As a society, we moderns believe that human beings are basically good. (For the moment, don't think about how hard this is to logically sustain given the prevalence of evil.) Deep down, we think, we're not so bad. In stark contrast, Scripture says, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Rom 3:10-12) And that text is a repeat of Old Testament statements. "Now, wait," some will object. "We know people do good. In fact, everyone does something good in their life. Must not be true." I have to say, unfortunately, that Jesus disagreed. "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18).
The problem, I have always contended, is in the definition of the word, "good." We keep using that word, but it appears that God doesn't think it means what we think it means. So let's consider that perspective. What is "good" biblically? Well, we have that first point already: Only God is good. Let's go with that. Just like "love is from God" (1 John 4:7) and "We love because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19), it would seem reasonable that the only definition of "good" is the only source of "good" -- God. And if it is true that "from Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom 11:36), then this "good" would necessarily come from Him, through Him, and to Him. Thus, a more biblical definition of "good" would be that which comes from God, through God, and for God.
This helps clear up a few questions. For instance, why are we not saved by "good works"? Easy; we're not capable of "good works." The only "good works" we can do are those which God does in us and through us. And that explains how to "Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16). We don't supply those good works; He does. It also explains why our good works don't sustain our salvation. While we are certainly saved for good works (Eph 2:10), those works are ultimately accomplished because "It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). Thus, He is the source and the power. Thus, He gets the glory.
As humans, we have a problem with "good works." We really, really want to believe that we are good and do good. Further, we are, at our cores, pretty sure that nothing comes from nothing, that we only get what we deserve, that we need to earn our way to heaven. We Christians have stepped up from that. "No, we don't earn our salvation ... but we certainly maintain it by our good works." And Scripture disagrees. Sure, we're supposed to do good works, but that's so that God will be glorified and not so that we will be saved. Doing good isn't about us. Because only God is good. And because everything is supposed to be for His glory.
Wednesday, June 30, 2021
Tuesday, June 29, 2021
A Good Argument
In 2012 John Shore wrote a piece for Huffpost that offered, "The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality." His "best case" is, essentially, "Compassion trumps all." He basically pits Bible against Bible by arguing that "Compassion is above all" and then that "The rest isn't clear." Not a helpful "best case."
The most popular defense of homosexual behavior against Scripture is the "I don't care" defense -- "I don't care what the Bible says on this." The glbtq Encyclopedia Project absolutely affirms that the New Testament prohibits homosexual behavior and affirms, "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." It goes on to jettison these facts with "This may seem less drastic when we recall that Paul outlawed all sex except that between married couples and preferred celibacy to marriage for himself." That is, most of the world is perfectly happy in agreeing that the Bible teaches that the behavior is a sin, but they just don't care. This, of course, won't work for those trying to be "gay Christians" -- remain Christian and retain homosexual behavior. How do these defend against the biblical onslaught?
"First, those stinking Leviticus passages (Lev 18:22; 20:13) are right out. Delete them. No value at all. All Christians know this." The problem with this is that it's not actually true. Standard Christian belief is that the Old Testament informs the New Testament, and that the Old Testament Civil and Ceremonial Laws are no longer in effect not because they're no longer true, but because they've been replaced. We are no longer a theocracy, and Christ provided a better sacrifice than the Old Testament system. So we don't execute adulterers or the like, for instance. It is true that we no longer observe dietary rules, for instance, because God specifically abrogated them (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15). But the Leviticus passage is not only not specifically abrogated; it is specifically affirmed in the New Testament.
Here we take a new turn. "Oh, no," they will say, "we've misunderstood those New Testament passages since they were written. They don't mean anything like what you understand them to mean." What, then? "Well, you see, the behavior listed in 1 Cor 6:9-10 isn't the same thing as the modern loving relationship we know. That one was pederasty or the Roman practice of raping male prisoners of war or the like. The Bible had no idea of what modern homosexuality looks like." There are lots of responses to this. It presupposes that God isn't actually Omniscient. It assumes that a practice of Paul's time drove Paul's interpretation (even though the glbtq Encyclopedia Project argues that Paul's use of words come exactly from the Hebrew of the Leviticus passages into the Greek of His day and meant the same thing). The fact that both positions are false are a problem to them. Nothing in Scripture affirms that God only breathed Scripture for their day, and nothing in Paul's writing references current events as his reasoning. The texts are quite clear and quite obvious. They don't ask, "Why are you engaging in that practice?" to verify if it is loving or not; they simply say those who do them won't get into heaven.
Perhaps the most difficult part here is the prior monolith of understanding. All Christians for all time prior to the 20th century understood that sex was reserved for married couples. All Christians for all time prior to this new assault were quite clear that homosexual behavior was a sin. Did they understand the modern concept of homosexuality as an identity, a "born that way" condition, a sexual orientation? No, of course not. It didn't matter. If I am born a heterosexual and I am tempted to not be faithful to my wife, it is sexual sin. If I am born homosexual (and "born homosexual" is not yet actually demonstrated in science much to the homosexual communities surprise, apparently), I am still obligated to avoid sex outside of marriage. (And that is not remedied by redefining marriage.) The amazing claim of this modern era is "We've figured out what no one figured out before us. Everyone before us was wrong. We are the first to find the truth." "God won't judge us," they assert. And God answers, "Will you really annul My judgment? Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?" (Job 40:8). "Yes," they answer, "we certainly will. If God's position is that homosexual behavior is a sin, we will affirm that God is wrong." And that's considered a good argument.
The most popular defense of homosexual behavior against Scripture is the "I don't care" defense -- "I don't care what the Bible says on this." The glbtq Encyclopedia Project absolutely affirms that the New Testament prohibits homosexual behavior and affirms, "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." It goes on to jettison these facts with "This may seem less drastic when we recall that Paul outlawed all sex except that between married couples and preferred celibacy to marriage for himself." That is, most of the world is perfectly happy in agreeing that the Bible teaches that the behavior is a sin, but they just don't care. This, of course, won't work for those trying to be "gay Christians" -- remain Christian and retain homosexual behavior. How do these defend against the biblical onslaught?
"First, those stinking Leviticus passages (Lev 18:22; 20:13) are right out. Delete them. No value at all. All Christians know this." The problem with this is that it's not actually true. Standard Christian belief is that the Old Testament informs the New Testament, and that the Old Testament Civil and Ceremonial Laws are no longer in effect not because they're no longer true, but because they've been replaced. We are no longer a theocracy, and Christ provided a better sacrifice than the Old Testament system. So we don't execute adulterers or the like, for instance. It is true that we no longer observe dietary rules, for instance, because God specifically abrogated them (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15). But the Leviticus passage is not only not specifically abrogated; it is specifically affirmed in the New Testament.
Here we take a new turn. "Oh, no," they will say, "we've misunderstood those New Testament passages since they were written. They don't mean anything like what you understand them to mean." What, then? "Well, you see, the behavior listed in 1 Cor 6:9-10 isn't the same thing as the modern loving relationship we know. That one was pederasty or the Roman practice of raping male prisoners of war or the like. The Bible had no idea of what modern homosexuality looks like." There are lots of responses to this. It presupposes that God isn't actually Omniscient. It assumes that a practice of Paul's time drove Paul's interpretation (even though the glbtq Encyclopedia Project argues that Paul's use of words come exactly from the Hebrew of the Leviticus passages into the Greek of His day and meant the same thing). The fact that both positions are false are a problem to them. Nothing in Scripture affirms that God only breathed Scripture for their day, and nothing in Paul's writing references current events as his reasoning. The texts are quite clear and quite obvious. They don't ask, "Why are you engaging in that practice?" to verify if it is loving or not; they simply say those who do them won't get into heaven.
Perhaps the most difficult part here is the prior monolith of understanding. All Christians for all time prior to the 20th century understood that sex was reserved for married couples. All Christians for all time prior to this new assault were quite clear that homosexual behavior was a sin. Did they understand the modern concept of homosexuality as an identity, a "born that way" condition, a sexual orientation? No, of course not. It didn't matter. If I am born a heterosexual and I am tempted to not be faithful to my wife, it is sexual sin. If I am born homosexual (and "born homosexual" is not yet actually demonstrated in science much to the homosexual communities surprise, apparently), I am still obligated to avoid sex outside of marriage. (And that is not remedied by redefining marriage.) The amazing claim of this modern era is "We've figured out what no one figured out before us. Everyone before us was wrong. We are the first to find the truth." "God won't judge us," they assert. And God answers, "Will you really annul My judgment? Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?" (Job 40:8). "Yes," they answer, "we certainly will. If God's position is that homosexual behavior is a sin, we will affirm that God is wrong." And that's considered a good argument.
Monday, June 28, 2021
Positive
Okay, this is not political, economic, sexual, religious, any of those "forbidden" topics. It's just a quandary I came up with recently. I spent 10 years in the Air Force. For some of that time, I was an instructor. In my classroom, I put up some old newspapers ranging from the bombing of Pearl Harbor to the first man on the moon. I used that last one as an ice breaker. "Where you when they landed on the moon?" There was a wide range of answers. "Oh, I remember that! I was ..." and it would range from "at work" to "barely old enough to remember." I stopped that practice when one of my students answered, "I wasn't born for 4 years after that." Thanks, kid. Thanks for the reminder that I'm getting old.
I got to thinking about that. I got to wondering what would serve as that today. For instance, it might be, "Where were you when 9/11 happened?" A certainly memorable event (although you must realize that it was 20 years ago and anyone under 20 won't be able to answer). The primary difference between the moon landing and 9/11, however, is that the moon landing was a positive event. It was like the end of World War II or some other large-scale good thing. As opposed to the Kennedy assassination or some other large-scale negative thing.
So, if you wanted to ask people "Where were you when?" about something 1) in the recent enough past that most people could answer and 2) was a positive event, what would that be today? We could all probably think of negatives. What grand, memorable, universally positive event has occurred in the last, say, 15 years? What would you suggest?
I got to thinking about that. I got to wondering what would serve as that today. For instance, it might be, "Where were you when 9/11 happened?" A certainly memorable event (although you must realize that it was 20 years ago and anyone under 20 won't be able to answer). The primary difference between the moon landing and 9/11, however, is that the moon landing was a positive event. It was like the end of World War II or some other large-scale good thing. As opposed to the Kennedy assassination or some other large-scale negative thing.
So, if you wanted to ask people "Where were you when?" about something 1) in the recent enough past that most people could answer and 2) was a positive event, what would that be today? We could all probably think of negatives. What grand, memorable, universally positive event has occurred in the last, say, 15 years? What would you suggest?
Sunday, June 27, 2021
A Big Deal
Almost every Christian I know agrees that God is Sovereign. Almost every Christian I know goes on to mitigate that Sovereignty either in word or deed. "God is a gentleman," they might say. "He'll never intrude where He's not wanted." Or, "Sure, He's Sovereign, and in His Sovereignty He's surrendered some of that sovereignty to us." More often, though, it's found in how they think when the question isn't in view. "Is the church in trouble?" "Oh, yes. If something doesn't happen I'm afraid it will vanish." "If you don't get involved in politics, God's hands are tied in saving this nation." I'm hoping you're getting the picture.
Any reader of this blog is surely aware that the Sovereignty of God is a critical concern of mine. I cannot imagine that God could have made it any clearer in Scripture. He cannot, for instance, have surrendered some of His Sovereignty to humans because He is the "only Sovereign" (1 Tim 6:15). It makes no sense to think that God won't interfere in humans affairs when He's not wanted given the vast number of biblical events when He did just that. (Ask Paul if God is a "gentleman" in that sense (Acts 9:1-6).) You can't read about God saying, "It was I who kept you from sinning against Me" (Gen 20:6) and think that God doesn't interject Himself in human choices. It makes no sense to find passages like the one that says God "works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11) or that the Lord does as He pleases (Psa 115:3; Psa 135:6) or Nebuchadnezzar's elegant, "None can stay His hand or say to Him, 'What have you done?'" (Dan 4:35) and come away thinking that God is in any way less than absolutely Sovereign. But we do.
So what? What does it matter? I'll tell you what it matters.
First, God declares about Himself that He is absolutely Sovereign. To deny that is to side with Satan (Gen 3:1-5). To deny that is to suppress the truth about God (Rom 1:18-19). To mitigate or diminish what God claims for Himself is to mitigate or diminish God. Second, the doctrine of God's unique ("only") Sovereignty isn't minor. It matters. In it is salvation itself (Eph 1:3-6). God's plan for saving humans is predicated on it (Acts 2:23; Acts 4:26-28). Absolutely essential. Beyond this make-or-break of Christianity itself, it is critical for Christian living. "We know," Paul says, "that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28). But if God is only mostly Sovereign, we don't know that. Scripture says, "We also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us" (Rom 5:3-5) Nice thought, but only valid if He actually is Sovereign and can actually pull this off despite His enemies' best efforts. Jude says of God that He is "able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy" (Jude 1:24), a pleasant idea as long as no other "sovereign" (including me) doesn't interfere. Indeed, all of God's promises are rooted in His ability to deliver, but that is in question if He is that gentleman or has surrendered His Sovereignty to Man. (Mind you, you can't both surrender Sovereignty and still be Sovereign. That doesn't even make sense.) Only in God's Sovereignty does prayer make sense because if He's not Sovereign, how can we expect Him to supply? Only in God's Sovereignty does Evangelism make sense because, given the nature of the unregenerate human (Eph 2:1-3; Rom 8:7; 1 Cor 2:14; etc.), there is no chance that they'll get it. If God is Sovereign, Jesus's claim, "I will build My church" (Matt 16:18) is reassuring, but if He's not, it looks bleak for the church. I am thoroughly relieved when Joseph tells his brothers, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20) because that means that a Sovereign God can use all sorts of evil in this world for His good purposes. Otherwise ...
I've only touched on some of the concepts and ramifications here. Suffice it to say it's not a little thing. Either God is the "only Sovereign" or He is not. If He is, then we can have overwhelming confidence and courage in obeying Him and following Him and relying on Him. If He is anything less than that, there's very little we can be sure of. (One thing I think we can be ssure of if He is not Sovereign is that we can't understand the Bible with any clarity. After that it's all downhill.) His Sovereignty is critical to the Christian Faith. Perhaps Christians need to do some more critical thinking about it.
Any reader of this blog is surely aware that the Sovereignty of God is a critical concern of mine. I cannot imagine that God could have made it any clearer in Scripture. He cannot, for instance, have surrendered some of His Sovereignty to humans because He is the "only Sovereign" (1 Tim 6:15). It makes no sense to think that God won't interfere in humans affairs when He's not wanted given the vast number of biblical events when He did just that. (Ask Paul if God is a "gentleman" in that sense (Acts 9:1-6).) You can't read about God saying, "It was I who kept you from sinning against Me" (Gen 20:6) and think that God doesn't interject Himself in human choices. It makes no sense to find passages like the one that says God "works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11) or that the Lord does as He pleases (Psa 115:3; Psa 135:6) or Nebuchadnezzar's elegant, "None can stay His hand or say to Him, 'What have you done?'" (Dan 4:35) and come away thinking that God is in any way less than absolutely Sovereign. But we do.
So what? What does it matter? I'll tell you what it matters.
First, God declares about Himself that He is absolutely Sovereign. To deny that is to side with Satan (Gen 3:1-5). To deny that is to suppress the truth about God (Rom 1:18-19). To mitigate or diminish what God claims for Himself is to mitigate or diminish God. Second, the doctrine of God's unique ("only") Sovereignty isn't minor. It matters. In it is salvation itself (Eph 1:3-6). God's plan for saving humans is predicated on it (Acts 2:23; Acts 4:26-28). Absolutely essential. Beyond this make-or-break of Christianity itself, it is critical for Christian living. "We know," Paul says, "that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28). But if God is only mostly Sovereign, we don't know that. Scripture says, "We also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us" (Rom 5:3-5) Nice thought, but only valid if He actually is Sovereign and can actually pull this off despite His enemies' best efforts. Jude says of God that He is "able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy" (Jude 1:24), a pleasant idea as long as no other "sovereign" (including me) doesn't interfere. Indeed, all of God's promises are rooted in His ability to deliver, but that is in question if He is that gentleman or has surrendered His Sovereignty to Man. (Mind you, you can't both surrender Sovereignty and still be Sovereign. That doesn't even make sense.) Only in God's Sovereignty does prayer make sense because if He's not Sovereign, how can we expect Him to supply? Only in God's Sovereignty does Evangelism make sense because, given the nature of the unregenerate human (Eph 2:1-3; Rom 8:7; 1 Cor 2:14; etc.), there is no chance that they'll get it. If God is Sovereign, Jesus's claim, "I will build My church" (Matt 16:18) is reassuring, but if He's not, it looks bleak for the church. I am thoroughly relieved when Joseph tells his brothers, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20) because that means that a Sovereign God can use all sorts of evil in this world for His good purposes. Otherwise ...
I've only touched on some of the concepts and ramifications here. Suffice it to say it's not a little thing. Either God is the "only Sovereign" or He is not. If He is, then we can have overwhelming confidence and courage in obeying Him and following Him and relying on Him. If He is anything less than that, there's very little we can be sure of. (One thing I think we can be ssure of if He is not Sovereign is that we can't understand the Bible with any clarity. After that it's all downhill.) His Sovereignty is critical to the Christian Faith. Perhaps Christians need to do some more critical thinking about it.
Saturday, June 26, 2021
News Weakly - 6/26/21
Threats and Accusations
Catholic California Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu went on a rant this weekend against the Catholic Church over the suggestion that they might refuse Communion to folks like Pelosi and Biden over supporting killing babies in the womb. So does Lieu, and he dared them to deny him Communion for openly and angrily defying the religion he claims to be part of. Lieu was right in calling the Catholic Church hypocritical in this, but I'm wondering 1) if he actually thinks he gets to determine what the Catholic Church does or does not believe and 2) if the Catholic Church will let him. I still can't figure out why people who don't believe Religion X feel the need to call themselves by Religion X. Get your own and move on!
Wopersons and the Huperson Race
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker demonstrated again that we've lost our minds about the English language by signing a bill to make titles for state officials more "gender inclusive." Like "alderman" will now be "alderperson" and "congressman" (Don't they already call females in Congress "congresswoman"?) will be "congressperson." Now, "man" in English can mean "the male of the species" or "the human race." When the narrator intoned that the ultimate enemy had arrived in the forest in the movie, Bambi, he said, "Man was in the forest." I suppose, to be more inclusive, Disney will have to change that to "Person was in the forest"? And what about those that don't identify as persons? Oh, yeah, that's just the youngest humans. No one elects them.
A First
Laurel Hubbard is going to be the first ... the first transgender athlete to compete in the Olympics. Mind you, Hubbard competed in men's weightlifting competitions in 2013 before transitioning. And, mind you, weightlifting is not about "masculine" or "feminine" -- it's about the physical body. Female weightlifters are complaining with words like "unfair" and "like a bad joke." The article points out that there is a debate over "transgender athletes competing in women's sports." Why? Because no one cares if a biological female wants to compete with biological males. The problem is not gender; it's biology. And biology doesn't care what Laurel feels about himself. So this will be the first time the Olympics allows a biological male to compete with biological females knowing full well that biological males are intrinsically more capable at that kind of competition than biological females. Good job, Olympic Committee.
Vive La Différence
The story reads, "Washington Spirit and Japan forward Kumi Yokoyama came out as a transgender man." We're holding our collective breath to see if she will be playing men's soccer now. You know, for honesty sake. Let's not hold it too long.
Just the Vax
Quite a range of responses. In Arizona, Governor Ducey issued an Executive Order banning universities from requiring COVID vaccines to attend in the fall. In Indiana, students are suing Indiana University for having the same requirement. Then there is the "free nation" of the Philippines where President Duterte is threatening jail to those who refuse. In Houston, 153 workers were fired or resigned for not getting the vaccine. And now Morgan Stanley is saying to workers and customers alike, "Don't show up here if you aren't vaccinated." (So much for "The customer is always right.") The COVID vaccine runs from "don't have to," to "might have to," all the way to "definitely have to." Choose your poison.
I Don't Even ...
President Joe is naming a special diplomatic envoy for LGBTQ rights. Her role will be to "protect the LGBTQ rights around the world." Meanwhile, the ACLU is suing Georgia because they won't pay for "gender-affirming care." "If they were not transgender, Georgia Medicaid would cover the procedures they seek," they're claiming. Umm ... if they were not transgender, they wouldn't be seeking a sex-change operation and no one would pay for it. Haven't got a clue what to make of this craziness. (Especially this new euphemism, "gender-affirming surgery.")
Surprise, Surprise!
A Texas-based Christian prayer organization was rejected by the IRS for 501(c)(3) status because they hold to biblical values. They instruct people in what the Bible says about issues (like "the sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, and biblical justice"). The IRS has determined that a biblical worldview is "typically affiliated with the Republican party and candidates. This disqualifies you from exemption ..." Another reason to pray for America. Another reason to withdraw from the 501(c)(3) status and, oh, I don't know, count on God and His people to take care of funding God and His people's ministries. "Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you." (1 John 3:13).
Too Close
Sometimes the Babylon Bee is funny. Sometimes it's not. Usually when it's not, it's because it's too close to true. Like the story, in the midst of debates about Critical Race Theory in schools, that California public schools were banning the teaching of critical thinking. Now, the story isn't true, but that's primarily because they stopped teaching it long ago. How about the story last week where Congress passed a law recognizing Juneteenth, the day Republicans freed the last of the Democrats' slaves? Too close to true. There is a humorous story about Kim Jong Un going to an Ivy League university to learn new brainwashing techniques. Truth or fiction? Not true, of course ... but now he might because it seems like a reasonable idea. Or the worst one. The satirical story is about a Progressive church starting a drag queen Bible story hour. Most Christians will laugh and realize how ludicrous that is. Too many Progressives will rub their chins and think, "Hey, that might not be a bad idea." Sometimes the satire is too close to the truth.
Catholic California Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu went on a rant this weekend against the Catholic Church over the suggestion that they might refuse Communion to folks like Pelosi and Biden over supporting killing babies in the womb. So does Lieu, and he dared them to deny him Communion for openly and angrily defying the religion he claims to be part of. Lieu was right in calling the Catholic Church hypocritical in this, but I'm wondering 1) if he actually thinks he gets to determine what the Catholic Church does or does not believe and 2) if the Catholic Church will let him. I still can't figure out why people who don't believe Religion X feel the need to call themselves by Religion X. Get your own and move on!
Wopersons and the Huperson Race
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker demonstrated again that we've lost our minds about the English language by signing a bill to make titles for state officials more "gender inclusive." Like "alderman" will now be "alderperson" and "congressman" (Don't they already call females in Congress "congresswoman"?) will be "congressperson." Now, "man" in English can mean "the male of the species" or "the human race." When the narrator intoned that the ultimate enemy had arrived in the forest in the movie, Bambi, he said, "Man was in the forest." I suppose, to be more inclusive, Disney will have to change that to "Person was in the forest"? And what about those that don't identify as persons? Oh, yeah, that's just the youngest humans. No one elects them.
A First
Laurel Hubbard is going to be the first ... the first transgender athlete to compete in the Olympics. Mind you, Hubbard competed in men's weightlifting competitions in 2013 before transitioning. And, mind you, weightlifting is not about "masculine" or "feminine" -- it's about the physical body. Female weightlifters are complaining with words like "unfair" and "like a bad joke." The article points out that there is a debate over "transgender athletes competing in women's sports." Why? Because no one cares if a biological female wants to compete with biological males. The problem is not gender; it's biology. And biology doesn't care what Laurel feels about himself. So this will be the first time the Olympics allows a biological male to compete with biological females knowing full well that biological males are intrinsically more capable at that kind of competition than biological females. Good job, Olympic Committee.
Vive La Différence
The story reads, "Washington Spirit and Japan forward Kumi Yokoyama came out as a transgender man." We're holding our collective breath to see if she will be playing men's soccer now. You know, for honesty sake. Let's not hold it too long.
Just the Vax
Quite a range of responses. In Arizona, Governor Ducey issued an Executive Order banning universities from requiring COVID vaccines to attend in the fall. In Indiana, students are suing Indiana University for having the same requirement. Then there is the "free nation" of the Philippines where President Duterte is threatening jail to those who refuse. In Houston, 153 workers were fired or resigned for not getting the vaccine. And now Morgan Stanley is saying to workers and customers alike, "Don't show up here if you aren't vaccinated." (So much for "The customer is always right.") The COVID vaccine runs from "don't have to," to "might have to," all the way to "definitely have to." Choose your poison.
I Don't Even ...
President Joe is naming a special diplomatic envoy for LGBTQ rights. Her role will be to "protect the LGBTQ rights around the world." Meanwhile, the ACLU is suing Georgia because they won't pay for "gender-affirming care." "If they were not transgender, Georgia Medicaid would cover the procedures they seek," they're claiming. Umm ... if they were not transgender, they wouldn't be seeking a sex-change operation and no one would pay for it. Haven't got a clue what to make of this craziness. (Especially this new euphemism, "gender-affirming surgery.")
Surprise, Surprise!
A Texas-based Christian prayer organization was rejected by the IRS for 501(c)(3) status because they hold to biblical values. They instruct people in what the Bible says about issues (like "the sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, and biblical justice"). The IRS has determined that a biblical worldview is "typically affiliated with the Republican party and candidates. This disqualifies you from exemption ..." Another reason to pray for America. Another reason to withdraw from the 501(c)(3) status and, oh, I don't know, count on God and His people to take care of funding God and His people's ministries. "Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you." (1 John 3:13).
Too Close
Sometimes the Babylon Bee is funny. Sometimes it's not. Usually when it's not, it's because it's too close to true. Like the story, in the midst of debates about Critical Race Theory in schools, that California public schools were banning the teaching of critical thinking. Now, the story isn't true, but that's primarily because they stopped teaching it long ago. How about the story last week where Congress passed a law recognizing Juneteenth, the day Republicans freed the last of the Democrats' slaves? Too close to true. There is a humorous story about Kim Jong Un going to an Ivy League university to learn new brainwashing techniques. Truth or fiction? Not true, of course ... but now he might because it seems like a reasonable idea. Or the worst one. The satirical story is about a Progressive church starting a drag queen Bible story hour. Most Christians will laugh and realize how ludicrous that is. Too many Progressives will rub their chins and think, "Hey, that might not be a bad idea." Sometimes the satire is too close to the truth.
Friday, June 25, 2021
Whatever Happened to Sin?
Years ago I was talking to a guy who believed he had arrived at sinless perfection. "Really?" I asked. "Yes!" "You never sin?" "Never." What do you call it? "Well, sometimes I make mistakes ..." Ah, I see. Change the name and you've fixed the problem.
It doesn't seem like we Christians are as clever today as that fellow was. It looks a lot more like we don't even bother. I've run into Christian after Christian who openly admits to engaging in this sin or that sin -- you know, things that we're all clear are sins in the Bible -- without batting an eye. If I question them, they look at me like I'm daft. "What are you talking about?" they seem to say. "Of course it's not a sin." Like sexual immorality or adultery or divorcing a spouse because they think they can do better. Some of those I talk to aren't engaged in the sins themselves, but a loved one is, so now it's okay, right? I'm not talking about nominal Christians ... what we might call a CINO -- Christian in name only. These are people that give all the indications of loving Jesus ... except, of course, they're not actually obeying Him on this or that. You know, the kinds of things that Scripture says, "If they're doing these kinds of things, have nothing to do with them." As in "Don't even eat with such a one" (1 Cor 5:11).
The world has been telling us for a long time (forever?) not to judge. We've tried to hold our ground by ... you know ... following Scripture. But that's grown more and more difficult. Now we've moved from tossing out that silly stuff like "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12) or "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" (Eph 5:23) to throwing out "Flee from sexual immorality" (1 Cor 6:18). We've turned coveting from evil to normal, even recommended. We've exchanged "Scripture says that's a sin" for "Everybody's doing it so it must be okay." While the Bible exalts, "If anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness" (Gal 6:1), today's Christians consider that a bit too invasive and judgy to be acceptable.
Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). We seem to want to pat Him on the back and tell Him, "Don't worry; we've figured this out now. You don't have to be so uptight about all that 'commandments' stuff anymore." But if Jesus was right, it looks a lot like loving Jesus isn't as much of a priority to too many Christians today. That's not stated in a judgmental manner. That's offered as a cry of grief. Whatever happened to sin? It seems like we Christians are much more comfortable with it than we should be. To our own detriment.
It doesn't seem like we Christians are as clever today as that fellow was. It looks a lot more like we don't even bother. I've run into Christian after Christian who openly admits to engaging in this sin or that sin -- you know, things that we're all clear are sins in the Bible -- without batting an eye. If I question them, they look at me like I'm daft. "What are you talking about?" they seem to say. "Of course it's not a sin." Like sexual immorality or adultery or divorcing a spouse because they think they can do better. Some of those I talk to aren't engaged in the sins themselves, but a loved one is, so now it's okay, right? I'm not talking about nominal Christians ... what we might call a CINO -- Christian in name only. These are people that give all the indications of loving Jesus ... except, of course, they're not actually obeying Him on this or that. You know, the kinds of things that Scripture says, "If they're doing these kinds of things, have nothing to do with them." As in "Don't even eat with such a one" (1 Cor 5:11).
The world has been telling us for a long time (forever?) not to judge. We've tried to hold our ground by ... you know ... following Scripture. But that's grown more and more difficult. Now we've moved from tossing out that silly stuff like "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12) or "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" (Eph 5:23) to throwing out "Flee from sexual immorality" (1 Cor 6:18). We've turned coveting from evil to normal, even recommended. We've exchanged "Scripture says that's a sin" for "Everybody's doing it so it must be okay." While the Bible exalts, "If anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness" (Gal 6:1), today's Christians consider that a bit too invasive and judgy to be acceptable.
Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). We seem to want to pat Him on the back and tell Him, "Don't worry; we've figured this out now. You don't have to be so uptight about all that 'commandments' stuff anymore." But if Jesus was right, it looks a lot like loving Jesus isn't as much of a priority to too many Christians today. That's not stated in a judgmental manner. That's offered as a cry of grief. Whatever happened to sin? It seems like we Christians are much more comfortable with it than we should be. To our own detriment.
Thursday, June 24, 2021
Let God Be True
I thought I'd share a struggle with you because I suspect that anyone who reads God's Word for all it is worth will likely share the same kind of struggle. I've come across something in Scripture that collides with my understanding of God. Now what?
I'm going through Romans right now. I slogged through the "sketchy" chapter 9 where Paul writes about how God chooses whom He pleases and we have nothing to contribute and nothing to detract. I got through chapter 10 okay. And then I hit chapter 11. This chapter asks about why it is that Israel is not a nation of believers. Paul says, "God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew" (Rom 11:2). Okay, good. But Israel failed to obtain what they were seeking (which was righteousness of their own -- see Rom 10:2-3); the elect did (Rom 11:7). And then Paul writes this.
So I wander back over Scripture to see what I can see. I see that the first sin was predicated on a human being who lied to herself about God (Gen 3:3-6). I see that this is a standard for humans (Rom 1:18-19). It is my conviction that all sin originates in our suppressing the truth about God, falling short of His glory (Rom 3:23). And Paul urges us to "Let God be true though every one were a liar" (Rom 3:4). Because, after all, our hearts are deceitful (Jer 17:9). So let's just admit the possibility that we might be wrong about what God can or cannot do in this context and commit ourselves to letting God be true even if we're wrong.
Then I look at what I just covered in Romans 9. There Paul addresses the question of the authority of the Potter. "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Rom 9:20-21). So there's that dangling question. Does the potter -- God, in this situation -- have the right to make whatever He wants out of His own clay? You have to feel the tension here because we're on the edge of answering, "Yes, God can make wicked people." And that can't be right. Except, it is precisely the claim of Scripture. "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Prov 16:4). Ouch!
I think I'm all but done here. Yes, we have a tendency to be wrong about God. Yes, God is always true and we are not. Yes, God has the right to do what He wants with His own creation. Yes, God claims to blind and harden some. Now, we can dig a little further if we want (and we ought). How does He do that? Is it direct or indirect? Does God cause it or does He simply allow it? We can find biblical correlations and precedents (and, yes, they're there). I certainly would need to correct my thinking about God. But this text in Romans 11 claims that God, in whatever sense it actually means, "gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see, and ears that would not hear." It's not God on trial here; it's me. I'll have to let God be true and correct my own understanding ... again.
I'm going through Romans right now. I slogged through the "sketchy" chapter 9 where Paul writes about how God chooses whom He pleases and we have nothing to contribute and nothing to detract. I got through chapter 10 okay. And then I hit chapter 11. This chapter asks about why it is that Israel is not a nation of believers. Paul says, "God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew" (Rom 11:2). Okay, good. But Israel failed to obtain what they were seeking (which was righteousness of their own -- see Rom 10:2-3); the elect did (Rom 11:7). And then Paul writes this.
As it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see, and ears that would not hear, down to this very day." (Rom 11:8)Does that collide with your thinking at all? Is there not something in you (as there is in me) that says, "God does not prevent people from seeing and hearing"? It's not like this is new. In the Gospel of John we read, "Therefore they [the Jews] could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.' Isaiah said these things because he saw His glory and spoke of Him" (John 12:39-41). And I had just muddled through the same concept in Romans 9 where Scripture declares, "He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Rom 9:18). Can He do that? Is God allowed to harden whomever He will? My gut says no, but these texts seem to say yes.
So I wander back over Scripture to see what I can see. I see that the first sin was predicated on a human being who lied to herself about God (Gen 3:3-6). I see that this is a standard for humans (Rom 1:18-19). It is my conviction that all sin originates in our suppressing the truth about God, falling short of His glory (Rom 3:23). And Paul urges us to "Let God be true though every one were a liar" (Rom 3:4). Because, after all, our hearts are deceitful (Jer 17:9). So let's just admit the possibility that we might be wrong about what God can or cannot do in this context and commit ourselves to letting God be true even if we're wrong.
Then I look at what I just covered in Romans 9. There Paul addresses the question of the authority of the Potter. "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Rom 9:20-21). So there's that dangling question. Does the potter -- God, in this situation -- have the right to make whatever He wants out of His own clay? You have to feel the tension here because we're on the edge of answering, "Yes, God can make wicked people." And that can't be right. Except, it is precisely the claim of Scripture. "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Prov 16:4). Ouch!
I think I'm all but done here. Yes, we have a tendency to be wrong about God. Yes, God is always true and we are not. Yes, God has the right to do what He wants with His own creation. Yes, God claims to blind and harden some. Now, we can dig a little further if we want (and we ought). How does He do that? Is it direct or indirect? Does God cause it or does He simply allow it? We can find biblical correlations and precedents (and, yes, they're there). I certainly would need to correct my thinking about God. But this text in Romans 11 claims that God, in whatever sense it actually means, "gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see, and ears that would not hear." It's not God on trial here; it's me. I'll have to let God be true and correct my own understanding ... again.
Wednesday, June 23, 2021
A Little Consistency
Something I highly value is consistency. If you are a reader of mine and didn't know this, I thought I'd make it clear. For instance, when Peter Singer lays claim to Evolution as the origin of all things and then quite consistently goes on to conclude that to believe humans have a special value and calls it "speciesism," I appreciate his consistency ... even if I'm quite sure he's wrong. Or when Richard Dawkins argues for pure materialism and then concludes that there is no such thing as free will because nature determines everything, I appreciate his consistency even if I'm confident he's wrong. Conversely, when a Christian claims to be a follower of Christ and then knowingly and consciously refuses to follow Christ "there" or "here," I am disappointed even though I believe that following Christ is a good thing. I value consistency.
If you've read much of what I write, you've often seen me complain about a double standard. Double standards are the worst kind of inconsistency. Take, for instance, the signs I've been seeing this "Pride month" that boldly declare (with rainbow backing) "Love is love." Yeah, sure, patently obvious, right? And you know they're saying that in direct opposition to my position that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that homosexual behavior is a sin. "Oh, yeah," they'll counter, "love is love." But they're not consistent. "What about polygamy?" I might ask and the vast majority will falter and hesitate. "Well, no, we don't favor that." "How about a father marrying his son?" "No, no," they'll assure me, "incest is wrong." "Why can't a girl marry her dog?" "That's just sick and wrong." Because "love is love" only as far as it takes them to what they want and not in any meaningful way. Love is not love if it is tough love that urges a loved one to avoid a harmful situation, is it? No, of course not. Complete inconsistency.
Here's the problem with inconsistency. It undercuts your argument. If you claim "X is true" and don't live like it's true, you prove what you really believe. If you claim, "We're killing the planet with our carbon production" and then you go out and drive SUVs and fly in personal jets, you're proving you don't really believe it. If you claim "love is love" and then tack on the caveat "except what we don't approve," you're merely making the point, "Love is not love; love has limits." And I ask, "But that's what we started the discussion with, wasn't it? So who gets to decide the limits? I choose God. Who is your champion?"
Mind you, I am quite confident that sin rots the brain. I'm not trying to point fingers at the views or people that disagree with me. It's to be expected. I'm just telling them a real problem. More importantly, I'm begging you Christians to watch yourself. Be Christians, yes, but be consistent Christians. Consistently follow God's instructions, to your own detriment when necessary. When you bob and weave through that stuff and then urge others to agree with you, you undercut your credibility and, ultimately, undercut their possibility of faith in God. Christians, be consistent.
If you've read much of what I write, you've often seen me complain about a double standard. Double standards are the worst kind of inconsistency. Take, for instance, the signs I've been seeing this "Pride month" that boldly declare (with rainbow backing) "Love is love." Yeah, sure, patently obvious, right? And you know they're saying that in direct opposition to my position that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that homosexual behavior is a sin. "Oh, yeah," they'll counter, "love is love." But they're not consistent. "What about polygamy?" I might ask and the vast majority will falter and hesitate. "Well, no, we don't favor that." "How about a father marrying his son?" "No, no," they'll assure me, "incest is wrong." "Why can't a girl marry her dog?" "That's just sick and wrong." Because "love is love" only as far as it takes them to what they want and not in any meaningful way. Love is not love if it is tough love that urges a loved one to avoid a harmful situation, is it? No, of course not. Complete inconsistency.
Here's the problem with inconsistency. It undercuts your argument. If you claim "X is true" and don't live like it's true, you prove what you really believe. If you claim, "We're killing the planet with our carbon production" and then you go out and drive SUVs and fly in personal jets, you're proving you don't really believe it. If you claim "love is love" and then tack on the caveat "except what we don't approve," you're merely making the point, "Love is not love; love has limits." And I ask, "But that's what we started the discussion with, wasn't it? So who gets to decide the limits? I choose God. Who is your champion?"
Mind you, I am quite confident that sin rots the brain. I'm not trying to point fingers at the views or people that disagree with me. It's to be expected. I'm just telling them a real problem. More importantly, I'm begging you Christians to watch yourself. Be Christians, yes, but be consistent Christians. Consistently follow God's instructions, to your own detriment when necessary. When you bob and weave through that stuff and then urge others to agree with you, you undercut your credibility and, ultimately, undercut their possibility of faith in God. Christians, be consistent.
Tuesday, June 22, 2021
Faith, Hope, and Love
Faith, hope, and love. Even the secular world recognizes the three. You'll find it in crafty shops on plaques and such. The three are together because they're listed that way in the Bible.
Biblically, faith refers to confidence. It means literally "to be convinced." Biblically it refers to a firm conviction on which you base your life. It necessarily includes evidence and, according to Strong's Bible Dictionary, includes the idea of being convinced "by evidence or argument." Oh, no. Not today. As we all know, faith is opposed to evidence or argument. Faith is the opposite of reason. Faith is believing things you have no reason to believe. That's not the biblical faith, but our world has moved it that way because our world is antithetical to biblical faith.
We use the word "hope" to refer to "a feeling of expectation and desire for a particular thing to happen." It's little more than a wish. It is simply to want something to happen. The archaic definition of the word is "a feeling of trust" and comes much closer to the biblical definition. In Scripture, "hope does not disappoint" (Rom 5:5). In the Bible, hope is closely related to "faith" (Heb 11:1) and means to trust for something that hasn't happened but we know will. Thus, our "hope is in the Lord" (Psa 146:5) which is a certainty and not a wish. We look forward to our "blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13), a certainty and not a wish. Biblical hope is a certainty; the world's hope is a desperate wish. Not the same thing.
Then there's love. The Bible version is clearly not today's version. The biblical version is self-sacrifice (John 13:34; Eph 5:25); today's version is "what I think is in my best interest." The biblical version is a decision (e.g., Matt 22:37-40; John 13:34-35; 1 John 4:7, etc.); today's version is a chemical, emotional response. In the biblical version love originates with God (1 John 4:7,12,19); our version originates from self. The biblical version has a lengthy description (1 Cor 13:4-8) including "love never ends"; today's version is "warm affection" coupled most often with "lust" and the grim certainty that "love never lasts." Not the same thing.
The biblical phrase -- "faith, hope, and love abide" -- is glorious in its message. Today's version is a washed-out nicety without content. "Credulity, wishful thinking, and affectionate lust abide." But you shouldn't be surprised. This world is hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and doesn't offer anything like God offers (1 John 2:15-17). The real problem I see is that too many Christians buy into the false propaganda and lose out on the best that God has to offer in favor of something without any real content. Don't be that Christian.
So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. (1 Cor 13:13)It's a noble sentiment, but look how hard we've worked at stripping it of any useful meaning.
Biblically, faith refers to confidence. It means literally "to be convinced." Biblically it refers to a firm conviction on which you base your life. It necessarily includes evidence and, according to Strong's Bible Dictionary, includes the idea of being convinced "by evidence or argument." Oh, no. Not today. As we all know, faith is opposed to evidence or argument. Faith is the opposite of reason. Faith is believing things you have no reason to believe. That's not the biblical faith, but our world has moved it that way because our world is antithetical to biblical faith.
We use the word "hope" to refer to "a feeling of expectation and desire for a particular thing to happen." It's little more than a wish. It is simply to want something to happen. The archaic definition of the word is "a feeling of trust" and comes much closer to the biblical definition. In Scripture, "hope does not disappoint" (Rom 5:5). In the Bible, hope is closely related to "faith" (Heb 11:1) and means to trust for something that hasn't happened but we know will. Thus, our "hope is in the Lord" (Psa 146:5) which is a certainty and not a wish. We look forward to our "blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13), a certainty and not a wish. Biblical hope is a certainty; the world's hope is a desperate wish. Not the same thing.
Then there's love. The Bible version is clearly not today's version. The biblical version is self-sacrifice (John 13:34; Eph 5:25); today's version is "what I think is in my best interest." The biblical version is a decision (e.g., Matt 22:37-40; John 13:34-35; 1 John 4:7, etc.); today's version is a chemical, emotional response. In the biblical version love originates with God (1 John 4:7,12,19); our version originates from self. The biblical version has a lengthy description (1 Cor 13:4-8) including "love never ends"; today's version is "warm affection" coupled most often with "lust" and the grim certainty that "love never lasts." Not the same thing.
The biblical phrase -- "faith, hope, and love abide" -- is glorious in its message. Today's version is a washed-out nicety without content. "Credulity, wishful thinking, and affectionate lust abide." But you shouldn't be surprised. This world is hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and doesn't offer anything like God offers (1 John 2:15-17). The real problem I see is that too many Christians buy into the false propaganda and lose out on the best that God has to offer in favor of something without any real content. Don't be that Christian.
Monday, June 21, 2021
The Injustice of God
In the book of Job, our protagonist finds himself beaten down by Satan even though God had designated him as "blameless and upright" (Job 1:1). Job held up amazingly under the strain. "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21). From this auspicious beginning, Job went on to endure a lengthy discussion with "friends" who assured him he must be extremely evil to get this kind of treatment from God. Finally, then, Job demands answers from God. And God "answered Job out of the whirlwind" (Job 38:1). Eventually, Job realized his error. "Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further" (Job 40:4-5). But God wasn't quite done. "Will you also set aside My judgment; will you condemn Me so that you may be justified?" (Job 40:8).
I think what we have here is the reality of many ... most ... perhaps all of us at some point or another. It is the issue with theodicy, a defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil. We see it when we question God's command to "strike Amalek" and "kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Sam 15:3). We experience it when we read of Nadab and Abihu, burned to death by God because they offered "strange fire" (Lev 10:1-3) or Uzzah who was struck dead for merely trying to keep the ark of the covenant from falling (2 Sam 6:6-7). We know it when a loved one dies or a sweet friend gets cancer or an innocent child is killed in a tragic accident. It's not the questioning, "How can these things be?" It's the angry, "That's not fair!!"
We believe, deep down in our core, that we deserve better from God. We believe that God owes us. Sure, it varies. Some of us expect more from God; some less. But we know deep down that God's not supposed to allow bad things to happen to good people. So when God does things like ordering Israel to "save alive nothing that breathes," but to "devote them to complete destruction" (Deut 20:16-17) or allows a child to die of leukemia or ... fill in whatever atrocity you'd like ... we seem to want alternately to blame God or to defend God. So you might hear, "If your God is like that, we want nothing to do with Him." Or it might be, "No, those passages in the Bible were primitive ideas using God to justify genocide" or "Uzzah wasn't struck down by God; he died of self-induced trauma and the writers only thought it was God." And so on.
And God answers,
At creation, the wages of sin were death. All sin required the death penalty. In the garden the only sin was eating one particular fruit, and God said, "In the day that you eat if it you shall surely die" (Gen 2:17). But God showed mercy. The Mosaic Law held many violations that require the death penalty, but that constituted an increase in mercy since it was a step down from all sins requiring execution. Now we're under grace where we are saved by faith apart from works. It is amazing mercy. And we miss the point. We think that God owes it to us somehow, that He must forgive and He must ensure our comfort. If people actually go to Hell for their sin, God's not fair! We condemn God to justify ourselves. But God says, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12). And if we keep that in mind, the magnitude and glory of His grace and mercy exceeds comprehension.
How can bad things happen to good people? Easy answer: They don't. There are no good people (Luke 13:1-5; Rom 3:10-12). So the question really becomes, "Why does God save one? Why would God save me?" And His mercy and His grace are magnified. It is there that we get a glimpse of "the riches of His glory" (Rom 9:22-24).
I think what we have here is the reality of many ... most ... perhaps all of us at some point or another. It is the issue with theodicy, a defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil. We see it when we question God's command to "strike Amalek" and "kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Sam 15:3). We experience it when we read of Nadab and Abihu, burned to death by God because they offered "strange fire" (Lev 10:1-3) or Uzzah who was struck dead for merely trying to keep the ark of the covenant from falling (2 Sam 6:6-7). We know it when a loved one dies or a sweet friend gets cancer or an innocent child is killed in a tragic accident. It's not the questioning, "How can these things be?" It's the angry, "That's not fair!!"
We believe, deep down in our core, that we deserve better from God. We believe that God owes us. Sure, it varies. Some of us expect more from God; some less. But we know deep down that God's not supposed to allow bad things to happen to good people. So when God does things like ordering Israel to "save alive nothing that breathes," but to "devote them to complete destruction" (Deut 20:16-17) or allows a child to die of leukemia or ... fill in whatever atrocity you'd like ... we seem to want alternately to blame God or to defend God. So you might hear, "If your God is like that, we want nothing to do with Him." Or it might be, "No, those passages in the Bible were primitive ideas using God to justify genocide" or "Uzzah wasn't struck down by God; he died of self-induced trauma and the writers only thought it was God." And so on.
And God answers,
Will you also set aside My judgment; will you condemn Me so that you may be justified? (Job 40:8)Justice is defined as that which is right. Injustice is that which is not right. For bad things that happen to people to be not right, it would require that they be good people. When French President Emmanuel Macron got slapped in the face this month, a news commentator suggested "he got what he deserved." We understand equal response. Bad for bad; good for good. So when we question the justice of God, we do so with the idea that those who have suffered didn't deserve it. We set aside His judgment and condemn Him. Why? Because we deserve better. We justify ourselves.
At creation, the wages of sin were death. All sin required the death penalty. In the garden the only sin was eating one particular fruit, and God said, "In the day that you eat if it you shall surely die" (Gen 2:17). But God showed mercy. The Mosaic Law held many violations that require the death penalty, but that constituted an increase in mercy since it was a step down from all sins requiring execution. Now we're under grace where we are saved by faith apart from works. It is amazing mercy. And we miss the point. We think that God owes it to us somehow, that He must forgive and He must ensure our comfort. If people actually go to Hell for their sin, God's not fair! We condemn God to justify ourselves. But God says, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12). And if we keep that in mind, the magnitude and glory of His grace and mercy exceeds comprehension.
How can bad things happen to good people? Easy answer: They don't. There are no good people (Luke 13:1-5; Rom 3:10-12). So the question really becomes, "Why does God save one? Why would God save me?" And His mercy and His grace are magnified. It is there that we get a glimpse of "the riches of His glory" (Rom 9:22-24).
Sunday, June 20, 2021
Father's Day, 2021
I was reading a blog the other day. The writer was talking about reading someone else talk about playing catch with his dad. This writer said, "Number of catches with my dad: 0." And I thought, "Dad and I never played catch."
We didn't. Oh, we did a few things together, just Dad and his sons. We did go deep-sea fishing and opening-day fishing and bass fishing. We went camping, backpacking, and hiking. He arranged with a friend to take us on a sailboat for whale watching and he arranged with another friend to fly us to a remote part of Baja California to fish the Bay of California. He took us to men's prayer breakfasts and conferences and ministry trips from skidrow to Mexico. As a family, we went on trips around the country, from the deep South to eastern Canada and north to Alaska. A few things. Well, LOTS of other things. Just no catch.
My dad wasn't very good with emotional displays. That was okay. He has always made it clear that he loves us and always demonstrated it quietly with words but loudly with actions. Some people might complain. "No catch?" Not me. I'm more than grateful to God for the father He gave me and the father I have known. I'm more than grateful to have a father who is available to be used by the Father.
We didn't. Oh, we did a few things together, just Dad and his sons. We did go deep-sea fishing and opening-day fishing and bass fishing. We went camping, backpacking, and hiking. He arranged with a friend to take us on a sailboat for whale watching and he arranged with another friend to fly us to a remote part of Baja California to fish the Bay of California. He took us to men's prayer breakfasts and conferences and ministry trips from skidrow to Mexico. As a family, we went on trips around the country, from the deep South to eastern Canada and north to Alaska. A few things. Well, LOTS of other things. Just no catch.
My dad wasn't very good with emotional displays. That was okay. He has always made it clear that he loves us and always demonstrated it quietly with words but loudly with actions. Some people might complain. "No catch?" Not me. I'm more than grateful to God for the father He gave me and the father I have known. I'm more than grateful to have a father who is available to be used by the Father.
Saturday, June 19, 2021
News Weakly - 6/19/21
A Different Border Wall
Justin and Joe had a sit down at the G7 to see if they could come to an agreement to get Trudeau to open the border again. No dice. Canada will keep her border closed. So ... why is it that it's the U.S. that is evil with its porous "closed border"?
Banned
This kind of stuff has to go. I'm sure Facebook and Twitter and such will ban it if it surfaces on their platforms. Dr. Chuck Dinerstein wrote for the American Council on Science and Health (ACHS) that the body does its immune response whether the immunity was attained through illness or vaccination. "It makes no difference to our immune system." Michigan.gov stated, "It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines." And a Cleveland Clinic study recently reported that "natural COVID immunity is better than fully vaccinated." They said that if you had COVID, vaccines provided no added benefit. Meanwhile, the CDC is holding an emergency meeting about the vaccine causing heart inflammation in healthy younger recipients. Tucker Carlson interviewed an ex Harvard doctor who was concerned about the vaccine being harmful to young Americans and YouTube deleted it. "No, you can't talk about this." Now, maybe all this is true and maybe it isn't. The sad thing is that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the mainstream media get to decide whether you hear this or not. If it doesn't align with the approved think, you won't hear it on CNN or the New York Times.
New Racist is Born
A Florida zoo announced the birth of a southern white rhino. I know, right? I mean white and southern? Definitely a racist rhino.
Christian Appropriation
The news says that the head of the world's largest family died this week. He left 38 widows and 94 children not to mention grandchildren. He was, according to the news outlets, the leader of a "Christian sect." The group believes in polygamy and traces their origin back to Revelation 20 (which is about the Millennium, which hasn't happened yet). I'm not sure "Christian" is a valid term here. I'm thinking "Christian appropriation" in this case.
Crude
Crude oil has hit a 32-month high "boosted by renewed confidence." So, because we're recovering, we should expect to pay a lot more at the pumps ... which will probably put a dent in our confidence of recovering. Thanks, Joe.
Not Dark Enough
Lin-Manuel Miranda is a Latinx actor, playwright, etc., with a newly released movie, In the Heights. The movie includes mostly Latinx and African-American performers, but it doesn't matter. It suffers from colorism. "Colorism?" you ask. Yes. Apparently the people of color in the show aren't people with enough color. They're not dark enough. They don't have the proper shades of melanin. Once again, the protesters are throwing out Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's dream of a world where people are not judged by the color of their skin and demanding that we do just that ... with precision.
How do You Spell SBC?
SBC 2021 is on. At the time of this writing, the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting is in Nashville and they're debating topics like what to do about sexual abuse, Critical Race Theory, and how to keep their numbers up. Reviews of the discussion don't include "Is it true? Is it right?" as a criterion. Just things like "Will we risk losing Black churches and members?" and the like.
They're also voting on whether or not to add White Fragility to the official canon of Scripture. Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Justin and Joe had a sit down at the G7 to see if they could come to an agreement to get Trudeau to open the border again. No dice. Canada will keep her border closed. So ... why is it that it's the U.S. that is evil with its porous "closed border"?
Banned
This kind of stuff has to go. I'm sure Facebook and Twitter and such will ban it if it surfaces on their platforms. Dr. Chuck Dinerstein wrote for the American Council on Science and Health (ACHS) that the body does its immune response whether the immunity was attained through illness or vaccination. "It makes no difference to our immune system." Michigan.gov stated, "It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines." And a Cleveland Clinic study recently reported that "natural COVID immunity is better than fully vaccinated." They said that if you had COVID, vaccines provided no added benefit. Meanwhile, the CDC is holding an emergency meeting about the vaccine causing heart inflammation in healthy younger recipients. Tucker Carlson interviewed an ex Harvard doctor who was concerned about the vaccine being harmful to young Americans and YouTube deleted it. "No, you can't talk about this." Now, maybe all this is true and maybe it isn't. The sad thing is that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the mainstream media get to decide whether you hear this or not. If it doesn't align with the approved think, you won't hear it on CNN or the New York Times.
New Racist is Born
A Florida zoo announced the birth of a southern white rhino. I know, right? I mean white and southern? Definitely a racist rhino.
The news says that the head of the world's largest family died this week. He left 38 widows and 94 children not to mention grandchildren. He was, according to the news outlets, the leader of a "Christian sect." The group believes in polygamy and traces their origin back to Revelation 20 (which is about the Millennium, which hasn't happened yet). I'm not sure "Christian" is a valid term here. I'm thinking "Christian appropriation" in this case.
Crude
Crude oil has hit a 32-month high "boosted by renewed confidence." So, because we're recovering, we should expect to pay a lot more at the pumps ... which will probably put a dent in our confidence of recovering. Thanks, Joe.
Not Dark Enough
Lin-Manuel Miranda is a Latinx actor, playwright, etc., with a newly released movie, In the Heights. The movie includes mostly Latinx and African-American performers, but it doesn't matter. It suffers from colorism. "Colorism?" you ask. Yes. Apparently the people of color in the show aren't people with enough color. They're not dark enough. They don't have the proper shades of melanin. Once again, the protesters are throwing out Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's dream of a world where people are not judged by the color of their skin and demanding that we do just that ... with precision.
How do You Spell SBC?
SBC 2021 is on. At the time of this writing, the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting is in Nashville and they're debating topics like what to do about sexual abuse, Critical Race Theory, and how to keep their numbers up. Reviews of the discussion don't include "Is it true? Is it right?" as a criterion. Just things like "Will we risk losing Black churches and members?" and the like.
They're also voting on whether or not to add White Fragility to the official canon of Scripture. Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, June 18, 2021
What's New?
In Leviticus God gives His people the first instance of "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18). The first of many. Jesus repeated it repeatedly (Matt 5:43; Matt 19:19; Matt 22:39.) Paul echoed it (Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14), and James chimed in as well (James 2:8). Okay, we got it. It's important. Let's do that. And then Jesus threw in something else.
There is, I believe, another factor here. It's found in the phrase, "one another." The broader command to love was "your neighbor" and Jesus explained that was anybody with whom you come in contact (Luke 10:29-37). But this command is more specific. "Love one another." That is, in their case, "those in this room" or, in the broader sense, "fellow believers." "Us." We were already commanded to love "them," so a new aspect of Jesus's command is a particular love for a particular people. This command is a love like Jesus loves for a people that Jesus loves -- the chosen.
Jesus prayed that His disciples "may all be one, just as you, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me" (John 17:21). Why? "So that the world may know that You sent Me and loved them even as You loved Me" (John 17:23). Our love for one another -- believers -- makes a unity with one another -- believers -- that will display supernaturally that God sent His Son and God loves His people. That is the "new" of Jesus's command. Unfortunately, I fear we've not been very diligent to love one another that way.
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35)That's a little strange, isn't it? "New commandment"? Really? How is that a new commandment? The astute observer will point out, "He said 'as I have loved you' instead of 'as you love yourself'." That's true indeed. There is a qualitative difference to this love. It's a new standard. Not "as you love yourself." And that has been a sticking point for a lot of people because, "Hey, some of us don't love ourselves at all." I would argue that it's not true, of course. Even suicides do it because they think they'll be better off. And Paul points out, "No one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it" (Eph 5:29). Some of us aren't exactly deeply in love with ourselves, but every human being loves himself. So this new standard -- "as I have loved you" -- is a definite difference. And how did He love us? To death ... His own death. So that's a big difference, too.
There is, I believe, another factor here. It's found in the phrase, "one another." The broader command to love was "your neighbor" and Jesus explained that was anybody with whom you come in contact (Luke 10:29-37). But this command is more specific. "Love one another." That is, in their case, "those in this room" or, in the broader sense, "fellow believers." "Us." We were already commanded to love "them," so a new aspect of Jesus's command is a particular love for a particular people. This command is a love like Jesus loves for a people that Jesus loves -- the chosen.
Jesus prayed that His disciples "may all be one, just as you, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me" (John 17:21). Why? "So that the world may know that You sent Me and loved them even as You loved Me" (John 17:23). Our love for one another -- believers -- makes a unity with one another -- believers -- that will display supernaturally that God sent His Son and God loves His people. That is the "new" of Jesus's command. Unfortunately, I fear we've not been very diligent to love one another that way.
Thursday, June 17, 2021
What If?
Stop me if you've heard this.
Now, stop me if you've heard this.
Let me ask it this way. Do you believe that your relationships with your fellow believers look like God's description of love? Are we even trying? I suspect that some of us aren't so good at that. It's something that I'm looking at for myself. Maybe you might, too.
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. (1 Cor 13:4-8)We know that text as the most comprehensive description of the properties of love found in the Bible. We can glean stuff here and there, but this one is clear and concise, yet complete and to the point. It's stuff we can all understand.
Now, stop me if you've heard this.
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35)Sure, you've heard that one, too. But I'm wondering. What would it look like if our general interactions and relations with fellow believers (John 13:35) looked like the biblical description of love (1 Cor 13:4-8)? How would we relate differently to the Christians in our sphere of influence if we were relating to them like that?
Let me ask it this way. Do you believe that your relationships with your fellow believers look like God's description of love? Are we even trying? I suspect that some of us aren't so good at that. It's something that I'm looking at for myself. Maybe you might, too.
Wednesday, June 16, 2021
Confess
In Romans Paul writes, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved" (Rom 10:9-10). Now, we get that whole "believe in your heart" kind of thing. We understand "saved by faith." It is the Christian distinctive. Every other religion believes in "saved by works"; we're saved by faith. Got it. So what's with the "confess with your mouth"? How necessary is that?
Paul seems to suggest it is absolutely necessary. Faith justifies, but confession saves. Now, to be fair, "justifies" and "saves" in this context are somewhat synonymous. Still, Paul makes a distinction, and it seems to be significant. So what is this "confess with the mouth"?
I think it would be a mistake to assume it is a simple, "I believe in Jesus." I think it would be a mistake to think that it's just once. I think that "with the mouth" is good, but not necessarily complete. So what is this thing called "confess"? The Greek behind it means literally "the same word" -- homologeō. In English, "confess" carries a similar literal root. "Con" is "with" and "fess" is "say," so to "confess" is "to say with." What does it mean to "say with" Christ?
Let's put this together. Paul links faith and confession as the two necessities for justification and salvation. We shouldn't separate them. Why? Jesus said, "The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (Luke 6:45). It is possible for someone to say, "I believe in Jesus" and yet have no faith. It's what theologians refer to as "a lie." It isn't this confession that helps anything. The confession that is essential is the confession that is a product of genuine faith. Real faith produces results (James 2:17). Those results are the "confession" in view here -- the outward manifestation of an inward, living faith. So this confession would include public worship with fellow believers. It would include baptism as a public sign of being a follower of Christ. It would include a dedication to God's people in prayer and action. It would include rejoicing in persecution. And it would obviously include taking the gospel to others and the subsequent making of disciples. In short, this confession, as a product of faith, would be a visibly changed life with words and deeds that accompany genuine trust in Christ.
If this is accurate, you can see that "confess with your mouth" is much bigger than a whispered "I believe" or even repeating a Sinner's Prayer. Rooted in genuine faith, it is the natural result of that faith and, consequently, unavoidable. It will put us at risk with those who are hostile to Christ, but that doesn't matter. Who can separate us from the love of Christ (Rom 8:35-39)? To put this another way, if we are saved by grace through faith apart from works (Eph 2:8-9) for good works (Eph 2:10), how can we not confess this way if we have saving faith?
Paul seems to suggest it is absolutely necessary. Faith justifies, but confession saves. Now, to be fair, "justifies" and "saves" in this context are somewhat synonymous. Still, Paul makes a distinction, and it seems to be significant. So what is this "confess with the mouth"?
I think it would be a mistake to assume it is a simple, "I believe in Jesus." I think it would be a mistake to think that it's just once. I think that "with the mouth" is good, but not necessarily complete. So what is this thing called "confess"? The Greek behind it means literally "the same word" -- homologeō. In English, "confess" carries a similar literal root. "Con" is "with" and "fess" is "say," so to "confess" is "to say with." What does it mean to "say with" Christ?
Let's put this together. Paul links faith and confession as the two necessities for justification and salvation. We shouldn't separate them. Why? Jesus said, "The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (Luke 6:45). It is possible for someone to say, "I believe in Jesus" and yet have no faith. It's what theologians refer to as "a lie." It isn't this confession that helps anything. The confession that is essential is the confession that is a product of genuine faith. Real faith produces results (James 2:17). Those results are the "confession" in view here -- the outward manifestation of an inward, living faith. So this confession would include public worship with fellow believers. It would include baptism as a public sign of being a follower of Christ. It would include a dedication to God's people in prayer and action. It would include rejoicing in persecution. And it would obviously include taking the gospel to others and the subsequent making of disciples. In short, this confession, as a product of faith, would be a visibly changed life with words and deeds that accompany genuine trust in Christ.
If this is accurate, you can see that "confess with your mouth" is much bigger than a whispered "I believe" or even repeating a Sinner's Prayer. Rooted in genuine faith, it is the natural result of that faith and, consequently, unavoidable. It will put us at risk with those who are hostile to Christ, but that doesn't matter. Who can separate us from the love of Christ (Rom 8:35-39)? To put this another way, if we are saved by grace through faith apart from works (Eph 2:8-9) for good works (Eph 2:10), how can we not confess this way if we have saving faith?
Tuesday, June 15, 2021
The Question of Love
The song, by Matt Maher, says, "Your love defends me." It talks about God as our strength and joy, our refuge, our "safe place" as it were. And all of this is true ... with the possible exception of the claim, "Your love defends me."
Scripture is abundantly clear. No one can separate us from the love of Christ (Rom 8:35-39). In that text, Paul lists a host of horrors from "tribulation" to "famine," "persecution" to "sword." He assures his readers "that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 8:38-39). Beyond that, there are lots of references to God as "refuge" and "strength" (Psa 28:8; Psa 46:1; Psa 59:16; Jer 16:19). Too often for me to list the Psalms describe God as a fortress. So ... "Your love defends me," right?
On the other hand, Scripture is also full of suffering for God's people. Not "maybe" but "surely." We are told to "count it all joy" (James 1:2) and rejoice (Rom 5:3-5). Peter wrote, "To the degree that you share in the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing" (1 Peter 4:13). It's not a surprise; it's a plan (Php 1:29). It's a sure thing (2 Tim 3:12). So in what sense does "Your love defend me"?
The problem here is not that God is an inadequate defense. We know He works all things together for good to those who love Him (Rom 8:28). The problem is in our understanding of "love." We believe (now) that "love" means "nothing bad ever happens." We think that love will do all it can to keep unpleasantness away from the loved one. The only reason anyone we love suffers anything at all these days is simply that we're not omniscient or omnipotent and can't actually make that happen. We would if we could, because that's what love does.
I disagree. I think that even humanly speaking that's clearly not love. What loving parent won't take their kids to be poked with painful needles in order to prevent them from getting deadly diseases? We don't prevent all suffering. Or we shouldn't. Because in hard times people grow, strengthen, learn. Just as the Bible says, "We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope" (Rom 5:3-4). If tough times produce that, is it really love to deny that to our loved ones?
I think our current culture is an example of what happens when helicopter parents do their best to prevent anything unpleasant from happening to their little ones. Their children end up weak, angry, easily offended, utterly self-centered with a sense of entitlement. We know the axiom, "No pain, no gain," but we've ignored it and had no gain. That's not what our loving Father does. He allows suffering because of love and He uses hardships because of love and, by all the difficulties and joys we face, He conforms us to the image of His Son (Rom 8:38-39) because He loves us. It is a great comfort to know that He doesn't allow more than is best for us. It is more comfort to know that He always does what's best for us, so that when what we're experiencing isn't our choice of "good times," we can have absolute certainty that our loving Father is allowing it for good to shape us into the image of His Son. His love didn't fail to defend me. His love is better than that.
Scripture is abundantly clear. No one can separate us from the love of Christ (Rom 8:35-39). In that text, Paul lists a host of horrors from "tribulation" to "famine," "persecution" to "sword." He assures his readers "that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 8:38-39). Beyond that, there are lots of references to God as "refuge" and "strength" (Psa 28:8; Psa 46:1; Psa 59:16; Jer 16:19). Too often for me to list the Psalms describe God as a fortress. So ... "Your love defends me," right?
On the other hand, Scripture is also full of suffering for God's people. Not "maybe" but "surely." We are told to "count it all joy" (James 1:2) and rejoice (Rom 5:3-5). Peter wrote, "To the degree that you share in the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing" (1 Peter 4:13). It's not a surprise; it's a plan (Php 1:29). It's a sure thing (2 Tim 3:12). So in what sense does "Your love defend me"?
The problem here is not that God is an inadequate defense. We know He works all things together for good to those who love Him (Rom 8:28). The problem is in our understanding of "love." We believe (now) that "love" means "nothing bad ever happens." We think that love will do all it can to keep unpleasantness away from the loved one. The only reason anyone we love suffers anything at all these days is simply that we're not omniscient or omnipotent and can't actually make that happen. We would if we could, because that's what love does.
I disagree. I think that even humanly speaking that's clearly not love. What loving parent won't take their kids to be poked with painful needles in order to prevent them from getting deadly diseases? We don't prevent all suffering. Or we shouldn't. Because in hard times people grow, strengthen, learn. Just as the Bible says, "We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope" (Rom 5:3-4). If tough times produce that, is it really love to deny that to our loved ones?
I think our current culture is an example of what happens when helicopter parents do their best to prevent anything unpleasant from happening to their little ones. Their children end up weak, angry, easily offended, utterly self-centered with a sense of entitlement. We know the axiom, "No pain, no gain," but we've ignored it and had no gain. That's not what our loving Father does. He allows suffering because of love and He uses hardships because of love and, by all the difficulties and joys we face, He conforms us to the image of His Son (Rom 8:38-39) because He loves us. It is a great comfort to know that He doesn't allow more than is best for us. It is more comfort to know that He always does what's best for us, so that when what we're experiencing isn't our choice of "good times," we can have absolute certainty that our loving Father is allowing it for good to shape us into the image of His Son. His love didn't fail to defend me. His love is better than that.
Monday, June 14, 2021
More Love
We have a problem in our culture. It's not sex, exactly. It's the extreme embrace of sexual immorality. Few things in Scripture are repeated more often as sins as that particular one. And, as if in response, American culture has wholly embraced sexual immorality. When I was young, sex was a secret sin. Sure, there was Playboy and such, but those who indulged did so in private. Now they discuss it in public. I had a coworker the other day tell me out of the blue, "I found a cool new porn game." Like I wanted to hear that? But he thought it was something to share and be proud of. Because, in general, America has embraced sexual immorality.
To be fair, humans are sinners, so the fact that humans are sinning shouldn't be a big surprise. And, following the normal course of human sin, generally we go from bad to worse unless something interrupts that flow. Nothing has of late, so that's where we've gone. Since the grand kickoff of the "free love" generation of the '60's, we've been on a crash course to perversion ... and loving it. So it's not about them. I'm thinking about us. Scripture repeatedly warns young men, for instance, to guard their way (e.g., Psa 119:9), to flee immorality (e.g., 1 Cor 6:18; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22), to keep themselves pure. I'd be pretty impressed if the casual Christian could stand in the face of the forces of this world and just hold still. No, simply saying, "Be pure" isn't going to cut it. What do we need?
The truth is we're not very successful at "don't." Just think "Don't look!" What do you get? Everyone looks. "Just don't" normally doesn't work. That's because it's only half the issue. If "don't" is the correct non-direction, we will need the correct direction. So "Don't commit sexual immorality" is all well and good ... but what do you recommend we do? And it will have to be something counter to "sexual immorality." That is, "Go bake a cake" isn't the kind of thing that will help.
So what is it that leads us into sexual temptation? I would guess it's a little complicated. There are hormones at the most basic level and then, moving up the chain, there are emotional desires and endorphines and ... oh, it is complicated, isn't it? The truth is that sex is enjoyable, primarily because God made it that way, but when it controls us, it's not good; it's slavery (1 Cor 6:12; Rom 6:13-14). God designed sex for His purposes, and when we hijack it for our purposes, it's a problem. It is my suspicion that most (all?) of our sin comes from lies we tell ourselves about God (Rom 1:18-19). In that case, our sin temptations are ultimately based on the premise that "God is not giving me what I need" (or "what is best for me") and we will seek to correct His error.
If this is accurate, the correction, then isn't just "don't." The correction is "Love God." If "sexual immmorality" is the wrong direction, "a passion for God" is the right direction. If we find ourselves tempted beyond our ability to withstand in the area of sexual immmorality (or, frankly, any other), I would think that more love for God would be a good remedy. Finding my highest pleasure in His presence. If we can arrive at "Your steadfast love is better than life" (Psa 63:3), I think the pleasures of this world will dim and so would our temptations.
To be fair, humans are sinners, so the fact that humans are sinning shouldn't be a big surprise. And, following the normal course of human sin, generally we go from bad to worse unless something interrupts that flow. Nothing has of late, so that's where we've gone. Since the grand kickoff of the "free love" generation of the '60's, we've been on a crash course to perversion ... and loving it. So it's not about them. I'm thinking about us. Scripture repeatedly warns young men, for instance, to guard their way (e.g., Psa 119:9), to flee immorality (e.g., 1 Cor 6:18; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22), to keep themselves pure. I'd be pretty impressed if the casual Christian could stand in the face of the forces of this world and just hold still. No, simply saying, "Be pure" isn't going to cut it. What do we need?
The truth is we're not very successful at "don't." Just think "Don't look!" What do you get? Everyone looks. "Just don't" normally doesn't work. That's because it's only half the issue. If "don't" is the correct non-direction, we will need the correct direction. So "Don't commit sexual immorality" is all well and good ... but what do you recommend we do? And it will have to be something counter to "sexual immorality." That is, "Go bake a cake" isn't the kind of thing that will help.
So what is it that leads us into sexual temptation? I would guess it's a little complicated. There are hormones at the most basic level and then, moving up the chain, there are emotional desires and endorphines and ... oh, it is complicated, isn't it? The truth is that sex is enjoyable, primarily because God made it that way, but when it controls us, it's not good; it's slavery (1 Cor 6:12; Rom 6:13-14). God designed sex for His purposes, and when we hijack it for our purposes, it's a problem. It is my suspicion that most (all?) of our sin comes from lies we tell ourselves about God (Rom 1:18-19). In that case, our sin temptations are ultimately based on the premise that "God is not giving me what I need" (or "what is best for me") and we will seek to correct His error.
If this is accurate, the correction, then isn't just "don't." The correction is "Love God." If "sexual immmorality" is the wrong direction, "a passion for God" is the right direction. If we find ourselves tempted beyond our ability to withstand in the area of sexual immmorality (or, frankly, any other), I would think that more love for God would be a good remedy. Finding my highest pleasure in His presence. If we can arrive at "Your steadfast love is better than life" (Psa 63:3), I think the pleasures of this world will dim and so would our temptations.
Sunday, June 13, 2021
Building Better Hope
The Bible talks a lot about hope. In fact, it's on the list of the three things that abide (1 Cor 13:13). It's mentioned over 150 times, ranging from "I hope to see you soon" (3 John 1:14) to "our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). Now, certainly you can see a difference between those two. One is a wish with expectation and the other is a certainty waiting to be realized. Thus, hope has grades. So how do we build a better hope?
One factor, of course, is the basis of the hope. When our hope is in our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess 1:3), you can be sure of a more certain hope. Because of Him we have "a better hope" (Heb 7:19). So when we hope for things that are unsure -- based on the vagaries of events and other people -- we will have a wishful hope, but when it is on a sure thing, we have a more certain hope.
There is a biblical way we can arrive at a hope that "does not disappoint" (Rom 5:5). Paul writes,
How? How does this produce hope? Apparently it is the product of God's love having been poured into our hearts through the Spirit (Rom 3:5). It is the certain realization -- making what we weren't sure was real to be absolutely real -- that God's love for us is absolutely sure in the midst of trials (Rom 8:35-39). It's the undergoing of "this light mementary affliction" (2 Cor 4:17) and seeing God's hand sustain us that produces character that produces unswerving hope.
Most people use the word "hope" in a wishful sense. "We hope to come and visit this summer." Maybe; maybe not. "I hope to get a promotion and a raise." Maybe; maybe not. These are fine and normal and even suitable. But we have a better hope. it is based on the certainty of God's love. It is built through the fires of trials and tribulations. It is shaped by patience and looks like character. And it does not disappoint. A better hope.
One factor, of course, is the basis of the hope. When our hope is in our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess 1:3), you can be sure of a more certain hope. Because of Him we have "a better hope" (Heb 7:19). So when we hope for things that are unsure -- based on the vagaries of events and other people -- we will have a wishful hope, but when it is on a sure thing, we have a more certain hope.
There is a biblical way we can arrive at a hope that "does not disappoint" (Rom 5:5). Paul writes,
We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. (Rom 5:3-5)Sufferings produce endurance, endurance produces character, and character produces hope. Easy, right? I remember hearing a fellow who said, "I want to go to heaven; I just don't want to have to die to do it." This one sounds similar. We want hope and this is a hope that doesn't let us down, but do we have to suffer to get it? Paul says we do. So does James (James 1:2-4). Godly character is the product of trials that produce patience. The upside is that this produces hope.
How? How does this produce hope? Apparently it is the product of God's love having been poured into our hearts through the Spirit (Rom 3:5). It is the certain realization -- making what we weren't sure was real to be absolutely real -- that God's love for us is absolutely sure in the midst of trials (Rom 8:35-39). It's the undergoing of "this light mementary affliction" (2 Cor 4:17) and seeing God's hand sustain us that produces character that produces unswerving hope.
Most people use the word "hope" in a wishful sense. "We hope to come and visit this summer." Maybe; maybe not. "I hope to get a promotion and a raise." Maybe; maybe not. These are fine and normal and even suitable. But we have a better hope. it is based on the certainty of God's love. It is built through the fires of trials and tribulations. It is shaped by patience and looks like character. And it does not disappoint. A better hope.
Saturday, June 12, 2021
News Weakly - 6/12/21
Pesky Amendments
Dr. Naomi Wolf, an acclaimed feminist, was suspended from Twitter for "anti-vaccine misinformation." Some were delighted. "But some," the story says, "have voiced concern that her suspension was stifling free speech." Based on the story, she indeed spouted nonsense. However, there is no concern that it might be stifling free speech. It is, in fact, the point. We have handed over our right to express ourselves to a particular group of media moguls and tech companies who define "hate speech" as "what we don't want you to hear" and are supported by a younger generation that believes that "hate speech" is anything that makes them feel bad and does not believe we should have free speech. "Agree with us or shut up. (That goes for you on the Left, too.)" We don't need the 2nd Amendment and clearly we don't need the 1st, either.
The Hate is Strong with This One
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) visited her grandmother in Puerto Rico who still hadn't received aid after Hurricane Maria. She blamed Trump. So conservative commentator Matt Walsh started a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for her "abuela." AOC and GoFundMe put a stop to it after the campaign had raised more than $100,000 and AOC is refusing the money. Others wondered why the socialist congresswoman didn't use her substantial wealth to help her abuela and it all seems odd that someone would be so worried about her sick grandmother that she would refuse to help or allow anyone else (especially not a conservative) to help. However, asking those kinds of questions isn't allowed.
Giving Back
No satire, no snark, no meanness here. A Harvard-bound Massachusetts high school senior -- her family immigrated from Ghana -- was awarded her school's "General Excellence Scholarship" which included a $40,000 scholarship. "It is such a great honor, but I also know that I am not the most in need of it," she said and asked that it be donated to someone going to community college. That's class. That's generosity. That's kindness.
Apology
At 19, Ellie Kemper took part in a debutante ball where she was named "Queen of Love and Beauty" at the 105th Fair Saint Louis. Ellie Kemper, now a 41-year-old actress, is apologizing. You see, the ball was "unquestionably racist, sexist, and elitist." She wrote, "I acknowledge that because of my race and my privilege, I am the beneficiary of a system that has dispensed unequal justice and unequal rewards." Ellie Kemper apologized, then, for being a white teenager who won a beauty contest. Note: There were no racist connections between the Fair Saint Louis except that there could have possibly been some individuals who were racist among them. They were "racist" simply because they were "a lily-white group." It's all a lie.
Apology II, the Sequel
White actresses aren't the only ones. The (apparently mostly white) state of Oregon is right there, too. They felt the need to alter their state song because it had "racist language." "What racist language?" you ask. In the first verse it says Oregon was "conquered and held by free men; fairest and the best." Wow! Seriously racist, right? I mean, it couldn't refer to humans (race aside) who wanted to be free (not as opposed to "slave," but as opposed to "roped into the greater group of humanity on the continent") (you know, like the whole "live free or die" mindset). So it could only refer to some white supremacist kind of thing. (Like when we sing "Fairest Lord Jesus" and we're talking about Yeshua, the white guy.) These are manufactured problems foisted on us without cause, but we will submit or else.
Back Hand
This one stinks to high Heaven. (Almost literally.) Russell Moore was the head of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission until he recently resigned to go to work for Christianity Today. (Bad choice if you ask me. Christianity As It Should Have Been would have been better.) Turns out that Moore wrote a letter to the president of the SBC, J.D. Greear, and the Washington Post and therefore the world got ahold of it and read it. In it Moore accused the SBC of issues concerning sex abuse and racism and such. He accused them of covering it all up. It's all bad stuff. What I'm wondering is why Moore wrote a letter to Greear to get this cleaned up rather than speaking up himself? Why did he remain silent when it came up? Why did he not call believers to task for their sin (Gal 6:1)? Why did he not follow Christ's instructions (Matt 18:15-20)? The SBC and the people in it are far from perfect -- as in all churches -- but you'd like to think that leadership -- especially someone like the head of an Ethics Commission -- would have the courage to follow Scripture and do the right thing rather than telling someone else to do it. Christians err. It just pains me when it's so public and so radical.
Funny and Not So Funny
The report is out that Pride Month has been canceled after it was revealed that the LGBTQ community culturally appropriated the sign of the Noahic Covenant. In other news, after the Suns eliminated the Lakers from the playoffs, LeBron and teammates have decided to boycott the playoffs because playoffs are racist and white supremacist. Finally, in a suprise move, Democrats are demanding that Republicans pay them reparations for freeing their slaves.
All that is good, clean satire. Satire is characterized as attacking human foolishness or vice through irony and wit. The Bee doesn't do news; it pokes fun at some silly ideas with humor. But, in spite of the satirical nature of the Babylon Bee, the New York Times decided to label them a "far-Right misinformation site." The Bee has demanded a retraction. The Times isn't moving much. Because fake news and opposing conservative humor is what they do.
Dr. Naomi Wolf, an acclaimed feminist, was suspended from Twitter for "anti-vaccine misinformation." Some were delighted. "But some," the story says, "have voiced concern that her suspension was stifling free speech." Based on the story, she indeed spouted nonsense. However, there is no concern that it might be stifling free speech. It is, in fact, the point. We have handed over our right to express ourselves to a particular group of media moguls and tech companies who define "hate speech" as "what we don't want you to hear" and are supported by a younger generation that believes that "hate speech" is anything that makes them feel bad and does not believe we should have free speech. "Agree with us or shut up. (That goes for you on the Left, too.)" We don't need the 2nd Amendment and clearly we don't need the 1st, either.
The Hate is Strong with This One
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) visited her grandmother in Puerto Rico who still hadn't received aid after Hurricane Maria. She blamed Trump. So conservative commentator Matt Walsh started a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for her "abuela." AOC and GoFundMe put a stop to it after the campaign had raised more than $100,000 and AOC is refusing the money. Others wondered why the socialist congresswoman didn't use her substantial wealth to help her abuela and it all seems odd that someone would be so worried about her sick grandmother that she would refuse to help or allow anyone else (especially not a conservative) to help. However, asking those kinds of questions isn't allowed.
Giving Back
No satire, no snark, no meanness here. A Harvard-bound Massachusetts high school senior -- her family immigrated from Ghana -- was awarded her school's "General Excellence Scholarship" which included a $40,000 scholarship. "It is such a great honor, but I also know that I am not the most in need of it," she said and asked that it be donated to someone going to community college. That's class. That's generosity. That's kindness.
Apology
At 19, Ellie Kemper took part in a debutante ball where she was named "Queen of Love and Beauty" at the 105th Fair Saint Louis. Ellie Kemper, now a 41-year-old actress, is apologizing. You see, the ball was "unquestionably racist, sexist, and elitist." She wrote, "I acknowledge that because of my race and my privilege, I am the beneficiary of a system that has dispensed unequal justice and unequal rewards." Ellie Kemper apologized, then, for being a white teenager who won a beauty contest. Note: There were no racist connections between the Fair Saint Louis except that there could have possibly been some individuals who were racist among them. They were "racist" simply because they were "a lily-white group." It's all a lie.
Apology II, the Sequel
White actresses aren't the only ones. The (apparently mostly white) state of Oregon is right there, too. They felt the need to alter their state song because it had "racist language." "What racist language?" you ask. In the first verse it says Oregon was "conquered and held by free men; fairest and the best." Wow! Seriously racist, right? I mean, it couldn't refer to humans (race aside) who wanted to be free (not as opposed to "slave," but as opposed to "roped into the greater group of humanity on the continent") (you know, like the whole "live free or die" mindset). So it could only refer to some white supremacist kind of thing. (Like when we sing "Fairest Lord Jesus" and we're talking about Yeshua, the white guy.) These are manufactured problems foisted on us without cause, but we will submit or else.
Back Hand
This one stinks to high Heaven. (Almost literally.) Russell Moore was the head of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission until he recently resigned to go to work for Christianity Today. (Bad choice if you ask me. Christianity As It Should Have Been would have been better.) Turns out that Moore wrote a letter to the president of the SBC, J.D. Greear, and the Washington Post and therefore the world got ahold of it and read it. In it Moore accused the SBC of issues concerning sex abuse and racism and such. He accused them of covering it all up. It's all bad stuff. What I'm wondering is why Moore wrote a letter to Greear to get this cleaned up rather than speaking up himself? Why did he remain silent when it came up? Why did he not call believers to task for their sin (Gal 6:1)? Why did he not follow Christ's instructions (Matt 18:15-20)? The SBC and the people in it are far from perfect -- as in all churches -- but you'd like to think that leadership -- especially someone like the head of an Ethics Commission -- would have the courage to follow Scripture and do the right thing rather than telling someone else to do it. Christians err. It just pains me when it's so public and so radical.
Funny and Not So Funny
The report is out that Pride Month has been canceled after it was revealed that the LGBTQ community culturally appropriated the sign of the Noahic Covenant. In other news, after the Suns eliminated the Lakers from the playoffs, LeBron and teammates have decided to boycott the playoffs because playoffs are racist and white supremacist. Finally, in a suprise move, Democrats are demanding that Republicans pay them reparations for freeing their slaves.
All that is good, clean satire. Satire is characterized as attacking human foolishness or vice through irony and wit. The Bee doesn't do news; it pokes fun at some silly ideas with humor. But, in spite of the satirical nature of the Babylon Bee, the New York Times decided to label them a "far-Right misinformation site." The Bee has demanded a retraction. The Times isn't moving much. Because fake news and opposing conservative humor is what they do.
Friday, June 11, 2021
The Miracle of Words
I talk a lot about words, but have you ever considered how amazing they are? We start without language from the womb. We begin to hear sounds from those around us. They're called "phonemes" and they are the distinct units of sound in a specified language that distinguish one word from another. As this learning process continues, we begin to associate a certain series of sounds with a certain concept. You see, words aren't things; they are codes we use to transmit concepts. So without ever getting any real formal education (because what can an infant do with formal education?) we arrive at words. These words have meaning. Some are simple -- "food," "water," "mommy," etc. Some are complex. Think about it. How does a baby learn the complicated idea of "love" from just hearing the word and experiencing the thing? But we do. It's only later that we learn that there are symbols for these sounds that make up words and then we learn how to string those symbols together in a way that we can write them down and transmit ideas beyond the reach of sound. So, here we are with this amazingly complicated system of symbols representing distinctive, nuanced sounds that are put together to mean specific, individual words that are used as a common code of transmitting what's in my mind to your mind. Wow!
Sometimes it works. More often than you might think. Sometimes it doesn't. Years ago I saw a budgie in my desert backyard. Now, for those who don't know, a budgie is a parakeet ... and parakeets aren't native to the desert. Well, eventually he migrated with other birds, but came back the next year. So I wondered, "How long does a budgie live?" In terms of words, I'm pretty sure I just successfully transmitted my question to you. You know what I was asking. It wasn't unclear, vague, ambiguous. But when I typed that question into Google to find the answer, it turned out to be a hard question. "How" refers to a method, so they told me how budgies lived. "Long" could be time (as I intended), but they told me budgies were typically 7-8" long. I found out that "Budgie" was the name of a band and I found out that they were performing "live" in places. Because communication is really a marvel and, yet, we generally do it so easily.
The trick, then, is to remove barriers to understanding. Don't slur those sounds or garble those letters. Don't use words that mean one thing to mean something else. Take into account your audience. That sort of thing. So I was thinking about that scene in the first Incredibles movie. The family is trying to keep their "super" identity quiet, but Mr. Incredible has a tough time sometimes, what with all that tedious job pressure and all. And all the while (it seems) there is this little kid sitting on his tricycle at the end of the driveway watching just as he does something "super." So, at the end, when the family defeats Syndrome right over their own house in an undeniably "super" way, the kid on the tricycle says, "Oh, man ..." -- and we all hold ourcollective breath, then -- "That was totally wicked!!" And we laugh. Because we know that the kid didn't mean, "That was totally evil!" even though that was the word he used. But, did he? I'd guess he grew up with "wicked" meaning "cool, awesome, really wonderful." So I'm picturing the first day you get this kid into your Sunday school class and give him a primer on the gospel. "So, there's Satan and there's God ..." "Who's Satan?" "Oh, he's opposed to God. He's totally wicked." "And God is not?" "Oh, no, God isn't wicked at all." "Okay, got it," the kid goes home thinking. "I want to know that Satan dude 'cause he's really awesome and I want to avoid that boring ol' God person." Yes, he was a cartoon character and, yes, that was just a fantasy exchange, but hopefully I communicated the idea. It is far too easy to mess up words and, therefore, ideas.
In truth, the miracle of language really is a marvel. We make sounds that mean thoughts that others can receive and translate into the same thoughts. You can only imagine what it was like at the tower of Babel when, all of the sudden, the sounds that everyone shared meant something completely different to various individuals and "thought transference" in the form of words came to a screeching halt. Which is why I keep talking about words. No, they're not a thing. No, they're neither good nor bad. But when we twist them and turn them and use and abuse them until we think we know what they mean but, in fact, haven't got a clue, the miracle of words declines. And we seem to be working that anti-miracle with all our might these days.
Sometimes it works. More often than you might think. Sometimes it doesn't. Years ago I saw a budgie in my desert backyard. Now, for those who don't know, a budgie is a parakeet ... and parakeets aren't native to the desert. Well, eventually he migrated with other birds, but came back the next year. So I wondered, "How long does a budgie live?" In terms of words, I'm pretty sure I just successfully transmitted my question to you. You know what I was asking. It wasn't unclear, vague, ambiguous. But when I typed that question into Google to find the answer, it turned out to be a hard question. "How" refers to a method, so they told me how budgies lived. "Long" could be time (as I intended), but they told me budgies were typically 7-8" long. I found out that "Budgie" was the name of a band and I found out that they were performing "live" in places. Because communication is really a marvel and, yet, we generally do it so easily.
The trick, then, is to remove barriers to understanding. Don't slur those sounds or garble those letters. Don't use words that mean one thing to mean something else. Take into account your audience. That sort of thing. So I was thinking about that scene in the first Incredibles movie. The family is trying to keep their "super" identity quiet, but Mr. Incredible has a tough time sometimes, what with all that tedious job pressure and all. And all the while (it seems) there is this little kid sitting on his tricycle at the end of the driveway watching just as he does something "super." So, at the end, when the family defeats Syndrome right over their own house in an undeniably "super" way, the kid on the tricycle says, "Oh, man ..." -- and we all hold ourcollective breath, then -- "That was totally wicked!!" And we laugh. Because we know that the kid didn't mean, "That was totally evil!" even though that was the word he used. But, did he? I'd guess he grew up with "wicked" meaning "cool, awesome, really wonderful." So I'm picturing the first day you get this kid into your Sunday school class and give him a primer on the gospel. "So, there's Satan and there's God ..." "Who's Satan?" "Oh, he's opposed to God. He's totally wicked." "And God is not?" "Oh, no, God isn't wicked at all." "Okay, got it," the kid goes home thinking. "I want to know that Satan dude 'cause he's really awesome and I want to avoid that boring ol' God person." Yes, he was a cartoon character and, yes, that was just a fantasy exchange, but hopefully I communicated the idea. It is far too easy to mess up words and, therefore, ideas.
In truth, the miracle of language really is a marvel. We make sounds that mean thoughts that others can receive and translate into the same thoughts. You can only imagine what it was like at the tower of Babel when, all of the sudden, the sounds that everyone shared meant something completely different to various individuals and "thought transference" in the form of words came to a screeching halt. Which is why I keep talking about words. No, they're not a thing. No, they're neither good nor bad. But when we twist them and turn them and use and abuse them until we think we know what they mean but, in fact, haven't got a clue, the miracle of words declines. And we seem to be working that anti-miracle with all our might these days.
Thursday, June 10, 2021
The Salvation of God
I know. Generally an article with that kind of a title will be about the salvation that God supplies. This is not one of those pieces. I'm referring to the wondrous efforts that we humans go through to save God. You see, God doesn't have a very good PR department. Like so many modern celebrities, He has a history of having some really bad things purportedly written by Him and it is only through the careful protection of His human followers that we're able to keep Him from being ... canceled.
I'm talking, of course, about the Bible. The Scriptures claim to have been breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16-17). If it wasn't for that kind of disastrous position, a lot of this stuff could be easily avoided, as many like to do. "The Bible is God's Word? Oh, don't be ridiculous. Maybe it contains some of God's words or, more likely, not, but it is not written by God, so we can ignore the wrong stuff attributed to Him." And, bingo, we've saved God from His own bad press.
Take, for instance, that whole disastrous first 11 chapters of Genesis. Such claims! God created the heavens and the earth. God made Man. Man sinned. The whole talking snake thing. People living for hundreds of years. A nonsensical worldwide flood. The confusing of languages. So much blather. God's reputation is intact because that's all a bunch of myth and legend, some ancient writings without any reality. We now have Science to inform us so the false narratives are no longer necessary.
How about that whole, "Go kill every man, woman, child, and goat" thing (1 Sam 15:1-3)? Quite the bloodthirsty God, eh? And when the king refused to carry it out, it cost him his job (1 Sam 15:11)?! Well, that will never do. Never happened. Neither did God strike down Uzzah for touching the ark (2 Sam 6:6-8). Ancient mysticism where the poor guy had a heart attack and the writers mistakenly attributed it to God. Don't worry, God, we've got your back.
The New Testament doesn't fare any better. There's the whole "sacrifice of Jesus" thing where an apparently barbaric God demands a blood sacrifice to appease His wrath. I mean, it says that we are saved by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13; Heb 9:14; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Rev 1:5) and it says that His blood appeased God's righteous wrath (Rom 3:24-26; Heb 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10), but that's not going to fly in today's inclusive, peaceful world. (Note: It didn't at the time, either (1 Cor 1:18-24).) So we'll just explain that stuff away as misguided 2nd century pagan beliefs and, once again, we'll pull God from the fire of His own book.
Even good, Bible-believing Christians have to step in sometimes and save God. When it says that we are dead in sins (Eph 2:1-3), we have to add "mostly dead" and explain how "dead" isn't quite right. When we read that the natural man cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14) or even believe (John 6:64-65) without God changing them, we have to mitigate it. "That's not what it means." When it says that He chooses whom He will save apart from our choices, we've got to moderate it, mitigate it, ease it a bit. Too tough to swallow. So we're "predestined" (Rom 8:29-30) after we come to faith and He doesn't actually choose individuals (Rom 9:10-19), but groups. (Not making this up; I've heard this multiple times.) You see, God ordained that there would be Israel and there would be "the Church" and we decide if we're in it. And God, once again, avoids a disastrous use of words.
I'm telling you, it can be hard work sometimes. Passages seem so clear, so explicit, so straightforward. They seem to say things about God that just don't fit with our expectations. That's even without misogynists like Paul making lunatic statements like, "Women should keep silent in the churches" (1 Cor 14:34). Nonsense! But if we're careful and we pick and choose what agrees with Science and modern culture versus some of the "obscure" clear texts we see in the Bible, I think we might just be able to make a go of saving God from His own bad press.
I'm talking, of course, about the Bible. The Scriptures claim to have been breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16-17). If it wasn't for that kind of disastrous position, a lot of this stuff could be easily avoided, as many like to do. "The Bible is God's Word? Oh, don't be ridiculous. Maybe it contains some of God's words or, more likely, not, but it is not written by God, so we can ignore the wrong stuff attributed to Him." And, bingo, we've saved God from His own bad press.
Take, for instance, that whole disastrous first 11 chapters of Genesis. Such claims! God created the heavens and the earth. God made Man. Man sinned. The whole talking snake thing. People living for hundreds of years. A nonsensical worldwide flood. The confusing of languages. So much blather. God's reputation is intact because that's all a bunch of myth and legend, some ancient writings without any reality. We now have Science to inform us so the false narratives are no longer necessary.
How about that whole, "Go kill every man, woman, child, and goat" thing (1 Sam 15:1-3)? Quite the bloodthirsty God, eh? And when the king refused to carry it out, it cost him his job (1 Sam 15:11)?! Well, that will never do. Never happened. Neither did God strike down Uzzah for touching the ark (2 Sam 6:6-8). Ancient mysticism where the poor guy had a heart attack and the writers mistakenly attributed it to God. Don't worry, God, we've got your back.
The New Testament doesn't fare any better. There's the whole "sacrifice of Jesus" thing where an apparently barbaric God demands a blood sacrifice to appease His wrath. I mean, it says that we are saved by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13; Heb 9:14; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Rev 1:5) and it says that His blood appeased God's righteous wrath (Rom 3:24-26; Heb 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10), but that's not going to fly in today's inclusive, peaceful world. (Note: It didn't at the time, either (1 Cor 1:18-24).) So we'll just explain that stuff away as misguided 2nd century pagan beliefs and, once again, we'll pull God from the fire of His own book.
Even good, Bible-believing Christians have to step in sometimes and save God. When it says that we are dead in sins (Eph 2:1-3), we have to add "mostly dead" and explain how "dead" isn't quite right. When we read that the natural man cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14) or even believe (John 6:64-65) without God changing them, we have to mitigate it. "That's not what it means." When it says that He chooses whom He will save apart from our choices, we've got to moderate it, mitigate it, ease it a bit. Too tough to swallow. So we're "predestined" (Rom 8:29-30) after we come to faith and He doesn't actually choose individuals (Rom 9:10-19), but groups. (Not making this up; I've heard this multiple times.) You see, God ordained that there would be Israel and there would be "the Church" and we decide if we're in it. And God, once again, avoids a disastrous use of words.
I'm telling you, it can be hard work sometimes. Passages seem so clear, so explicit, so straightforward. They seem to say things about God that just don't fit with our expectations. That's even without misogynists like Paul making lunatic statements like, "Women should keep silent in the churches" (1 Cor 14:34). Nonsense! But if we're careful and we pick and choose what agrees with Science and modern culture versus some of the "obscure" clear texts we see in the Bible, I think we might just be able to make a go of saving God from His own bad press.
Wednesday, June 09, 2021
What Are We Waiting For?
In Paul's epistle to the church at Rome, he has that marvelous chapter 8 which begins with "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." You might think it doesn't get better than that, but it does. There is, however, an interesting section in that chapter which seems a little ... dark. It begins with "I consider that the sufferings of this present time ..." (Rom 8:18) and many of us are ready to move on. Hang on a minute.
Paul goes on to say that creation waits with eager longing for this (Rom 8:19). Creation is awaiting its freedom from the bondage to corruption (Rom 8:20-21). What is it waiting for? What's the delay? Whatever it is, "not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly" (Rom 8:23), so it's us as well. Waiting for what? The text says we're waiting for our adoption, but Paul said we already had that (Rom 8:15). So what are we waiting for? It is true that we have the adoption papers signed, so to speak. What we're waiting for is "going home with our new Father," so to speak -- "the redemption of our bodies" (Rom 8:23).
We have been justified. We have been saved. We have been adopted. All these are true. But there is an aspect of "already/not yet" here. We have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. So we await the redemption of our bodies, that moment when we will be once and for all in His presence, completely sin-free, adopted-in-full, sanctified, and glorified. At the turn of the 20th century, Charles Gabriel wrote a hymn that expresses this.
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. (Rom 8:18>"The glory that is to be revealed to us." Surely that's intriguing. We don't like talk about suffering, but glory isn't so bad, is it? What glory? In the previous verse he was talking about how we are children of God, "heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him" (Rom 8:17). Well, there's that suffering thing again, but if we suffer with Him we will be glorified with Him. That is the glory to be revealed to us -- glory given to us with Christ by God.
Paul goes on to say that creation waits with eager longing for this (Rom 8:19). Creation is awaiting its freedom from the bondage to corruption (Rom 8:20-21). What is it waiting for? What's the delay? Whatever it is, "not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly" (Rom 8:23), so it's us as well. Waiting for what? The text says we're waiting for our adoption, but Paul said we already had that (Rom 8:15). So what are we waiting for? It is true that we have the adoption papers signed, so to speak. What we're waiting for is "going home with our new Father," so to speak -- "the redemption of our bodies" (Rom 8:23).
We have been justified. We have been saved. We have been adopted. All these are true. But there is an aspect of "already/not yet" here. We have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. So we await the redemption of our bodies, that moment when we will be once and for all in His presence, completely sin-free, adopted-in-full, sanctified, and glorified. At the turn of the 20th century, Charles Gabriel wrote a hymn that expresses this.
When all my labors and trials are o’er,"We ourselves," then, "who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (Rom 8:23) And I say, Amen!
And I am safe on that beautiful shore,
Just to be near the dear Lord I adore,
Will through the ages be glory for me.
Refrain:
Oh, that will be glory for me,
Glory for me, glory for me,
When by His grace I shall look on His face,
That will be glory, be glory for me.
Tuesday, June 08, 2021
Capricious
You know that word, right? It refers to those born under the sign of Capricorn. No, just kidding. The word means "actions arising from caprice." (Thanks, Merriam-Webster.) It means "subject to, led by, or indicative of a sudden, odd notion, or unpredictable change; erratic." Now, of all persons, this cannot be a word to describe God. Can it?
I pointed out that Scripture teaches that God chooses whom He will save without regard for what we choose or what we do (John 1:12-13; Rom 9:18). He specifies that Jacob was chosen over Esau before they were born apart from anything good or bad they would do (Rom 9:11). The common response to that is, "If God chooses for no reason, that is the definition of 'capricious'." So since Scripture teaches that God's choice is not based on the chosen and since "no reason" = "capricious," apparently God is capricious.
So far the arguments are sound ... with a single exception. The Bible clearly teaches that God's choice is not predicated on our choices or actions, but it does not say it is not predicated on anything. In fact, it does have a basis. And if His choice has a basis -- not "unpredictable" or "erratic" -- then He isn't capricious. What basis does Scripture offer? "For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls ..." (Rom 9:11). God's choice of Jacob over Esau, Isaac over Ishmael -- anyone to whom God chooses to show mercy as opposed to anyone to whom He chooses not to show mercy -- is not based on the one who receives mercy, but on God, on His purposes, on His choice, on Him. It is aimed at removing false glory from pretenders who think they can say, "I chose Him. I figured it out. I got it." Furthermore, the purpose was "to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:23). God chooses entirely on His own so He is magnified and not the chosen, so He is glorified and not the chosen, so His purposes are met.
You may not like that. You may not think it's a good purpose. You may not think it's a valid basis. That's fine. The Bible doesn't look for your opinion on it. You're free to have your own view. But that's just what the Bible says, so I'm going to go with that. Not capricious.
I pointed out that Scripture teaches that God chooses whom He will save without regard for what we choose or what we do (John 1:12-13; Rom 9:18). He specifies that Jacob was chosen over Esau before they were born apart from anything good or bad they would do (Rom 9:11). The common response to that is, "If God chooses for no reason, that is the definition of 'capricious'." So since Scripture teaches that God's choice is not based on the chosen and since "no reason" = "capricious," apparently God is capricious.
So far the arguments are sound ... with a single exception. The Bible clearly teaches that God's choice is not predicated on our choices or actions, but it does not say it is not predicated on anything. In fact, it does have a basis. And if His choice has a basis -- not "unpredictable" or "erratic" -- then He isn't capricious. What basis does Scripture offer? "For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls ..." (Rom 9:11). God's choice of Jacob over Esau, Isaac over Ishmael -- anyone to whom God chooses to show mercy as opposed to anyone to whom He chooses not to show mercy -- is not based on the one who receives mercy, but on God, on His purposes, on His choice, on Him. It is aimed at removing false glory from pretenders who think they can say, "I chose Him. I figured it out. I got it." Furthermore, the purpose was "to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:23). God chooses entirely on His own so He is magnified and not the chosen, so He is glorified and not the chosen, so His purposes are met.
You may not like that. You may not think it's a good purpose. You may not think it's a valid basis. That's fine. The Bible doesn't look for your opinion on it. You're free to have your own view. But that's just what the Bible says, so I'm going to go with that. Not capricious.
Monday, June 07, 2021
Rubbed the Wrong Way
We like God. Well, we believers, at least. We're fans of Jesus. Why else would they call us "Christ-ians"? Jesus is our friend. And I'm really not intending to sound as sarcastic as this might sound. We really love the Father and the Son and the Spirit. But ...
Paul complained in Romans 7 about his own conflict between the mind and the flesh. "For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members" (Rom 7:22-23). In this body, while we wait for the redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:23), we have conflicts with what we love -- God and His ways -- and what our flesh loves. Until this life ends.
This is why, despite our very real love for Christ, we can sometimes contradict Him. For instance, Jesus said, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He may give it to you" (John 15:16). "What?" you ask. "No, we don't contradict that. We believe that." Really? You believe that you did not choose Him, but He chose you? This whole idea grates on us. "Of course we chose Him. Isn't it our choice of Him that gave us our salvation, our justification by faith?" Sure, we are justified by faith and not by works, but according to Scripture we were chosen before we chose Him. According to the Word of God, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4). "Well, yeah, sure," some might say, "but that's because He looked down the corridors of time, saw that we should choose Him, and chose us." Seems reasonable, sure, but according to Scripture God's choice "does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). God, in fact, is quite adamant. "He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Rom 9:17-18).
Oh, that really grates on us. "Are you saying that it was not my choice that got me saved?" No, of course not. I'm not saying that; the Bible is saying that (e.g., John 1:12-13). "Are you saying I had nothing to do with it?" No, of course not. God enabled your choice and you made it. God gave you the faith and you exercised it. God gave you the will and the ability (Php 2:13) to believe and you did it. But you didn't originate it.
It is aggravating to the flesh. We like to think we're more significant than that, more capable, more "in charge". We're so sure that when Jesus says, "You do not believe because you are not among My sheep," we unconsciously turn it around and put "among My sheep" as the effect rather than the cause: "You are not among My sheep because you do not believe." No. According to Christ, you have to be "among My sheep" before you can believe. According to Christ, "called" precedes "believe" and our faith is a gift before we exercise it (John 6:64-65; Php 1:29; Rom 12:3; 2 Peter 2:1; Acts 3:16). In order that there be no room for boasting (Eph 2:9) and that God gets all the glory (Rom 9:22-24), Scripture makes it clear that He calls before we respond and He does so "in order that God's purpose of election might continue" (Rom 9:11). We are not the point -- God is -- and, for us humans, that can really rub us the wrong way.
Paul complained in Romans 7 about his own conflict between the mind and the flesh. "For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members" (Rom 7:22-23). In this body, while we wait for the redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:23), we have conflicts with what we love -- God and His ways -- and what our flesh loves. Until this life ends.
This is why, despite our very real love for Christ, we can sometimes contradict Him. For instance, Jesus said, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He may give it to you" (John 15:16). "What?" you ask. "No, we don't contradict that. We believe that." Really? You believe that you did not choose Him, but He chose you? This whole idea grates on us. "Of course we chose Him. Isn't it our choice of Him that gave us our salvation, our justification by faith?" Sure, we are justified by faith and not by works, but according to Scripture we were chosen before we chose Him. According to the Word of God, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4). "Well, yeah, sure," some might say, "but that's because He looked down the corridors of time, saw that we should choose Him, and chose us." Seems reasonable, sure, but according to Scripture God's choice "does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). God, in fact, is quite adamant. "He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Rom 9:17-18).
Oh, that really grates on us. "Are you saying that it was not my choice that got me saved?" No, of course not. I'm not saying that; the Bible is saying that (e.g., John 1:12-13). "Are you saying I had nothing to do with it?" No, of course not. God enabled your choice and you made it. God gave you the faith and you exercised it. God gave you the will and the ability (Php 2:13) to believe and you did it. But you didn't originate it.
It is aggravating to the flesh. We like to think we're more significant than that, more capable, more "in charge". We're so sure that when Jesus says, "You do not believe because you are not among My sheep," we unconsciously turn it around and put "among My sheep" as the effect rather than the cause: "You are not among My sheep because you do not believe." No. According to Christ, you have to be "among My sheep" before you can believe. According to Christ, "called" precedes "believe" and our faith is a gift before we exercise it (John 6:64-65; Php 1:29; Rom 12:3; 2 Peter 2:1; Acts 3:16). In order that there be no room for boasting (Eph 2:9) and that God gets all the glory (Rom 9:22-24), Scripture makes it clear that He calls before we respond and He does so "in order that God's purpose of election might continue" (Rom 9:11). We are not the point -- God is -- and, for us humans, that can really rub us the wrong way.
Sunday, June 06, 2021
No Condemnation
One side is always saying, "No judging!" Unfortunately, they say it as judges. But in logic you must disregard the person saying it and analyze the argument if you're going to be reasonable and rational. So, sure, they're judgmental in their nonjudgmentalism, but is the argument correct? Should we not be judging? Is ours supposed to be a life of "no condemnation"?
The argument stems from Jesus, so we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand. He said, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged" (Matt 7:1). What did He mean? Clearly He didn't mean "Don't evaluate sin" because He went on to describe how to do that properly (Matt 7:2-5) and then to practice it Himself (Matt 7:15-23). So what did He mean? He meant, "Judge the way you should be judged" (Matt 7:2). He meant, "Judge yourself first" (Matt 7:3-5). He meant to be slow to judge and careful and self-reflective. He meant to work first on yourself -- practice the holiness you expect in others.
"Oh, you're just dodging the issue," some will tell me (I note, in a very judgmental way). "Didn't Jesus tell the woman caught in adultery, 'Neither do I condemn you'?" Why, yes ... yes He did. Ignoring the fact that the text (John 8:1-11) is of questionable origin and, therefore, veracity, we should look at what actually occurred. Jesus was confronted by scribes and Pharisees who "brought a woman caught in adultery" (John 8:3). Caught in the very act (John 8:4). (Now, given the law that a man and a woman caught in adultery must both be stoned to death (Lev 20:10), I'm wondering. If it was "in the very act," where was the man? So I ask, "Was it really 'in the very act' or were the accusers lying?") They asked Him to okay stoning her to death. He said, "He who is without sin among you cast the first stone" (John 8:7). Clearly, then, the principle is, "If you are not sinless, you cannot condemn." (Or, in modern parlance, "If sin fits, you must acquit.") Or is it so clear? Jesus did go on, after noting that the accusers all left, to say, "Neither do I condemn you" (John 8:11), but that's not the end of what He said. He finished the thought: "Go and sin no more." Now, if there was no sin, how was "no more" a reasonable thing to say? If He wasn't condemning sin, why tell her to sin "no more"? This isn't a blanket principle and it isn't what He intended.
Are we supposed to tell everyone, "There is therefore now no condemnation at all"? No. Not based on the rest of Jesus's teaching, who taught more about Hell than Heaven. Not based on Jesus's diatribe against the Pharisees (Matt 23:12-36). Not based on the rest of Scripture where we read, for instance, about the man in Corinth who was delivered over to Satan for his sin (1 Cor 5:1-5). Not based on the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). Not based on the command to restore a believer caught in sin (Gal 6:1). And on and on.
The upshot, then, is this. When Jesus said, "Do not judge," what He meant was "Don't judge with hypocrisy. Don't judge others for things of which you yourself are guilty." So when someone judges you for being judgmental, they are practicing the very thing Jesus condemned. Self-righteous judgment is wrong (e.g., Luke 18:9-14). Unforgiving judgment is wrong (Matt 7:2). Hypocritical judgment is wrong (Rom 2:1). And, lest we miss it, we do do that from time to time -- far more often than we ought. But don't be suckered into thinking that we don't have the obligation to rightly, truthfully, lovingly, and self-reflectively recognize sin when we see it and seek the best for those in it to restore them or seek their repentance. The biblical message is not, "There is now no condemnation for all." To teach that is to hate the truth and refuse to bear one anothers burdens (Gal 6:1-2). "No, you go right ahead and step into that pit of rattlesnakes. They won't hurt you. Enjoy!"
The argument stems from Jesus, so we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand. He said, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged" (Matt 7:1). What did He mean? Clearly He didn't mean "Don't evaluate sin" because He went on to describe how to do that properly (Matt 7:2-5) and then to practice it Himself (Matt 7:15-23). So what did He mean? He meant, "Judge the way you should be judged" (Matt 7:2). He meant, "Judge yourself first" (Matt 7:3-5). He meant to be slow to judge and careful and self-reflective. He meant to work first on yourself -- practice the holiness you expect in others.
"Oh, you're just dodging the issue," some will tell me (I note, in a very judgmental way). "Didn't Jesus tell the woman caught in adultery, 'Neither do I condemn you'?" Why, yes ... yes He did. Ignoring the fact that the text (John 8:1-11) is of questionable origin and, therefore, veracity, we should look at what actually occurred. Jesus was confronted by scribes and Pharisees who "brought a woman caught in adultery" (John 8:3). Caught in the very act (John 8:4). (Now, given the law that a man and a woman caught in adultery must both be stoned to death (Lev 20:10), I'm wondering. If it was "in the very act," where was the man? So I ask, "Was it really 'in the very act' or were the accusers lying?") They asked Him to okay stoning her to death. He said, "He who is without sin among you cast the first stone" (John 8:7). Clearly, then, the principle is, "If you are not sinless, you cannot condemn." (Or, in modern parlance, "If sin fits, you must acquit.") Or is it so clear? Jesus did go on, after noting that the accusers all left, to say, "Neither do I condemn you" (John 8:11), but that's not the end of what He said. He finished the thought: "Go and sin no more." Now, if there was no sin, how was "no more" a reasonable thing to say? If He wasn't condemning sin, why tell her to sin "no more"? This isn't a blanket principle and it isn't what He intended.
Are we supposed to tell everyone, "There is therefore now no condemnation at all"? No. Not based on the rest of Jesus's teaching, who taught more about Hell than Heaven. Not based on Jesus's diatribe against the Pharisees (Matt 23:12-36). Not based on the rest of Scripture where we read, for instance, about the man in Corinth who was delivered over to Satan for his sin (1 Cor 5:1-5). Not based on the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). Not based on the command to restore a believer caught in sin (Gal 6:1). And on and on.
The upshot, then, is this. When Jesus said, "Do not judge," what He meant was "Don't judge with hypocrisy. Don't judge others for things of which you yourself are guilty." So when someone judges you for being judgmental, they are practicing the very thing Jesus condemned. Self-righteous judgment is wrong (e.g., Luke 18:9-14). Unforgiving judgment is wrong (Matt 7:2). Hypocritical judgment is wrong (Rom 2:1). And, lest we miss it, we do do that from time to time -- far more often than we ought. But don't be suckered into thinking that we don't have the obligation to rightly, truthfully, lovingly, and self-reflectively recognize sin when we see it and seek the best for those in it to restore them or seek their repentance. The biblical message is not, "There is now no condemnation for all." To teach that is to hate the truth and refuse to bear one anothers burdens (Gal 6:1-2). "No, you go right ahead and step into that pit of rattlesnakes. They won't hurt you. Enjoy!"
Saturday, June 05, 2021
News Weakly - 6/5/21
Hot Off the Press
Research has found "More than a third of all heat-related deaths around the world between 1991 and 2018 can be attributed to human-induced global heating." Interesting. The study actually looked at 732 locations "to calculate the number of deaths attributed to heat levels higher than the ideal temperature for human health." From there they determined that these deaths were by human-induced global heating (although nothing in the data would tell the origin of the heat and they're also attributing the news this week that the northeastern U.S. was hitting record lows to "global warming). The largest number of deaths were in places like Iran and Kuwait where heat has always been a problem. "It's a call to action," they say even though the #1 contributor is China and no one seems to be taking them to task for killing all those people. Sure, it's a hot story, but a questionable one just the same.
In Defense of Girls
On the first day of "Gay Pride Month" Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed the bill into law that required biological boys to play on biological boys' teams and not girls' teams just because they identify as a girl. The LGBT side is howling mad that any guy would think that protecting biological girls was acceptable. (And they're a bit miffed about that "on the first day of Gay Pride Month" thing.) More court battles to come, you can be sure. "No one gets to protect women in our state without our permission!"
Spin
I find the story disturbing. The Guardian is reporting that Arizona has purchased some chemicals to make a gas to use in a gas chamber. The story writers are aghast because it is the same kind of gas "the Nazis used at Auschwitz and other extermination camps." No one is complaining that Democrats have been seen wearing clothing made from the same kind of wool that the Nazi uniforms were made from. It's disturbing because it is so unrelated -- clearly intended as spin.
Valuable Education
Wilberforce University is an historically black university connected to the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME). They did the kindness of canceling student debt for 2020 and 2021 graduates. Nice, but I bet all those losers that worked their way through their education are kicking themselves now. "I thought I should be responsible and earn my way, but now I know I should take on bad debt and let someone else pay it off." Lesson learned.
But ... Which One?
In Germany they have started the House of One project where they will make a "multi-denominational temple" for Muslims, Jews, and Christians to be united under one roof. It will be a "location of tolerance and openness." No one is saying which God will be worshiped there. "Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, the chair of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany, told German media the building sent an important signal 'at a time in which antisemitism and Islamophobia are increasing.'" The important signal, I suppose, is "Christ lied; there are lots of ways to the Father. Can't we all just get along?"
With an Eye on the Bottom Line
Environmental activists now hold 3 seats on the Exxon Mobil board. Their stated goal is to shift away from fossil fuels. What an oil company does without fossil fuels is beyond me. I would guess the environmental activist aim is to eliminate Exxon. Much better for shareholders. So I can't imagine how anti-oil board members get put on an oil company board.
Anti-Life
A high school valedictorian from Texas got headlines for defying her school policy and deviating from her approved speech to rage against protecting babies. No, we get it. She was raging for protecting "women's reproductive rights." The new Texas law recently signed that prevents abortion if the child has a heartbeat (about 6 weeks) is "a war on the rights of your mothers, a war on the rights of your sisters, a war on the rights of your daughters." Unless "your sisters" and "your daughters" are the unborn. "Before she can determine if she is emotionally, physically, and financially stable enough," she complains, "before they have the chance to take on the responsibility," someone else decides for them. "My rights to choose a baby or not outweigh that child's right to life." Even if it's more people of color being executed and girls being terminated. And the school didn't intervene, which speaks volumes.
Sometimes Turnabout is NOT Fair Play
Fauci in April, 2020: The whole "Chinese laboratory is the likely origin" theory is a stupid conspiracy theory linked to Fox News and the Right. Fauci in June, 2021: "I want to see the records from China of who got sick and why. It is possible this disease was of Chinese origin." I say, "How can we trust the science when it keeps switching sides?" (The Genesius Times has a story on how Fauci is now recommending wearing your mask over your eyes so you can't read his leaked emails.)
Hate As We Define It
After having banned Trump after the January 6 riot -- and America cheered the "guilty without having been tried" option -- Facebook will end the policy of giving free speech to politicians. They will block "hate speech" from politicians. That is, they've already commenced; now it's just official. Of course, "hate speech" is undefined, so I suspect that left-leaning politicians will get a pass for their version, but if any right-leaning politician strays from the allowed views, that "hate speech" tag will come in handy, won't it?
From the Ridiculous to the Sublime?
John the Baptist obviously wouldn't have made a good Baptist since the report has come to light that "John the Baptist was not invited back to the potluck at Jerusalem First Baptist Church after he brought a locust and honey casserole." The end of Baptists as we know them. In other news, the Left has corrected an egregious media error by changing Nickelodeon's "Blue's Clues" to "Red's Clues" to teach communism to kids. Then there was the tense news item about a Democrat pilot and a Republican co-pilot who were arguing about how fast they should fly the plane into the ground.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
P.S. If you don't get that last one about the pilots, let me know. I'll try to tone down my too-cerebral humor.
P.P.S. If you didn't get that the last comment was tongue in cheek, I'll tell you now it was.
Research has found "More than a third of all heat-related deaths around the world between 1991 and 2018 can be attributed to human-induced global heating." Interesting. The study actually looked at 732 locations "to calculate the number of deaths attributed to heat levels higher than the ideal temperature for human health." From there they determined that these deaths were by human-induced global heating (although nothing in the data would tell the origin of the heat and they're also attributing the news this week that the northeastern U.S. was hitting record lows to "global warming). The largest number of deaths were in places like Iran and Kuwait where heat has always been a problem. "It's a call to action," they say even though the #1 contributor is China and no one seems to be taking them to task for killing all those people. Sure, it's a hot story, but a questionable one just the same.
In Defense of Girls
On the first day of "Gay Pride Month" Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed the bill into law that required biological boys to play on biological boys' teams and not girls' teams just because they identify as a girl. The LGBT side is howling mad that any guy would think that protecting biological girls was acceptable. (And they're a bit miffed about that "on the first day of Gay Pride Month" thing.) More court battles to come, you can be sure. "No one gets to protect women in our state without our permission!"
Spin
I find the story disturbing. The Guardian is reporting that Arizona has purchased some chemicals to make a gas to use in a gas chamber. The story writers are aghast because it is the same kind of gas "the Nazis used at Auschwitz and other extermination camps." No one is complaining that Democrats have been seen wearing clothing made from the same kind of wool that the Nazi uniforms were made from. It's disturbing because it is so unrelated -- clearly intended as spin.
Valuable Education
Wilberforce University is an historically black university connected to the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME). They did the kindness of canceling student debt for 2020 and 2021 graduates. Nice, but I bet all those losers that worked their way through their education are kicking themselves now. "I thought I should be responsible and earn my way, but now I know I should take on bad debt and let someone else pay it off." Lesson learned.
But ... Which One?
In Germany they have started the House of One project where they will make a "multi-denominational temple" for Muslims, Jews, and Christians to be united under one roof. It will be a "location of tolerance and openness." No one is saying which God will be worshiped there. "Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, the chair of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany, told German media the building sent an important signal 'at a time in which antisemitism and Islamophobia are increasing.'" The important signal, I suppose, is "Christ lied; there are lots of ways to the Father. Can't we all just get along?"
With an Eye on the Bottom Line
Environmental activists now hold 3 seats on the Exxon Mobil board. Their stated goal is to shift away from fossil fuels. What an oil company does without fossil fuels is beyond me. I would guess the environmental activist aim is to eliminate Exxon. Much better for shareholders. So I can't imagine how anti-oil board members get put on an oil company board.
Anti-Life
A high school valedictorian from Texas got headlines for defying her school policy and deviating from her approved speech to rage against protecting babies. No, we get it. She was raging for protecting "women's reproductive rights." The new Texas law recently signed that prevents abortion if the child has a heartbeat (about 6 weeks) is "a war on the rights of your mothers, a war on the rights of your sisters, a war on the rights of your daughters." Unless "your sisters" and "your daughters" are the unborn. "Before she can determine if she is emotionally, physically, and financially stable enough," she complains, "before they have the chance to take on the responsibility," someone else decides for them. "My rights to choose a baby or not outweigh that child's right to life." Even if it's more people of color being executed and girls being terminated. And the school didn't intervene, which speaks volumes.
Sometimes Turnabout is NOT Fair Play
Fauci in April, 2020: The whole "Chinese laboratory is the likely origin" theory is a stupid conspiracy theory linked to Fox News and the Right. Fauci in June, 2021: "I want to see the records from China of who got sick and why. It is possible this disease was of Chinese origin." I say, "How can we trust the science when it keeps switching sides?" (The Genesius Times has a story on how Fauci is now recommending wearing your mask over your eyes so you can't read his leaked emails.)
Hate As We Define It
After having banned Trump after the January 6 riot -- and America cheered the "guilty without having been tried" option -- Facebook will end the policy of giving free speech to politicians. They will block "hate speech" from politicians. That is, they've already commenced; now it's just official. Of course, "hate speech" is undefined, so I suspect that left-leaning politicians will get a pass for their version, but if any right-leaning politician strays from the allowed views, that "hate speech" tag will come in handy, won't it?
From the Ridiculous to the Sublime?
John the Baptist obviously wouldn't have made a good Baptist since the report has come to light that "John the Baptist was not invited back to the potluck at Jerusalem First Baptist Church after he brought a locust and honey casserole." The end of Baptists as we know them. In other news, the Left has corrected an egregious media error by changing Nickelodeon's "Blue's Clues" to "Red's Clues" to teach communism to kids. Then there was the tense news item about a Democrat pilot and a Republican co-pilot who were arguing about how fast they should fly the plane into the ground.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
P.S. If you don't get that last one about the pilots, let me know. I'll try to tone down my too-cerebral humor.
P.P.S. If you didn't get that the last comment was tongue in cheek, I'll tell you now it was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)