets ... with precision weapons. The fact that a disproportionate number of Palestinians have died is due to Hamas's tactic of putting their weaponry and fighters in the middle of civilians and Israel's superior armament ... which is what Sanders and the Left would like to take away. "If we can just make the casualties more equal, we can be diverse and inclusive."

Believe Science
USA Today put out this fine story with the headline, "They gave birth and love their children, and they want to remind you that 'not all pregnant people are women.'" Because being born with ovaries by no means suggests that you have to have them to get pregnant. Or, to put it another way, to prove the proposition that not all pregnant people are women you have to first assume that we can be whatever sex we feel like we are, and that's what's known as circular logic.

Pride and Prejudice
I don't even ... So the story is that Lego has announced that its first LGBTQIA+ (their letters, not mine) set will debut on the first day of "Pride Month." Because, as we all know, sexual orientation and gender and who sleeps with whom has always been the point of Lego toys and Lego has, sadly, been very lacking in inclusion and diversity. Now you can have your kid play with a purple drag queen as a critical component of playing with Legos. In case you didn't know it, there are some places where inclusion and diversity are not the point.

Too Much
The Babylon Bee just had too much good material to work with this week. On that last story above, they reported that Lego is unveiling genderless bricks with no male/female connectors. (If you don't get it, look at the Bee story.) (The Genesius Times couldn't leave that one alone, either.) There was the story about Democrats wearing binkies to wean themselves off masks. There was the one about the man driving alone in a carpool lane who told the officer his preferred pronoun was "they." And right out of Star Wars comes the report that Luke Skywalker has been condemned for blowing up an Associated Press office located on the Death Star. I guess current events, for the Babylon Bee, has just been a target-rich environment.

Matchless Love

Years ago one of my friends bit into a nice pizza and was enraptured. "I love pizza," he said. "If I could, I would marry it." Because, you know, he loved it. And that's what love means.

John wrote, "We love Him, because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19). Oh, now, hang on. That was the King James version. It's funny because that first "Him" isn't actually in the original. So more literal versions today simply say, "We love, because He first loved us." That is, the only way we can know and emulate the kind of love he's talking about here is because God has done it toward us and has enabled it in us.

I've written about this more than once. Today's "love" is not the same as the kind often written about in the Bible. And it is this verse that points it out. If the kind of love the Bible commands is the love that is not known unless God shows and enables it, then perhaps we should look into what that might look like. So what does God's love look like? Obviously it's not the same as loving pizza. What is it?

First and foremost God's love is sacrificial.

By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4:9-11)

We knew that, right? I mean, John 3:16 says the same thing. God loved the world this way -- He sent His Son. Paul wrote, "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). The same thing. God's love is best demonstrated in His giving His Son on our behalf. But that last one carries with it another component. To whom was this love demonstrated? "Sinners." "The ungodly" (Rom 5:6). "Enemies" of God (Rom 5:10). You can see that this takes it a bit farther; indeed, farther than we might deem reasonable. It is sacrificial, sure, and what a sacrifice -- His Son. But we understand sacrifice for a loved one. This one we don't. We don't understand that kind of sacrifice for an enemy (Rom 5:7). God's love is best demonstrated, then, in sacrifice for enemies as well as friends.

What's another difference? We believe that love is affirming. And it often is, but we deny that it's love if it is not affirming. God disagrees.

My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by Him. For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives. (Heb 12:5-6)

That's not quite like our version, is it? Note that this discipline is for "the one he loves." Note also that the word, "chastises," is literally "to flog or scourge." Not mere teaching moments. So this would definitely be what we term "tough love," a concept today that is almost entirely absent and almost certainly denied. In fact, the text goes on to say, "If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons" (Heb 12:8). No "tough love," no relationship.

God's love for us -- that love that is the operating principle for the love we're supposed to have for Him and for others -- is not a warm and fuzzy kind of love. It's not "chemistry." It's not even predicated on how lovable we might be ... because the premise is we are not naturally lovable. It includes sacrifice -- at great personal cost. It includes training and even punishment. It certainly includes grace and mercy, and faithfulness (Lam 3:22). It certainly exceeds our ability to fully grasp (Eph 3:19). But the primary thing to remember is that this is love that God produces. It cannot, therefore, be the mere love that we think of. On the other hand, as believers -- as those being conformed into the likeness of His Son (Rom 8:29) -- it is possible for us. No, not possible; mandatory (John 13:35; 1 John 4:8; 1 John 5:1-3).

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. (Eph 5:1-2)

With Murderous Intent

I was reading in Romans 8 and I came across this.

For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if, by the Spirit, you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. (Rom 8:13)

"Put to death the deeds of the body"? That sounds ... a little extreme. But I remembered something I read years ago from a Christian psychologist.

The flesh, the enemy within, dons a friendly uniform, one that a Christian might wear, and suggests reasonable directions. We welcome him into our ranks. When he causes trouble, we try to whip him into shape, get him to cooperate with the program and stop interfering with our efforts to do things right. Or we work hard to figure him out. What makes him tick? Why does he demand gratification that way? Maybe a journey into the past will uncover the source of these crazy tendencies and enable us to reason more effectively with him.

What we need to do, of course, is shoot him ... And if he doesn’t stay dead, we must shoot him again, then beat him, then tie him down in the sand under a hot desert sun, turn loose an army of red ants on his body, and walk away without sympathy. And then we must do it again and again, 'til we're home. An overdone metaphor? Not when we see the enemy for who he is, for what he wants to do. We are at war. The enemy within is the flesh, and he wants to ruin our relationships and thwart God's plan.

What am I to kill? The answer, of course, is the flesh, that nature within me inclined to sin. But what is it? How do I recognize it? As a start, think of it this way: sin is any effort to make life work without absolute dependence on God. It is giving higher priority to my satisfaction than to God’s pleasure. It involves a follow-up commitment to find joy for my soul outside of God, a commitment rooted in the belief that there is something truly good that God does not provide. It boils down to self-dependence and self-preoccupation and self-centeredness, attitudes that look to other people and things for the satisfaction we were designed to enjoy. (From Connecting by Larry Crabb)

I think he's got something there.

Conspiracy Theory

Let me just say at the outset, "No! This is not about voter fraud or election rigging or vaccines aimed at giving you the mark of the beast. Let's move along."

Every society changes with time. It's just the way it is. But I've been noticing something interesting in observing our cultural shifts over the decades of my life.

One i've written about at length is marriage. It has been a long time coming, from the sexual revolution of the '60's to "no fault" divorce of the '70's, we finally, in the 21st century, self-consciously decided to redefine marriage from the union of a man and a woman for purposes of mutual support and procreation to ... well, it's undefined now. But it isn't "a man and a woman" and it isn't "for mutual support" or "procreation." None of that is in the definition or the picture. And, of course, with a demise of a purpose or definition, it's understandable that marriage is in decline -- at the lowest rate ever -- and children are born without father and mother family units in growing numbers and ... well, it's not looking good. That is the situation. Behind the situation, though, is an interesting fact. The longstanding, traditional definition of marriage was marked in Scripture as a depiction of the "marriage" of Christ and the Church (Eph 5:31-32). So today, if we try to point to marriage as an illustration of that blessed union, we've got nothing to show for it.

The Bible speaks often of love. Like us, there are lots of terms and/or connotations, but there is always one in Scripture that was elevated, special, different. It wasn't emotion; it was choice, attitude, and action. It wasn't dependent on the one who is loved; it was offered solely by the one doing it. The Greek word associated with this version is agape, and this version of the word transcends all the other concepts of love. This version is outwardly focused, intent on the best interests of others. It never fails. Today, of course, we've managed to redefine it. Badly. Now it is warm affection, a sort of chemistry, something that, generally, pleases us. It is often automatically connected to sex. But it is, very rarely, anything remotely resembling that biblical concept. So now when we read, "Love God with all your heart," we think, "Feel warmly toward God." When we read, "Love your neighbor as yourself," we think, "The greatest love of all is loving yourself." When we read, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35), we assume it's a warm feeling of affection for some vague "one another." We no longer have a word for agape. And, thus, we no longer have any mental connection to biblical love.

With the shift away from "marriage" as something meaningful (and descriptive) and the discarding of love as something selfless and sacrificial, but rather a passion and, oh, of course, sex, we've discarded any sense of sex as anything more than personal gratification. The notion of "I'm saving myself for marriage" is not honored, but ridiculed. The suggestion that sex has much more meaning than two bodies engaged in pleasure is considered silly. Sex just in marriage? Don't be stupid! But the Bible references marriage as "the two shall become one" (Gen 2:24) and sex as an image of our union with Christ (1 Cor 6:15). I suspect most Christians these days aren't aware of that. So our cultural shift to "free sex" (because we no longer know what "love" is) is a shift away from God's image of Christ and His body.

I don't know if you're seeing the pattern or not. It seems as if much of the cultural shifting of our modern society is directly away from ... God's primary concerns. He designed and described the world in patriarchal terms and we've decided patriarchy is an evil and, by implication, so is God. He indicated that in the same way that Christ is the head of a man, a husband is the head of his wife, and we have definitely thrown out that concept ... jettisoning His Lordship with it. Marriage as an image of the union of Christ and the Church, love as a clear picture of God's relationship with us (and that's not some warm, chemical emotion, let alone sex), sex as a picture of the union of believers with Christ's body, and now all this is down the drain. And this seems to be happening all over society where it correlates with God's Word. If God said it, we're going to controvert it. We'll deny it or mitigate it or change it into our own image. It isn't new, of course. The "Enlightenment" set out to show how we don't need God anymore; we have science. So they discarded miracles including the Resurrection and, as an obvious consequence, God's Word as meaningless. Modernism followed up with "We don't need God anymore; we have reason." Post-modernism followed up with "We don't need God anymore; we don't need to make sense of things at all." Darwin famously challenged Genesis (and, in that, God) and, although Darwinian evolution is largely discarded now, his challenge remains to this day. Prevalent cultures have made constant attacks on the Gospel, mitigating Christ, sin, redemption, hell, judgment, righteousness, everything that God intended to convey. It begins to look like a conspiracy.

And, I'm pretty sure, it is. Satan's conspiracy. Of course, "the prince of the power of the air," "the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2), "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4), the "father of lies" (John 8:44) will certainly enlist his followers. Unfortunately, too many of Christ's followers are getting swept along with it, completely unaware. That's what I find most disturbing. But Jesus said, "I will build My church" (Matt 16:18) and Paul said, "In all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:37), and in that I can find peace.

Church Elders

The New Testament is clear. The leadership of individual churches is supposed to be in the hands of "elders." Sure, there are multiple names, too. In Paul's letter to Timothy he uses the word "overseer" (or bishop in King James English) (or "supervisor" in Latin). The Greek is ἐπισκοπή -- episkopē -- which means to superintend, inspect, oversee. (And, I hope, you see where we get "Episcopalian.") In his letter to Titus with the same office in view he used the term "elder." That Greek is πρεσβύτερος -- presbuteros -- which means "elder" (go figure) in reference to age or maturity. Senior. (And, again, I hope you see where we get "Persbyterian.") In Ephesians Paul refers to "pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11) (where the term appears to be a single thought, like "pastor/teacher" as opposed to two different ideas). In Peter's first epistle he intermingles the "elder" concept with "overseer" concept and the "pastor" concept (except that no one appears to translate it "pastor" in this passage), so we have "elders" (1 Peter 5:1) who are exercising "oversight" (1 Peter 5:2) as shepherds (1 Peter 5:2) (as the "Chief Shepherd" does (1 Peter 5:4)). (Note: that "pastor" in Eph 4:11 is the same word translated "shepherd" here.) So leadership consists of this role which may referred to as "elder" or "overseer" or "bishop" or "shepherd" or "pastor." (Interestingly, although we generally think of church leadership as "pastor," the only place that word is translated in any English translations is that single Ephesians 4:11 verse. Still, "pastor" is predominate in our minds.)

We can discuss the role of this office -- what is it, what do they do, and how it is different than "deacon" -- and we can discuss the qualifications of this office (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9), and we can recognize that it is always a plurality -- never a single "pastor" in charge -- but I'm not going there. What I want to know is "Why elders?" Multiple places refers to these leaders as "elders" which can only be translated "elders" because that's all that the word means -- people who, in some sense, are older. Why?

It's really a question we have to ask due to our modern culture because no one else seemed to ask it. Throughout the Old Testament the leadership of towns and villages was always a group of "elders" (e.g., Gen 50:7; Exo 3:16; Exo 19:7; Exo 24:9; Num 11:16; Deut 21:18-21; Josh 7:6; Josh 20:4; Judg 8:14; 1 Kings 8:1 ad infinitum). Why elders? Today "Boomer" is a derogatory term ... for "elders." Today, a overwhelmingly common theme in shows and movies is how young people are the hope for wisdom and guidance while older people are just ... well ... losers. Today it is folly to trust yourself to old people. We all know this. So why do the Scriptures specify elders as leadership for churches?

I don't think that "elder" is intended to convey "old person" in a chronological sense. I think that it is intended to convey maturity in a spiritual sense. You see this in the requirement that he be "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2), "manage his household well" (1 Tim 3:4), and not "a recent convert" (1 Tim 3:6). You see this when Paul tells Timothy "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands." (1 Tim 5:22) Indeed, if you look over the qualifications for this role, it's hard to imagine being able to determine qualification in someone who hasn't lived some years and gained some maturity. I think there is also a sense of continuity in mind here. Our world likes new ideas, novelty, innovation. But the church is looking at "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) There isn't really much room for innovation there; continuity of that faith is really what's needed, and that's best accomplished by those who have continued in the faith awhile.

I think these are some good answers to the question, "Why elders?" At the end of it, though, I think the starting answer should be "Because it says so." It is undeniable that Scripture views leadership as best accomplished by elders, men of maturity who have lived long enough to gain wisdom and insight and can use it and share it. I know, I know ... that's not the popular perspective. I wonder, given our popular headlong rush away from godly living and thinking, if the fact that it's not a popular perspective isn't another reason to think it's a good perspective.

Is Masturbation a Sin?

It wasn't that long ago that the question itself would been laughed off the screen, so to speak. "A sin? Of course it is!" Well, we've come a long way since then, and we've figured out that a lot of what Christians throughout history have believed to be right and wrong are not. We've also figured out that the purpose of sex is primarily personal gratification. So how could it be wrong? So, is it a sin? Let's just set this down at the outset; there is no mention of masturbation in the Bible, positive or negative, so it is not a sin. End of story.

Or is it? Some argue that the story of Onan in the Old Testament is a story of mastubatory sin that resulted in the God striking him dead (Gen 38:6-10). Don't be silly. Onan did "spill his seed on the ground," but it wasn't where he spilled it that got him punished; it was his refusal to "perform his duty as a brother-in-law." Besides, coitus interruptus isn't masturbation by any stretch of the imagination. So that settles that.

Or does it? So, the Bible doesn't talk about masturbation and it is not talking about masturbation in the story of Onan, so are there any other considerations? I think so. The biggest reason that most in the history of Christendom considered masturbation a sin was not some vague Victorian sexual mores (because most of the history of Christendom took place long before Victorian sexual mores). No, it was because of the broad prohibition of "sexual immorality" (e.g., 1 Cor 6:13, 18; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; etc.). Sexual immorality, in the end, is broadly defined as any sex outside of marriage. So that would include at least most of masturbation. Don't stop there. Jesus said that lust was adultery (Matt 5:27-30). Can you masturbate without lust? The command is "Let all you do be done to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31) Are you giving glory to God in masturbation? Paul said, "Everything that is not of faith is sin." (Rom 14:23) Those questioning whether or not it's sin are likely not coming from the conviction of faith that it is not. Here's a helpful little hint. Do you hide the fact of masturbation? That could be a clear indication that it is not in faith. Paul also said, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything." (1 Cor 6:12) Is it possible to masturbate without it becoming a habit? If the fruit of the Spirit includes "self-control" (Gal 5:22-23), is that how we are to understand masturbation? Scripture says we are to "honor God with your body." (1 Cor 6:19-20) Does masturbation do that?

It is undeniable that masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible. As such, it does not fall in the category of categorical sin. There is the problem of sex outside of marriage. Masturbation has one singular focus: me. God designed sex as the union of a husband and a wife, especially for procreation. Masturbation is the absolute denial of that. So it can't be considered good. But if you can masturbate in marriage without lust with an eye to giving glory to God and utter confidence that it is not sin and without being mastered by it, but, rather honoring God in it and practicing self-control, well, then, I'd have to say that perhaps you're okay going ahead with that. If not, the masturbation may not be sin, but everything that drives and accompanies it is.

Enough?

In 586 B.C. the armies of Babylon descended as promised (e.g., Jer 1:14-16) on Judah. People starved, disease spread, warriors fled, the army scattered, and the king was captured. His sons were executed in front of him, then his eyes were gouged out and he was led away in chains. Jerusalem was burned, the walls torn down. The palace was burned and Solomon's Temple was sacked and set on fire. Millions were killed and most of those who weren't were led off to Babylon as slaves.

In his 60's by then, the prophet, Jeremiah, who had predicted it, for which he was abused and imprisoned, lived through it all. He is credited with writing Lamentations as a result. And it is real lament. In it we read things like "against me He turns His hand again and again the whole day long" (Lam 3:3), "though I call and cry for help, He shuts out my prayer" (Lam 3:8), "He has filled me with bitterness" (Lam 3:15), and "My soul is bereft of peace; I have forgotten what happiness is; so I say, 'My endurance has perished; so has my hope from the LORD.'" (Lam 3:17-18)

"Oh, my, my, Jeremiah!" we protest. "You call yourself a prophet from God and you talk about God this way? That won't do." You see, we have this notion that you either talk nice about God (and that's good) or you refer to God in the negative (and that's bad). But Jeremiah didn't. He embraced (and lamented) all the trials and tribulations laid on him as coming from God ... and trusted God:

But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope: The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. "The LORD is my portion," says my soul, "therefore I will hope in Him." The LORD is good to those who wait for Him, to the soul who seeks Him. It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD. (Lam 3:21-26)

Jeremiah allowed himself to experience the full ride. He didn't mitigate the pain and even the sense of hopelessness that accompanied it. He didn't try to excuse God or minimize the experience. Even so, he still found that waiting for God was good and that simply knowing God was his portion and His hope. Not the blessings. Not the comfort. Not the good times. God and God alone. Everything else -- blessings and tribulations -- was just gravy. A lot of gravy.

Is that you? Is that me? Do we find our hope in simply knowing God? Or are we requiring something more of God? More than just Himself?

News Weakly - 5/15/21

Historic and Revolutionary
Pastor Rick Warren and Saddleback Church had an "historic night" when they "ordained our first three women pastors." The term -- their term -- "historic" should have been a clue. Historically from the beginning of Christendom any reader of Scripture has understood that, while gifted and important in ministry in the church, women are not allowed to serve in the role of pastor (1 Tim 2:11-14). It hasn't been until the last hundred years or so that we've discovered that the Holy Spirit was a failure and the Scriptures were unreliable. One of the ordained women called this change in philosophy "revolutionary." Truly, a revolt against God's Word.

In Name Only
President Biden is a Catholic and a pro-abortionist. The two positions are diametrically opposed. So many in the Roman Catholic Church in America are pushing to block the president from receiving Communion. The Vatican says no. "We're opposed to killing babies in the womb, but certainly not in any meaningful way." If they were to actually take that stand, it would be "a source of discord rather than unity within the episcopate and the larger church in the United States." Sure, there is truth, even God's truth, but let's not get radical about it. "We're pro-life, but not if it makes anyone uncomfortable."

But, Of Course!
We are no longer able to define male or female and we are no longer concerned about biblical principles. So, if an Evangelical Lutheran church in California elects Megan Rohrer, the first transgender bishop in a major American Christian denomination, who would be surprised? As a hint to a basic problem, the story says, "The Rev. Elizabeth A. Eaton, ELCA’s presiding bishop, praised the synod for recognizing Rohrer’s talents." Got it. The story is very confusing, partly because the new bishop "uses they/them pronouns." Apparently this guy got expelled from a church youth group as a teen after coming out ... as a lesbian? Or is Megan a girl who identifies as a guy but kept the girl name and ... oh, I'll never be able to figure this stuff out.

Pronoun Troubles
The classic line from that Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck cartoon was, "Pronoun troubles." Instagram is solving it. They will allow users to select their pronouns. So we have the standard he/him-she/her stuff, but that's so passe. Now we have "they/them," "ze/zir," "xe/xem," and so on. If we're choosing pronouns, I'm going with "pthttt" and "your highness." Why not? It's just as useful.

Woke Rice
A gross injustice has been set right. We will no longer be regaled with racist derision of uncles who are black and work with rice. Gone is the brand, "Uncle Ben's," because everyone knows that black people can't be uncles and gone is the photo of the smiling black man because everyone knows black people don't have anything at all to do with white rice. Nonsense? You bet.

Silver Linings
Some good news, apparently. On one hand, reports are that Biden is thankful for the latest gas crisis because it distracts the nation from his inflation crisis, unemployment crisis, economic crisis, and border crisis. And, the story is out that Jimmy Carter is grateful for Biden because now Carter is hopeful that he won't be the worst presidential failure in his lifetime. Lots of silver linings!

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Is God Good?

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matt 7:13-14)

I suspect that, deep down, we don't really believe that. We don't really believe that the gate that leads to life is narrow and the way is hard and few find it. Why else would we think that "America is a Christian nation"? Why else would we demand that no one question others' salvation? The way is wide and easy and lots of people find it!

Perhaps it's just our way of coping, of managing the horrible reality that many around us don't know Jesus. Many we care about. Many close to us. Maybe among our closest friends, our own family, in our own homes. Now that is a terrible thought.

It's an awful thing to contemplate. Almost as bad as physical death. This is more of a living death, at once both death and, yet, still that glimmer of hope of new life. Most of those I know who have rejected Christ -- different, of course, than those who have never heard -- are what I consider "worst cases." They're immunized in a way. They've heard the gospel, even responded to it in some sense, but never made it their own good news. They often live lives of sin without regret and even call themselves "Christians" even though the evidence -- "their fruits" (Matt 7:16) -- isn't there. Our ability to reach these is seriously blunted because they know. They've heard, they've seen, they even think they get it. They've "tasted of the heavenly gift" and tasted the goodness of the word of God (Heb 6:4-5). They may have received it with joy, but, with no root, they've fallen away. The cares and deceitfulness of the world have choked it out of them, "and it proves unfruitful." (Matt 13:20-22) Some know it; some don't. Some are hostile and some are apathetic and some are oblivious.

People we care about. A daughter-in-law or a son, a brother or a sister, a parent or a grandchild. People that could very well be on that wide way instead of the narrow. People we love. And our words have failed us and our pleadings have fallen on deaf ears if we've tried to plead with them. Or, maybe, we've just let it go. Don't question. Because the possibilities are too horrendous to think about.

Yet, we are not without hope. The hands that shaped the universe, that hold it together moment by moment, are the hands that laid themselves on a cross to save us and the hands that hold our loved ones still. When careful arguments are at an end and words are done and we're left with prayer alone, we ought not shortchange that "alone." Those hands and that prayer is all that have ever succeeded in reaching the lost heart. It has never been our persuasive abilities or clever phrases or even our deepest love. It has always been Him. So we have to ask ourselves: Is God good? If He is good and He is God, will not the Judge of all the earth do right? That is hope that does not disappoint.

Unprepared

We get PSAs that warn us to be prepared. There might be an emergency; be prepared. FEMA offers an Emergency Preparedness Checklist so we can be prepared ... for anything, apparently. Earthquakes, floods, disasters of all kinds, and now, particularly, prepared in a COVID world -- disaster upon disaster.

What about us? What about us believers? Are we prepared? "What emergency?" you might reasonably ask. We have been warned that "all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." (2 Tim 3:12) "Oh, that," many American Christians respond. "Don't worry; we won't be persecuted." If you try to warn American Christians about this, you'll often get ignored, shushed, or even ridiculed. "Don't be silly."

Okay, fine, but Scripture is not ambiguous on the topic. Beyond that Second Timothy reference, John wrote, "Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you." (1 John 3:13) Peter wrote, "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation." (1 Peter 4:12-13) Paul wrote, "To you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake." (Php 1:29) Over and over God's Word tells God's people that they will suffer. So maybe you'd like to blow it off, but I'd recommend against it.

If we are to take this seriously, how would we prepare? Repeatedly we are told that we can rejoice in suffering (e.g., Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4). We can rest not in personal comfort, but God (Rom 8:28-29; Psa 34:19; Rom 8:18; 1 Peter 3:14; 1 Peter 4:12-19; 1 Peter 5:10). Paul wrote, "This light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison." (2 Cor 4:17) We are promised a crown (James 1:12). We are follwing Christ (1 Peter 2:21).

Burying your head in the sand probably isn't the best way to prepare for the tribulations we are promised. So prepare. Read God's Word. Know what God says about it. Know the God who says it. Before it happens, be ready for it to happen because we can be sure it's coming, but we can also be sure that God is faithful, and He is our ultimate preparation.

Bigger Than You Thought

Paul wrote his epistle to Rome primarily for the purpose of making sure they knew what the Gospel was (Rom 1:16-17). You and I don't really need that, right? We're educated. We're taught. We know what the Gospel is. "Good news! Jesus died to save us!" And it is, indeed, good news; the Gospel. But I suspect the Gospel is much bigger than we typically think of it.

The Bad News
Paul's explanation of the Gospel begins with a lengthy explanation of the problem (Rom 1:18-3:20). For 63 verses Paul waxes eloquent about the problem of our sin. We face God's wrath because we suppress the truth about God (Rom 1:18-20). We decline in our suppression of the truth to utter depravity (Rom 1:21-32). Neither Jew nor Gentile has an excuse (Rom 2). In the end, there is none righteous, none who seeks for God, none who does good; no, not even one (Rom 3:10-18). Really bad news.

The Good News (Rom 3:21-Rom 4:25)
On the tail, then, of this really bad news, Paul brings about the good news. This good news is amplified by the bad news. It's good to know that we "are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:24), but it's so much bigger when you see it from that bottom of the barrel we found ourselves in.

The Next Big Thing (Rom 5:1-21)
The bad news started with the righteous (just) wrath of God, so it is good news to find that because of our justification on the basis of faith we have peace with God (Rom 5:1). And while we were under Adam and, therefore, tied into sin, we are now under Christ which brings eternal life.

Bigger and Bigger (Rom 6:1-23)
It only gets bigger. Starting from the sin condition and moving joyfully to justified by faith, we now are identified with Christ. That means we are identified with His death to sin (Rom 6:2 ) and, further, new life in Christ (Rom 6:4, 8-11). Better yet, we become obedient, but not just obedient -- obedient from the heart (Rom 6:16). We're talking about a life change, a new being, a new living condition, a new person. So the Gospel promises "Sin shall not master you." (Rom 6:14) That is stunningly good news! From "only able to sin" to "sin shall not master you." We are looking, on the basis of Christ's death and resurrection, at the certainty of victory over sin.

Bigger and Biggest (Rom 8:1-39)
Romans 8 represents the pinnacle of the epistle. Despite our continuing struggle with sin (Rom 7), we see, ultimately, no condemnation (Rom 8:1). How can there be? God dwells in you! (Rom 8:9-11) We were enemies of God and now we are heirs with Christ (Rom 8:12-17). We are being conformed by God into the image of His Son (Rom 8:26-29). If God is for us, who can be against us? We are more than conquerors! (Rom 8:31-39)

This has just been a sprint, a quick overview of the Gospel as it is found in Romans. Just the high points. We understand that the Gospel means we are saved, and that is indeed good news, but the good news is so much bigger than that. Christ's perfect righteousness has been imputed to us. Not merely forgiven; declared righteous. On the basis of justification by faith, we have peace with God where we originally faced His wrath. We are identified with Christ's death to sin and now enjoy new life, which includes a new heart and defeating sin. We have God living in us. God has a plan and a purpose to shape us as heirs to be the image of His Son. We have God on our side!

What concerns me, then, isn't the Gospel. That's marvelous. What concerns me is that we, the recipients of the best news ever -- much better than we can even grasp -- might take it for granted, might take it without sufficient gratitude, might take it without the joy that it should engulf us with. That would be a very sad thing.

Be a Man

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. (1 Cor 16:13)

Odd. It doesn't say, "Get in touch with your inner child" or "Get in touch with your feminine side." It doesn't suggest, "Don't act like a man; all men are bad." Worse, this wasn't even written to men only; it was written to "to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor 1:2) There are certainly women under that heading. So, is Paul actually telling women to "act like men," too? (If so, as it appears to be, then it is not saying, "Don't get in touch with your feminine side.") What is he saying? Here's what it says more completely:

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love. (1 Cor 16:13-14)

I think, then, that this isn't about the male or female. This is about adulthood, about maturity. The contrast here isn't "Act like a man as opposed to a woman." It's about "Act like a man as opposed to a child." On the other hand, the characteristics that Paul is urging are often equated with "masculine," but, I would argue, mistakenly. If we wanted to urge a boy, for instance, to be brave and strong, we might say, "Man up." Does that mean we don't want girls to be brave and strong? By no means! We want girls to have those same "masculine" characteristics as well. So, what characteristics is Paul urging ... on all believers?

Be watchful
It's not just here (e.g., 1 Peter 5:8; Acts 20:31). Believers need to be watchful. We need to "Look out for the dogs," (Php 3:2), the wolves (Acts 20:29), those who would "climb in by another way" (John 10:1) "to steal and kill and destroy" (John 10:10). We need to be watching our brothers and sisters so we can restore them if they're caught in a transgression (Gal 6:1). It's not just in this verse. But we? We're pretty lethargic. We can be quite embracing. "Don't question their salvation. Don't be judgmental. Don't point out their sin. Don't bring an accusation against 'the Lord's anointed.'" Paul disagrees. He urges here that we be watchful. No, not judgmental, but neither should we be complacent. No, not accusatory, but neither should we pass over transgressions. We should watch for false teachers (Matt 7:15-16; 1 John 2:18-19) to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3-4) and for believers in sin to restore them (Gal 6:1), for instance. Be watchful "as men."

Stand firm in the faith
Again, this "stand" command isn't just in this text; it's all over (e.g., 2 Cor 1:24; Gal 5:1; Php 1:27; Eph 6:13). We aren't fighting earthly foes; we're in a spiritual battle (Eph 6:10-12) requiring spiritual weaponry (2 Cor 10:4-5). Stand firm "as men."

Be strong
"Be strong" isn't merely from Paul. He says it elsewhere as well (Eph 6:10), but it is a recurring theme in the Old Testament as well (e.g., Deut 11:8; Deut 31:6-7; Josh 1:9; 1 Chron 22:13; Psa 27:14; Psa 31:24; etc.). In all those references the concept is "be strong in the Lord." It isn't talking about mere human strength; it's the strength exercised by His people supplied by God for God's purposes. Be strong "as men."

Do all you do in love
These characteristics are distinct but not separate. We are to be watchful while standing firm, standing firm while being strong, and being strong while being watchful. So this last one actually encompasses and shapes them all. We are to be watchful in love, standing firm in love, and strong in love. Love is to motivate it all. No, of course not "warm affection" love. That's nice and all, but this is the love that we choose, the love that works for the best of others. It's the love that considers others as more important than I am (Php 2:3), that regards giving glory to God as the highest love (Matt 22:37-38), the love that doesn't hold grudges and rejoices with the truth and does not seek its own and believes the best of others and never fails (1 Cor 13:4-8). Love like that. Let everything you do be in love like that "as men."

In the end, then, this isn't about "maleness" or "femaleness." It's about being "a mature man" in the fullness of Christ (Eph 4:13), "no longer children, but speaking the truth in love" and growing up "into Him who is the head" (Eph 4:14-15). Act like that mature person.

Next Big Thing

The next assault is coming. It's a documentary called 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted a Culture. They've finally figured it out. All this time Christians got it wrong. God never said that homosexual behavior was sin. It was a mistake. We've figured it out now. We have it on good authority that the Holy Spirit failed for 2000 years to get this across and now we have it. Whew! All fixed now! As it turns out, Paul did not say, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) Nothing of the sort. Well, okay, most of the sort, but not that one phrase, "men who practice homosexuality." Definitely not in there. It was a mistake, you see, and all the modern translations that say that were forced to their translations by a mistake. Homosexual behavior has never been a sin and we've all -- from the beginning of time -- just misunderstood.

It's odd, of course, that this kind of stuff would come across as so influential. The weight of history is as light as a feather, apparently. The claim in the documentary is that the term in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 is a mistaken translation, so obviously it erases all the texts. The Old Testament texts (Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13) and the New Testament references (Rom 1:26-27) are no longer of any consequence. Or, to put it more clearly, you're a fool if you think you can reliably understand your Bible.

It's interesting, though. Did Paul say "homosexual" in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1? The word, as it turns out, is somewhat of a puzzler. It is ἀρσενοκοίτης -- arsenokoitēs. The King James translates it "those who abuse themselves with mankind." It's a two-part Greek word that sticks together "men" and "couch." In the Bible it appears only in those two places and in extrabiblical Greek texts it looks like it doesn't appear until after Paul used it. It could be that Paul coined the term himself. So what does it mean?

Back in 2015 the "glbtq Project" shut down its website because the online advertising business model didn't work. But they archived much of their data, so you can still find this entry on the Apostle Paul. Yes, a project aimed to be "the world's largest encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer culture and history" has an entry on Paul specifically because of his writings on LGBT issues. What do they say? Two words are in play here. One is arsenokoitēs and the other is malakoi. They say on the malakoi, "We can say with certainty, are males -- boys, youths, or adults -- who have consented, either for money or for pleasure, for some perceived advantage or as an act of affectionate generosity, to be penetrated by men." The former they say comes from the Greek translation of the Old Testament -- the Septuagint. It is the word used in those Old Testament passages. They conclude, based on their examination of the language and the history of the word, "The bad news from the Christian Bible is that it condemns same-sex desire and same-sex acts without qualification of age, gender, role, status, consent, or membership in an ethnic community." They are saying that the translation "those who commit homosexual acts" is precisely the intent of the texts. (They also point out that the Romans 1 text was "meant to condemn female homosexuality along with male.") These aren't "radical right homophobes"; these are pro-gay folks. They happily dismiss Paul because "Paul outlawed all sex except that between married couples" and who could take that seriously? But they certainly see that the translation is correct and the prohibition is ... biblical.

You can conclude a lot of things. You can conclude, "I don't much care what the Bible has to say." Lots of people do. You can conclude, "That's just outdated material." You can conclude, "It actually means something much different, albeit more obscure." But you can not conclude that the Bible is reliable, God-breathed, and able to be understood without concluding, as those at the glbtq Project did, that Scripture calls homosexual behavior a sin. Current gay biblical theologians in the 1946 project not withstanding.

Mother's Day, 2021

Paul wrote, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother' (this is the first commandment with a promise), 'that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.'" (Eph 6:1-3) A command with a promise; how nice. But ... do we do it?

It's interesting that Paul seems to equate "honor" with "obey." Is that a virtue anymore?

Paul told Timothy to treat older women as mothers (1 Tim 5:1-2). That's interesting. Apparently Timothy knew how to treat a mother. It would appear that Paul believed that treating women as mothers was something that could be easily understood. "But what about the kid that grew up with a lousy mother?" At first glance, that would seem to be a problem, but I would argue that all of us have an idea of what a good mother would be like, so even without the experience, we'd be able to treat older women as mothers and do it well.

I am not one of those who grew up without a good mother. I am one of the blessed who had a scintillating example of a godly mother. She taught us what we needed to know, urged us to be godly, and imitated Christ for us. She taught her daughters how to be godly wives just as our mother has been to our father. That has worked out well (as we knew it would). We boys learned to be gentlemen and to honor people everywhere, especially women. That, too, has worked out well. My mother immersed us in the Word and in the truth, and that has worked out very well.

I am indeed one of the most blessed when it comes to my mother. So I'm not as concerned about what to buy her for Mother's Day. I want to be sure that I am honoring her carefully and consciously all the time. And I pray that my daughter can become that kind of a mother to her kids. My mother fulfills the promise of Proverbs 31 -- "Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her." (Prov 31:28)

Happy Mother's Day, Mom.

News Weakly - 5/8/21

American Totalitarianism
Bruce (aka Caitlyn) Jenner was asked about his views on biological males competing with biological females as 34 states have made or are considering making policies preventing it. He said he was opposed to biological males competing with biological females. Bad call, Bruce. Yes, sure, you are transgender, but now you're anti-trans as well. The thought police have spoken. Insanely, but they have spoken. It is wrong, evil, and abominable to have an opinion that runs contrary to the ruling class who, obviously, can't be wrong.

And You Thought it was Just the Rich
We all know that Biden plans to continue to up the spending. We all know that he plans to do it by taxing the rich. I guess we know that's not entirely the case. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the Federal Reserve may have to raise interest rates. Why? To "keep up with President Biden's spending proposals." No, not just the rich; anyone who borrows money. That's not just the rich. Biden told Virginians that "people making less than $400,000 "will not pay a single penny in taxes." Biden ... "misspoke."

Perfectly Fair
Derek Shauvin was convicted of murder, and now we find that one of the jurors that convicted him participated in a protest about it last summer. I'm sure there was no prejudging, no overt bias. I'm sure he was perfectly fair.

Fight Makes Rights
The New York State Court of Appeals will hear the case. What case? The case for freeing the "wrongfully imprisoned" elephant, Happy, who lives at the Bronx Zoo. The Nonhuman Rights Project is "seeking recognition of her fundamental right to bodily liberty." Imagine that. First, it will necessarily end all zoos and other places where animals are not enjoying "bodily liberty" ... including places where endangered animals are protected. More importantly, it paves the way, lacking any other basis for "fundamental rights" (since we've eliminated God in this equation), for whatever "fundamental right" you may wish to claim.

Like the case of 15-year-old Oregonian, Olivia Moultrie. She's some sort of soccer superstar who now demands that "an unlawful barrier" to her playing in the National Women's Soccer League be removed. The "unlawful barrier" is an age restriction. We should, by no means, have age restrictions. If she can play at 15, let her play. If he can drive at 10, let him drive. If they can work at 8, let them work. What's with all these artificial, "unlawful barriers"? And why would any organization be allowed to make rules? We live in a world absolutely governed by "how I feel," resulting in the total loss of absolutes ... and reality.

As in the case of Laurel Hubbard, a New Zealand biological male who will be the first transgender Olympian when he competes as a woman in this summer's Tokyo Games. "I feel" trumps science and reality every time. And you will concur, or else.

Anti-Voting?
Once again the evil Republicans "advance a restrictive election bill", this time in Texas. Earlier this week it was Florida. Republicans have the gall to think that voting should be regulated to prevent fraud. Democrats have historically objected to preventing voter fraud, as demonstrated by mantras like, "Vote early; vote often." Currently it's considered racist to ask voters to identify themselves as legal voters. (We don't yet know why it's not racist in other circumstances like asking drivers to identify themselves as legal drivers or drinkers to show ID to prove they're of legal age, for instance.) Perhaps the Babylon Bee points it out best in their headline, "White Liberals Watch In Amazement As Black Man Acquires ID." I say "anti-voter fraud laws" and the media says "anti-voting laws." I suppose our biases are showing.

Honorable Mention
I had to point out this other story from the Bee. It's supposed to be funny, but I'm afraid it's closer to "Next year perhaps" rather than "That's just silly." It just feels like we're too close to "Greetings, menstruating partner, and may you have a satisfactory birthing person's day this year!" on a Mother's Day card.

God is Not Love

There are those -- they call themselves Christians -- who would like to tell you that Christ did not die to save us. There are, of course, shades of intent there. On one end of the spectrum they will claim He didn't die at all. On the other end, sure, He died, but it was not to save us. We aren't saved "by His blood." God's wrath was not satiated by His Son's death. That's just barbaric. No, no, Jesus certainly (probably?) died, but it was for other reasons, not to save us. God does that all on His own. He doesn't need to be propitiated. He doesn't need to be expiated. He's perfectly fine. Your sins are forgiven, such as they are. Come on in!

There are problems with that, of course. It sounds reasonable. It sounds more friendly. I mean, why not have a God who can just wave His hands and your sins vanish? You can forgive; why can't He? Well, first and foremost, if the Gospel is about God's justice (Rom 1:16-17) -- if the Judge of all the Earth will always do what's just (Gen 18:25) -- then "all is forgiven" without justice is a rank contradiction. If God is to be true to Himself, He must be just.

The second, perhaps most obvious problem, though, is that the notion contradicts Scripture. Over and over we read things like God putting Christ "forward as a propitiation by His blood" (Rom 3:25) requiring 1) God to be propitiated -- His wrath satisfied -- and 2) Jesus's blood to do it. The New Testament is rich with this kind of language, and dismissing it simply dismisses the Scriptures.

There is one other critical result of this assault on Christ's sacrificial death on our behalf. The result is a love shrinkage. Paul indicated that God demonstrated His love for us by sending Christ to die for us. Oh, Christ didn't die for us? Then where's the love? Scripture says that "because of the great love with which He loved us" God made us alive with Him (Eph 2:4-5) ... which, apparently wasn't necessary. Jesus said, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) Except, of course, we've just decided that He did no such thing.

It isn't surprising that people deny the good news that Christ died for our sin. This is "folly to those who are perishing." (1 Cor 1:18) It is a stumbling block to some and foolishness to others (1 Cor 1:23). But "to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor 1:18) So I'm not surprised that people would seek to diminish the problem of sin, diminish the cross, diminish the shed blood of Christ, diminish the gospel. They might even sound "wise." But it's not helping. If Christ didn't die for our sins, we've surrendered what God considered His best proof of His love. And that's not all we've surrendered.