Last week over 500 female athletes filed a brief against the Mississippi abortion law because, apparently, irresponsible sex is the only approach for any good female athlete. This week the tiny nation of San Marino legalized abortion over the pope's protest that it is murder. Of course, the big abortion news is the Texas law. Chicago activists are protesting the Texas pro-life law. Texas anti-life advocates petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene. Law enforcement warns of a "credible threat" against Texas legislators who voted for life. The House passed abortion legislation challenging Texas's law. Uma Thurman spoke out about how her abortion and how it made her the wonderful person she is today. In short, there is a lot of thrashing about over whether or not a baby has any right to live, and they're leaning heavily toward a resounding "No!"
The pro-life side says life begins at conception. Science says life begins as conception. (That is, what exists at conception is life and is human and, if it goes through its normal growth processes will continue to be human until it dies of old age ... as a human. There is no artificial "at this point it is not human and then, as it passes through the birth canal, it is" kind of thing.) The pope says life begins at conception. But, of course, the rest all argue against it. Well, no, not so much. They discard the argument out of hand and argue for "a woman's right to choose" without regard to the life of the child. "You're not pro-life," they like to argue, "because you don't adopt every unwanted child." Like that's a meaningful argument? Makes no sense. (And if that is a rational argument, doesn't the fact that pro-choicers don't adopt every unwanted child prove they are also anti-life? Did they "prove" too much?)
Here's my simple position. I'm pro-life. I believe that we should not kill innocent humans. So I oppose killing innocent old humans, innocent mid-life humans, innocent young adult humans, innocent teenage humans, innocent ... humans at any age from conception through death. You might note that at no time did I say I was "anti-abortion." That's because I'm not. I'm pro-life. If we had the technology to terminate a pregnancy for a woman for whatever reason and continue the life of that embryo, I wouldn't protest that abortion. If abortion didn't kill an innocent human, I wouldn't protest it. I'm not anti-abortion; I'm anti-killing-innocent-people.
The opposite side has a problem, however. While they like to hang the "anti-abortion" and even "anti-choice" sign on people like me, they refuse the obvious "pro-abortion" or even "pro-murder" tags for themselves. Now, I just pointed out why mine is not an anti-abortion, but a pro-life view. It is my deep fear that the same doesn't work in reverse. I fear that a disproportionately large number of women, finding themselves pregnant at an inopportune time and given the option to terminate the pregnancy without terminating the life, would reject that option. One reason I think that is the relatively small number of such women who opt to have their baby adopted at birth rather than kill it before birth. But in conversations with others, it seems as if many could not tolerate the idea that a baby of theirs was "out there someplace" and would choose, instead, to make sure ... it wasn't.
I favor life. I don't demand pregnancy; if you could terminate a pregnancy without terminating a life, I'd have little to say. You can't rightly label me "anti-abortion." I'm afraid that today's culture so overtly and blatantly embraces a "me above all else" philosophy that most on the other side would not be able to make the same claim. They would rightly be "anti-life" in these cases. But, then, in a society governed by "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4), we should expect that the only labels allowed will be the ones that favor the sin.
Thursday, September 30, 2021
Wednesday, September 29, 2021
No One is Safe
"No one is safe," Johnny Depp complained as he bemoaned the cancel culture prevalent in our day. Oh, make no mistake, it is prevalent. Transgress the line in your personal life and they will come for you and they will end you. That line is variable and moving, but it is no less real. Depp complained about it when he was about to receive a lifetime achievement award for his acting roles. He was convicted in the UK of being violent with his ex-wife, and he hasn't worked much since. Even this award was protested by women's rights groups even though the award was not for his character, but his work.
It is, however, trivial in the broader view. The psalmist wrote, "If You, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?" (Psa 130:3). Who indeed? Consider. "If You, O LORD, should mark iniquities ..." the psalmist begins. And God does. He knows everything. He doesn't merely know the violation. He knows the motive, the actions, the actual fault, the severity of the crime. Further, the claim of the Depps of this world is, "I didn't do it!" Maybe. Maybe not. Lacking omniscience, we can't know for sure. We can just remove "reasonable doubt." God has no such problem. He knows everything (Psa 139:3-7). Our sin is not hidden from Him (Jer 16:17-18). There is no question, no evasion, no mitigation. He knows our iniquities; we cannot hide our guilt from Him. What He offers is perfect justice ... and that's not something we can stand.
It is, then, a matter of immense importance that we find a solution to this intolerable condition. We cannot simply go back and apologize. The requirement is "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5:48). The requirement is that everything we do is for God's glory (1 Cor 10:31). We all fall short of His glory (Rom 3:23). Johnny Depp is convinced that "no one is safe" from this cancel culture. It is much, much worse to consider this sin condition we face.
In the face of this horribly bad news, the good news becomes huge. Left to ourselves, the just response to our sin condition would make the cancel culture look like a play date. So when Jesus comes on the scene and becomes sin (2 Cor 5:21) in order that we might become righteousness, it is phenomenal. It isn't achieved by being good. It isn't obtained by hiding the "bad marks" against us. We don't get a pass on justice. He paid the price -- the just price we owed. The good news, then, is that we who trust in Christ alone for our forgiveness can stand in Christ's righteousness before a just Judge. In fact, it's an option that cancel culture does not provide.
It is, however, trivial in the broader view. The psalmist wrote, "If You, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?" (Psa 130:3). Who indeed? Consider. "If You, O LORD, should mark iniquities ..." the psalmist begins. And God does. He knows everything. He doesn't merely know the violation. He knows the motive, the actions, the actual fault, the severity of the crime. Further, the claim of the Depps of this world is, "I didn't do it!" Maybe. Maybe not. Lacking omniscience, we can't know for sure. We can just remove "reasonable doubt." God has no such problem. He knows everything (Psa 139:3-7). Our sin is not hidden from Him (Jer 16:17-18). There is no question, no evasion, no mitigation. He knows our iniquities; we cannot hide our guilt from Him. What He offers is perfect justice ... and that's not something we can stand.
It is, then, a matter of immense importance that we find a solution to this intolerable condition. We cannot simply go back and apologize. The requirement is "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5:48). The requirement is that everything we do is for God's glory (1 Cor 10:31). We all fall short of His glory (Rom 3:23). Johnny Depp is convinced that "no one is safe" from this cancel culture. It is much, much worse to consider this sin condition we face.
In the face of this horribly bad news, the good news becomes huge. Left to ourselves, the just response to our sin condition would make the cancel culture look like a play date. So when Jesus comes on the scene and becomes sin (2 Cor 5:21) in order that we might become righteousness, it is phenomenal. It isn't achieved by being good. It isn't obtained by hiding the "bad marks" against us. We don't get a pass on justice. He paid the price -- the just price we owed. The good news, then, is that we who trust in Christ alone for our forgiveness can stand in Christ's righteousness before a just Judge. In fact, it's an option that cancel culture does not provide.
Tuesday, September 28, 2021
Jesus and Salvation
We all know "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Eph 2:8-9). Good news. Saved by grace through faith, not by works. Good stuff. It's good because there aren't enough "good works" that we could perform to make up for our failures to obey God. So that's all good stuff. Still, for reasons that elude me, there are those who call themselves "Christians" who choose to opt out of this kind of "silliness" and go with a different approach. Some say they go with Jesus's approach. What did Jesus preach on salvation?
We first hear about "the gospel" in Matthew 4. Jesus came out of His temptation in the desert and "began to preach, saying, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matt 4:17). Mark refers to it as "proclaiming the gospel of God" (Mark 1:14) and expands His message to "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15). So, Jesus's original teaching on salvation was "repent" and "believe." Almost immediately after, Jesus follows that up with "Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men." (Mark 1:17). So, repent, believe in Christ, and follow Christ. That seems fairly straightforward ... until Jesus starts to flesh it out. First, what was this "gospel" that is required to believe? "God loved the world in this way; He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16). Faith in Christ as the payment for our sins is the fundamental gospel that needs to be believed. Then, He told the Jews, "You do not believe because you are not among My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." (John 10:26-27). Apparently, then, to accomplish that original "repent, believe, and follow" plan, you must be one of His sheep. Clearly you can't even believe if you're not one of His sheep. You can't "see the kingdom of God" if you're not "born again." (John 3:3). In fact, Jesus said, "The gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matt 7:13-14). Not exactly an encouraging perspective. The fear is not that you won't find the road to heaven. The fear is that the road you think takes you to heaven is the wrong road ... and much more popular than the right one (cp Matt 7:21-23).
Looking further, what does Jesus say about following Him? He told a scribe who sought to follow Him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." (Matt 8:20). He told a disciple who wished to bury his father, "Follow Me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead." (Matt 8:22). He told His disciples, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matt 10:34). He went on to explain, "Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me." (Matt 10:37-38). Following Christ, then, has a high cost. The first cost is self.
So, according to Jesus, the cost is high and those who go are few. Does Jesus offer any insight to help us tell if we are among the "few"? He does. In that Matthew 7 text He talks about false prophets. "You will recognize them by their fruits," He says (Matt 7:16). He also says, "Every healthy tree bears good fruit." (Matt 7:17). In Matthew 13 He tells the parable of the sower (Matt 13:1-9) and explains it to His disciples. The difference between the "good soil" and the rest of the soils is that the good soil "bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty." (Matt 13:23). Bad fruit or even no fruit, then, puts one in the category of those outside of Christ. (What is fruit? See Gal 5:22-23; Php 1:22; Rom 1:13. See also Eph 2:10.)
We like that Ephesians 2 version of how we get saved. Just believe, right? Seems pretty simple. Let's go with that. Turns out Jesus's version isn't so simple. It is hard to find. It is not mainstream. It requires repentance. It costs everything. It requires divine intervention ("born again"). And even if you think you have all that, there must be real evidence. Jesus doesn't offer a "gentler, kinder" version for us to follow. He demands everything. Jesus isn't looking for the arrogant and self-satisfied. He's looking for the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (Matt 5:2-12). Interestingly, He's looking for those whom only He can make. We don't get there on our own.
We first hear about "the gospel" in Matthew 4. Jesus came out of His temptation in the desert and "began to preach, saying, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matt 4:17). Mark refers to it as "proclaiming the gospel of God" (Mark 1:14) and expands His message to "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15). So, Jesus's original teaching on salvation was "repent" and "believe." Almost immediately after, Jesus follows that up with "Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men." (Mark 1:17). So, repent, believe in Christ, and follow Christ. That seems fairly straightforward ... until Jesus starts to flesh it out. First, what was this "gospel" that is required to believe? "God loved the world in this way; He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16). Faith in Christ as the payment for our sins is the fundamental gospel that needs to be believed. Then, He told the Jews, "You do not believe because you are not among My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." (John 10:26-27). Apparently, then, to accomplish that original "repent, believe, and follow" plan, you must be one of His sheep. Clearly you can't even believe if you're not one of His sheep. You can't "see the kingdom of God" if you're not "born again." (John 3:3). In fact, Jesus said, "The gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matt 7:13-14). Not exactly an encouraging perspective. The fear is not that you won't find the road to heaven. The fear is that the road you think takes you to heaven is the wrong road ... and much more popular than the right one (cp Matt 7:21-23).
Looking further, what does Jesus say about following Him? He told a scribe who sought to follow Him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." (Matt 8:20). He told a disciple who wished to bury his father, "Follow Me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead." (Matt 8:22). He told His disciples, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matt 10:34). He went on to explain, "Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me." (Matt 10:37-38). Following Christ, then, has a high cost. The first cost is self.
So, according to Jesus, the cost is high and those who go are few. Does Jesus offer any insight to help us tell if we are among the "few"? He does. In that Matthew 7 text He talks about false prophets. "You will recognize them by their fruits," He says (Matt 7:16). He also says, "Every healthy tree bears good fruit." (Matt 7:17). In Matthew 13 He tells the parable of the sower (Matt 13:1-9) and explains it to His disciples. The difference between the "good soil" and the rest of the soils is that the good soil "bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty." (Matt 13:23). Bad fruit or even no fruit, then, puts one in the category of those outside of Christ. (What is fruit? See Gal 5:22-23; Php 1:22; Rom 1:13. See also Eph 2:10.)
We like that Ephesians 2 version of how we get saved. Just believe, right? Seems pretty simple. Let's go with that. Turns out Jesus's version isn't so simple. It is hard to find. It is not mainstream. It requires repentance. It costs everything. It requires divine intervention ("born again"). And even if you think you have all that, there must be real evidence. Jesus doesn't offer a "gentler, kinder" version for us to follow. He demands everything. Jesus isn't looking for the arrogant and self-satisfied. He's looking for the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (Matt 5:2-12). Interestingly, He's looking for those whom only He can make. We don't get there on our own.
Monday, September 27, 2021
Arrogant
In Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth (the first one we have), he addresses various problems in a troubled church. The first problem he addresses is the problem of division. For four chapters he talks about this problem and how to address it. A major cause of division appears to be arrogance. He warns them not to "go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another." (1 Cor 4:6). "Puffed up." That is a pretty picture, isn't it? Looking large, but in reality just a lot of hot air. He asks them, "What do you have that you did not receive?" and then drills in further with, "If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?" (1 Cor 4:7). Paul is deeply concerned with this arrogance.
It might seem like a surprise, then, when Paul tells them, "I urge you, then, be imitators of me." (1 Cor 4:16). "Whoa, now, Paul," we're tempted to say, "that is arrogant." Is it? It is if you take it out of context. What is the context?
Paul has been urging them to have a more realistic view of themselves. They thought they were rich. They thought they were kings (1 Cor 4:8). Instead, he said, "God has exhibited us apostles as last of all." (1 Cor 4:9). He says the Apostles were "a spectacle to the world" (1 Cor 4:9), "fools for Christ's sake," "weak," "in disrepute." (1 Cor 4:10). He says they are hungry and thirsty, poorly dressed, buffeted, homeless, working with their hands, reviled, persecuted, slandered, the "scum of the world" (his words, not mine), the "refuse of all things." (1 Cor 4:10-13). His aim is "You think you're so good and so well off and so important? Look at those of us you call 'Apostles'. We're not."
It is, then, in this context that Paul tells his "beloved children" (1 Cor 4:14), "Be imitators of me." Not, "I'm so wonderful and strong and spiritual and you should try to be like me." No. It is a call to recognize that in and of themselves they are weak, foolish, disreputable, poor, hungry, reviled. "Be imitators of me." Grasp the reality of who we are and then walk in the gift of the power of God.
This doesn't sit well with us, of course. We know we're better. We know we're wiser, richer, stronger. We know we're more honorable, more commendable, more spiritual. And Paul's message to Corinth in order to fight division is, "No, you're not. Recognize that God didn't call the wise, the strong, the exalted. He called the opposite. (1 Cor 1:26-29) He called you. He called me." Because only from this basis can we properly appreciate God's work in and through us that gives glory to God in and through us.
It might seem like a surprise, then, when Paul tells them, "I urge you, then, be imitators of me." (1 Cor 4:16). "Whoa, now, Paul," we're tempted to say, "that is arrogant." Is it? It is if you take it out of context. What is the context?
Paul has been urging them to have a more realistic view of themselves. They thought they were rich. They thought they were kings (1 Cor 4:8). Instead, he said, "God has exhibited us apostles as last of all." (1 Cor 4:9). He says the Apostles were "a spectacle to the world" (1 Cor 4:9), "fools for Christ's sake," "weak," "in disrepute." (1 Cor 4:10). He says they are hungry and thirsty, poorly dressed, buffeted, homeless, working with their hands, reviled, persecuted, slandered, the "scum of the world" (his words, not mine), the "refuse of all things." (1 Cor 4:10-13). His aim is "You think you're so good and so well off and so important? Look at those of us you call 'Apostles'. We're not."
It is, then, in this context that Paul tells his "beloved children" (1 Cor 4:14), "Be imitators of me." Not, "I'm so wonderful and strong and spiritual and you should try to be like me." No. It is a call to recognize that in and of themselves they are weak, foolish, disreputable, poor, hungry, reviled. "Be imitators of me." Grasp the reality of who we are and then walk in the gift of the power of God.
This doesn't sit well with us, of course. We know we're better. We know we're wiser, richer, stronger. We know we're more honorable, more commendable, more spiritual. And Paul's message to Corinth in order to fight division is, "No, you're not. Recognize that God didn't call the wise, the strong, the exalted. He called the opposite. (1 Cor 1:26-29) He called you. He called me." Because only from this basis can we properly appreciate God's work in and through us that gives glory to God in and through us.
Sunday, September 26, 2021
Crazy Joy
Happiness is the positive emotion you feel when things are going well. It is how you feel when pleasure is predominate over pain. Happiness is the state of mind of the life that is going well at the time. We might use "joy" in a similar sense, but there is a distinction between "happiness" and "joy." The primary distinction is that happiness is dependent on good circumstances and joy is not.
Is that it? Are these two feelings the same with the sole distinction that one is dependent on good circumstances and one is not? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think that can be true. If the source of happiness is pleasure and joy doesn't require pleasure, they can't be the same, can they? It doesn't take a Bible to understand that the two are distinct. Diffen.com compares happiness and joy. Happiness is contentment or bliss from pleasure; joy is a stronger feeling resulting from selflessness. Happiness comes from present sources; joy comes from spiritual sources. Happiness is an outward expression; joy is inward peace and contentment. Happiness is entirely dependent on circumstances while joy lasts based in inward conditions. Happiness is the result of any good experience; joy is the byproduct of a moral lifestyle. The two have similarities -- both are positive emotions -- but their sources, expressions, and persistence differ.
Thus, it doesn't end up being as crazy as it seems when we are commanded repeatedly in Scripture to rejoice, even in suffering (e.g., Psa 5:11; Psa 33:1; Psa 68:3-4; Isa 2:9; Matt 5:12; Rom 5:3-5; Php 3:1; Php 4:4; 1 Thess 5:16-18; James 1:2-4). That's because, first and foremost, biblical joy is rooted in the Lord. We know "the joy of the Lord is your strength." (Neh 8:10). So this positive feeling that is not dependent on circumstances is dependent on the Lord. But when you put it that way, you can see just how valuable and solid it can be. This joy can say, "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." (Job 1:21). This joy can say, "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him." (Job 13:15). This joy can say, "Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food, the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD; I will take joy in the God of my salvation." (Hab 3:17-18).
Joy is a command. It is a frequent command. It is a command independent of immediate circumstances. It is specifically commanded in harsh conditions. It is based on our relationship with the Lord and on His faithfulness. If our lives are not filled with joy, it can only be from a weakness in our relationship with Christ. Emotions cannot be commanded; choices can. If a right relationship with God produces this positive emotion, then you can mend that relationship and you'll experience joy. Joy in the face of any circumstances. Crazy joy.
Is that it? Are these two feelings the same with the sole distinction that one is dependent on good circumstances and one is not? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think that can be true. If the source of happiness is pleasure and joy doesn't require pleasure, they can't be the same, can they? It doesn't take a Bible to understand that the two are distinct. Diffen.com compares happiness and joy. Happiness is contentment or bliss from pleasure; joy is a stronger feeling resulting from selflessness. Happiness comes from present sources; joy comes from spiritual sources. Happiness is an outward expression; joy is inward peace and contentment. Happiness is entirely dependent on circumstances while joy lasts based in inward conditions. Happiness is the result of any good experience; joy is the byproduct of a moral lifestyle. The two have similarities -- both are positive emotions -- but their sources, expressions, and persistence differ.
Thus, it doesn't end up being as crazy as it seems when we are commanded repeatedly in Scripture to rejoice, even in suffering (e.g., Psa 5:11; Psa 33:1; Psa 68:3-4; Isa 2:9; Matt 5:12; Rom 5:3-5; Php 3:1; Php 4:4; 1 Thess 5:16-18; James 1:2-4). That's because, first and foremost, biblical joy is rooted in the Lord. We know "the joy of the Lord is your strength." (Neh 8:10). So this positive feeling that is not dependent on circumstances is dependent on the Lord. But when you put it that way, you can see just how valuable and solid it can be. This joy can say, "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." (Job 1:21). This joy can say, "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him." (Job 13:15). This joy can say, "Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food, the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD; I will take joy in the God of my salvation." (Hab 3:17-18).
Joy is a command. It is a frequent command. It is a command independent of immediate circumstances. It is specifically commanded in harsh conditions. It is based on our relationship with the Lord and on His faithfulness. If our lives are not filled with joy, it can only be from a weakness in our relationship with Christ. Emotions cannot be commanded; choices can. If a right relationship with God produces this positive emotion, then you can mend that relationship and you'll experience joy. Joy in the face of any circumstances. Crazy joy.
Saturday, September 25, 2021
News Weakly - 9/25/21
Father of Lies
After promising a kinder and gentler Taliban, the story comes out that they will begin executions and amputations again. After promising to protect women's rights in Afghanistan, the Taliban is now telling female workers to stay home. Just like a liar would do. It's hard to believe -- I'm thinking "fake news" -- given the well-known honesty, integrity, and kindness the Taliban has shown in the past. Oh, wait ... no. So, can I draw any parallels from the promises made by our representatives in government that are typically then ignored?
Schizophrenic
The Supreme Court will hear the case of Mississippi's pro-life bill protecting children as young as 15 weeks. The hope of women everywhere is that this travesty shall not stand. While women around the country scramble to find ways to protect their 5-year-olds from a virus that has almost no effect on 5-year-olds, they work just as hard to insure that they can kill millions before they are born. They consider both -- a failure to protect lives against a non-threat and saving lives of the most vulnerable -- a moral evil. The whole rationale is lost on me.
Propaganda
We've just surpassed the death count from the Spanish flu pandemic. Now, be careful. They're hoping for a specific response from you. The fact is that the population of the United States in 1918 was around 100 million as opposed to the 320 million we have today. The death rate to the U.S. population now is about one third the death rate in 1918. Put another way, since there are so many more Americans today than in 1918, how could we not exceed the deaths in 1918? In fact, the Spanish flu pandemic lasted about a year, while we've gone on for more than a year with no end in sight. Taking into account the size of the pool from which to draw cases and the length of time to do it, the fact that it has taken this long to reach that number is quite amazing. Oh, I'm sorry. That was not the response they hoped to get out of you. Please, feel free to go back to your prescribed panic mode.
Obstruction of Justice
The basic concept of a Judicial Branch of our government is that there would be an independent check and balance that can say, "Mr. President" or "Congress" or whomever, "what you are doing violates the Constitution." In keeping with that principle of independence from influence, 500 female athletes are urging the court to protect abortion because, if they don't, many female athletes will be forced to "sacrifice their athletic aspirations and pursuits." This is not a constitutional argument. It is not aimed at defending the law or protecting the Constitution. It is aimed at "getting my way." "I want to be able to kill babies if I have to in order to do what I want. You have to protect that right." It is a felony to influence, intimidate, or impede the outcome of a proceeding. How is this not a felony?
Cutting Off Your Nose
A North Carolina-based health care system has suspended hundreds of employees for not getting vaccinated. You know the next sound. "We're having a health care crisis!" The "really dangerous" ones -- those who have exemptions and no vaccination -- are tested weekly and masked, frankly safer than the "safely vaccinated" crowd, but forcing the vaccine and causing your own health care crisis is more important than any rational policy.
Naturally-Caused Global Climate Change
Apparently the wildfires (almost exclusively caused by lightning this year) have produced more carbon dioxide emissions this fire season than India produces in a year. Stupid wildfires. Don't they know we're in the midst of a human-caused climate change crisis?
Wrong Message?
In response to Texas's right-to-life law protecting the most vulnerable Americans, the House is set to vote on legislation guaranteeing the freedom to kill your babies nationwide. Now, I'm baffled. Everyone keeps telling us it's a "constitutional right." If it is in the Constitution, why does the House need to pass a law? And why is "the peoples' party" so anxious to execute more babies, especially noting that more babies of people of color are killed this way than any other? Is this really their position?
Poor Winners
The report is out. The election audit in Arizona has confirmed that Biden won in Arizona. So why is it that media types like Huffpost and CNN are declaring the audit a "sham" and "bogus"? I mean, if the audit shows what you've always claimed, confirming you are right, and you call it "bogus," does that mean you believe your claims to be a sham? I'll tell you what it does mean. It certainly means that these types of news outlets cannot be counted on to even have the pretense of being unbiased.
Bee Better
You've followed the border nonsense, right? Our Vice President has. She is demanding to speak with whoever was put in charge of the border. Meanwhile, she hopes her unlikability will distract from the terrible job she has been doing at the border. Sadly, now that the border patrol has lost its horse privileges, they can now only bang two empty coconut halves together. On a positive note, Pfizer has declared that the vaccine is just about as safe for kids as COVID.
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
After promising a kinder and gentler Taliban, the story comes out that they will begin executions and amputations again. After promising to protect women's rights in Afghanistan, the Taliban is now telling female workers to stay home. Just like a liar would do. It's hard to believe -- I'm thinking "fake news" -- given the well-known honesty, integrity, and kindness the Taliban has shown in the past. Oh, wait ... no. So, can I draw any parallels from the promises made by our representatives in government that are typically then ignored?
Schizophrenic
The Supreme Court will hear the case of Mississippi's pro-life bill protecting children as young as 15 weeks. The hope of women everywhere is that this travesty shall not stand. While women around the country scramble to find ways to protect their 5-year-olds from a virus that has almost no effect on 5-year-olds, they work just as hard to insure that they can kill millions before they are born. They consider both -- a failure to protect lives against a non-threat and saving lives of the most vulnerable -- a moral evil. The whole rationale is lost on me.
Propaganda
We've just surpassed the death count from the Spanish flu pandemic. Now, be careful. They're hoping for a specific response from you. The fact is that the population of the United States in 1918 was around 100 million as opposed to the 320 million we have today. The death rate to the U.S. population now is about one third the death rate in 1918. Put another way, since there are so many more Americans today than in 1918, how could we not exceed the deaths in 1918? In fact, the Spanish flu pandemic lasted about a year, while we've gone on for more than a year with no end in sight. Taking into account the size of the pool from which to draw cases and the length of time to do it, the fact that it has taken this long to reach that number is quite amazing. Oh, I'm sorry. That was not the response they hoped to get out of you. Please, feel free to go back to your prescribed panic mode.
Obstruction of Justice
The basic concept of a Judicial Branch of our government is that there would be an independent check and balance that can say, "Mr. President" or "Congress" or whomever, "what you are doing violates the Constitution." In keeping with that principle of independence from influence, 500 female athletes are urging the court to protect abortion because, if they don't, many female athletes will be forced to "sacrifice their athletic aspirations and pursuits." This is not a constitutional argument. It is not aimed at defending the law or protecting the Constitution. It is aimed at "getting my way." "I want to be able to kill babies if I have to in order to do what I want. You have to protect that right." It is a felony to influence, intimidate, or impede the outcome of a proceeding. How is this not a felony?
Cutting Off Your Nose
A North Carolina-based health care system has suspended hundreds of employees for not getting vaccinated. You know the next sound. "We're having a health care crisis!" The "really dangerous" ones -- those who have exemptions and no vaccination -- are tested weekly and masked, frankly safer than the "safely vaccinated" crowd, but forcing the vaccine and causing your own health care crisis is more important than any rational policy.
Naturally-Caused Global Climate Change
Apparently the wildfires (almost exclusively caused by lightning this year) have produced more carbon dioxide emissions this fire season than India produces in a year. Stupid wildfires. Don't they know we're in the midst of a human-caused climate change crisis?
Wrong Message?
In response to Texas's right-to-life law protecting the most vulnerable Americans, the House is set to vote on legislation guaranteeing the freedom to kill your babies nationwide. Now, I'm baffled. Everyone keeps telling us it's a "constitutional right." If it is in the Constitution, why does the House need to pass a law? And why is "the peoples' party" so anxious to execute more babies, especially noting that more babies of people of color are killed this way than any other? Is this really their position?
Poor Winners
The report is out. The election audit in Arizona has confirmed that Biden won in Arizona. So why is it that media types like Huffpost and CNN are declaring the audit a "sham" and "bogus"? I mean, if the audit shows what you've always claimed, confirming you are right, and you call it "bogus," does that mean you believe your claims to be a sham? I'll tell you what it does mean. It certainly means that these types of news outlets cannot be counted on to even have the pretense of being unbiased.
Bee Better
You've followed the border nonsense, right? Our Vice President has. She is demanding to speak with whoever was put in charge of the border. Meanwhile, she hopes her unlikability will distract from the terrible job she has been doing at the border. Sadly, now that the border patrol has lost its horse privileges, they can now only bang two empty coconut halves together. On a positive note, Pfizer has declared that the vaccine is just about as safe for kids as COVID.
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Friday, September 24, 2021
Choose This Day
I came across this the other day while I was looking up a cross reference. Psalm 1 refers to those who delight in the law of the Lord as "a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season." (Psa 1:3) You get the imagery. This tree is planted -- not an accident of nature, but put there by a Planter. This tree is planted by a stream. What stream? Well, the law of the Lord, of course. And its roots go deep. They are nourished and fed by that water. In that nourishment they yield fruit, they don't wither, and they prosper. That's not what I came across. I came across the cross reference.
I have referred more than once to Jeremiah 17:9. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" And I've repeatedly offered it to you in a vacuum. So I was surprised to see the cross reference to Jeremiah 17:8.
Note, however, the connection. There is a warning against the man who trusts in man -- his knowledge, his counsel, his paths, his wisdom, science, so on and so forth -- to the exclusion of the Lord. There is an encouragement (if I can use such a light word) to trust in the Lord, clearly in exclusion to all those other things that crowd Him out. And verse 9 tells why. Verse 9 tells you the basic problem. Why not trust Man over God? Why not trust science over God's Word? Why not trust studies and consensus and other worldly means of figuring out how to do life? Because the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked.
If your primary foundations on living are man-made, you have a problem. The heart cannot be trusted. Don't expect a good outcome. If you understand that your heart cannot be trusted, it would be best to find a foundation that can be trusted. That would be God and His Word. Anything else is unreliable to the point of being dangerous. From these you will "not see any good come." Your choice.
I have referred more than once to Jeremiah 17:9. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" And I've repeatedly offered it to you in a vacuum. So I was surprised to see the cross reference to Jeremiah 17:8.
Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose trust is the LORD. He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it does not cease to bear fruit. (Jer 17:7-8)Well, now, that's interesting. Jeremiah is talking about the same concept as Psalm 1 here. So I read further. What is this context?
Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD. He is like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see any good come. He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land. (Jer 17:5-6)Well, now, that is interesting. What we're looking at here is precisely the same message as that of Psalm 1. If you want to be blessed, if you want to not fear, if you want to "remain green," if you want to continue to bear fruit, then you must trust in the Lord. In Psalm 1 that includes a delight in His Word, but that's almost unavoidable here, isn't it? I mean, if you trust in the Lord, you will trust in His Word, and if that's your heart's direction, you will delight in His Word.
Note, however, the connection. There is a warning against the man who trusts in man -- his knowledge, his counsel, his paths, his wisdom, science, so on and so forth -- to the exclusion of the Lord. There is an encouragement (if I can use such a light word) to trust in the Lord, clearly in exclusion to all those other things that crowd Him out. And verse 9 tells why. Verse 9 tells you the basic problem. Why not trust Man over God? Why not trust science over God's Word? Why not trust studies and consensus and other worldly means of figuring out how to do life? Because the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked.
If your primary foundations on living are man-made, you have a problem. The heart cannot be trusted. Don't expect a good outcome. If you understand that your heart cannot be trusted, it would be best to find a foundation that can be trusted. That would be God and His Word. Anything else is unreliable to the point of being dangerous. From these you will "not see any good come." Your choice.
Thursday, September 23, 2021
Walking in a Dust Devil
You may have never walked in a dust devil, but you know what they are, right? Dust devils are a weather phenomenon formed by a rotating column of wind producing an updraft -- small tornadoes, as it were. So they pick up the loose dust around them and produce a swirling dust cloud. Imagine, then, walking into one. You find yourself surrounded by dust. It's everywhere you look. It gets in your eyes, your nose, your mouth. If you don't cover your face, you could be in trouble.
That's how I feel in our world today. We are all walking in a dust devil. All this dirt is kicked up all around us. It surrounds us. We can't escape. It is the very air we breathe. It permeates us, threatening to choke us out. It is the world and its way of thinking. Then I read,
Look, first, at the reference to the "blessed" person. Biblically, "blessed" is more than just "happy." You can see this in the classic Aaronic blessing. "The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace." (Num 6:24-26) In that text we see one concept repeated multiple ways. The concept is simple; "blessing" is the Lord looking at you. "Blessing" is being kept, God being gracious, God giving peace.
So, "blessed" -- God is watching, keeping, giving grace and peace to -- is the man who does not do and does do some things. This blessing is not found in the advice and plans, the direction and path, or the place offered by those deemed "wicked," "sinners," "scoffers." It is not good for someone seeking blessings from God to walk there, stand there, or sit there. You're simply walking through a dust devil. If you stay, it will cover you, permeate you, and choke you out. What is the alternative? Delighting in "the law of the Lord." What is that? Well, it is, of course, God's rules. The word, in fact, is "torah." But the routine usage in Scripture is that "the law of the Lord" refers to all God's counsel. It is all of God's direction, instruction, and teachings. It is God's written Word. This text says that if you, instead of getting your directions and courses and comfort zone from the world which is opposed to God, get all that from God's Word, you will be blessed. If God's Word is your delight -- the thing you think about day and night -- you will prosper (Psa 1:3). You will advance, have success, accomplish useful things.
Some dust devils are small matters. They might be a couple of feet wide and a couple of feet tall. Almost harmless. Some dust devils have been known to be powerful enough to constitute a threat to people and property. That's the dust devil we're in now. That's the filth we're walking through and breathing in daily. The solution is not to "be careful." The solution is to shut it out. The solution is not to walk there, stand there, or sit there. Like we do in front of our TVs or our computers (or both). The solution is to get our directions and marching orders from God's Word. The solution is to be immersed in God's Word -- "day and night." I'm afraid too many of us -- genuine Christians -- are wasting our time in trying to filter out the dust devil while we just walk in it rather than running the other way for the clean air of the Word.
That's how I feel in our world today. We are all walking in a dust devil. All this dirt is kicked up all around us. It surrounds us. We can't escape. It is the very air we breathe. It permeates us, threatening to choke us out. It is the world and its way of thinking. Then I read,
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on His law he meditates day and night. (Psa 1:1-2)The psalmist describes two possibilities; the wicked one and the ... not wicked one. One "will perish" (Psa 1:6) and the other is prosperous (Psa 1:3). What makes the difference?
Look, first, at the reference to the "blessed" person. Biblically, "blessed" is more than just "happy." You can see this in the classic Aaronic blessing. "The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace." (Num 6:24-26) In that text we see one concept repeated multiple ways. The concept is simple; "blessing" is the Lord looking at you. "Blessing" is being kept, God being gracious, God giving peace.
So, "blessed" -- God is watching, keeping, giving grace and peace to -- is the man who does not do and does do some things. This blessing is not found in the advice and plans, the direction and path, or the place offered by those deemed "wicked," "sinners," "scoffers." It is not good for someone seeking blessings from God to walk there, stand there, or sit there. You're simply walking through a dust devil. If you stay, it will cover you, permeate you, and choke you out. What is the alternative? Delighting in "the law of the Lord." What is that? Well, it is, of course, God's rules. The word, in fact, is "torah." But the routine usage in Scripture is that "the law of the Lord" refers to all God's counsel. It is all of God's direction, instruction, and teachings. It is God's written Word. This text says that if you, instead of getting your directions and courses and comfort zone from the world which is opposed to God, get all that from God's Word, you will be blessed. If God's Word is your delight -- the thing you think about day and night -- you will prosper (Psa 1:3). You will advance, have success, accomplish useful things.
Some dust devils are small matters. They might be a couple of feet wide and a couple of feet tall. Almost harmless. Some dust devils have been known to be powerful enough to constitute a threat to people and property. That's the dust devil we're in now. That's the filth we're walking through and breathing in daily. The solution is not to "be careful." The solution is to shut it out. The solution is not to walk there, stand there, or sit there. Like we do in front of our TVs or our computers (or both). The solution is to get our directions and marching orders from God's Word. The solution is to be immersed in God's Word -- "day and night." I'm afraid too many of us -- genuine Christians -- are wasting our time in trying to filter out the dust devil while we just walk in it rather than running the other way for the clean air of the Word.
Wednesday, September 22, 2021
Natural or Spiritual
Scripture often divides humans into two categories -- spiritual and fleshly. In 1 Corinthians 2 Paul says, "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God." (1 Cor 2:12). That's good, because, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14). "Does not" and "not able to" are bad things when it comes to the things of God. I mean, we really need to accept and understand them, so being "natural" rather than "spiritual" puts us in a bad place. The only solution to 1 Corinthians 2:14 is 1 Corinthians 2:16 -- "we have the mind of Christ." That is, the only solution to "natural man" is to become something new, something beyond "natural." The only solution, in Jesus's terms, is to be "born again." (John 3:3, 5-6).
It begs the question, then. If we are either "natural" -- fleshly, "dead in sin" (Eph 2:1) -- or born again -- having the mind of Christ -- how do we know which we are? I mean, if we are the former we can't actually understand the latter, so how would we know we're not deceiving ourselves? If our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9), how do we know if our hearts aren't deceiving us into thinking we're not deceived when we are? You can see the problem, right?
The Greek uses two words for the two categories. "Fleshly" is ψυχικός -- psychikos -- and "spiritual" is πνευματικός -- pneumatikos. That "ikos" at the end of both meas "led." So one refers to "led by the flesh" and the other refers to "led by the spirit." The Bible has much to say on the subject. For instance, "the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other." (Gal 5:17). Or "Those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit." (Rom 8:5). That second text goes on to say, "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom 8:7-8).
There are other clues as well. The primary indicator of one's spiritual condition, according to Jesus, is whether or not you love His people (John 13:35). On the other hand, "If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (1 John 2:15). The author of Hebrews points to God's discipline as a test. "If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons." (Heb 12:8). That is, if you believe the Father does not discipline you, you should be seriously concerned about your spiritual condition. John writes, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God." (1 John 3:9). Like the earlier "does not" and "not able to" from 1 Cor 2:14, this text says that one who is born of God does not make a practice of sin because he cannot make a practice of sin. If you're not deeply concerned about your sin -- if you can shrug it off and keep going with it -- you might want to examine your condition.
Returning to the opening point, there is a key test here. If "natural man" does not and cannot accept the things of God, do I? Am I taking God's Word as it is written or am I picking and choosing? "God's Word isn't as reliable as you think it is" doesn't help. Either God is true or He is not. If He is true -- if He is who He says He is -- then His Word is as true and reliable as He is. If I am redefining and redlining, mythologizing and minimizing, modifying or dismissing God's Word as I see fit, it's a problem. If I am the ultimate determiner of what in God's Word is or is not true, that's a problem. Is God's Word changing me, or am I changing God's Word? If I claim to be true to God's Word without actually laying claim to all of God's Word as written, this is a problem. This means that I am dedicated to me rather than to the Spirit. These are clear signs of "flesh" versus "spiritual" -- psychikos versus pneumatikos.
Beyond that, of course, is the flow. First, is my understanding of Scripture consistent with Scripture? Not just a verse or a chapter, but the whole thing? Second, is my understanding consistent with history? The standard here is God -- the things of God. God doesn't change, so am I "in the flow"? Am I going along with what Paul referred to as "the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess 3:6)? Am I standing on what Jude called "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3)? Or am I finding new things? Am I establishing new traditions? Am I deviating from former doctrine because clearly they got it wrong all this time and I've determined a better way? The question in all of this is not the doctrine or the interpretation or the practice; the question is the constancy and faithfulness of God. Was He wrong in the past and we've finally figured out the truth? That belies a problem.
It really is a conundrum. We shouldn't take it lightly. If the natural human heart is deceived, how do I know I'm not? If the natural human cannot understand the things of God, how do I know I am? If it is necessary to test yourself and see if you're in the faith (2 Cor 13:5), am I doing it? Am I passing the test? I can't answer that for someone else. I must answer it for myself ... constantly aware of the possibility of blindness (2 Cor 4:4).
It begs the question, then. If we are either "natural" -- fleshly, "dead in sin" (Eph 2:1) -- or born again -- having the mind of Christ -- how do we know which we are? I mean, if we are the former we can't actually understand the latter, so how would we know we're not deceiving ourselves? If our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9), how do we know if our hearts aren't deceiving us into thinking we're not deceived when we are? You can see the problem, right?
The Greek uses two words for the two categories. "Fleshly" is ψυχικός -- psychikos -- and "spiritual" is πνευματικός -- pneumatikos. That "ikos" at the end of both meas "led." So one refers to "led by the flesh" and the other refers to "led by the spirit." The Bible has much to say on the subject. For instance, "the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other." (Gal 5:17). Or "Those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit." (Rom 8:5). That second text goes on to say, "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom 8:7-8).
There are other clues as well. The primary indicator of one's spiritual condition, according to Jesus, is whether or not you love His people (John 13:35). On the other hand, "If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (1 John 2:15). The author of Hebrews points to God's discipline as a test. "If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons." (Heb 12:8). That is, if you believe the Father does not discipline you, you should be seriously concerned about your spiritual condition. John writes, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God." (1 John 3:9). Like the earlier "does not" and "not able to" from 1 Cor 2:14, this text says that one who is born of God does not make a practice of sin because he cannot make a practice of sin. If you're not deeply concerned about your sin -- if you can shrug it off and keep going with it -- you might want to examine your condition.
Returning to the opening point, there is a key test here. If "natural man" does not and cannot accept the things of God, do I? Am I taking God's Word as it is written or am I picking and choosing? "God's Word isn't as reliable as you think it is" doesn't help. Either God is true or He is not. If He is true -- if He is who He says He is -- then His Word is as true and reliable as He is. If I am redefining and redlining, mythologizing and minimizing, modifying or dismissing God's Word as I see fit, it's a problem. If I am the ultimate determiner of what in God's Word is or is not true, that's a problem. Is God's Word changing me, or am I changing God's Word? If I claim to be true to God's Word without actually laying claim to all of God's Word as written, this is a problem. This means that I am dedicated to me rather than to the Spirit. These are clear signs of "flesh" versus "spiritual" -- psychikos versus pneumatikos.
Beyond that, of course, is the flow. First, is my understanding of Scripture consistent with Scripture? Not just a verse or a chapter, but the whole thing? Second, is my understanding consistent with history? The standard here is God -- the things of God. God doesn't change, so am I "in the flow"? Am I going along with what Paul referred to as "the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess 3:6)? Am I standing on what Jude called "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3)? Or am I finding new things? Am I establishing new traditions? Am I deviating from former doctrine because clearly they got it wrong all this time and I've determined a better way? The question in all of this is not the doctrine or the interpretation or the practice; the question is the constancy and faithfulness of God. Was He wrong in the past and we've finally figured out the truth? That belies a problem.
It really is a conundrum. We shouldn't take it lightly. If the natural human heart is deceived, how do I know I'm not? If the natural human cannot understand the things of God, how do I know I am? If it is necessary to test yourself and see if you're in the faith (2 Cor 13:5), am I doing it? Am I passing the test? I can't answer that for someone else. I must answer it for myself ... constantly aware of the possibility of blindness (2 Cor 4:4).
Tuesday, September 21, 2021
The Purposes of the Heart
We all know about the "Great White Throne Judgment" (Rev 20:7-13) when God will judge sin. That includes the unsaved of all time, Satan, and his minions. Jesus promised it (John 5:28-29). It is certainly coming. We're just glad that it is the unsaved because, after all, our sins have been assigned to Christ and we're not going to face that terrible judgment. That is not to say, however, that we dodge all judgment. In Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth, he speaks of a judgment of the works of believers.
What is it, then, that makes the difference between the allegorical "gold, silver, precious stones" versus "wood, hay, straw"? Paul doesn't say here. He waits until the next chapter. In chapter 4 he talks about being a servant. He doesn't care about your judgment of him. Instead, he says, "It is the Lord who judges me." (1 Cor 4:4). Ah, here it is! On what basis? When the Lord comes, Paul says, He will "bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart." (1 Cor 4:5). The work, then, is not judged on workmanship or performance quality. It isn't judged on content so much as intent. The question Jesus will ask when we face this judgment is not so much "What did you do?" but "Why did you do it?" What were your intentions? What were your aims? What were you hoping to accomplish? Were you aiming at the glory of God, or were you hoping for fame, fortune, applause, or worse? Paul said that servants and stewards must "be found faithful." (1 Cor 4:2). To what were you faithful?
We are fully capable of putting on a good face, of doing all the right things for all the wrong reasons. We can smile and serve and preach and teach and say all the right thing, all with evil intent. True, it is possible to have good intentions and do the wrong thing. But that's not what Paul is talking about here. The task at hand comes from God and the things that we must do are clear. We must do what God commands and not do what God forbids. Easy. But Paul is warning here that why you do those things is important.
Of course, at this point we end up with a difficulty. Scripture says that our hearts are so deceitful that we can't know it (Jer 17:9). Do we know why we do what we do even when we do the right thing? Maybe not. But I'm pretty sure if we don't look we will certainly not know. Ask yourself, then. "Why am I doing this?" Why are you going to church, serving on a committee, helping your neighbor, being kind to your spouse -- doing good things? It is possible to build on the foundation of Jesus Christ. We're called to do that. Those are the things God wants from us. Whether it is good material or worthless is determined by the purposes of your heart rather than what you did. (Doing the wrong things is not building on the foundation.) So keep an eye on yourself. Ask yourself why you are doing what you do. It's a really good idea given the judgment we will all face.
Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw — each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor 3:12-15)Important to note is 1) who is being judged here, 2) what is being judged here, and 3) what is and is not the possible outcome. It is believers being judged here, people who are building on the foundation of Christ (1 Cor 3:11). It is not sin that is being judged here, but the work done. That which is done with quality survives and that which is not does not. Then we look at the outcomes. One is reward (1 Cor 3:14) and the other is "loss." Please note that damnation is not a possible final outcome in this judgment. For the one whose work is burned up, it says, "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved." (1 Cor 3:15). The loss he suffers here is loss of reward (1 Cor 3:14). So those are the two possible outcomes: reward or loss of reward. What we do, then, matters. I don't know about you, but I'm not hoping to be saved "as through fire." I'd like to do better than that.
What is it, then, that makes the difference between the allegorical "gold, silver, precious stones" versus "wood, hay, straw"? Paul doesn't say here. He waits until the next chapter. In chapter 4 he talks about being a servant. He doesn't care about your judgment of him. Instead, he says, "It is the Lord who judges me." (1 Cor 4:4). Ah, here it is! On what basis? When the Lord comes, Paul says, He will "bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart." (1 Cor 4:5). The work, then, is not judged on workmanship or performance quality. It isn't judged on content so much as intent. The question Jesus will ask when we face this judgment is not so much "What did you do?" but "Why did you do it?" What were your intentions? What were your aims? What were you hoping to accomplish? Were you aiming at the glory of God, or were you hoping for fame, fortune, applause, or worse? Paul said that servants and stewards must "be found faithful." (1 Cor 4:2). To what were you faithful?
We are fully capable of putting on a good face, of doing all the right things for all the wrong reasons. We can smile and serve and preach and teach and say all the right thing, all with evil intent. True, it is possible to have good intentions and do the wrong thing. But that's not what Paul is talking about here. The task at hand comes from God and the things that we must do are clear. We must do what God commands and not do what God forbids. Easy. But Paul is warning here that why you do those things is important.
Of course, at this point we end up with a difficulty. Scripture says that our hearts are so deceitful that we can't know it (Jer 17:9). Do we know why we do what we do even when we do the right thing? Maybe not. But I'm pretty sure if we don't look we will certainly not know. Ask yourself, then. "Why am I doing this?" Why are you going to church, serving on a committee, helping your neighbor, being kind to your spouse -- doing good things? It is possible to build on the foundation of Jesus Christ. We're called to do that. Those are the things God wants from us. Whether it is good material or worthless is determined by the purposes of your heart rather than what you did. (Doing the wrong things is not building on the foundation.) So keep an eye on yourself. Ask yourself why you are doing what you do. It's a really good idea given the judgment we will all face.
Monday, September 20, 2021
Don't Ask
I would have put this in my News Weakly edition, but it was too long, so I'm putting it here. And I apologize, because, much to my chagrin, it's more of a rant than a mere entry.
CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked Dr. Fauci whether people who have tested positive for COVID needed to get the vaccine, given the data that people who recovered from the virus have a lower risk of contracting it. Fauci's response was, "I don't have a really firm answer for you on that. That's something that we're going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response." Really? Fauci added, "I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously." Do you think??
According to the CDC, "The risk of infection, hospitalization, and death are all much lower in vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated." There are, then, two kinds of people when it comes to COVID -- the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
The CDC indicates that of the roughly 180 million fully vaccinated people in America, 0.0064% were hospitalized from breakthrough COVID and 0.0015% died of COVID. Moderna is reporting that, of the 11,431 subjects who were vaccinated in 2020, 1.4% got COVID and of the more recent test cases, 0.6% got COVID. (Note an interesting difference in the data. Moderna reported on those who got COVID; the CDC reported on those who were hospitalized (or died). Finding numbers for the percentage of vaccinated people who got COVID (hospitalized or not) is very difficult, but it is necessarily higher than those who were hospitalized or died.) (I have a vaccinated coworker who got COVID, was off work for more than 4 weeks, and never went to the hospital. Case in point.) We have always known that the vaccine is of limited efficacy, as all vaccines are, and now we know that the duration of the protection is not as long as we had hoped.
Now, consider. Over the past 20 months we've seen more than 41 million Americans (around 13% of the population) contract and survive COVID. (Of those who got it, more than 98% have survived.) Research says that reinfection in these cases is less than 0.65%. Research also suggests that immunity from the vaccine decreases much more rapidly than from contracting the virus itself. T cells are the memory part of our immune system. T cell studies found that patients who recovered from SARS-CoV-1 had reactive T cells 17 years after infection. This suggests that there are three categories of people in terms of COVID and not just two. There is the vaccinated category, the immunized-by-COVID category, and the unvaccinated category. Ranking the risks in these three categories, the safest people are the naturally immunized, followed by the vaccinated.
Why, then, do we keep pushing this "vaccinated/unvaccinated" distinction without any reference to natural immunization? (I'm ignoring completely those with natural immunity. A study in June, 2020, found SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells in 40%-60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting a natural immunity for a significant number of people.) No one saying, "If you've had COVID, you're safer than if you have been vaccinated. You're welcome here." Why? Why aren't these vaccine mandates including a "I've had COVID" exemption?
One more thought here on COVID safety, vaccines, and mandates. I'm just asking a question. Consider Person A and Person B. Both work at the same place. Their employer has required that everyone either get vaccinated or get tested. Person A chooses to be vaccinated; Person B opts out. Now Person A goes to work with a vaccine and Person B goes to work with a negative COVID test. Which person constitutes the greater risk of spreading COVID? "The unvaccinated!" you might reply, but is that true? He is positively COVID negative. Person A is vaccinated, but we all understand that the vaccine is not foolproof, that those who are vaccinated can get COVID and can spread COVID. In fact, given the promised decreased symptoms (if any), it is not hard to imagine that Person A could have COVID and spread COVID without knowing it. Person B cannot because Person B has been tested.
It is questions like these that make me wonder about who is running this show, who is asking (or, rather, not asking) these questions, and if we are getting the best information and plans. Are there ulterior motives driving these vaccination mandates? Are we wise surrendering our freedoms for the supposed sake of security when no one appears to be looking at these things? But, of course, in a culture which claims that the only people who question the vaccine are conspiracy theorists and right-wing whackos, the only right approach is "Don't ask."
CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked Dr. Fauci whether people who have tested positive for COVID needed to get the vaccine, given the data that people who recovered from the virus have a lower risk of contracting it. Fauci's response was, "I don't have a really firm answer for you on that. That's something that we're going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response." Really? Fauci added, "I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously." Do you think??
According to the CDC, "The risk of infection, hospitalization, and death are all much lower in vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated." There are, then, two kinds of people when it comes to COVID -- the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
The CDC indicates that of the roughly 180 million fully vaccinated people in America, 0.0064% were hospitalized from breakthrough COVID and 0.0015% died of COVID. Moderna is reporting that, of the 11,431 subjects who were vaccinated in 2020, 1.4% got COVID and of the more recent test cases, 0.6% got COVID. (Note an interesting difference in the data. Moderna reported on those who got COVID; the CDC reported on those who were hospitalized (or died). Finding numbers for the percentage of vaccinated people who got COVID (hospitalized or not) is very difficult, but it is necessarily higher than those who were hospitalized or died.) (I have a vaccinated coworker who got COVID, was off work for more than 4 weeks, and never went to the hospital. Case in point.) We have always known that the vaccine is of limited efficacy, as all vaccines are, and now we know that the duration of the protection is not as long as we had hoped.
Now, consider. Over the past 20 months we've seen more than 41 million Americans (around 13% of the population) contract and survive COVID. (Of those who got it, more than 98% have survived.) Research says that reinfection in these cases is less than 0.65%. Research also suggests that immunity from the vaccine decreases much more rapidly than from contracting the virus itself. T cells are the memory part of our immune system. T cell studies found that patients who recovered from SARS-CoV-1 had reactive T cells 17 years after infection. This suggests that there are three categories of people in terms of COVID and not just two. There is the vaccinated category, the immunized-by-COVID category, and the unvaccinated category. Ranking the risks in these three categories, the safest people are the naturally immunized, followed by the vaccinated.
Why, then, do we keep pushing this "vaccinated/unvaccinated" distinction without any reference to natural immunization? (I'm ignoring completely those with natural immunity. A study in June, 2020, found SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells in 40%-60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting a natural immunity for a significant number of people.) No one saying, "If you've had COVID, you're safer than if you have been vaccinated. You're welcome here." Why? Why aren't these vaccine mandates including a "I've had COVID" exemption?
One more thought here on COVID safety, vaccines, and mandates. I'm just asking a question. Consider Person A and Person B. Both work at the same place. Their employer has required that everyone either get vaccinated or get tested. Person A chooses to be vaccinated; Person B opts out. Now Person A goes to work with a vaccine and Person B goes to work with a negative COVID test. Which person constitutes the greater risk of spreading COVID? "The unvaccinated!" you might reply, but is that true? He is positively COVID negative. Person A is vaccinated, but we all understand that the vaccine is not foolproof, that those who are vaccinated can get COVID and can spread COVID. In fact, given the promised decreased symptoms (if any), it is not hard to imagine that Person A could have COVID and spread COVID without knowing it. Person B cannot because Person B has been tested.
It is questions like these that make me wonder about who is running this show, who is asking (or, rather, not asking) these questions, and if we are getting the best information and plans. Are there ulterior motives driving these vaccination mandates? Are we wise surrendering our freedoms for the supposed sake of security when no one appears to be looking at these things? But, of course, in a culture which claims that the only people who question the vaccine are conspiracy theorists and right-wing whackos, the only right approach is "Don't ask."
Sunday, September 19, 2021
One Thing
In the movie, City Slickers, grizzled cowboy, Curly (played by Jack Palance), imparts wisdom to lost city guy, Mitch (played by Billy Crystal). Mitch, hoping to find a purpose to life, asks Curly his secret. "It all comes down to one thing," Curly says, holding up one finger. Mitch is intrigued. "What is it?" "That's what you gotta figure out." It was wisdom, but produced by natural man, it didn't go far enough. It is wise to narrow down priorities and focus, but the world's version is "whatever you think it is," "whatever It is to you," and you're on your own. Good luck with that.
This Christian walk that we're walking isn't so vague. Nor is it so relative. It is not "about me." Indeed, we shouldn't want it to be. If we are following Christ, we should want our "one thing" to be what Christ had as a guiding principle. What was Christ's "one thing"? In His High Priestly prayer He started with His highest concern. "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son that the Son may glorify You." (John 17:1). When asked why the man was born blind, He answered, "It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it." (John 11:4). When Lazarus was sick, Jesus told His disciples, "This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it." (John 11:4). Jesus always looked toward the Father and pursued His glory. He told His disciples, "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). In the same light, Paul wrote, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31) That's pretty expansive. That's all-encompassing.
What would life look like if we lived it with that singular aim? If we viewed our jobs, for instance, as work done to glorify God, how would that look? If we understood how we interact with believers and unbelievers in the light of glorifying God, how would we interact? If our purpose in our marriages, our families, our neighborhoods, our churches, our day-to-day existence was an effort to bring glory to God, how would our lives be lived? What would our successes look like? How differently would we handle a crisis? What would change in our entertainment, our internet and phone usage, our free time? How would we spend our time, our resources, our lives?
"The secret to life," Curly told Mitch, "is one thing." Imagine what your life would look like if you pursued with all diligence that which Jesus considered to be of the highest importance -- God's glory. Since God's purpose for us is to conform us to the image of His Son (Rom 8:28-29), perhaps we might want to think about reordering our lives to pursue that one thing.
This Christian walk that we're walking isn't so vague. Nor is it so relative. It is not "about me." Indeed, we shouldn't want it to be. If we are following Christ, we should want our "one thing" to be what Christ had as a guiding principle. What was Christ's "one thing"? In His High Priestly prayer He started with His highest concern. "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son that the Son may glorify You." (John 17:1). When asked why the man was born blind, He answered, "It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it." (John 11:4). When Lazarus was sick, Jesus told His disciples, "This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it." (John 11:4). Jesus always looked toward the Father and pursued His glory. He told His disciples, "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). In the same light, Paul wrote, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31) That's pretty expansive. That's all-encompassing.
What would life look like if we lived it with that singular aim? If we viewed our jobs, for instance, as work done to glorify God, how would that look? If we understood how we interact with believers and unbelievers in the light of glorifying God, how would we interact? If our purpose in our marriages, our families, our neighborhoods, our churches, our day-to-day existence was an effort to bring glory to God, how would our lives be lived? What would our successes look like? How differently would we handle a crisis? What would change in our entertainment, our internet and phone usage, our free time? How would we spend our time, our resources, our lives?
"The secret to life," Curly told Mitch, "is one thing." Imagine what your life would look like if you pursued with all diligence that which Jesus considered to be of the highest importance -- God's glory. Since God's purpose for us is to conform us to the image of His Son (Rom 8:28-29), perhaps we might want to think about reordering our lives to pursue that one thing.
Saturday, September 18, 2021
News Weakly - 9/18/21
Strange Accomodation
In May, 2021, United Airlines and the union agreed that there would be no mandatory vaccinations and "pilots who elect not to be vaccinated will not be subject to any discipline." In August in the truly Soviet Russia way, United Airlines required that all employees be vaccinated for COVID-19 -- no testing option. In the truly American way, United Airlines has allowed for medical and religious belief accomodations. So, If an employee has an exemption on the basis of religious beliefs, United Airlines will place them on "voluntary unpaid leave" without pay, benefits, or the possibility of collecting unemployment. I put "voluntary unpaid leave" in quotes because employees are offered the option to accept the accomodation or ... accept the accomodation. Or quit. Very American. "By all means, stand by your religious beliefs. Just don't do it working for us. We won't allow any of those shenanigans here." It's a strange accomodation, but it's what America is becoming.
The Horse's Mouth
Facebook has internal research that suggests that their Instagram app is harmful to kids -- especially teenage girls. But, don't worry, neither Facebook nor the rest of the users will heed the Science because what is true is whatever we want to be true. They're minimizing their own data (while preventing their own kids from using their own products) and working on an Instagram for younger kids because they should just share the suicidal thoughts with everyone, shouldn't they?
Voters' Mandate
California Governor Newsom breezed through his recall election. Something like 64% voted to keep him. That, of course, is because the majority of the voters live in major cities and California's major cities are on "the Left coast." But Newsom considers it an endorsement, an "attaboy," a voters' mandate -- "Keep doing what you're doing!" I would think that the fact that there was a recall attempt suggests otherwise, but we Americans in general these days aren't too concerned about facts, are we?
When Caring Isn't
We're already aware of some of the consequences of protecting against COVID. Now we're seeing some more. In the UK they're looking at closing care homes because some care home workers haven't been vaccinated yet. In France, 3,000 health care workers have been suspended for not getting the shot. And Idaho has begun rationing health care amid a COVID surge driven partly by fear because too many primary care doctors are refusing to treat COVID patients. Well, that and the terror the government and the media are inducing over COVID. At some point "caring" is not caring.
Tradition
Colorado Governor Polis joined with his male partner of 18 years in flaunting the longstanding traditional definition of marriage with a "traditional Jewish ceremony." His partner said, "As I was growing up, marriage was not even in the realm of possibility." He has remained true to his word, and the two have joined in this gay mirage with no sense of the irony.
Terrorists at the Highest Levels
From January 1, 2020 to September 15, 2021, 658,754 Americans have died of COVID. The number is hard to stomach. That's a lot of death. The older we are, the worst it gets. The 85-and-older crowd constitute 28% of the deaths. The over-75 folks bring it up to 55%. Those in the 65-and-up category make up 77% of the total -- 512,000 people. When you factor in the 50-year-olds and up, you're looking at 95% of all the deaths -- 622,000 souls. It's interesting, then, how suddenly that drops off. I mean, clearly if 50 and above constitutes 95% of the deaths, below 50 would be only 5% of the deaths. Those between 40 and 49 have been 4x more likely to die of COVID than those between 30 and 39, who were 3x more likely to die than those who were between 18 and 29. The under-adult group, 0-17, saw a total of 439 deaths in that time period. That group constitutes 0.0666% of the total deaths. So someone, please, tell me why parents of the under-12 group are lying about their childrens' ages in order to get them vaccinated? How does this not qualify as "misleading misinformation"? How is this not a result of terrorism ... from our nation's leaders and news media?
Something's Hinkey
The FDA voted against approving a booster shot from Pfizer. Not enough data. What I want to know is why is it that these companies with their new vaccines are not liable for problems they may cause? I get that they gave them "immunity" (small joke there) for their Emergency Use Authorization, but shouldn't that be finished now? Or is Big Pharma concerned about the safety of their product?
You'd Better Beelieve It
You heard about the woman who attended an ultra-exclusive gala for the elite in an expensive designer dress to lecture the nation on inequality, right? The story is she donated that dress to help her abuela patch the holes in her roof. Meanwhile, AOC wrote "Tax the rich" in the sky with her private jet.
And one that made me laugh over at Genesius Times was about how millions of Biden voters are so ashamed by the president’s administration that they are rolling over in their graves. (You may have to let that one sink in a moment.)
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
In May, 2021, United Airlines and the union agreed that there would be no mandatory vaccinations and "pilots who elect not to be vaccinated will not be subject to any discipline." In August in the truly Soviet Russia way, United Airlines required that all employees be vaccinated for COVID-19 -- no testing option. In the truly American way, United Airlines has allowed for medical and religious belief accomodations. So, If an employee has an exemption on the basis of religious beliefs, United Airlines will place them on "voluntary unpaid leave" without pay, benefits, or the possibility of collecting unemployment. I put "voluntary unpaid leave" in quotes because employees are offered the option to accept the accomodation or ... accept the accomodation. Or quit. Very American. "By all means, stand by your religious beliefs. Just don't do it working for us. We won't allow any of those shenanigans here." It's a strange accomodation, but it's what America is becoming.
The Horse's Mouth
Facebook has internal research that suggests that their Instagram app is harmful to kids -- especially teenage girls. But, don't worry, neither Facebook nor the rest of the users will heed the Science because what is true is whatever we want to be true. They're minimizing their own data (while preventing their own kids from using their own products) and working on an Instagram for younger kids because they should just share the suicidal thoughts with everyone, shouldn't they?
Voters' Mandate
California Governor Newsom breezed through his recall election. Something like 64% voted to keep him. That, of course, is because the majority of the voters live in major cities and California's major cities are on "the Left coast." But Newsom considers it an endorsement, an "attaboy," a voters' mandate -- "Keep doing what you're doing!" I would think that the fact that there was a recall attempt suggests otherwise, but we Americans in general these days aren't too concerned about facts, are we?
When Caring Isn't
We're already aware of some of the consequences of protecting against COVID. Now we're seeing some more. In the UK they're looking at closing care homes because some care home workers haven't been vaccinated yet. In France, 3,000 health care workers have been suspended for not getting the shot. And Idaho has begun rationing health care amid a COVID surge driven partly by fear because too many primary care doctors are refusing to treat COVID patients. Well, that and the terror the government and the media are inducing over COVID. At some point "caring" is not caring.
Tradition
Colorado Governor Polis joined with his male partner of 18 years in flaunting the longstanding traditional definition of marriage with a "traditional Jewish ceremony." His partner said, "As I was growing up, marriage was not even in the realm of possibility." He has remained true to his word, and the two have joined in this gay mirage with no sense of the irony.
Terrorists at the Highest Levels
From January 1, 2020 to September 15, 2021, 658,754 Americans have died of COVID. The number is hard to stomach. That's a lot of death. The older we are, the worst it gets. The 85-and-older crowd constitute 28% of the deaths. The over-75 folks bring it up to 55%. Those in the 65-and-up category make up 77% of the total -- 512,000 people. When you factor in the 50-year-olds and up, you're looking at 95% of all the deaths -- 622,000 souls. It's interesting, then, how suddenly that drops off. I mean, clearly if 50 and above constitutes 95% of the deaths, below 50 would be only 5% of the deaths. Those between 40 and 49 have been 4x more likely to die of COVID than those between 30 and 39, who were 3x more likely to die than those who were between 18 and 29. The under-adult group, 0-17, saw a total of 439 deaths in that time period. That group constitutes 0.0666% of the total deaths. So someone, please, tell me why parents of the under-12 group are lying about their childrens' ages in order to get them vaccinated? How does this not qualify as "misleading misinformation"? How is this not a result of terrorism ... from our nation's leaders and news media?
Something's Hinkey
The FDA voted against approving a booster shot from Pfizer. Not enough data. What I want to know is why is it that these companies with their new vaccines are not liable for problems they may cause? I get that they gave them "immunity" (small joke there) for their Emergency Use Authorization, but shouldn't that be finished now? Or is Big Pharma concerned about the safety of their product?
You'd Better Beelieve It
You heard about the woman who attended an ultra-exclusive gala for the elite in an expensive designer dress to lecture the nation on inequality, right? The story is she donated that dress to help her abuela patch the holes in her roof. Meanwhile, AOC wrote "Tax the rich" in the sky with her private jet.
And one that made me laugh over at Genesius Times was about how millions of Biden voters are so ashamed by the president’s administration that they are rolling over in their graves. (You may have to let that one sink in a moment.)
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Friday, September 17, 2021
Doing the Impossible
Most Christians I know tend to gloss over this verse.
Paul makes it abundantly clear in his letter to the church at Corinth that it's much harder to believe than not to. "The word of the cross," he writes, "is folly to those who are perishing." (1 Cor 1:18). But that's the story we're bringing, right? "We preach Christ crucified," he says, "a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles." (1 Cor 1:23). That's the gospel, and it is either a problem or idiocy ... or both. In fact, Paul said, "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." (1 Cor 2:2). No fancy words, no clever speech, ( 1 Cor 2:4), nothing that we would ordinarily expect from a person bringing the gospel to the unsaved. He didn't bring it. Why? "So that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." (1 Cor 2:5)
That's where we turn the corner. That's where things change. Yes, it is humanly impossible for the unsaved to figure it out. Yes, it is an offense to the unsaved to hear the good news. Yes, we lack the abilities to counter these problems. So what is the solution? The power of God (1 Cor 2:5). The Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:12). The mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). Of course, we don't get to impart any of that. That's not our job or our ability. We can plant and we can water, but it's God who produces results (1 Cor 3:6). So God asks of us the impossible -- take His good news to people who cannot receive it -- and He takes care of the results. Which means we cannot fail if what we aim to do is what He asks and we leave the outcome in His hands. We get to do the impossible and then get rewarded for it (1 Cor 3:14). Win-win!
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14)Notice there are two negatives in there. One is "does not accept" and the other is "not able to understand." That is, "does not" and "cannot." Or "unwilling and unable." The human being in his natural state -- unsaved -- does not have the required faculties to accept or understand the things of the Spirit. It doesn't get any clearer than that. And it is bad news for the believer intent on winning converts.
Paul makes it abundantly clear in his letter to the church at Corinth that it's much harder to believe than not to. "The word of the cross," he writes, "is folly to those who are perishing." (1 Cor 1:18). But that's the story we're bringing, right? "We preach Christ crucified," he says, "a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles." (1 Cor 1:23). That's the gospel, and it is either a problem or idiocy ... or both. In fact, Paul said, "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." (1 Cor 2:2). No fancy words, no clever speech, ( 1 Cor 2:4), nothing that we would ordinarily expect from a person bringing the gospel to the unsaved. He didn't bring it. Why? "So that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." (1 Cor 2:5)
That's where we turn the corner. That's where things change. Yes, it is humanly impossible for the unsaved to figure it out. Yes, it is an offense to the unsaved to hear the good news. Yes, we lack the abilities to counter these problems. So what is the solution? The power of God (1 Cor 2:5). The Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:12). The mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). Of course, we don't get to impart any of that. That's not our job or our ability. We can plant and we can water, but it's God who produces results (1 Cor 3:6). So God asks of us the impossible -- take His good news to people who cannot receive it -- and He takes care of the results. Which means we cannot fail if what we aim to do is what He asks and we leave the outcome in His hands. We get to do the impossible and then get rewarded for it (1 Cor 3:14). Win-win!
Thursday, September 16, 2021
No Safe Space
We're in the midst of the COVID vaccine debate. Something around 63% of Americans have been vaccinated. Now factor in those who have had it (which, according to a growing amount of research1, provides better immunization than the vaccine). Factor in those who have natural immunity, and now we're way up there in percentage of immunized versus not immunized. Probably over 80%. You know, as in "herd immunity" levels. But, of course, such talk is "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" and whatever other label they can give it to make sure no one listens.
All of this is interesting and even troubling to me, but what bothers me more is the division in the church. There are those in local bodies of believers that believe that the vaccine is a literal godsend -- a gift from God. Sure, it comes from doctors, but we frequently pray, "Lord, guide the hands of the doctors" when we pray for people in medical crisis, so that isn't strange. If you are unwilling to take this elixir of life, you are not a loving Christian. You don't care about your neighbor. You're ... sinning. There is, on the other hand, no small number of people in churches that are convinced, for one reason or another (or, of course, more than one), that this vaccine is of the devil. Maybe it's human devils or maybe it's from Satan himself, but it's evil. Not merely unwise -- evil. Some proclaim it to be the beginning of the end, the frog in the pot with the Mark of the Beast as the endpoint. If they can inject their demonic mRNA now without which you can't buy or sell, what will keep them from doing the real thing later? Or "It's the spawn of an aborted fetus!" which, of course, makes it evil incarnate (in the flesh ... get it?). One question; two sides. Which is right? So we see division in the church with finger pointing and judgment in both directions. People who don't want to cause a conflict will have to pay close attention to whom they are speaking to determine if this one or that will condemn you for wherever you happen to be standing. It's hard.
Brothers and sisters, these things ought not be. I know this is hard to believe, but, as it turns out, there is no reference in Scripture to the COVID vaccine. There is no biblical command to be vaccinated. Or not. There is no actual connection to aborted fetal tissue. There is no moral mandate in Scripture on the topic. We ought to read our Bibles where it says, "As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions" (Rom 14:1) and stop quarreling over opinions. We ought to take God at His Word when He says, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Rom 12:18) and make "peaceably with all" an actual aim. We should address Paul's plea, "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment" (1 Cor 1:10) and be united in the same mind and the same judgment. Because, despite all the popular opinions, the Bible does not talk about "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not get vaccinated."
When fellow believers are afraid to be open and honest with each other on a topic that is not scriptural, we have hit a reef. We do the body of Christ harm. We produce schisms and judgment where there should be none. "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand." (Rom 14:4). It is a classic example of "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23) ... in both directions.
________
All of this is interesting and even troubling to me, but what bothers me more is the division in the church. There are those in local bodies of believers that believe that the vaccine is a literal godsend -- a gift from God. Sure, it comes from doctors, but we frequently pray, "Lord, guide the hands of the doctors" when we pray for people in medical crisis, so that isn't strange. If you are unwilling to take this elixir of life, you are not a loving Christian. You don't care about your neighbor. You're ... sinning. There is, on the other hand, no small number of people in churches that are convinced, for one reason or another (or, of course, more than one), that this vaccine is of the devil. Maybe it's human devils or maybe it's from Satan himself, but it's evil. Not merely unwise -- evil. Some proclaim it to be the beginning of the end, the frog in the pot with the Mark of the Beast as the endpoint. If they can inject their demonic mRNA now without which you can't buy or sell, what will keep them from doing the real thing later? Or "It's the spawn of an aborted fetus!" which, of course, makes it evil incarnate (in the flesh ... get it?). One question; two sides. Which is right? So we see division in the church with finger pointing and judgment in both directions. People who don't want to cause a conflict will have to pay close attention to whom they are speaking to determine if this one or that will condemn you for wherever you happen to be standing. It's hard.
Brothers and sisters, these things ought not be. I know this is hard to believe, but, as it turns out, there is no reference in Scripture to the COVID vaccine. There is no biblical command to be vaccinated. Or not. There is no actual connection to aborted fetal tissue. There is no moral mandate in Scripture on the topic. We ought to read our Bibles where it says, "As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions" (Rom 14:1) and stop quarreling over opinions. We ought to take God at His Word when He says, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Rom 12:18) and make "peaceably with all" an actual aim. We should address Paul's plea, "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment" (1 Cor 1:10) and be united in the same mind and the same judgment. Because, despite all the popular opinions, the Bible does not talk about "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not get vaccinated."
When fellow believers are afraid to be open and honest with each other on a topic that is not scriptural, we have hit a reef. We do the body of Christ harm. We produce schisms and judgment where there should be none. "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand." (Rom 14:4). It is a classic example of "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23) ... in both directions.
________
1 Research suggests that 0.65% of those who have had COVID experience reinfection. That is, having COVID is 99.35% effective against getting COVID for over a year.
Wednesday, September 15, 2021
All Turned Around
The message today is "You be you." The message is "You are somebody." The message is "Don't let anyone stand in the way of your dream." Why? Because, we tell ourselves, "I am enough. I'm good enough and I'm strong enough and people like me." That's the message.
It's disconcerting, then, to see what Paul says.
And then ...
... Scripture speaks again. God has chosen to use these. He has assigned us tasks. And we do them. But "neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God gives the growth." (1 Cor 3:7). Paul says, "According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation" (1 Cor 3:10) followed immediately with "For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor 3:11) Paul's task was to do his best at something that Christ did. Like us -- the foolish, the weak, the low -- he was assigned a task which God did (1 Cor 3:7). And ... get this ... in doing so there is reward (1 Cor 3:14).
God chooses those who cannot do in order to empower them to do and then reward them for having done. He chooses the weak so that none may boast, "and because of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption," (1 Cor 1:30) so that "Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord." (1 Cor 1:31). We boast in the Lord because we are weak and He rewards because we were usable. We were turned away from "I'm enough" and turned to "not wise" and then turned away from "useless" and rewarded by God for being used by God. All turned around.
It's disconcerting, then, to see what Paul says.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. (1 Cor 1:26-29)He said what?! Just when we thought we were enough, we are assured that we are "not many wise ... not many powerful, not many noble." No, we qualify as "what is foolish" and "what is weak" and "the low." Nice. Oh, "so that no human being might boast"? Yeah, clearly. Faced with God's perspective, we limp back to our own corners.
And then ...
... Scripture speaks again. God has chosen to use these. He has assigned us tasks. And we do them. But "neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God gives the growth." (1 Cor 3:7). Paul says, "According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation" (1 Cor 3:10) followed immediately with "For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor 3:11) Paul's task was to do his best at something that Christ did. Like us -- the foolish, the weak, the low -- he was assigned a task which God did (1 Cor 3:7). And ... get this ... in doing so there is reward (1 Cor 3:14).
God chooses those who cannot do in order to empower them to do and then reward them for having done. He chooses the weak so that none may boast, "and because of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption," (1 Cor 1:30) so that "Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord." (1 Cor 1:31). We boast in the Lord because we are weak and He rewards because we were usable. We were turned away from "I'm enough" and turned to "not wise" and then turned away from "useless" and rewarded by God for being used by God. All turned around.
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
In Vain
We all know the command. "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." (Exo 20:7) So those of us concerned about what God thinks (That, by the way, was a direct quote from God.) try to avoid doing that. Sort of. The Jews understood it to be a reference to the name(s) we apply to God like YHWH and, well, God. So where Luke, the Gentile, referred to "the kingdom of God," Matthew, a Jew, referred to the "kingdom of heaven." Safer not to use the name, you know? To this day more devout Jews will write it as "G_d" to avoid using it wrong, because clearly "G_d" isn't "God" and they're safe.
It is a little short-sighted if you ask me. First, "God" is not His name; it is His title. Like "king" or our modern "mister" and "missus." These aren't names; they're designations of roles. His name is YHWH; His role is God. And since YHWH is hardly pronounceable, using that in vain seems unlikely. So, second, I think the real issue is that "name" doesn't merely refer to "the words we use to designate someone." We know this. We can talk about "doing harm to my good name" without considering my legal name. It's about me -- my character, my reputation -- who I am, not what I'm called. And if I say, "I don't have anyone to carry on my name," I'm not referring to "Stan," but to the family line of which I am the start. Again, not that simple "term we use to designate a person."
Now, what if we feed this back into "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain"? That changes things, doesn't it? If that command is "You shall not take the character or reputation of the LORD your God in vain," I think we'll have a much larger issue. For instance, if God is Sovereign and we claim to be His follower but deny His Lordship, we're taking His character in vain. If God is good and we who claim to love Him accuse Him of doing something bad, we are, again, taking His character in vain. If we call ourselves "Christians" and are not Christ-like, we besmirch His reputation and take His name in vain.
I don't know. Maybe you're right. Maybe He just means, "Don't say the words that you use to designate Me in vain way." Seems rather small to me. The Jews have it right, then. Just don't use those words. Easy. One sin down. But I'm afraid it's not that easy and I'm afraid that every one of us who call ourselves Christians and followers of Christ and lovers of God take His character and reputation in vain daily without even realizing it. From what I can tell, that doesn't make Him happy (Exo 20:7).
It is a little short-sighted if you ask me. First, "God" is not His name; it is His title. Like "king" or our modern "mister" and "missus." These aren't names; they're designations of roles. His name is YHWH; His role is God. And since YHWH is hardly pronounceable, using that in vain seems unlikely. So, second, I think the real issue is that "name" doesn't merely refer to "the words we use to designate someone." We know this. We can talk about "doing harm to my good name" without considering my legal name. It's about me -- my character, my reputation -- who I am, not what I'm called. And if I say, "I don't have anyone to carry on my name," I'm not referring to "Stan," but to the family line of which I am the start. Again, not that simple "term we use to designate a person."
Now, what if we feed this back into "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain"? That changes things, doesn't it? If that command is "You shall not take the character or reputation of the LORD your God in vain," I think we'll have a much larger issue. For instance, if God is Sovereign and we claim to be His follower but deny His Lordship, we're taking His character in vain. If God is good and we who claim to love Him accuse Him of doing something bad, we are, again, taking His character in vain. If we call ourselves "Christians" and are not Christ-like, we besmirch His reputation and take His name in vain.
I don't know. Maybe you're right. Maybe He just means, "Don't say the words that you use to designate Me in vain way." Seems rather small to me. The Jews have it right, then. Just don't use those words. Easy. One sin down. But I'm afraid it's not that easy and I'm afraid that every one of us who call ourselves Christians and followers of Christ and lovers of God take His character and reputation in vain daily without even realizing it. From what I can tell, that doesn't make Him happy (Exo 20:7).
Monday, September 13, 2021
The Day
There is, in basic Christianity, this notion of "the Day." It is "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1:8), the day that He returns, the day that He brings justice and eternal destruction (2 Thess 1:5-9) and the day He will "be glorified in His saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed." (2 Thess 1:10). We don't know the actual day that will be, but we do have signs to look for. And, brothers and sisters, there are a lot of those signs currently flashing in our world.
Signs of His return include false prophets, wars and rumors of wars, famines and earthquakes, persecution, and the Great Apostasy (2 Thess 2:3). We all know the prevalence of false prophets. The rest you can see for yourself, but that last, "apostasy," is an interesting word. In Greek it is apostasia. It means literally "defection." Its root, apostasion, is the word for "divorce" in the New Testament. So it refers to the great defection, the separation, the departure from truth. And in a world where Christian churches permit atheist pastors and atheist chaplains and openly deny God's Word -- all in growing numbers -- it's hard to envision something more apostasia than today.
The author of Hebrews writes,
Signs of His return include false prophets, wars and rumors of wars, famines and earthquakes, persecution, and the Great Apostasy (2 Thess 2:3). We all know the prevalence of false prophets. The rest you can see for yourself, but that last, "apostasy," is an interesting word. In Greek it is apostasia. It means literally "defection." Its root, apostasion, is the word for "divorce" in the New Testament. So it refers to the great defection, the separation, the departure from truth. And in a world where Christian churches permit atheist pastors and atheist chaplains and openly deny God's Word -- all in growing numbers -- it's hard to envision something more apostasia than today.
The author of Hebrews writes,
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Heb 10:23-25)Hold fast the confession of our faith without wavering. Stir up one another to love and good works. Do not neglect gathering for fellowship. Encourage one another. These are things we should be doing all along, but "all the more" as you see the Day drawing near. Trust me. The return of Christ is nearer than it has ever been before. Are you doing these kinds of things?
Sunday, September 12, 2021
Sin and the Christian
We've seen a lot in recent years about the evils associated with Christians. Last year there was the devastating (and calculated) story that told how Ravi Zacharias had a lust problem. Voices have been raised over the fact that Jonathan Edwards owned slaves. That kind of a gamut of problems. And we muddle about and try to figure out what to do when our spiritual giants fall, in life or in death. Here's my suggestion. Let's look to Jesus.
When they brought the woman "caught in adultery" to Him (John 8:1-11), it is noteworthy that He didn't have any comment on the sin in question. He didn't negate it; He didn't condemn it. He didn't rise up with righteous indignation, nor did He pass it off as meaningless. What He did do ... was point to the general problem of sin. His famous line: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7). No one did. Why? Well, that's obvious. There wasn't a single one of these "holy" scribes and Pharisees without sin. And when they all slinked away, Jesus addressed the woman. "I'm not bringing judgment at this time," He told her, but that was not a dismissal of sin. "Go and sin no more." (John 8:11). Very clearly, "You have been sinning; stop."
I take Jesus's approach rather than the current cancel culture approach. I take Jesus's approach rather than the current approach demonstrated 2,000 years ago by the Pharisees. I recommend the approach Jesus commanded in the Sermon on the Mount. "First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matt 7:5). Because none of us is without sin.
So I'm not willing to burn down a Ravi Zacharias or a Jonathan Edwards for accusations, truthful or otherwise, of sin. To be sure, they had sin, but it is equally certain that I am not without sin and "If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?" (Psa 130:3). I'll look instead at the fruits of their lives and thank God for that, and I'll pray that my sin problems don't prevent God from using me in ways I cannot fathom. None of us are without sin. It's not us that determines what God does with us. I'd like to think He can use the foolish and the weak and the base (1 Cor 1:26-29) like them ... like me. So I don't have to justify their errors; I just have to praise God for the use He makes of all of us sinners.
When they brought the woman "caught in adultery" to Him (John 8:1-11), it is noteworthy that He didn't have any comment on the sin in question. He didn't negate it; He didn't condemn it. He didn't rise up with righteous indignation, nor did He pass it off as meaningless. What He did do ... was point to the general problem of sin. His famous line: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7). No one did. Why? Well, that's obvious. There wasn't a single one of these "holy" scribes and Pharisees without sin. And when they all slinked away, Jesus addressed the woman. "I'm not bringing judgment at this time," He told her, but that was not a dismissal of sin. "Go and sin no more." (John 8:11). Very clearly, "You have been sinning; stop."
I take Jesus's approach rather than the current cancel culture approach. I take Jesus's approach rather than the current approach demonstrated 2,000 years ago by the Pharisees. I recommend the approach Jesus commanded in the Sermon on the Mount. "First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matt 7:5). Because none of us is without sin.
So I'm not willing to burn down a Ravi Zacharias or a Jonathan Edwards for accusations, truthful or otherwise, of sin. To be sure, they had sin, but it is equally certain that I am not without sin and "If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?" (Psa 130:3). I'll look instead at the fruits of their lives and thank God for that, and I'll pray that my sin problems don't prevent God from using me in ways I cannot fathom. None of us are without sin. It's not us that determines what God does with us. I'd like to think He can use the foolish and the weak and the base (1 Cor 1:26-29) like them ... like me. So I don't have to justify their errors; I just have to praise God for the use He makes of all of us sinners.
Saturday, September 11, 2021
News Weakly - 9/11/21
Odd Statistics
Violent crime in America in 2021 is hitting the highest rates since the 1990s. Now, let's see; what makes 2021 different than previous years? It's not gun ownership; that's remained fairly constant. We are a year and a half into "15 days to flatten the curve" with no relief in sight. They're saying that is a factor. Tensions are heightened and all. We do have a new president whose competency is a real question. The economy is not booming. We are not recovering. And there is, of course, the cumulative buildup of immorality. I mean, if you continue to tell people, "Human life only counts if we say it counts" and they think, "I don't think it counts in this situation," who is to dispute them? Hmmm, I don't know, I can't see anything that would make 2021 more violence-prone than any other pandemic-ridden, incompetent-government, offended-on-a-hair-trigger year. Can you?
Just Too Easy
Apparently the women's basketball team at Baylor no longer qualify as "ladies." They've dropped the "Lady" from their team name and now admit to just being "Bears." "That's no lady; that's a basketball bear." Too easy.
The Message is Clear
A report claims that U.S. airstrikes, manned or unmanned, killed something between 22,000 and 48,000 civilians in the war on terror over the last 20 years. I'd suggest that's hard to calculate, especially in this situation, because the term "civilians" refers to those who are not in the armed services, so almost anyone killed in the war on terror would most likely have been civilians, since almost all terrorists are civilians. It should be mentioned that 25,000 people were killed by terrorists in 2019 alone. But, who's counting, right?
Coincidence?
Immediately following Mexico's Supreme Court decriminalizing the murder of babies, a 7.0 earthquake struck Acapulco. Coincidence?
Compassion
In the infinite wisdom that every talk show host possesses we learned that unvaccinated people don't deserve beds in hospitals. So says Jimmy Kimmel. The compassion is overwhelming. Hey, look, let's do this. Why don't we just get a COVID-carrier to go door to door to everyone not yet vaccinated. They can get it (or not) and live (or not) to be immune (or not). It would be over in a very brief time. Hey, it is just as compassionate as Kimmel's idea and we could do away with the silly vaccination question.
Not the Bee
Singer Actress Bette Midler made the news when she called on women to stop having sex with men until the Texas anti-abortion law was repealed. Seriously, I can't make this stuff up. Did she just come up with a great answer? I mean, yeah, women, if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex. Midler is a genius.
New Constitutional Right
Maybe I exaggerate. Maybe it's not new. But it's coming up again. The Biden administration (you remember, that good ol' Catholic boy?) is suing Texas over their new pro-life abortion law. Attorney General Merrick Garland said, "This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear." I'm looking ... I'm looking ... I find the equal protection clause and "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law", but nothing at all about the right to kill babies. How can I miss it? If it's me, I'm going to fear a government that seeks by force of law to allow killing without due process.
Here's a thought. Abortion, they say, is a constitutional right under the "right to privacy" found in the 4th Amendment. Now, to be fair, no such right is in there, but let's just go with it. If the 4th Amendment insures the right to privacy, which makes it a constitutional right for a mother to kill her baby as a matter of privacy, then why would refusal to answer the question of vaccination not be equally protected under the same law? Just thinking out loud here.
No Way!!
This can't be right. Some animals appear to be adjusting themselves to live in a climate-changed world. Now, we know that can't be because we know that climate change is going to kill us all, so someone needs to put a stop to these crazy animals and their adjustment mechanisms.
You've Got to Beelieve
"Believe the science," they tell us. And then they complain that Americans are trusting in an unproven anti-science treatment called "the human immune system." This story is about the ambitious 6-point plan President Joe Biden unveiled Thursday to both end the threat of COVID-19 and completely dismantle the liberty-loving United States as we all know it. It could be because he has natural immunity to the Constitution.
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Violent crime in America in 2021 is hitting the highest rates since the 1990s. Now, let's see; what makes 2021 different than previous years? It's not gun ownership; that's remained fairly constant. We are a year and a half into "15 days to flatten the curve" with no relief in sight. They're saying that is a factor. Tensions are heightened and all. We do have a new president whose competency is a real question. The economy is not booming. We are not recovering. And there is, of course, the cumulative buildup of immorality. I mean, if you continue to tell people, "Human life only counts if we say it counts" and they think, "I don't think it counts in this situation," who is to dispute them? Hmmm, I don't know, I can't see anything that would make 2021 more violence-prone than any other pandemic-ridden, incompetent-government, offended-on-a-hair-trigger year. Can you?
Just Too Easy
Apparently the women's basketball team at Baylor no longer qualify as "ladies." They've dropped the "Lady" from their team name and now admit to just being "Bears." "That's no lady; that's a basketball bear." Too easy.
The Message is Clear
A report claims that U.S. airstrikes, manned or unmanned, killed something between 22,000 and 48,000 civilians in the war on terror over the last 20 years. I'd suggest that's hard to calculate, especially in this situation, because the term "civilians" refers to those who are not in the armed services, so almost anyone killed in the war on terror would most likely have been civilians, since almost all terrorists are civilians. It should be mentioned that 25,000 people were killed by terrorists in 2019 alone. But, who's counting, right?
Coincidence?
Immediately following Mexico's Supreme Court decriminalizing the murder of babies, a 7.0 earthquake struck Acapulco. Coincidence?
Compassion
In the infinite wisdom that every talk show host possesses we learned that unvaccinated people don't deserve beds in hospitals. So says Jimmy Kimmel. The compassion is overwhelming. Hey, look, let's do this. Why don't we just get a COVID-carrier to go door to door to everyone not yet vaccinated. They can get it (or not) and live (or not) to be immune (or not). It would be over in a very brief time. Hey, it is just as compassionate as Kimmel's idea and we could do away with the silly vaccination question.
Not the Bee
Singer Actress Bette Midler made the news when she called on women to stop having sex with men until the Texas anti-abortion law was repealed. Seriously, I can't make this stuff up. Did she just come up with a great answer? I mean, yeah, women, if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex. Midler is a genius.
New Constitutional Right
Maybe I exaggerate. Maybe it's not new. But it's coming up again. The Biden administration (you remember, that good ol' Catholic boy?) is suing Texas over their new pro-life abortion law. Attorney General Merrick Garland said, "This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear." I'm looking ... I'm looking ... I find the equal protection clause and "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law", but nothing at all about the right to kill babies. How can I miss it? If it's me, I'm going to fear a government that seeks by force of law to allow killing without due process.
Here's a thought. Abortion, they say, is a constitutional right under the "right to privacy" found in the 4th Amendment. Now, to be fair, no such right is in there, but let's just go with it. If the 4th Amendment insures the right to privacy, which makes it a constitutional right for a mother to kill her baby as a matter of privacy, then why would refusal to answer the question of vaccination not be equally protected under the same law? Just thinking out loud here.
No Way!!
This can't be right. Some animals appear to be adjusting themselves to live in a climate-changed world. Now, we know that can't be because we know that climate change is going to kill us all, so someone needs to put a stop to these crazy animals and their adjustment mechanisms.
You've Got to Beelieve
"Believe the science," they tell us. And then they complain that Americans are trusting in an unproven anti-science treatment called "the human immune system." This story is about the ambitious 6-point plan President Joe Biden unveiled Thursday to both end the threat of COVID-19 and completely dismantle the liberty-loving United States as we all know it. It could be because he has natural immunity to the Constitution.
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Friday, September 10, 2021
Popular Idolatry
The Bible talks a lot about idolatry. Let's just say God is against it. The good thing is we don't do that anymore, right? No more statues as "gods" or the like. We're okay here in skeptical 21st century America.
We all know I'm not speaking truth. We no longer have statues, but we sure have plenty of idols, and I'm not talking about the TV show. If an idol is anything that replaces God in our affections, we have lots of those kind. I'm sure you can make your own list, but there is one, I think, that takes center stage -- popular idolatry. It is comfort. It is happiness. It is "what I want." "Now, hang on," some of you thinkers might say, "what if I want Jesus?" Good. But is that the case?
We have an entire section of philosophy and apologetics aimed at defending the goodness of God. It's called theodicy. Basically, if God is omnipotent and God is loving, how can there be evil in the world? Either He is unable or unwilling to fix it, and ... poof! ... your god vanishes in a puff of logic. The truth is the very question belies our popular idolatry. We are our own favorite idol.
Think about it. How many people have you heard of or known who have tossed God out on His ear because He didn't measure up? (Maybe it was even you.) He didn't provide her with the husband she wanted. He didn't save his mother or father or sibling from death or injury. He didn't get you the job you wanted or take away the pain you wanted taken away. He didn't heal me from that recurring sin. He didn't do what we wanted. Do you see where that leaves us? It is not God who is highest; it is what we wanted. As long as God meets our own standards for what we want, we'll be happy with Him. If not, we're going to have a problem.
That's what I meant before. The popular idol is "what I want." If God can provide it, we'll accept Him. If not, He's out. For real believers, that "out" may be temporary, but we won't be on good terms for some time. Because God is not our highest desire; we are. And it occurs among unbelievers and believers alike.
We all know I'm not speaking truth. We no longer have statues, but we sure have plenty of idols, and I'm not talking about the TV show. If an idol is anything that replaces God in our affections, we have lots of those kind. I'm sure you can make your own list, but there is one, I think, that takes center stage -- popular idolatry. It is comfort. It is happiness. It is "what I want." "Now, hang on," some of you thinkers might say, "what if I want Jesus?" Good. But is that the case?
We have an entire section of philosophy and apologetics aimed at defending the goodness of God. It's called theodicy. Basically, if God is omnipotent and God is loving, how can there be evil in the world? Either He is unable or unwilling to fix it, and ... poof! ... your god vanishes in a puff of logic. The truth is the very question belies our popular idolatry. We are our own favorite idol.
Think about it. How many people have you heard of or known who have tossed God out on His ear because He didn't measure up? (Maybe it was even you.) He didn't provide her with the husband she wanted. He didn't save his mother or father or sibling from death or injury. He didn't get you the job you wanted or take away the pain you wanted taken away. He didn't heal me from that recurring sin. He didn't do what we wanted. Do you see where that leaves us? It is not God who is highest; it is what we wanted. As long as God meets our own standards for what we want, we'll be happy with Him. If not, we're going to have a problem.
That's what I meant before. The popular idol is "what I want." If God can provide it, we'll accept Him. If not, He's out. For real believers, that "out" may be temporary, but we won't be on good terms for some time. Because God is not our highest desire; we are. And it occurs among unbelievers and believers alike.
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. (1 John 5:21)
Thursday, September 09, 2021
A Hard Truth to Swallow
I suspect that in various times in history various Christians had various doctrinal problems to overcome that were specific to their times. For instance, in a time when "priests" were "Those guys in priests' robes set apart for that task" -- a sharp distinction between "priest" and "laity" -- the notion of a "royal priesthood" would be hard to swallow. When the Roman Catholics instituted "dead guys rewritten" as "saints," explaining that "saints" referred to all believers wouldn't be easy. In a time when people lived as serfs, the suggestion that we will rule with Christ seemed odd. Today, I suspect, a real problem is the notion of "slaves."
The moment you read that I'd guess you probably clenched in some way. It's a hard term, both from all the negative connotations in today's racism-aware world and the history of slavery in America and Europe, as well as from the angle of American liberty. "I'm no one's slave," I've been told. Because, after all, we're free. And yet, Paul writes over and over that he was a doulos, a bondservant, a slave of Christ (Rom 1:1; Php 1:1; Titus 1:1). The concept, in fact, is so disturbing to our modern ears that some of the translators intentionally shift to "servant" because "slave" just isn't right. But it is unavoidably the word Paul uses. Thayer's dictionary includes this interesting definition of doulos: "devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests." Oh, no, that is not happening in modern, 21st century America. Today it's all about me.
Paul was pleased to consider himself a bond-servant -- a willing, voluntary slave of Jesus Christ. But he was equally clear that we are all slaves.
Some truths are hard to swallow. For us in our time I think this one is one of the toughest. "I'm nobody's slave." I heard it from a Christian. And he was offended that anyone (including Paul) would suggest it. A fine example of our willingness to read Scripture through our own preferences rather letting Scripture -- God's Word -- read us and say what God sees.
The moment you read that I'd guess you probably clenched in some way. It's a hard term, both from all the negative connotations in today's racism-aware world and the history of slavery in America and Europe, as well as from the angle of American liberty. "I'm no one's slave," I've been told. Because, after all, we're free. And yet, Paul writes over and over that he was a doulos, a bondservant, a slave of Christ (Rom 1:1; Php 1:1; Titus 1:1). The concept, in fact, is so disturbing to our modern ears that some of the translators intentionally shift to "servant" because "slave" just isn't right. But it is unavoidably the word Paul uses. Thayer's dictionary includes this interesting definition of doulos: "devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests." Oh, no, that is not happening in modern, 21st century America. Today it's all about me.
Paul was pleased to consider himself a bond-servant -- a willing, voluntary slave of Jesus Christ. But he was equally clear that we are all slaves.
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. (Rom 6:16-18)Here we see that we all present ourselves as slaves -- slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. Slavery is the normal operating condition of the human being since we are not, by nature, actually autonomous. The question is not "Am I a slave or am I free?" That question is settled, slaves. The question is "Too whom am I a slave?" Good or evil? Christ or sin? There is no "none of the above" option.
Some truths are hard to swallow. For us in our time I think this one is one of the toughest. "I'm nobody's slave." I heard it from a Christian. And he was offended that anyone (including Paul) would suggest it. A fine example of our willingness to read Scripture through our own preferences rather letting Scripture -- God's Word -- read us and say what God sees.
Wednesday, September 08, 2021
Ill-Equipped
The wife-half of a couple we know has had a breakdown. Her husband is trying to get her the best care he can, but these kinds of things are tough. She requests the outlandish and then wonders why people are so mean that they won't let her. Like, "My husband is mean to me; he won't let me fly off the roof." (Fictional; just to present the idea.) The wife is friends with my wife and she calls fairly often to talk, complain, chat, whatever. My wife tries to maintain a pleasant demeanor and friendly conversation while steering her away from the bizarre, but it's not easy. The woman is no longer in touch with reality, so offering reality as a remedy doesn't help. My wife says she is ill-equipped to handle this kind of thing.
Scripture indicates that sin rots the brain. Starting first with suppressing the truth about God (Rom 1:18-20), humans become "futile in their speculations" (Rom 1:21). Left unchecked, this leads to becoming fools (Rom 1:22), the exchange of the truth for a lie (Rom 1:25), and eventually to a debased mind (Rom 1:28). It's for this reason that God said, "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). (That's actually a quote from God.) It's for this reason that Paul urged the renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2). Simply stated, the longer we are immersed in sin without any brakes, the more we lose touch with reality.
In our current society, we've created a bifurcation. There is "logic" and there is "feeling." This is easy to see in a child. They want something. You say, "No." "Why?" they want to know. "What's wrong with you? Why so mean?" Well, they want to drive or smoke or drink or ... something that will cause them harm. You say "No" because you care. Because you understand the rationale behind the "No." But you can explain all about how much harm it would cause and how they shouldn't be doing those things -- at least, not yet -- and about how much you care and how much better it would be if they listened. But we're not talking about "logic" here. We're talking about "feeling." And the reasons (logic) you offer are not typically persuasive because they're feeling, not thinking. We, largely, as a society, have arrived at that place. We don't think; we feel. We use bullet-words. (I just made that up; a combination of "bullet points" and "words" with the clear link to "bullets".) These are intended to express something, but it's not just an idea; it's a judgment call. "Anti-abortion," "homophobic," "transphobic," "racist," "sexist," "hater" ... these sorts of words. They have meaning, but we've re-engineered them to have feeling instead. And having endowed them with emotional impact, we use them with the intent of preventing thinking and gaining a feeling instead. So we calmly and coolly talk about "inclusiveness" while we exclude those who don't meet our version. We happily complain of those "judgmental" folks in judgmental terms. We have no problem castigating those we deem "intolerant" and their views ... which we won't tolerate. We don't think it through. Think. Why does "he" who believes he is a "she" need to take on "socially-constructed" "she" characteristics? Is "she" defined by dresses and make up and breasts? No. But that's where we go. Why?
This, then, is where we find ourselves. This society has so immersed itself in unabated sin that it has, literally, lost its mind. It has had a breakdown. So here we Christians are, trying to help those around us with the one thing that can help them -- the Gospel. And we're doing the best we can explaining the logic and the reasoning and the notions. We're Apologizing -- defending the faith with logic -- and we're pulling out our Bibles and presenting all the evidence we have. And they're not listening. Why? Because we are ill-equipped to deal with a society that operates on "feel" rather than "think." They think they're thinking, but they're perfectly happy to operate with their cognitive dissonance, holding blithley two contradicting ideas, one in each hand, and affirming them both.
We've moved past logic. Post-modernism required it. Quantum physics required it. ("Yes, it is perfectly reasonable that something could come from nothing.") Logic is out; "feel" is in. For the believer, though, it is our minds that are important (Rom 12:2). Our minds are damaged and renewal is necessary. Our hearts are questionable, but that is fixed by a new heart. We have God's Word and we have the Truth (John 14:6), but we are ill-equipped to address the insanity that is modern society, where boys can be girls and "marriage" can mean everything or nothing and "good and evil" are relative and God is "whatever I say he/she is." For starters. This is why we must not rely on our finely honed reasoning skills. First, most of us don't have them, fooled by the world as we are. More importantly, the world doesn't care, not interested in "think" rather than "feel" as they are. So it's a good thing we have the God of the universe to rely on, isn't it?
Scripture indicates that sin rots the brain. Starting first with suppressing the truth about God (Rom 1:18-20), humans become "futile in their speculations" (Rom 1:21). Left unchecked, this leads to becoming fools (Rom 1:22), the exchange of the truth for a lie (Rom 1:25), and eventually to a debased mind (Rom 1:28). It's for this reason that God said, "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). (That's actually a quote from God.) It's for this reason that Paul urged the renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2). Simply stated, the longer we are immersed in sin without any brakes, the more we lose touch with reality.
In our current society, we've created a bifurcation. There is "logic" and there is "feeling." This is easy to see in a child. They want something. You say, "No." "Why?" they want to know. "What's wrong with you? Why so mean?" Well, they want to drive or smoke or drink or ... something that will cause them harm. You say "No" because you care. Because you understand the rationale behind the "No." But you can explain all about how much harm it would cause and how they shouldn't be doing those things -- at least, not yet -- and about how much you care and how much better it would be if they listened. But we're not talking about "logic" here. We're talking about "feeling." And the reasons (logic) you offer are not typically persuasive because they're feeling, not thinking. We, largely, as a society, have arrived at that place. We don't think; we feel. We use bullet-words. (I just made that up; a combination of "bullet points" and "words" with the clear link to "bullets".) These are intended to express something, but it's not just an idea; it's a judgment call. "Anti-abortion," "homophobic," "transphobic," "racist," "sexist," "hater" ... these sorts of words. They have meaning, but we've re-engineered them to have feeling instead. And having endowed them with emotional impact, we use them with the intent of preventing thinking and gaining a feeling instead. So we calmly and coolly talk about "inclusiveness" while we exclude those who don't meet our version. We happily complain of those "judgmental" folks in judgmental terms. We have no problem castigating those we deem "intolerant" and their views ... which we won't tolerate. We don't think it through. Think. Why does "he" who believes he is a "she" need to take on "socially-constructed" "she" characteristics? Is "she" defined by dresses and make up and breasts? No. But that's where we go. Why?
This, then, is where we find ourselves. This society has so immersed itself in unabated sin that it has, literally, lost its mind. It has had a breakdown. So here we Christians are, trying to help those around us with the one thing that can help them -- the Gospel. And we're doing the best we can explaining the logic and the reasoning and the notions. We're Apologizing -- defending the faith with logic -- and we're pulling out our Bibles and presenting all the evidence we have. And they're not listening. Why? Because we are ill-equipped to deal with a society that operates on "feel" rather than "think." They think they're thinking, but they're perfectly happy to operate with their cognitive dissonance, holding blithley two contradicting ideas, one in each hand, and affirming them both.
We've moved past logic. Post-modernism required it. Quantum physics required it. ("Yes, it is perfectly reasonable that something could come from nothing.") Logic is out; "feel" is in. For the believer, though, it is our minds that are important (Rom 12:2). Our minds are damaged and renewal is necessary. Our hearts are questionable, but that is fixed by a new heart. We have God's Word and we have the Truth (John 14:6), but we are ill-equipped to address the insanity that is modern society, where boys can be girls and "marriage" can mean everything or nothing and "good and evil" are relative and God is "whatever I say he/she is." For starters. This is why we must not rely on our finely honed reasoning skills. First, most of us don't have them, fooled by the world as we are. More importantly, the world doesn't care, not interested in "think" rather than "feel" as they are. So it's a good thing we have the God of the universe to rely on, isn't it?
Tuesday, September 07, 2021
The Only
I have had no small numbers of people -- I'm talking self-identified Christians -- who have told me "I don't like your God." For some the concept of His Sovereignty is not palatable. "You're saying He's in charge of everything? You've neglected my Free Will!" For others His justice is unacceptable. "Punish sin with eternal hell? No way!" There are certain aspects of the God I see plainly represented in the pages of God's Word that a significant amount of Christians find offensive.
When Scripture describes Man, it uses an "only" term. "Every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen 6:5). That wasn't a passing condition. He said again, "The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Gen 8:21). "There is none righteous; no, not one. There is none who does good; no, not one." (Rom 3:10, 12). And so on. It remains so to this day. When Scripture talks about God, it uses several "only" terms. Jesus is the "only begotten Son" (John 3:16, etc.). God is "the only God" (Jude 1:25). He is "our only Master and Lord" (Jude 1:4). There is "only one Lawgiver and Judge" (James 4:12). He is the "only Sovereign" (1 Tim 6:15). He is "the only wise God" (Rom 16:27). Over and over He gets these unique labels. And it grinds on us.
We humans (remember, the ones with the "only evil continually" hearts) like to think we are wise, we are sovereign in some sense, we are lawgivers and judges, we are masters and lords. We find the cross offensive because it stands in stark contrast to our self-perception that says, "No! God is not the only!" followed by "I will be like the Most High!"
It takes something other than human effort to relegate oneself to "less than" in these terms. We would have to admit that we are not the pinnacle of wisdom and we could, unfortunately, be wrong ... yikes! ... in a lot of our thinking. We'd have to agree that we are not sovereign. We make choices -- we aren't coerced -- but in the end God alone is Sovereign. Oh, that chafes. As Christians we nod and agree that we are saved by grace apart from works ... and then continue to think that we have a part -- a major part -- in our own salvation. "God is not our only Salvation! Jesus saved me, and I helped!" What do we have to do to surrender all that? It turns out, then, that the "only" aspects of God are our only hope. And it turns out that that's a good thing.
When Scripture describes Man, it uses an "only" term. "Every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen 6:5). That wasn't a passing condition. He said again, "The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Gen 8:21). "There is none righteous; no, not one. There is none who does good; no, not one." (Rom 3:10, 12). And so on. It remains so to this day. When Scripture talks about God, it uses several "only" terms. Jesus is the "only begotten Son" (John 3:16, etc.). God is "the only God" (Jude 1:25). He is "our only Master and Lord" (Jude 1:4). There is "only one Lawgiver and Judge" (James 4:12). He is the "only Sovereign" (1 Tim 6:15). He is "the only wise God" (Rom 16:27). Over and over He gets these unique labels. And it grinds on us.
We humans (remember, the ones with the "only evil continually" hearts) like to think we are wise, we are sovereign in some sense, we are lawgivers and judges, we are masters and lords. We find the cross offensive because it stands in stark contrast to our self-perception that says, "No! God is not the only!" followed by "I will be like the Most High!"
It takes something other than human effort to relegate oneself to "less than" in these terms. We would have to admit that we are not the pinnacle of wisdom and we could, unfortunately, be wrong ... yikes! ... in a lot of our thinking. We'd have to agree that we are not sovereign. We make choices -- we aren't coerced -- but in the end God alone is Sovereign. Oh, that chafes. As Christians we nod and agree that we are saved by grace apart from works ... and then continue to think that we have a part -- a major part -- in our own salvation. "God is not our only Salvation! Jesus saved me, and I helped!" What do we have to do to surrender all that? It turns out, then, that the "only" aspects of God are our only hope. And it turns out that that's a good thing.
Monday, September 06, 2021
Heavy Laden
It's Labor Day, a day we celebrate labor. Of course, the original Labor Day was not a celebration of labor, but a celebration of labor unions. And the primary reason for that is that most of us don't find labor worth celebrating. Many Christians consider it part of the curse.
Okay, so maybe a distinction without a difference. Interesting, then, that Jesus says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." (Matt 11:28). Oh, that's appealing, isn't it? It should be; that was His point. But He didn't say, "I'll remove your labor." He said, "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." (Matt 11:29). Hold on, now. "Yoke" evokes images of oxen working hard. It does, but it also includes hard work done together rather than alone. A yoke ties two animals together so they can share the load. And it is His yoke, so it is a good thing. And it includes "rest" in there. Labor is not gone, but it's also not a problem. He says it provides "rest for your souls". How is that possible? He finishes with, "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." (Mat 11:30).
We can celebrate Labor Day, then, because Christ celebrates labor. He can alleviate the "heavy laden" without removing valuable work and, in that, provide rest for your souls. Happy Labor Day ... as long as it's that labor we celebrate. (Frankly, I'm not too keen on celebrating "labor unions.")
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return." (Gen 3:17-19)There it is, plain as day. Only ... it's not. Notice that the curse is not work; it is hard work. We know that work is not a curse because before he ever sinned God assigned Adam and Eve work (Gen 1:28; Gen 2:15, 19-20). Labor was of value. The curse was not labor; it was hard labor.
Okay, so maybe a distinction without a difference. Interesting, then, that Jesus says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." (Matt 11:28). Oh, that's appealing, isn't it? It should be; that was His point. But He didn't say, "I'll remove your labor." He said, "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." (Matt 11:29). Hold on, now. "Yoke" evokes images of oxen working hard. It does, but it also includes hard work done together rather than alone. A yoke ties two animals together so they can share the load. And it is His yoke, so it is a good thing. And it includes "rest" in there. Labor is not gone, but it's also not a problem. He says it provides "rest for your souls". How is that possible? He finishes with, "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." (Mat 11:30).
We can celebrate Labor Day, then, because Christ celebrates labor. He can alleviate the "heavy laden" without removing valuable work and, in that, provide rest for your souls. Happy Labor Day ... as long as it's that labor we celebrate. (Frankly, I'm not too keen on celebrating "labor unions.")
Sunday, September 05, 2021
Building Bridges
The story is told of a group of hikers who wanted to climb yon hitherto unclimbed peak. They set out, but soon discovered a chasm they couldn't cross. So they went about fabricating a bridge and made it over. They continued, but encountered more of these obstacles. At some point they got so good at building these bridges that they stopped, opened a bridge-building business, and did quite well for themselves. Of course, they never hiked that peak.
We have seen those people ... and they are us -- Christians in 21st century America. We know the origins of Christianity; we have the book in our hands. We know the singularities of Christianity; the Son of God died to pay for our sins, we are saved by grace apart from works, we are born again, etc. We can see that the purpose of the Christian life is to know God and bring others to that same relationship. All clear as day. And yet ...
Someplace along the way many (most?) of us stopped to build bridges. That is, we stopped for side issues. Some stopped to pursue social justice. Some halted because they were appalled at the immorality of their day. Some "hove to" because the going got rough. "Really? Make disciples? That's a lot of work. All those 'one anothers'? 'Humility like Christ'? 'It's not about me'? Way too much." We're deeply concerned about particulars, like marriage, but have almost entirely forgotten God's primary purpose -- in marriage, for instance. And so on. So we end up as Christians and we go through the motions because, as I said, we know what those are, but we've forgotten the purpose. We've built a lot of bridges; can't we just keep building bridges instead of, you know, climbing to that peak?
Here's the difficulty. Like that story, bridges are necessary. We do need to pursue caring for the needy -- beginning first with our own. We do need to address immorality ... beginning first with our own. There are lots of bridges we do need to build. But when we lose track of our direction, we lose our direction. When the bridges become the purpose, the bridges become pointless. When we forget that we're supposed to be glorifying God and doing good works for the purpose of glorifying God, we forget our purpose. When we neglect making disciples and caring for one another in a myriad of ways, we get lost. And we make that ultimate purpose and relationship with Christ another mere religion. We need to remember our goal -- "like Christ." We need to return to our first love -- knowing God.
We have seen those people ... and they are us -- Christians in 21st century America. We know the origins of Christianity; we have the book in our hands. We know the singularities of Christianity; the Son of God died to pay for our sins, we are saved by grace apart from works, we are born again, etc. We can see that the purpose of the Christian life is to know God and bring others to that same relationship. All clear as day. And yet ...
Someplace along the way many (most?) of us stopped to build bridges. That is, we stopped for side issues. Some stopped to pursue social justice. Some halted because they were appalled at the immorality of their day. Some "hove to" because the going got rough. "Really? Make disciples? That's a lot of work. All those 'one anothers'? 'Humility like Christ'? 'It's not about me'? Way too much." We're deeply concerned about particulars, like marriage, but have almost entirely forgotten God's primary purpose -- in marriage, for instance. And so on. So we end up as Christians and we go through the motions because, as I said, we know what those are, but we've forgotten the purpose. We've built a lot of bridges; can't we just keep building bridges instead of, you know, climbing to that peak?
Here's the difficulty. Like that story, bridges are necessary. We do need to pursue caring for the needy -- beginning first with our own. We do need to address immorality ... beginning first with our own. There are lots of bridges we do need to build. But when we lose track of our direction, we lose our direction. When the bridges become the purpose, the bridges become pointless. When we forget that we're supposed to be glorifying God and doing good works for the purpose of glorifying God, we forget our purpose. When we neglect making disciples and caring for one another in a myriad of ways, we get lost. And we make that ultimate purpose and relationship with Christ another mere religion. We need to remember our goal -- "like Christ." We need to return to our first love -- knowing God.
Saturday, September 04, 2021
News Weakly - 9/4/21
Great COVID News!
A report came out that said 33% of Americans got COVID in 2020. Now, that's really good news. We were at an 11.6% infection rate and a 1.6% death rate, but if this news is true, the death rate is down to 0.6% and we're much, much closer to herd immunity. In fact, this should all be done with pretty soon. I'm counting the minutes.
In other COVID news, from what they tell us, the only hope we have to survive COVID at all is the vaccine. If we can all get vaccinated, COVID will end. It is, they tell us, a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Except ... now we're finding that something like 30% of cases in Los Angeles are breakthrough cases. In other words, the vaccinated (with a vaccine that is "95% effective") isn't nearly as effective as they promised. Who knew?
That Makes Sense
A chaplain is by definition a clergyman. His job is to conduct religious exercises for the military, institution, etc. That's why it is that Harvard has opted to choose for their latest Chief Chaplain an atheist. Because who better to conduct religious exercises than someone who declares, "We don’t look to a god for answers." Yale is considering an equally sensible chaplain, a Tesla.
The Obviously Impossible
That sleazy media. They're reporting on the impossible. They say that the U.S. did a drone strike in Afghanistan. They say it "targeted a vehicle carrying at least one person associated with the Afghan branch of the Islamic State group." Now, we know that can't be since the Taliban made the agreement that no terrorist groups would be allowed in Afghanistan. And the Taliban is nothing if not true to their word ... right? (By the way, to the "It's all Biden's fault" side, please note that the original agreement with the Taliban that we would withdraw if they would play nice was with Trump. This is not one of those "If you losers would only have voted for the right guy" situations.)
Judicial Mandate
An Illinois mother went to a court hearing on expenses and child support and lost custody of her son. What horrible thing had she done? She hadn't been vaccinated against COVID. The father didn't ask for it. It was just the judge's decision. Now, I've known so many cases where judges leave kids with a parent who abuses and misuses their children -- far too common -- but this is one for the books. What's best for any kid is to rip apart his family and call it "child welfare."
Equally disturbing is the judge who ordered an Ohio hospital to give one of its COVID patients Ivermectin, a horse deworming drug that the CDC and FDA have issued warnings against. For all those "I'm not getting the vaccine because it hasn't been FDA approved" types, just stop. Just ... stop. This judge mandated it.
Alarm Bells?
Maybe it's nothing. Maybe it's business as usual. Or maybe ...? The story is that President Biden is hosting Ukraine President Zelensky at the White House along with all the support the U.S. can offer. Now, I don't know how many others the president has hosted like this (I haven't heard of any), but wasn't it exactly this that the "Hunter Biden" issue was over? "I didn't offer any influence peddling" while the Ukraine receives more attention than most? I'm just wondering. Oh, don't worry. The American people have already forgotten about Hunter Biden. The media made it so.
Pride
A California teacher was placed on administrative leave after she urged her students pledge allegiance to a gay pride flag because the American flag made her "uncomfortable." Your "public schools" at work, inculcating your kids one at a time ... or in groups. (Please note: This took place in Orange County, normally considered a "conservative bastion" in California.)
I'll Bee Back
The Bee offered an op-ed titled, "Your Freedom Is Not More Important Than My Fear Of Your Freedom." Another one of those satire pieces that just might be true. Maybe more like "Your Freedom is nor more important than my right not to be offended ... or have to think about it"?
I'm sure you've heard about the Texas pro-life law that went into affect this month, so I'm sure you get the story from the Bee of Texas being overrun by unborn babies seeking asylum from other states.
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
A report came out that said 33% of Americans got COVID in 2020. Now, that's really good news. We were at an 11.6% infection rate and a 1.6% death rate, but if this news is true, the death rate is down to 0.6% and we're much, much closer to herd immunity. In fact, this should all be done with pretty soon. I'm counting the minutes.
In other COVID news, from what they tell us, the only hope we have to survive COVID at all is the vaccine. If we can all get vaccinated, COVID will end. It is, they tell us, a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Except ... now we're finding that something like 30% of cases in Los Angeles are breakthrough cases. In other words, the vaccinated (with a vaccine that is "95% effective") isn't nearly as effective as they promised. Who knew?
That Makes Sense
A chaplain is by definition a clergyman. His job is to conduct religious exercises for the military, institution, etc. That's why it is that Harvard has opted to choose for their latest Chief Chaplain an atheist. Because who better to conduct religious exercises than someone who declares, "We don’t look to a god for answers." Yale is considering an equally sensible chaplain, a Tesla.
The Obviously Impossible
That sleazy media. They're reporting on the impossible. They say that the U.S. did a drone strike in Afghanistan. They say it "targeted a vehicle carrying at least one person associated with the Afghan branch of the Islamic State group." Now, we know that can't be since the Taliban made the agreement that no terrorist groups would be allowed in Afghanistan. And the Taliban is nothing if not true to their word ... right? (By the way, to the "It's all Biden's fault" side, please note that the original agreement with the Taliban that we would withdraw if they would play nice was with Trump. This is not one of those "If you losers would only have voted for the right guy" situations.)
Judicial Mandate
An Illinois mother went to a court hearing on expenses and child support and lost custody of her son. What horrible thing had she done? She hadn't been vaccinated against COVID. The father didn't ask for it. It was just the judge's decision. Now, I've known so many cases where judges leave kids with a parent who abuses and misuses their children -- far too common -- but this is one for the books. What's best for any kid is to rip apart his family and call it "child welfare."
Equally disturbing is the judge who ordered an Ohio hospital to give one of its COVID patients Ivermectin, a horse deworming drug that the CDC and FDA have issued warnings against. For all those "I'm not getting the vaccine because it hasn't been FDA approved" types, just stop. Just ... stop. This judge mandated it.
Alarm Bells?
Maybe it's nothing. Maybe it's business as usual. Or maybe ...? The story is that President Biden is hosting Ukraine President Zelensky at the White House along with all the support the U.S. can offer. Now, I don't know how many others the president has hosted like this (I haven't heard of any), but wasn't it exactly this that the "Hunter Biden" issue was over? "I didn't offer any influence peddling" while the Ukraine receives more attention than most? I'm just wondering. Oh, don't worry. The American people have already forgotten about Hunter Biden. The media made it so.
Pride
A California teacher was placed on administrative leave after she urged her students pledge allegiance to a gay pride flag because the American flag made her "uncomfortable." Your "public schools" at work, inculcating your kids one at a time ... or in groups. (Please note: This took place in Orange County, normally considered a "conservative bastion" in California.)
I'll Bee Back
The Bee offered an op-ed titled, "Your Freedom Is Not More Important Than My Fear Of Your Freedom." Another one of those satire pieces that just might be true. Maybe more like "Your Freedom is nor more important than my right not to be offended ... or have to think about it"?
I'm sure you've heard about the Texas pro-life law that went into affect this month, so I'm sure you get the story from the Bee of Texas being overrun by unborn babies seeking asylum from other states.
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)