TULIP - I

We're up to "I" in this series. We started with the problem: Man's radical depravity that cuts him off from God without any means of remedying it himself. We went to "U" which says that God, therefore, chooses whom He will save without regard to their own merits. He saves on the basis of His own purposes. Then to "L" where we see that the Atonement -- our only means to salvation -- was intended to pay for all the sins of those whom He has chosen ... and does so perfectly. And then there's "Irresistible Grace."

Remember. These are all linked. Radical Depravity requires that God chooses whom He will save without regard to their merits ... because they have none (Sovereign Election). Particular Atonement holds that those who are sovereignly elected have their sins paid for. So, the next question is, how effective is God's choice of you? Can you refuse? Does it all boil down to me and my choice? So, again, let's look at what "Irresistible Grace" does not mean. It does not meant that God's grace cannot be resisted. Clearly people all over the world resist the Holy Spirit all the time (Acts 7:51). What it does mean is that, if you are among the elect, at some point the Holy Spirit will certainly overcome your resistance and you will be saved. Does the Bible agree?

On one hand, Scripture is clear that "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44). Jesus said, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (John 6:37). No exceptions. In Antioch in Pisidia Paul left the Jews and took the gospel to the Gentiles, and "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). Note how "appointed" precedes "believed." Jesus gave the same cause-and-effect concept when He told the Jews, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). That is, in order to believe, you have to be first "one of My sheep." In Romans 8 where God tells us why "all things work together for good" according to God's purpose, he explains, "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified" (Rom 8:28-30). There is no break in that chain, starting from "foreknew" all the way to "justified" and "glorified" ... and there is no mention of anything we do to cause or prevent it. Paul knowingly upset his readers when he wrote, "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18). Nothing about us being in the loop. John wrote that we are born again "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). Not your birth, not your will, not your choices -- just God. Clearly, then, everyone that the Father gives the Son will indeed come to the Son and not by their own skillful efforts or willingness. God successfully overcomes the hostility of Natural Man (Rom 8:7) by first redeeming him and then applying grace ... without the permission of the recipients, as it were. We are, as we all know, saved by grace and not of ourselves (Eph 2:8-9).

Given the extent of the problem -- our "dead in sin" nature -- God requires a means of salvation that does not rest on the unsaved. He chooses on the basis of His own purposes, redeems those whom He chooses, and regenerates those He has redeemed. If left to our own devices, we would accept none of that. We couldn't understand; we wouldn't receive. So He does it. He does it all. In Paul's terms we are all "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," ready for the wrath God so willingly has to give (Rom 9:22), and He graciously makes of us vessels of mercy (Rom 9:23). No thanks to us. No merit to us. No dependence on us. He ... just ... saves ... whom He chooses and with perfect efficiency. How about, instead of "Irresistible Grace," we call it "Effectual Grace"?
________
For your added reference: Rom 5:8; John 10:27-29; Php 2:13; 2 Cor 4:6; Rom 1:16; etc.

TULIP - L

Okay, so far we have "T" where mankind as a whole are sinners from birth, dead in sin, hostile to God, without hope. So how would anyone get saved? First, we have "U" where God chooses whom He will save ... which is good since none of us merit His choice. He chooses for His own purposes and has already, before time began, recorded everyone who will be saved. What else is needed? Well, we need some method of being saved. We need what Scripture calls "atonement" -- an "at-one-ment" whereby our sins are forgiven and set aside and we can have peace with God. That's our "L" -- Limited Atonement.

This one is one of the most hotly contested points. "Limited Atonement??? Christ died for all sin!" So, as before, I need to explain that "Limited Atonement" is not about limitations to the Atonement Christ made for our sin; it's about the intent. Here's the question. When Christ died on the cross, when He died for sins, when He said, "It is finished" (John 19:30), to what was He referring? What was His aim? Did He die to forgive all sin for all mankind for all time? Or ... not? Scripture is abundantly clear that not all will be saved. John wrote, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name (John 1:12). Clearly there's the "other shoe" there: "Those who do not receive Him do not receive the right." Jesus warned of Hell more than anyone else. He told of those, in the end, who would call Him "Lord, Lord" and He would reject them (Matt 7:21-23). So, quite clearly, not all sin was forgiven at the cross. "Well," I've often heard it said, "you have to accept the forgiveness." The illustration is used of the prisoner on death row who is pardoned by the governor. The warden goes to him and shows him the pardon, but the prisoner refuses to accept it. So, the warden carries out the execution. Surely you can see the massive injustice perpetrated on a pardoned prisoner who is, essentially, executed without fault simply because he wouldn't accept the pardon. That's a variety of things, but "justice" is not on that list. If all sin was paid for at the cross, all humans are forgiven and God is obligated by His own justice to welcome them all into heaven.

What does Scripture say? Jesus said, "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). "Many," not "all." (Also Matt 26:28; Heb 9:28.) Paul said that Jesus purchased "the church of God" with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Jesus specifically did not pray for the world, but for His own (John 17:9). The author of Hebrews says "those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" (Heb 9:15). That's the elect, not everyone. In Revelation 5:9 they sang a song of praise to God who redeemed us "out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Clearly Christ didn't intend to pay for the sins of all mankind and, thus, save all mankind. He did, however, pay for all the sins of His people (Matt 1:21; 1 Peter 3:18; Titus 2:14). Christ made atonement for sin, but His intent was to pay for the sin of those whom He intended to save.

"Limited Atonement," then, misrepresents the idea. A better term would be "Particular Atonement." It's not about the extent of the Atonement, but the intent. Did Jesus intend to pay for all sin for all mankind and fail, or did He intend to pay for the sin of the elect and succeed? Scripture is clear that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to cover the sins of the world. "Particular Atonement" simply says that He never intended to do so, so His sacrifice is not efficient for covering all sin. That was never His aim. It does not apply to all sin. But, thank God, it applies to all the sin of all who believe, without limitation and without our contribution. Jesus paid it all for those He has chosen.
________
As usual, I'm providing more reading for your examination: John 10:15; Eph 5:25; John 3:16; 1 John 2:18-19; Isa 53:11; Mark 14:24; John 15:13; Rom 3:25; etc.

Please note: the most common error I see when people are contending over this topic is to bring up Scriptures that appear to show the opposite. That's all well and good, except trying to prove your point by making Scripture contradictory simply makes Scripture unreliable. Agree or disagree, but make sure you are harmonizing Scripture and not pitting Scripture against Scripture. If you believe that Jesus paid for sin for all mankind for all time, what do you do with the texts that say otherwise? If you believe that Christ paid only for the sins of the elect, what do you do with the texts that seem to say "all"? Don't gloss it over. Let God be true though every man a liar.

TULIP - U

The so-called "Five Points" aren't just 5 random ideas. They are a rational line of thinking. They feed into each other. They begin with the premise of "T," what I prefer to call "Radical Depravity." We are dead in sin, incapable of even understanding the things of the Spirit, without hope or the inclination to change. In fact, we are hostile to God (Rom 8:7). The obvious next question is, "Now what? What hope is there?" Enter the concept of "U." The "U" refers to "Unconditional Election," but that, again, can be misleading.

In its memory tool form, Unconditional Election refers to the question, "What is it in me that causes God to choose me?" Before we answer that, let's set aside an immediate objection. "God doesn't choose! I do!" Nice thought, but consider two facts. First, if the Scriptures on the "T" part are accurate (biblical), we lack the capacity to choose. Second, and the real objection, is the objection that God does the choosing. Don't be deceived. The doctrine of Election is not a Calvin thing. It is throughout Scripture. God chose Noah. God chose Abraham. God chose the nation of Israel (Deut 10:15), and not because they were so wonderful (Deut 7:7-8). In the New Testament, Jesus told His disciples that they didn't choose Him, but He chose them (John 15:16). The doctrine that God chooses whom He will save is all over Scripture. We can discuss how He chooses, but there is no room to question that He chooses. The claim, then, is that God chooses whom He will save not on the basis of anything in the ones He chooses. His choice is not conditioned on the chosen. It is "unconditional" in that sense. Maybe "Sovereign Election" would be better.

Scripture repeatedly says that God's choice occurred before time began. It says, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ..." on the basis of "the kind intention of His will" (Eph 1:4-5). The Revelation says the names of those who will be saved are "written from the foundation of the world in the book of life" (Rev 13:8; Rev 17:8). Scripture says we are chosen "not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace (2 Tim 1:9). In his example of Esau and Jacob, Paul wrote, "... though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls ..." (Rom 9:11). Paul concludes, "So then it (God's choice) does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). God chooses, then, not on anything in us -- anything we do or are -- but according to His purposes.

Those who object often call such a God "capricious." "That would mean God's just playing with us without cause or reason." No, it doesn't. It means that we are not the reason. It means that He does have reasons and purpose; it's just not us -- our merits, or our choices ("the man who wills or the man who runs"). His reasons are entirely His own. "Unconditional Election" doesn't mean "random" or "capricious." It means that God does not choose whom He will save based on the objects of His choice. It means that He clearly chooses whom He will save and He is sovereign in that choice. Which, as it turns out, is very good since, left to our own devices, our own depravity would preclude God from choosing any of us.
________
For more reading on this principle, you can try Acts 13:48; 2 Thess 2:13; Rom 8:29; John 15:16; Eph 1:11; Jer 1:5. There are certainly more. Do your due diligence.

TULIP - T

I've said before that I don't like the common acronym, "TULIP," not because I disagree with the principles, but because the chosen memory tool misrepresents the principles. So, I'm going to look at "T" -- Total Depravity -- with the aim of eliminating the misconceptions and showing in Scripture what it really is. (Please note: I won't be presenting this as philosophy or fine arguments. I'm not using Calvin or anyone else. My source document is the Bible.)

"Total Depravity" suggests that Man (I suppose, in today's world, I have to explain that "Man" is not male, but "mankind," "humanity," the human race) is depraved, totally depraved, as bad as he/she can possibly be. That would (obviously) be a mistake. The principle is not that we are as bad as we possibly can be, but that sin has affected us to the very core. There is no part of us that is not touched. And it's a bigger problem than we imagine. Maybe "Radical Depravity" is better.

The Bible explains that God made humans perfect (Gen 1:31). That didn't change until Genesis 3, when the serpent tempted Eve and the couple leapt into sin. That fall affected all of Adam's race (Rom 5:12). All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). If that's not bad enough, the ramifications of this condition are larger than we think. Scripture says we are sinners from birth. David cried, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (Psa 51:5). Elsewhere he says, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth" (Psa 58:3). That is, we aren't just sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. God said, "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). We understand that we're all sinners, but Scripture says, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12). And, if you can believe it, it gets worse. Paul wrote, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). That's a "cannot." Natural man lacks the capacity to understand the things of God. Why? Natural man is dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3). Instead, "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor 4:4). We're not as bad as we could be, but we're in a hopeless condition of sin that permeates everything.

That is the concept of "Total Depravity." It's not that we're really, really bad people. It's that we're sinners at the core and neither capable of understanding the things of the Spirit or pleasing God. Until God intervenes, we are without hope (Eph 2:12). We've all heard the calls. We're all encouraged to choose Christ. What we fail to grasp is, left to our own devices, it cannot happen. We are a rebellious people, dead in sin, without the capacity to even understand. If Someone supernatural does not do something -- something radical -- it's a story with a dreadful ending. Sugar-coating or covering up the truth of human depravity only covers the real problem. But ... obviously ... I'm going to have to continue this series to offer a solution ... God's solution.
________
For more Scripture on this, I offer John 1:12-13; John 3:5-7; John 6:63-65; 1 Peter 4:6; Gen 6:5; Jer 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Rom 8:7-8. Feel free to find more.

When Turnabout is Fair Play

I've been in the book of Acts lately and I noticed an interesting recurring concept. At the beginning of Acts, Jesus ascends to heaven and the church starts in Jerusalem. Literally thousands are coming to Christ. And, almost immediately, persecution begins. That's bad. But ... look what happened. In the persecution, Christians started fleeing Jerusalem. And the gospel went out. Oh, that's good.

By the ninth chapter the Pharisees are sending their hitman, Saul, to hunt down Christians in Damascus. That's really bad. Of course, on his way, Saul gets knocked down by a light, has a face to face encounter with Christ, and is radically converted. He becomes the Apostle to the Gentiles. Oh, that's good.

In Acts 13 the church at Antioch sent Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary trip with John Mark accompanying them. After some difficult encounters, Mark bails on them and returns to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). That's bad. Later, when Paul and Barnabas were planning their second trip, Barnabas wanted to take Mark again and Paul refuses. According to the text, "And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus" (Acts 15:39). That's really bad. Except ... they ended up creating two teams where there was originally one. Oh, that's good.

In Acts 18, Paul arrives in Corinth where he meets Aquila and Priscilla. Now, this married couple were in Corinth because they were kicked out of Rome by the Emperor Claudius (Acts 18:2). That's bad. Aquila and Priscilla became important figures in the church. They even trained Apollos (Acts 18:24-26). Oh, that's good.

Then there was the riot in Jerusalem where Paul ends up appealing to be tried by Caesar (Acts 25:12). A brilliant maneuver, it seemed, except that when they questioned him further, they found no reason to try him ... but couldn't release him because he appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:32). That's bad. But God planned for Paul to stand before Caesar (Acts 27:23-24) and Paul ended up in Rome. That's good.

I don't know if you've picked it up yet. It appears that God is in the habit of using "bad" things -- unpleasant, painful, destructive, even evil things -- to turn things to their best. It seems that God, in fact, causes all things to work together for good. Oh, wait ... I think I've seen that somewhere. Anyway, the next time you encounter difficulty, just remember this theme: "You intend it for evil, but God intends it for good." Every time. Without fail.

News Weakly - 11/16/2024

Lasting Echoes
On Election Night, 2020, we went to sleep hearing that Trump was far out in the lead. On the following morning, we learned he had been swamped, losing in key "swing states." This time, Trump made a clean sweep of the swing states. In 2020, Biden got some 81 million votes. In 2024, Harris got around 70 million votes to Trump's 75 million. One has to wonder. What happened? How did Trump lose the swing states in 2020 and sweep them in 2024? I suppose we cannot even ask if there was ... oh, my! ... possible localized election fraud in limited (you know, "swing") states in 2020 and not in 2024, can we?

Lesson Learned
New York City has been providing prepaid debit cards for illegal aliens ... oh, I'm sorry, "asylum-seekers." Mayor Adams is ending the program. Could it be that a program that pays for people to come illegally does not diminish the flow of illegals? Naw! I'm sure this is not a lesson learned.

Mean Ol' Israelis
The world stands by and watches as Hamas, Iran, Houthis in Yemen, and Hezbollah all launch a continuous barrage of missiles into Israel. It's so bad that the United Arab Emirates are calling on global leaders to de-escalate the situation. Why don't those mean ol' Israelis just take it? Why don't they just ... die? So much of the world is accusing the target of genocidal forces of doing genocide. Crazy.

The State of Education
Yale University, long considered an elite school, is going to offer a course on Beyoncé and her legacy. Because if their students can understand that, they can ... perhaps work the cash register at McDonalds. Maybe.

The Latest in WMDs
A driver in Zhuhai, China, drove his car into crowds at a stadium, killing 35 people and injuring more. He was unhappy with his divorce. They're calling it "taking revenge on society." China, of course, is moving to ban cars as weapons of mass destruction. Who needs a gun when a car is so effective?

Newsworthy?
I just liked the headline: "Flight avoids Mountain." I'm a little concerned that it's a news article. I figured "Flight fails to avoid mountain" would be newsworthy, but ...?

We've Come to This?
Netflix is making a movie about Mary, the mother of Jesus, and it's controversial. Catholics, of course, are upset because she appears to be in love with Joseph. Some Christians are upset because ... it's Netflix. But the real odd one was this. Some are upset because the part is being played by ... an Israeli woman. Seriously? It's "Palestinian erasure." They call it an offense because everyone knows Mary wasn't a Jew; she was Palestinian. Well, almost everyone. Welcome to a crazy world.

Fake News You Can Trust
The Bee offered the story of Democrats warning that abolishing the Department of Education could result in kids being too smart to vote Democrat. In other news, Trump's nomination of Matt Gaetz raises eyebrows. (You really need to see the picture to get that.) And the Department of Government Efficiency has identified 535 government workers who haven't done any work in years. (Hint: They work in the U.S. Capitol.)

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Encouragement

Barnabas was an interesting character. His actual name was not Barnabas; it was Joseph. The apostles called him Barnabas because it meant "son of encouragement" (Acts 4:36). Barnabas was known as an encourager. We are told over and over to encourage each other (Isa 35:3; 1 Thess 5:11, 14; 1 Tim 5:1). The author of Hebrews wrote,

Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb 3:12-13)

We're aware of other commands regarding interpersonal communication. We are to "teach and admonish" (Col 3:16; etc.) one another. We're supposed to "correct" those who are in opposition (2 Tim 2:25). And, in all things, of course, we are to love as Jesus loved (John 13:34-35). But ... how are we doing with all that? It seems as if some of us have that "admonish" and "correct" thing down pretty good. How many of us would classify ourselves as "encouragers"?

Don't get me wrong. "Correction" is necessary. "Teach" and "admonish" are both important. I'm not denying it. It just seems that too many of us spend far more time on these important approaches than encouragement. The biblical word is parakaleō, often translated "exhort." It means to "walk alongside." It's the idea of "It's you and me in this; let's get through it together." It is aimed at strengthening the weak so they can go the right way. It is, in fact, a primary reason Jesus promised His disciples the Holy Spirit. He would be a parakaleō -- same root word, same root idea. In all our interactions, we are called to love, sacrificially, as Christ did. I don't know about you, but I could really use some encouragement from time to time. I would really appreciate an "I'm here for you; we're in this together" person. And, if that's true, I would bet that others would, as well. So I should be that person, too. I think, in fact, it's fundamental to the concept of "discipleship," isn't it? I doubt anyone is going to change my name to "Encourager," but I'd like to be worthy of it as a follower of Christ.

Exegesis vs Eisegesis

In biblical interpretation, these two terms are two possible approaches. Exegesis is the process of analyzing Scripture to see what it means. Exegesis views Scripture objectively. Scripture says what it means and means what it says. We just need to figure out what that is. You'll notice that the two words appear similar. The prefix, "ex" in the first word means "out of," so exegesis tries to take out of Scripture what is there, and the "eis" in the second word means "into". Thus, eisegesis is reading into Scripture. Eisegesis sees Scripture as subjective. The interpreter starts with his or her own presuppositions and reads Scripture through them. "It can't mean what it appears to say because that's not what I believe to be true."

Exegesis assumes the Bible is valid, complete, fully reliable ... "God breathed." If that is true, it makes no sense to bring our own preconceptions to interpret Scripture. A person might run up against a passage that goes against their own thinking. Exegesis would say, "Well, it appears that my own thinking ... is wrong." Eisegesis would say, "It can't mean that because I know ..." and there would be reasons outside the text to deny it. When exegesis says, "That's not what this text means," it's because of the text, the context, the whole of Scripture. When eisegesis says, "That's not what this text means," it's because of a prior commitment to something else -- my ideas, my beliefs, my understanding of the world, something, but not Scripture.

What can we derive from this information? Well, both methods will say at some point or another, "This is what that text means and that is not." Exegesis would say so out of a commitment to Scripture and the claim that it is God's Word. Eisegesis would do it out of a sense of personally superior knowledge not present in the Scriptures. All of us, at some time or another, will use both methods, some more one side than others. But the central question isn't my interpretation. The central question is whether or not Scripture is what it claims -- God breathed, and complete (2 Tim 3:16-17). Eisegesis suggests Jesus was wrong when He said, "Your Word is truth" (John 17:17). And, if exegesis is going to work, we must always keep in mind that the best interpreter of Scripture ... is Scripture. That means we need to know Scripture. The better we know it, the better we can interpret it. But, maybe, you have more confidence in your own ideas and understanding. We all do at times. I would suggest that's a very dangerous place to stand. Let Scripture be true (Rom 3:4).

Strange Stuff

The Bible is full of strange stuff. No, I'm not talking about miracles and such. There are just a lot of strange things written in there that, frankly, run counter to what we know ... or what we think we know.

Take the verse in Acts. Paul made an impassioned speech in the synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia, giving them the Gospel from Egypt to Christ (Acts 13:15-41). The Jews were outraged. So he took his message to the Gentiles. There we read, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). Now, hang on, Luke. "As many as were appointed to eternal life believed"? I thought we decided if we'd believe. The text carries a two-edged message. First, believing is a matter of prior appointment, and, second, everyone who is appointed will believe.

Jesus had an odd one in one of His discussions with the Jews. They, of course, weren't believing, and Jesus told them, "You do not believe because you are not among My sheep" (John 10:26). Isn't that backward? Don't we become His sheep by believing? Jesus put it backwards, didn't He?

I just read about Lydia in Philippi. Paul talked to some women by the river. One was Lydia, who was a worshiper of God. The text says, "The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul" (Act 16:14). Isn't that a bit ... invasive? Does God actually open people's hearts? I thought we came to believe under our own power.

One of my favorite Psalms is Psalm 139. In that psalm, David makes a strong declaration of the humanity of the unborn (Psa 139:13-16). That last verse is stunning. "Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them" (Psa 139:16). Now, ask anyone. They will tell you that we determine our own future, that we make our choices. In fact, savvy philosophers will tell you if it is true that every day is written in His book before I was born, then I have no free will. Clearly, someone is confused here.

We humans, Christian or not, have a lot of ideas that we cling to from tradition or being taught or whatever that are not, as it turns out, accurate. It would be wise of us to be on the lookout for that rather than assuming we've got it right while we hold onto false ideas. Some of them can be harmful.

The Heart of the Problem

We're at a juncture here in America. We're looking at a changing of the guard. We're looking at a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled White House. More significantly, we're looking at a nation that voted to democratically elect an "existential threat to democracy." And we're all wondering, what to expect from this new world. May I suggest we might be looking at the wrong thing?

Nationally, the Democrats touted abortion as a key issue. They wanted to make it easily accessible and Republicans didn't. Obviously, this didn't make the difference they thought it would, but not because the nation wanted the Republican ideal. That's evidenced nationally by the referendums passed to expand abortion rights in so many places. In Arizona, the people passed Prop 139. It was quite recently that the state resurrected their constitutional abortion ban, only to have it shot down by the courts. So, in response ... they voted to make abortion legal, essentially, until birth. The proposition laid claim to "fetal viability" as if that's a known value, but added that any woman could choose to kill her baby in the womb if she felt it threatened her "mental health." Not her life, her mental health. Beyond that, the proposition included a rule that no laws could be passed in the future to change it. (I didn't even know that was possible.) The proposition passed by a sizeable margin, even as Trump won the state for the White House.

What's my point? There are Republicans and there are Democrats. Each wants a variety of similar and disparate things. Apparently, over on the side, the majority want to kill babies as a form of birth control. This only goes to show that government won't save us, that neither Democrats nor Republicans will make this a better world. Instead, it is the people, the individuals, the society that holds tightly to their self-centered, self-serving interests that will determine what comes next. It is said you can't legislate morality. Not true. We do it all the time. But what you truly cannot legislate is the morality of the heart, and we will continue to pursue things that drive us to the ground if God Himself does not intervene. The problem with this nation isn't government; it's human hearts. Yes, the heart of our problem is the human heart. Only God can change that. I, for one, am thankful that He always does what is right. The rest of the nation has to recognize where their "whatever I want is right" perspective is leading them. Government won't do that. Only God can.

Veterans Day, 2024

It's Veterans Day in America, a day in which we honor all who served to protect this country. Some think it's only those who fought. It's not. First, the number who fought as compared to the number who supported them is miniscule. Roughly 10% of the military sees combat. That's 90% serving as support. Second, without the support, the combat would be impossible. The task is massive, and without it combat troops would be without the necessities to do their job. So, we celebrate Veterans Day once a year for all veterans, combat or not, and thank them for their service to the nation.

Or ... we have. One begins to wonder. America is moving. Americans are changing. The military is shrinking. Funds are being diverted. Even fighting precepts are changing. We might want to hurt 'em, but don't kill 'em. From all of history where lots of civilians died in the process, we've arrived at societal outrage if one "noncombatant" dies ... without even being able to define or ascertain "noncombatant." (In Gaza, for instance, we're constantly hearing about civilians being killed, without regard for the fact that most of these "innocent civilians" gladly give their lives in the cause of destroying Israel.) Gallup reported that American confidence in the military is at the lowest in over two decades. Recruitment is down. The military has increasingly switched its focus to politics rather than national defense. And the impact of "diversity, equality, and inclusion" in a military setting has severely diminshed our readiness.

In the past, the military stood for an honorable occupation in which men and women sacrificed their own welfare and their own lives in order to defend the nation in which they believed. I served for 10 years in that capacity myself. These people deserved our thanks. They still do. As we begin letting go of this truth, we begin to show ourselves as less than grateful. If this nation is not worth defending, then perhaps it's time to stop. God raises nations and takes them down. Today we're taking this nation apart piece by piece with false versions of "racism" and "sexism" and all sorts of "isms" that were a problem but are now contradictory. Armies have changed, as evidenced in the Middle East where we're facing civilian terrorists. Warfare has changed. Values have changed. Perhaps it's time to decide whether the new version is better than the old, because it doesn't seem like we're deeply invested in protecting this new one and we're very happy to denigrate the old.

On Worship

I think I've just about run down the Col 3:16 theme. Some are getting tired of it, and I can see why. I feel like it's time to move on.
________
It's interesting that Paul told the Roman Christians to give their bodies as a living sacrifice as an act ... of worship (Rom 12:1). Now, hang on, Paul. We're American Christians. We know worship. That's the singing part of a church service. Okay, maybe a little more. I've heard people claim that the sermon is part, but I've also heard pastors argue that it's not. No, no, worship is just, primarily, a glad heart toward God. So what does this "present your bodies as a living sacrifice" thing have to do with feeling good about God?

I think we have an oddly modern, American view of "worship." Worship is, in essence, applying worth -- "worth-ship" if you will. Christian worship is applying the utmost value to God. And, as long as we're in this physical life, we're going to be in conflict with that very concept. Paul said, "No one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it" (Eph 5:29). We are, in fact, deeply in love with ourselves. So if worship is assigning to God the highest value, we'd have to give to Him that which we consider most valuable. In its most basic form, that's our own bodies. If we can offer to God that which we value most, that's worship.

Many of us are going to "houses of worship" today. It's only partly accurate, isn't it? Because, if "worship" is assigning the utmost value to God, then worship occurs anywhere. Anywhere that people assign to God the highest value, people are worshiping. In church, in the parking lot, at home, anywhere. We should, I believe, all be in the business of sacrificing self on the altar as an act of worship to our God ... as a good starting point for worship.

News Weakly - 11/9/2024: Election Edition

Top Story
The top story this week, of course, is the presidential election results, regardless of who won. In this case, it appears that Donald Trump has been reelected after four years out of office. Now, without reference to whether or not that's good or he's good, it has to be a phenomenal event, given the 8-year drive from the Left, from politicians to the media, to vilify and demonize this man. They've presented him as Hitler personified, a Russian shill, an existential threat to democracy, and, in all likelihood, the end of the world as we know it. In the story above, NBC says, "Through a firehose of false and polarizing information and smears of his rivals ... Trump painted America as a corrupt ... nation." Because, even now, he is the ultimate threat, and the Left and its media won't back down. Somehow, against all odds, he's been voted back in.

And, #2
The second item is almost as significant as the first. Voters have given the GOP control of the Senate. A Republican president with a Republican Senate can be a powerful thing. (I should note, however, that our Congress has been a major flop ... for the past 20 years or more, so I'm not holding my breath on this.) It may or may not be a significant outcome, but it does say something about the American people. Latinos swung from their Democratic history. The abortion question didn't fix the Democratic ticket. And we'll have to see the outcome in the House.

In Other News
In Annie, Get Your Gun, Annie sings, "My tiny baby brother, who's never read a book, Knows one sex from the other, All he had to do was look." Well, Delaware elected a guy that isn't quite as savvy as Annie's baby brother to represent them in Congress. Sarah McBride is listed as the first openly transgender person elected to Congress. (Here's a little tidbit for you. Look "her" up. You'll find "she" was a male at birth, but from all the sources I found "she" was born "Sarah Elizabeth McBride." I found no sources that would tell me "her" original, male name. Talk about a whitewash.) I think I would have voted for Annie's baby brother before I would have voted for someone who cannot tell the obvious.

The New American Standard
So, Trump won the White House and Republicans won the Senate, but America appears to be establishing another new standard: abandon the most defenseless. After the Supreme Court cleared the Roe v Wade obstacle, the "pro-kill-the-babies" group have gone on a rampage to make sure babies would die young. Seven states voted to make sure babies could still be killed in the womb. The demand to be allowed to kill babies as a contraception method says really horrible things about too many Americans.

To B, or Not to B?
As a result of Harris's loss, there is a swell of interest in the 4B movement. It's a Korean movement that pushes women to refuse heterosexual marriage, childbirth, and dating men. The aim is to punish men for Trump winning. The outcome, of course, if taken to its natural conclusion would be the end of the human race. There! That oughta teach 'em.

Your Best Source for Fake News
The Bee went wild on this election week. There was the story of Democrats calling for an end to the popular vote. The Bee included a picture of Trump giving his victory speech wearing a Hitler mustache. I particularly liked the story of how America has unburdened itself from what has been. Oh, and the classic headline, "Trump Beats Another Woman."

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
________
And a bonus entry, just for fun:

Truth in Advertising.
There's a commercial for an AI service for business to help automate all sorts of things. In the commercial, an AI cat shows a system that scans products and automatically rejects defective ones. The cat knocks one of them off the belt, and the human nearby says, "That one was fine." I like it. An advertisement for AI that promises it will mess things up for you. Truth in advertising.

Counterintuitive Christianity

I was reminded recently of an old (1970) song from the group, Bread, and David Gates, called, It Don't Matter to Me. The song says to his significant other, "It don't matter to me if you take up with someone who's better than me." What kind of crazy talk is that? He goes on to say, "'Cause your happiness is all I want, for you to find peace, your peace of mind." David Gates was obviously a loon.

I've written in the past about how counterintuitive Christianity is. One aspect that has been occupying my thoughts for a while now is this singular concept:

If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. (Matt 16:24)

This, quite starkly, stands in direct opposition to our standard way of thinking as humans in general and Americans in particular. "Take up a cross? Don't be silly. We don't embrace hardship and suffering. We flee it at all cost. Deny myself?? That's just crazy talk. Every human being has the right, nay, the obligation to pursue his or her own happiness, dreams, and aspirations. Deny myself? Don't be stupid."

We followers of Christ, however, should not -- must not -- respond that way. We Christ-ians are expected to embrace Christ's words and adhere to them with joy. But, what would that look like? We don't have a lot of examples to look to in order to see how that goes. The Christian life is predicated on death (Matt 16:24-26; Rom 6:4-5; etc.). We're supposed to be killing the flesh (Rom 8:13; Col 3:5). We're expected to die to self. What would that look like? It would make us respond differently when others try to steal, physically or otherwise, that which is ours (Matt 5:38-42). It would free us from desperately pursuing our own happiness in favor of finding greater happiness in giving to others (Acts 20:35). It would place the proper emphasis on relying on God for meeting our needs (Rom 8:32; Php 4:19) and free us to pursue meeting the needs of others. We would crave servitude for the sake of Christ (Mark 9:35) and find greater joy in it. The idolatry of greed (Col 3:5) would vanish and a lifelong satisfaction in God would replace it. We would be looking at a life that was extremely rare in today's world. I described this idea once to a Christian counselor. Her response was, "That's crazy."

I said we had few examples of this. We all know one.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:5-8)

If we are to be followers of Christ, is that not the ideal we ought to pursue? Think of that while we complain about our lives, our societal mistreatment, our lacks and losses. I think we might be missing the point. I think we might be missing a better option, a higher joy. And maybe, just maybe, David Gates wasn't so far out as we might think.

Virtual Unreality

A while back the story came out about a 52-year-old father of seven children left his wife to be a 6-year-old girl. That was not a misprint. He wasn't with a 6-year-old girl; he identified as one. He didn't "want to be an adult," so he moved in with an adoptive family ... with their own 7-year-old daughter. He lived as a 6-year-old girl, going to work every day and ... wait ... hang on ... a 6-year-old that goes to work every day?

Back then it was outrageous. Today it's passé. Because today we don't much care about facts. "I identify" is the rule. Except ... when it's not. He can identify as a she and you'd better accept that. He can identify as a 6-year-old and you'd better accept that. He can't identify as a black woman for some reason. He can't identify as 7 foot tall according to the rules that no one has published yet. But, doggone it, you'd better not even try to point to a birth certificate or a driver's license (that no 6-year-old has a right to have) and cry, "Foul!" His family asked him to be their husband and father and he said, "It would be like asking a 6'2" man to stop being 6'2" tall." Right, because height is obvious ... and sex and age are not? He originally identified as 8-years-old, but his adoptive sister, 7 at the time, wanted a younger sister, so he went for 6 years old ... because "I identify" is a solid rock when he wants it to be and constantly variable if he doesn't. Completely irrational.

What disturbs me most, however, is not this man who has gone off the rails. What disturbs me most is this adoptive family who subjected their very young daughter to this absolutely obvious nonsense and said, "Yes, this is real." (It really broke my heart when I realized that this little girl was the same age as my granddaughter at the time. Imagining parents subjecting a little girl to such confusion was unconscionable to me.) It's the society that says, "You must accept as fact what all of reality denies." It's the world that embraces irrationality as rational and requires the remaining, thinking people to knuckle under or suffer their wrath. That such a thing as this guy happens isn't too surprising; we have deceitful hearts (Jer 17:9). That we pat him on the back and say, "Good for you" and tell his "sister" to ignore all reality and society to submit or else ... that's the tragedy. That's the product of the father of lies.

Secret Source

In Acts 13, Luke records the commissioning of Paul and Barnabas for their first missionary journey.

Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus. (Act 13:1-4)

Notice the transition between that second to last sentence and the last. They fasted and prayed, laid on hands, and "they sent them away." The very next verse says, "So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit ..." Interesting, isn't it? Quite clearly the men of Antioch sent out Paul and Barnabas. They did the fasting and praying. They laid the hands on them. They sent them away. So why does it say they were sent out by the Holy Spirit

Too often we tend to be deists. Deism holds that God made the world, spun it all up, and let it go. He's not actually doing anything now; just watching what happens. We all tend to think like that at times. I do the right thing. I lead people to Christ. I be a good husband to my wife or a good wife to my husband. I am doing what I'm supposed to. God's just ... watching. But Paul said, "No one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12). Jesus said, "Apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). Scripture says, "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rpm 11:36). Even in our working out our salvation the Bible says, "It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). So from whence comes the good we do? From Him. What is the source of our obedience? Him. He is the source of everything.

We do do good works, obey His commands, love our spouses, all sorts of good things. Oh, not perfectly, but if we are believers, He will say, "Well done good and faithful servant" (Matt 25:23). But let's never forget; whatever good we do, He is the source, the power. the motivation. They sent out Paul and Barnabas, but it was, ultimately, the Holy Spirit that did it. We should keep a sober view here, not thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought (Rom 12:3).

Election Day, 2024

Simple and short.

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. (1 Tim 2:1-2)

As you vote (or have voted), pray to the God who holds all things in His hand that we may lead a tranquil, quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

And a reminder.

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." (Mat 28:18)

Pie in the Sky

Christianity has often been referred to derisively as a "pie in the sky" religion. We believe that, while everyone recognizes that there is pain and suffering here, someday we will find peace, no more tears, perfection. "Pie in the sky." In truth, almost all humans, Christians or not, hold to some sort of "pie in the sky" ideal. We speak of seeing "the light at the end of the tunnel" when some dark times are upon us but "soon there will be light." We encourage people we care about with "Don't worry; it will get better." We all see the pain around us and hold to a vague future time, near or far, that things will get better, permanently or temporarily.

Joel Osteen wrote a book, Your Best Life Now, where he claimed that you could live now in that "best life." In his version, you just believe and all good things will come to you. Health, wealth, prosperity ... it's all yours if you only believe. Joel Osteen was (and is) confused ... but he wasn't far wrong. While we Christians and the rest of the world look for a "someday" when things will be better, Scripture teaches something obviously and completely counterintuitive. Humans look for the end of suffering and James encourages us to "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance" (James 1:2-3). The human "best life" is pain free, but Paul says that we have peace with God now and can, therefore, "exult in our tribulations" (Rom 5:1-5). Jesus said He came to give us the abundant life (John 10:10) not "someday," but here, now. Over and over Scripture tells us that, while suffering is certain in this life and, absolutely, we look forward to a day when suffering is no more, the truth is we can look to today with great joy knowing that God is at work, causing the pleasant and the unpleasant to work together for good (Rom 8:28-29).

The accusation is true. We do look for that "pie in the sky" day when we will be with our Savior in eternal bliss. The accusation fails when it suggests that's all we have. And we fail when we look forward only to that "eternal pleasantness" without rejoicing in the "all things good" now that our God provides. It is counterintuitive -- it isn't natural or what we would normally expect -- but it is no less true. God is providing right now our "best life now" in the form of pain and blessings building a better product in us than we could have had if all was pleasant all the time. Rejoice, Christians! Our "pie in the sky" is coming, but it's also right here now, in the midst of tough times. We don't need to look for the light at the end of the tunnel; we just need to trust our ever-present Savior.

Nearer My God To Thee

A while ago T. David Gordon wrote a book entitled, Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal. Hymns are out. "Praise songs" are in. Now, don't misunderstand. I don't dislike "praise songs". It's just that eliminating hymns with such rich content, songs that often obey the direct command of Scripture (Col 3:16), is a bad choice in my book.
__________________

Nearer, My God, To Thee
Sarah F. Adams

Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee,
E'en tho' it be a cross that raiseth me;
Still all my song shall be,
"Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!"

Tho' like the wanderer, the sun gone down,
Darkness be over me, my rest a stone,
Yet in my dreams I'll be
Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!

There let the way appear, steps unto heav'n;
All that Thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n -
Angels to beckon me
Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!

Then with my waking thoughts, bright with Thy praise,
Out of my stony griefs, Bethel I raise;
So by my woes to be
Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!

Or if on joyful wing, cleaving the sky,
Sun, moon and stars forgot, upward I fly,
Still all my song shall be,
"Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!"

Sarah Adams was a lover of music. She and her sister put together a hymnal for their church. While they were working on the project, their pastor asked them if there was a song to accompany his upcoming sermon on the story of Jacob's ladder from Genesis 28:10-22. Sarah launched herself into the idea of writing a song for it, and "Nearer, My God, To Thee" was the result.

The hymn has had a larger impact than Sarah would have thought. Many stories are told about the hymn and its use. Some noted theologians on a trip through the Middle East reported being deeply moved by a band of Syrians standing together and singing it. In 1936, a woman was on her way to the mission field when her train was caught in the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, flood. Hopelessly lost, she stood atop the sinking car and sang, "Nearer, my God, to Thee . . ." In 1912, aboard the ill fated Titanic, survivors said the band played this hymn as the ship sank.

Most of the song can be understood by reading through the Genesis account of Jacob's ladder, but there is an interesting thread through the song that I'd like to illustrate. Jacob was on the run when he had this vision. Times were not good. It is this vision of God in tough times that makes this hymn unusual.

The first line says it quite succinctly. I want to be nearer to God at all costs, even if that cost is a cross. At what cost would you draw nearer to God? Your immediate comfort? Your job? Your family? Your life? The real question is, how important is your relationship with God? The subplot in this hymn is simple. All that occurs in my life is God's attempt to drive me nearer to Him. The sooner I recognize that and cooperate with Him, the better off I'll be.

Look at some of the circumstances mentioned in this hymn. The first verse speaks of a cross. The second refers to being a wanderer, to being in darkness with only a stone for a pillow. The third verse says that all that God gives is given in mercy. The fourth verse cries, in praise, that it is my woes that bring me nearer to God. Verse five says that death itself is merely that which brings me closest to God.

We have forgotten that suffering is God’s chosen method to purify His own. James says that trials bring us to perfection (James 1:2-3). Noah learned that by building an ark and surviving a flood that killed every human being alive. Abraham learned that by leaving all that he knew to go to a land that God promised, and by offering his own son as a sacrifice to God. Joseph learned that through being enslaved, wrongfully accused, and falsely imprisoned. Moses learned that in his desert experience before God put him to use freeing Israel from Egypt. Joshua learned it through 40 years in the desert and the rest of his life in battle in Canaan. Paul indicates that perseverance in persecution is evidence of our worthiness to be a part of the kingdom of God (2 Thess. 1:4-5). Peter says suffering proves faith (1 Peter 1:6-7).

Suffering is promised to the believer. Suffering is for our benefit. And we know that God causes all things to work together for our good. May our prayer be the same. "Nearer, my God, to Thee, even though it be a cross that raiseth me."

News Weakly - 11/2/2024

Make 'Em Pay
In 1882, the US Navy shelled a Tlingit village in Alaska and burned it to the ground. Recently, after almost 150 years, the Navy is apologizing, along with apologies for other such incidents. Now, obviously, the incidents were immoral -- should never have happened -- but I'm not sure how a naval officer today apologizing for something the Navy would never do today is of any benefit to anyone living today. I don't see how holding someone accountable today for what was done more than 100 years ago makes sense. Well, okay, whatever. I suppose we'll need to put that on our list of reparations.

This is News
Starbucks made the news by telling office workers ... they had to come to work. Imagine that! The youngest generation complains that 8 hours a day is too much and office workers are outraged that they'd actually have to ... work in an office. Between COVID, government regulation, and societal pressures, we're choking free enterprise to death. Before long they won't be able to make any choices about their own businesses, and that can't be a good thing ... for employers, employees, or the nation as a whole.

Silence Isn't Always Golden
The Washington Post (WaPo) has refused to endorse a candidate, and the world goes crazy. They reported the loss of 250,000 subscribers not for what they said, but for what they didn't say. James Carville is quite sure the mass exit is an endorsement (by readers) of Kamala. So clearly the public demand is that WaPo not only endorse a candidate, but that they endorse the Left candidate. Which suggests that WaPo readers have no interest in an unbiased news source. I suppose we knew that, but it doesn't bode well for a "free press" ... or rational Americans.

Defining the Enemy
I'm just wondering. When did Elon Musk become "the enemy"? In his early days, he was hailed as a godsend. His electric cars were magnificent. He might even save the planet!! (Okay, no one said that last bit.) But when he ceased toeing the line politically, he became public enemy #1. Okay, #2. Trump has #1 wrapped up tight. So now they want him to stop launching satellites. The California Coastal Commission has already sued to stop Musk (and no one else) from using Vandenberg. What made Musk, the entrepreneur, the enemy of the state?

Choose Wisely
North Korea has tested an intercontinental ballistic missile days before the election. They claim it can hit the US. I sincerely hope that Harris gets elected so she can hit North Korea with such a word salad that they would never dare to do it. Or ...

Your Best Source for Fake News
The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia could remove noncitizens from their voter rolls (actual story) ... you know, like the law says ... and the Democrats are miffed because the court ruled in favor of adhering to the law. How can our system survive if the courts rule in favor of the law?? Joe Biden called on deplorable "garbage" (in the form of Trump supporters) to tone down the rhetoric (actual story), and Trump scores a coveted endorsement from Hefty.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Who, Me? Reconcile With Him?

Christianity is actually Judaism as God planned it. We serve the Jewish Messiah who is the Lamb of God that takes away sins (John 1:29). We are the chosen people (1 Peter 2:9), grafted into the tree (Rom 11:24). So we have to ask, do we still follow the Jewish law? Of course, the Bible is not unclear on that. Christ said He came to fulfill the law (Matt 5:17), so we no longer offer lambs for sin, but we do offer the Lamb for our sin. We no longer go to temple because we are the temple (1 Cor 3:16-17). The Old Testament food laws were abrogated in the New Testament (Mark 7:18-19; Acts 10:15). So we find some laws are no longer in effect for this new Judaism we call Christianity.

Which brings me to my question. Jesus said, "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering" (Matt 5:23-24). Is that a command that applies to us today? I know that a significant number of Christians go to church or to their prayer closet or wherever knowing someone has something against them and they do nothing to be reconciled to that someone. I wouldn't doubt I'm guilty of it. So we pray and praise and go on as if nothing is wrong when this command hangs over us. How? Do we think that the other person isn't mad enough to pursue us, so we have nothing to worry about? Do we think it's not bad enough to take care of? Do we just expect them to forgive us and move on? Or is this command one of the Old Testament commands we can eject now? I can see why that might be an option. We no longer "present an offering at the altar" since the sacrificial system is gone. But we do present an offering. We do "continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God" (Heb 13:15). We do present our bodies as a "living sacrifice" as an act of worship (Rom 12:1). So I'm kind of stuck here.

Jesus gave this command, and if we're to be Christians, followers of Christ, I'd think we'd want to pursue this question more carefully. How diligent are we in reconciling to those we've wronged? Maybe they've forgiven us without our asking, but that doesn't erase the need to reconcile, does it? Do we care about reconciling with others as part of our worship with God? Do you have someone you've wronged without reconciling? I think we (each of us) need to examine the Scriptures and our hearts to see if we're not glossing over a potentially serious problem.

Halloween

Halloween over the past decades has exploded in America's love of holidays. Not a few people I've talked to have told me that Halloween is their favorite holiday. Homes I've seen have more decorations for Halloween than any other, including Christmas. In 2023 Americans spent over $12 billion on Halloween. How should Christians view this ... holiday? (I question the term "holiday" because of its original intent as a day held holy.) The Bible is clear on Halloween. It mentions it ... not once. Still Christians all over are quite adamant about what's right for Christians on Halloween. They may/may not celebrate it. It is/isn't a celebration of Satan. Recognizing Halloween is/isn't a sin.

Isn't Halloween a pagan holiday (where "holiday" is actually "holy day")? Just about everyone you ask will tell you it is, rooted in a Celtic festival called (but not pronounced) "Samhain." (It's pronounced "sow-in.") That story was from Sir John Rhys (1840-1915), a Welsh scholar who made the claim but didn't provide much proof. It stuck. Modern scholars aren't convinced. Samhain was a Celtic celebration of the change of the season celebrating the Otherworld. Halloween was invented by the church around AD 835 to honor those who had died, especially martyrs. November 1st was "All Saints Day," so October 31st was "All Hallows Eve," shortened today to "Halloween." Who plagiarized whom is still up in the air, but the two celebrations at least similar in time of year merged practices and now we have events that no one even remembers what they originally commemorated.

How, then, should Christians respond? Obviously, celebrating the evil is out. On the other hand, Scripture celebrates martyrs. Glorifying Satan and his minions is clearly an improper response for Christians, but is it wrong to get together, have some exchange of candy, etc., even recognize those who have died for the faith? Here's what I believe. It's not, explicitly, in Scripture. Recognizing the wrong of celebrating evil, I'm not sure Halloween necessarily is only that. I know of many, for instance, who pass out tracts with their gifts of candy. What I do know is "greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world" (1 John 4:4). On the other hand, that which is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23). It's not wise to take these matters lightly. It's not wise to overburden them. The Christians that tell me, "Halloween is Satan's night" (and they have told me that) are mistaken (Psa 118:24). The Christians that tell me, "There's no danger in a little 'devilish' fun" are equally mistaken. We always need to check our motives and not violate what we believe to be true. And, always, we must ask ourselves, "Does it glorify God?"

For Such a Time as This

I grew up in a strong Christian family. I learned good practices and good doctrine and good behavior. I always understood that God was sovereign, but ... only mostly sovereign. Later, I began to get inundated with Scriptures on God's sovereignty and I ran into a problem. Scripture doesn't describe God as "mostly sovereign." It doesn't describe Him as sovereign ... contingent upon me. He's absolutely sovereign. "He does all that He pleases" (Psa 115:3). "The mind of man plans his way, but YHWH directs his steps" (Pro 16:9). "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18). "Ah Lord YHWH! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for You" (Jer 32:17). "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'" (Dan 4:35). "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes" (Pro 21:1). On and on and on. And it became unavoidable. God wasn't sovereign; He was Sovereign. As Paul put it, the only Sovereign (1 Tim 6:15).

I remember processing that after the first wave washed over me. Really? Sovereign? He does whatever He wishes? Really?? I thought, "That would mean that ... Hitler, was God's will. That He planned it, intended it for good (Gen 50:20). All the evils over the centuries were still evil, but God allowed them to produce good (Rom 8:28)." And I thought, "Wait ... that would mean that I was God's best choice as the father of my sons. Nope! Can't be!" Of course, the weight of Scripture overwhelmed my resistance and I finally settled that issue in my mind. It has become a rock of safety, in fact.

Esther was a nobody, a captive Jewish girl in Persia. Her claim to fame? She was pretty. Circumstances worked out to bring her to the attention of the king and she became the queen. Then forces were at work to completely eliminate the Jewish people in Persia, and she was asked to talk to the king. That could result in her execution. Her cousin, Mordecai, said, "If you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?" (Est 4:14). Esther was a nobody who was the right person at the right time for the right task. She obeyed and saved the Jews. Because God is absolutely Sovereign. That's all of us. You and I are in our individual circumstances not by chance, but by design. We are who we are where we are because God has designed us to be so for such a time as this.

Gratefully Loved

The word is "oxymoron." Most probably know that word, but for those of you who don't, it refers to a literary device that combines two apparently contradictory terms to convey a new idea. Like, "old news" or "jumbo shrimp" or "virtual reality" or "awfully good" or "military intelligence." One that often comes up is "happily married." Ladies and gentleman, I am a living oxymoron because I am precisely happily married. I love my wife. She loves me. We don't have significant disagreements. We don't have conflicts over what to do, where to go, what to eat, how to spend our money, any of the standard conflicts in the majority of marriages. We fit. We are well-suited for each other. We are ... happily married.

I was thinking the other day that, while I'm quite certain my wife loves me from her words to her deeds, I don't know why. I'm not a real ... catch. I'm not rich, handsome, loads of fun, sexy ... any of that stuff. When I first met her, I asked what she wanted in a husband. Short, thin, bald, no facial hair, on and on about characteristics that were the opposite of me. I often suffer from delusions of adequacy -- I know I'm not great, but I think I'm "good enough" in a lot of areas. Yet, every time I start to think that, something happens to tell me it just isn't so. I'm human, prone to error, make mistakes. I'm useless around the house for fixing stuff. Digital is more my thing. I am no great catch ... and still, she loves me. Still. Without reserve. Which only makes me appreciate, value, and love her more.

Jesus, speaking of the sinful woman who cleaned His feet, said, "Her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47). I am awed every day, it seems, that Jesus loves me and died for me. I'm no catch for my wife, but I was His enemy (Rom 5:10). I'm not an extremely capable worker for my wife, but He chose the foolish and the weak (1 Cor 1:26-31). In terms of God's standards of perfection (Matt 5:48), I'm not even in the vicinity, but He ransomed sinners (Matt 20:28). Daily I'm aware that I'm not what I should be. Clearly He didn't choose me because He thought I was. And for that, I am extremely grateful and amazed that He loves me. For that I love Him more and more.

Delight?

Psalm 1 says that the godly man avoids sin. Instead, "His delight is in the law of YHWH, and in His law he meditates day and night" (Psa 1:2) David wrote, "Delight yourself in YHWH; and He will give you the desires of your heart" (Psa 37:4). Now, that's something, isn't it? There's something different in the word "delight" that is beyond mere "enjoy." It means great pleasure -- "a high degree of gratification."

According to the Psalms, we're supposed to delight in the law of YHWH. Strike that. Replace it with the definition. We are supposed to find a high degree of gratification in God's law. Really? We're supposed to find great pleasure in God. Note the promise that accompanies that. If we find our highest pleasure in God, He will give us what we desire. Of course, that's not a "health and wealth" gimmick. Obviously if our greatest joy is found in what God wants, then He'll give us our heart's desire -- what God wants.

The concept of this kind of response to God -- delight -- is throughout Scripture. He isn't our task master. He isn't just our ruler. His intent is that He would be our highest joy. Is He yours? Do you delight in the Lord? How much? What do you delight in? If not Him, what? And why not Him? It goes beyond acceptance or connection. He wants to be our greatest joy. When He is, we will find greater joy.

Suffering

The last one was a bit long, but you seemed to like it, so here's another theme in hymns.

I want to explore, for a moment, the unusual slant the hymns have on suffering. Their viewpoint seems to be different than ours. Now, of course, most Christians would say they were willing to suffer for the sake of Christ. We in modern day America don't have too much of that occurring, so we can easily concur that suffering for Christ is the right thing. How, then, do we respond when our employer fires us for talking to a co-worker about Christ during a lunch break? Righteous indignation? Or peaceful acceptance of our suffering for the sake of our Savior? The question gets harder. You believe that suffering for your faith is the right thing to do. You see it as right, even admirable. You have a great deal of respect for the martyrs who gave their lives through the centuries for the sake of Christ. But how do you respond when a parent snubs you because they don't like your choice of jobs or spouse? This isn't a matter of religious conviction. There's nothing commendable in this. Or how do you respond when you are in an accident on the freeway and lose a leg? There's nothing noble in this. You haven't been persecuted for your beliefs. This is just suffering. Do you degenerate to the "Why, God?" syndrome that beats angrily at the door of heaven demanding an answer from the Creator as to how He could do something like that to one of His own?

The hymns see suffering in a much different light. While we differentiate between sacred and secular, religious and real life, they seem to meld the two. Look at "Be Still, My Soul":

Be still, my soul! The Lord is on thy side.
Bear patiently the cross of grief or pain.
Leave to thy God to order and provide,
In every change He faithful will remain.
Be still, my soul! Thy best, thy heavenly friend
Through thorny ways leads to a joyful end.

There doesn't seem to be any discrimination between the sacred or the secular. It speaks of "the cross of grief or pain." That could be any grief, any pain. The last verse speaks of "disappointment, grief, and fear," of sorrow and change. These sufferings have little to do with one's beliefs or faith. They are sufferings common to everyone. Each of us suffers disappointment, fear, and the trauma of change.

What does the hymn provide in the way of comfort? "The Lord is on thy side." "Thy heavenly Friend through thorny ways leads to a joyful end." How does the hymnist deal with pain? She places her trust squarely on the reliable Lord of the universe, the One whom "the waves and winds still know." "He faithful will remain." Other hymns agree. "Precious Lord", for instance, places our lives in the hand of God, resting in Him to take us through the trials. This attitude changes entirely the face of difficult circumstances.

"How Firm A Foundation" trusts God to take us through fiery paths, and adds a further twist to the problem of suffering. "The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine." Can you actually believe that God is at work in the suffering, that He is using it for your good (Rom. 8:28, 29)? This would almost make suffering desirable, wouldn't it?

"It Is Well With My Soul" gives different enlightenment on the question of "Why do bad things happen to good people?" and some help on how to handle it. The second verse is as follows:

Tho' Satan should buffet, tho' trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ hath regarded my helpless estate,
And has shed His own blood for my soul.

This blurs the line between secular and sacred. It attributes suffering to Satan. From this vantage point, suffering for your faith differs little from other harsh circumstances. It all comes from Satan, and it is all under God's control. (The book of Job illustrates this perfectly.) Further, the verse looks to Christ's regard for "my helpless estate," to His death for me as comfort during my trials.

In "Nearer, My God, To Thee," there seems to actually be a request for suffering. In the first verse the hymnist states a longing to be near to God, even if a cross is required. Darkness (verse 2) and woes (verse 4) are seen as welcome friends that bring one closer to God, and death brings the ultimate closeness (verse 5).

Scripture supports this view. Peter says that insomuch as we share in the sufferings of Christ, we should rejoice (1 Peter 4:13 14). Paul told the Corinthians that suffering allows us to experience the comfort of God and to comfort others (2 Cor. 1:3 6). Beyond that he says, "Our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all." (2 Cor. 4:11 18) To the Colossians he said, "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." (Col 1:24) He saw suffering as adding to the cause of Christ! James tells us to rejoice in suffering because God is at work building perseverance and maturity (James 1:2-4). Peter says we were called to suffer (1 Peter 2:21), and that suffering weans us from sin (1 Peter 4:1).

How different is our view today? We see suffering as barely tolerable in the case of the sacred, but unacceptable in the realm of the secular. We flee pain at the onset and pursue no course that looks like trials will be included. Further, we see hard times as God's stamp of disapproval. Clearly the one who is suffering has angered God somehow. We have built churches around healing the wounded and ministries around binding the suffering. The pursuit of pleasure and escape from pain has become our lifestyle - our god.

What a unique view of suffering the hymns have! The hymnists see suffering as the loving work of God in the lives of His children. It is not pleasant, nor is it unbearable. God is disciplining His children for their good (Heb. 12:1-11). His aim is to form their character into a reflection of Christ. God, in fact, cares more about character than comfort. Shouldn't we? Scripture says that suffering provides comfort for us and others, brings glory for the future, adds to Christ's work, builds maturity, and drives us from sin. The hymn writers wanted that. How can we not?

News Weakly - 10/26/2024

Who's Minding the Coop?
The report is out. Apparently last year "multiple incursions" of drones hit sensitive military and intelligence sites in the US, some as large as 20' long. Indications are they were ship launched. The incursions lasted for more than two weeks. In all this, the military ... did not respond. Like the decision to let the Chinese balloon drift across the entire nation, the government opted to smile for the cameras. So if the military is not allowed to protect our secrets or their installations, who is protecting us now? I know: our "nanny state" government. "Shh, there now, relax. We know what's best." Yeah, right.

Who Knew?
I always thought it was New York City, but Chicago is "the rattiest city" in the U.S. ... for 10 years running. You go, Chicago. Maybe it will distract from the black-on-black crime that plagues your city.

Thanks for the Laugh
The story is of little significance. A couple people were arrested after releasing 200 minks from a Pennsylvania farm. I just liked the headline on my news feed. "Minks released, two arrested." Apparently, despite the headline, no minks were actually arrested in the making of this story.

Thanks for the ... Bidenomics
The US housing crisis worsened with home sales falling to the lowest level since 2010. I'm wondering if Dems really think 4 more years of this is a good thing.

A Fearsome Force
A Florida mother is suing Google's AI for her 14-year-old son's suicide. Apparently the mother failed to regulate her son's activities online or teach him the difference between reality and fiction. He became deeply attached to his chatbot "friend" and killed himself because he couldn't live outside that world. On one hand, AI is nonsense. No such thing. Just try an "AI search engine" and you'll see. On the other hand, AI is developed by amoral developers, making it intrinsically dangerous. And, in the end, the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. Should we trust ourselves to AI with that hanging over us?

Fake News You Can Trust
Perhaps the worst allegation yet on Trump. A woman claims he touched her inappropriately with classified documents while praising Hitler. That ought to do it. Two stories side by side: Kamala told a citizen, "You're at the wrong town hall" after they tried to ask her a question followed by Joel Osteen telling a man, "You're at the wrong church" after he proclaimed, "Jesus is Lord." But this was my favorite this week. Apparently even Dominion voting machines are refusing to vote for Kamala.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

My Thoughts

"My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," declares YHWH. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)

The text is clear; it's not ambiguous. And most of us acknowledge that. Sure, sure, God's thoughts are not our thoughts. So, if that's so ... how come we don't believe it?

It has been said you can always tell what a person believes by what they do. After Al Gore introduced his "inconvenient truth" about the problem of global warming, he showed up at a university where I worked. He came to deliver his message about how our aircraft and SUVs are killing the planet, arriving in a private jet with his entourage followed by a train of SUVs. What did Gore believe? Obviously not his own warning. So we claim to believe that God's thoughts are not our thoughts and then complain that God is not thinking like we are. What do we believe?

When we see difficulties, we respond, often, with ... distrust. "Where is God when it hurts?" "Why would a good God do ...?" "Is He even there?" God says, "Hey, I don't think like you do. I don't operate like you do." And, "Trust Me." Joseph saw it. "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). Job saw it. "YHWH gave and YHWH has taken away. Blessed be the name of YHWH" (Job 1:21). It's there, all the time. We must not expect Him to be like us. Indeed, we can't afford Him to be like us. We need a God whose thoughts are higher than ours and whose ways exceed our capacity. We can trust Him even when -- especially when -- we don't understand.

Grateful

I just spent some time in California with my mother, celebrating her birthday. It was, as always a good time, a blessed time. We had a group call to include the siblings that were out of state, too. It was very nice. In the conversation, it was noted that my mother is known for one, very specific trait. "How are you, Mom?" one sibling asked, "And don't say 'grateful'." Why? Because we all know that my mother's singular descriptive of her everyday existence is "grateful." She's grateful for health and comforts, for friends and family, for running water and the ability to walk ... on and on. When my father died almost two years ago, she was grateful. Grateful that he was no longer in pain, that he was at home with the Lord, that she would join him again someday. Grateful. A good descriptor of my mother.

The command of Scripture is broad: "In everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus" (1 Thess 5:18). That's right: "In everything." The author of Hebrews writes, "Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name" (Heb 13:15). Gratitude as a lifestyle. The original, common downfall of humans has been a lack of gratitude (Rom 1:21). Giving thanks to God, then, seems to be a matter of critical importance.

I don't know about you, but I'm quite sure I'm not nearly as good at that as I ought to be. I'm not even nearly as good at it as my mother is, and she's another human with human frailties like me. The standard I'm supposed to meet is to give thanks in everything. I'm barely sufficient at giving thanks for the pleasant things. I clearly have some work to do in the area of gratitude. I can only hope that the day might come where people ask me, "Please don't say 'grateful'. We all know you're grateful." Don't worry; I haven't arrived at that point yet.

Promises, Promises

We like the promises of God. They're so sure, so solid, so comforting. Well ... mostly. Like the one Jesus made in His High Priestly prayer.

"I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." (John 17:14)

"Wait, now ... hang on. We are promised to be hated by the world?" Yep. Another sure promise. It's odd, then, that we complain so much about it. It's strange that we whine because what Jesus said would be the case is the case.

No, it's not odd that we don't like being hated. What is odd is that we're surprised and even offended. Like Job told his wife, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10). In fact, there is another promise associated with the one that says we'll be hated for His sake.

"Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man." (Luke 6:22)

Interesting. "Blessed are you when men hate you ... for the sake of the Son of Man." Blessed? That's what He says. In the biblical version of "persecution" (versus our modern understanding), "persecution" ranges from martyrdom on down to "when people insult you" and "falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me" (Matt 5:11). Insults and false accusations count, in God's economy, as "persecution. And the proper response is, "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great ..." (Matt 5:12).

We face this kind of stuff almost every day. Followers of the "god of this world" hate us for being followers of Christ. So-called "Christians" berate us for being ... Christians. Jesus told us, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt 10:34). He said it was expected (Matt 10:35-36) and necessary (Matt 10:38). So, if you feel like the world hates you at times, relax. It's certainly true. Jesus said it would be. But, don't worry; rejoice. This world is not our home, and the difficulties we face for single-mindedly pursuing Christ produce great reward. So, let's quit complaining and start rejoicing.

Legacy

A legacy is anything handed down from the past. I'm thinking of the concept of a legacy as a way to be remembered. How will you be remembered?

I think of David, the young man that God referred to as "a man after My own heart" (1 Sam 13:14). Now, that's a legacy, isn't it? Despite David's failings, God considered David someone pursuing God's heart. I'd love to be remembered that way. Scripture describes Stephen as "full of grace and power" (Acts 6:8). Mind you, Stephen wasn't a king or an apostle. He was, in fact, a "deacon" -- he waited tables. And he "saw the glory of God" (Acts 7:55). Imagine being remembered that way. An angel appeared to Daniel and called him "dearly loved" or "highly esteemed" (Dan 10:11). Dearly loved ... by God. It was the characteristic that the angel felt was most necessary to be expressed. It would be amazing to be called "dearly loved by God." Or how about Abraham? If you've read the story of Abraham, you've seen that he was chosen by God ... to be chosen. He was the father of the nation of Israel. And he had special promises of God. So, when he came across a threat, he ... folded. "She's my sister!" (Gen 12:13). Nice, Abraham, way to trust God. He did it twice (Gen 20:2). And to top it off, he tried to "help God out" by fathering a child with his wife's maid, Hagar (Gen 16:1-2). And, yet, in the end, Scripture lists him in the "Halls of Faith" (Heb 11:8-10; 17-19). I'd love to be known as a man of faith.

You can list your own versions. Maybe people you've known. My mother is a woman whose life is radically marked by her attitude of gratitude for anything and everything God gives. A good legacy. George Muller kept a list of requests and answers and recorded over 5,000 answered prayers. He started 117 schools and ran orphanages and traveled over 200,000 miles as an evangelist ... before the days of airplanes and automobiles. He was regarded as a man of prayer. Excellent legacy. What will yours be? How will you be remembered? I would suspect that a good aim would be to be thought of as someone who sought to glorify the Lord (Matt 5:16; 1 Cor 10:31). Are you building a legacy that points to Him?

Political Speech

I didn't write this. It actually came from Mad Magazine back in 1970. But I really like it, and this seems like the perfect time amidst not merely the campaigns, but the hatred being fed to us, to have this little moment of fun. Please be aware. This is a lot of wordplay. You may need a dictionary if wordplay isn't your thing.

I can hardly stomach the political ads and the nonsense that is classified "political speech" these days. Most of it is nonsense. "Don't vote for my opponent; he/she is a jerk." Practically nothing about why I should vote for you. Just all the reasons I shouldn't vote against you. Oddly, your opponent told me the same thing about you! Years ago I read this absolutely marvelous All-Occasion Non-Slanderous Political Smear Speech. Loved it. Turns out it's still available! So here it is for your enjoyment.

Guaranteed Effective All-Occasion Non-Slanderous Political Smear Speech
By Bill Garvin
MAD #139, December 1970

My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. My opponent has openly admitted he feels an affinity toward your city, but I happen to like this area. It might be a salubrious place to him, but to me it is one of the nation's most delightful garden spots.

When I embarked upon this political campaign I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead -- to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.

At first, I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities. Now I do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he's going to get one!

It might be instructive to start with his background. My friends, have you ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what was underneath? Well, exploring my opponent's background is dissimilar. All the slime and filth and corruption you could possibly imagine, even in your wildest dreams, are glaringly nonexistent in this man's life. And even during his childhood!

Let us take a very quick look at that childhood: It is a known fact that, on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys at a certain playground. It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate excessively in their presence, but even urged him to do so. Most explicable of all, this man who poses as a paragon of virtue, exacerbated his own sister while they were both teenagers!

I ask you, my fellow Americans: Is this the kind of person we want in public office to set an example for our youth? Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background -- no, not when you consider the other members of his family:

* His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities.
* The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion.
* His second cousin is an admitted Mormon.
* His uncle was a flagrant heterosexual.
* His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte ... outside a church!
* His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature.
* His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homosapien.
* His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease.
* His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine.
* His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers!
* And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian.

Now what shall we say of the man himself?

I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political radicalism, economic irresponsibility, and personal depravity. His own record proves that he has frequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well.

* He perambulated his infant son on the street.
* He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin.
* He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately.
* He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses.
* He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company -- and has taken part in such gatherings himself.
* He has been deliberately averse to crime in our streets.
* He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic tastes.
* Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the American flag.
* Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign "isms", he has coolly announced his belief in altruism -- and his fervent hope that some day this entire nation will be altruistic!

I beg you, my friends, to oppose this man whose life and work and ideas are so openly and avowedly compatible with our American way of life. A vote for him would be a vote for the perpetuation of everything we hold dear.

The facts are clear; the record speaks for itself.

Do your duty.