In the King James Bible, Paul writes to Timothy that we should be "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15). Of course, in order to properly understand that, we have to know what "rightly dividing" is ... in the King James language. In the Greek, the word means literally "to make straight" (which I won't be so foolish as to suggest means "Stop people from being queer"). In the King James English, it was the way they would say "rightly handling" or "rightly conveying." (The English language has changed in 500 years.) There are those today who think that the instruction is to divide between Paul's writings and the rest of Scripture (known as "Pauline Dispensationalism"). That's not the meaning. Some understand it as a command to divide with other Christians who don't understand Scripture as you do. But Paul wrote, "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor 1:10). That would suggest that there was no good reason to "rightly divide" from fellow believers. But that can't be right because we also read, "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned" (Titus 3:10-11). That "factious man" in the King James is "an heretick" because the Greek word behind it is αἱρετικός -- "aihretikos" -- from which we get our word, "heretic." It means "schismatic"; something or someone that causes ... division. So we need to aim for unity, but there are cases in which we need to divide from some who are causing division. That's exactly what Paul said (Rom 16:17). When, then, is that necessary? When should we "rightly divide" with other believers?
There are dangers on both sides of that question. If we minimalize biblical doctrine toward the "never divide" end (as is the current tendency -- "Can't we all just get along?"), doctrine becomes meaningless. Truth becomes relative. It is a position that holds that there is no actual truth, and that's a direct contradiction of Christ (John 14:6; John 17:17). On the other end you can bring division for the smallest difference. I heard someone say, "I won't read the ESV because they don't capitalize pronouns for God." Really? Capitalization of pronouns for God were not in the original text, don't exist in most languages, and is rarely used today in English anywhere. The King James Bible doesn't do it. But, hey, it's worth dividing over, right? So we're back to the command to avoid division, recognizing that there are times when we mustn't and times when we must. The trick is in recognizing the importance of the doctrine at hand. If we disagree (for instance) on whether or not Christ died for our sins and rose again (1 Cor 15:1-19), Scripture says, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins" (1 Cor 15:17). That is a doctrinal issue that divides between Christianity and not Christianity. On the other hand, if we disagree on whether or not the Rapture will occur before the Great Tribulation, in the middle of the Great Tribulation, or at the end of the Great Tribulation, what essential doctrine of the faith is affected? None. Division on a tertiary (or lower) point is ... pointless.
We are called (repeatedly) to find unity -- a common purpose, first and foremost, and common doctrine. If God's Word is truth (John 17:17), there is truth, and we should be pursuing that truth. On the other hand, we are called to reject and withdraw from someone who causes division by rejecting the faith. We need to know, then, the gravity of the question we're discussing. Does it impact the fundamental structure of the faith? Or is it just an ancillary doctrine that has no bearing on the faith? I would suggest that too many on both sides of the question -- "Be more lenient" or "Shun the offender" -- don't consider this. Instead, they respond emotionally to an assault on the doctrines they've been taught, perhaps incorrectly, without considering the ramifications. There is a time to "rightly divide," but I don't think we think about that much and I think that causes problems -- in both directions -- for God's people.
Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Tuesday, January 30, 2024
Be Imitators of Me
Paul wrote, "Be imitators of me" (1 Cor 4:16), clarifying later "just as I also am of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1). He commended the Thessalonian believers who "became imitators of us and of the Lord" (1 Thess 1:6). The author of Hebrews told us to be "imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises (Heb 6:12). We see a repeated idea here: imitate others who imitate Christ. Is that what we see today?
You know the standard saying: "Do as I say, not as I do." We get it. "I'm telling you good stuff ... that even I can't live up to." It is thinly-veiled hypocrisy. If it's such good stuff, why don't we do it? Because we don't actually believe it. In his letter to the church at Thessalonica, Paul took a different tack. He told them, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us" (2 Thess 3:6). You see it, right? He told them that believers ("every brother") are not supposed to lead "an unruly life." That's the "do as I say." But what did Paul do? He told us. He gave them "the tradition" that he modeled ("Do as I do"). By "unruly" he means "not willing to work" (2 Thess 3:10). But it wasn't just a command from Paul. "For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you" (2 Thess 3:7-8). Paul taught it ("do as I say"), and Paul lived it ("do as I do").
Now, Paul was an Apostle, and he had a requirement not only to teach what was right, but to live it. I would argue that we, too, as followers of Christ have the same obligation. Notice that church leaders (1 Tim 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9) have strict rules in order to be in that role because leaders absolutely need to be examples of what is right and not just teachers of it. So it is with all of us, commensurate with the degree in which we lead. Parents, teachers, leaders, disciplers ... all walks of the Christian life carry some measure of leadership and, as such, carry the requirement to be examples, not just truth-sayers. I'll tell you, it makes me nervous to think that I'm supposed to be an example, but if I have to, I have to. So do you.
You know the standard saying: "Do as I say, not as I do." We get it. "I'm telling you good stuff ... that even I can't live up to." It is thinly-veiled hypocrisy. If it's such good stuff, why don't we do it? Because we don't actually believe it. In his letter to the church at Thessalonica, Paul took a different tack. He told them, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us" (2 Thess 3:6). You see it, right? He told them that believers ("every brother") are not supposed to lead "an unruly life." That's the "do as I say." But what did Paul do? He told us. He gave them "the tradition" that he modeled ("Do as I do"). By "unruly" he means "not willing to work" (2 Thess 3:10). But it wasn't just a command from Paul. "For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you" (2 Thess 3:7-8). Paul taught it ("do as I say"), and Paul lived it ("do as I do").
Now, Paul was an Apostle, and he had a requirement not only to teach what was right, but to live it. I would argue that we, too, as followers of Christ have the same obligation. Notice that church leaders (1 Tim 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9) have strict rules in order to be in that role because leaders absolutely need to be examples of what is right and not just teachers of it. So it is with all of us, commensurate with the degree in which we lead. Parents, teachers, leaders, disciplers ... all walks of the Christian life carry some measure of leadership and, as such, carry the requirement to be examples, not just truth-sayers. I'll tell you, it makes me nervous to think that I'm supposed to be an example, but if I have to, I have to. So do you.
Monday, January 29, 2024
Context
I am constantly asking my readers to study Scripture in context. "Never read a single Bible verse" isn't a bad idea. Sure, sometimes the context will confirm that the understanding of that single verse is right, but it's certainly the wisest thing to know the context for full knowledge and confirmation. The Bible is its own context and we need to interpret Scripture with Scripture first.
Having said that, I think that Scripture is not the only thing that requires context. James wrote, "Everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger" (James 1:19). I think it's a good idea. I think we should be slow to insert our thoughts and slower still to rise to anger before we bother hearing what's really going on. Context. You find examples of this in the news. "It's genocide!" the media and mobs cry, but if you pause long enough to examine the facts, Israel has never stated an intention to eliminate Palestinians; just the Palestinians (Hamas) who are attacking them. Hamas, on the other hand, has it as their openly stated, national goal to eliminate Israel. So which one is engaged in genocide? How much do we know about the context of how Jews ended up in Israel again? How much do we know about the Palestinians that occupied the area? How much do we know about what has been going on there for the past 75+ years since Israel was reinstated as a nation? How much do we know about the history of the conflict between Israel and her surrounding neighbors? (Hint: It's a much longer history than back to 1948. Think "Ishmael.") Context. Loud voices call for the removal of limitations on abortion, going so far as to demand you and I pay for it and some even calling for postpartum abortion -- killing that baby after it is born. (Both California and Maryland had bills in the works to make that legal.) This far-left view will not even consider the term, "pro-life." There is no context in which they can acknowledge the possibility. Anyone who wishes to limit "reproductive freedom" in any way is a hater and anti-women. Context. You can carry that thought through yourself when it comes to racism ("Racism is defined as 'white people' and all white people are racist.") or sexism ("All men are sexist pigs.") or so many of the other current, common attitudes of our culture. Context is important, and we're not willing to go there.
Scripture must be interpreted in context. Any interpretation that simply ignores context is dubious. In the same way, we, in our modern digital culture that demands sound bites, memes, short messages, and abbreviated communication, are all prone to ignore context and make snap judgments with minimal information. Worse, when offered context, we reject it in favor of the limited version we prefer. That could apply to a Bible verse or your favorite (or least favorite) political figure and so on. "Don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right." It's a popular idea, but it is a minefield. And those who are willing -- even preferring -- to draw conclusions and act without context -- Christians or not -- are destined to make some serious errors in judgment. We can't make people examine things in context, but we can be sure that we're not doing the same. Solomon wrote, "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion" (Prov 18:2). Don't play the fool.
Having said that, I think that Scripture is not the only thing that requires context. James wrote, "Everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger" (James 1:19). I think it's a good idea. I think we should be slow to insert our thoughts and slower still to rise to anger before we bother hearing what's really going on. Context. You find examples of this in the news. "It's genocide!" the media and mobs cry, but if you pause long enough to examine the facts, Israel has never stated an intention to eliminate Palestinians; just the Palestinians (Hamas) who are attacking them. Hamas, on the other hand, has it as their openly stated, national goal to eliminate Israel. So which one is engaged in genocide? How much do we know about the context of how Jews ended up in Israel again? How much do we know about the Palestinians that occupied the area? How much do we know about what has been going on there for the past 75+ years since Israel was reinstated as a nation? How much do we know about the history of the conflict between Israel and her surrounding neighbors? (Hint: It's a much longer history than back to 1948. Think "Ishmael.") Context. Loud voices call for the removal of limitations on abortion, going so far as to demand you and I pay for it and some even calling for postpartum abortion -- killing that baby after it is born. (Both California and Maryland had bills in the works to make that legal.) This far-left view will not even consider the term, "pro-life." There is no context in which they can acknowledge the possibility. Anyone who wishes to limit "reproductive freedom" in any way is a hater and anti-women. Context. You can carry that thought through yourself when it comes to racism ("Racism is defined as 'white people' and all white people are racist.") or sexism ("All men are sexist pigs.") or so many of the other current, common attitudes of our culture. Context is important, and we're not willing to go there.
Scripture must be interpreted in context. Any interpretation that simply ignores context is dubious. In the same way, we, in our modern digital culture that demands sound bites, memes, short messages, and abbreviated communication, are all prone to ignore context and make snap judgments with minimal information. Worse, when offered context, we reject it in favor of the limited version we prefer. That could apply to a Bible verse or your favorite (or least favorite) political figure and so on. "Don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right." It's a popular idea, but it is a minefield. And those who are willing -- even preferring -- to draw conclusions and act without context -- Christians or not -- are destined to make some serious errors in judgment. We can't make people examine things in context, but we can be sure that we're not doing the same. Solomon wrote, "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion" (Prov 18:2). Don't play the fool.
Sunday, January 28, 2024
How to Pray
If you are a believer, you understand that prayer is essential. Jesus taught His disciples how not to pray (Matt 6:5-7) followed by how to pray (Matt 6:9-13) because they saw that He was a pray-er Himself (Luke 11:1-4). Jesus taught that we "ought always to pray and not lose heart" (Luke 18:1-14). Paul echoed that with, "Pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17). We know that prayer, among other things, includes "supplication" (e.g., Eph 6:18), "thanksgiving" (e.g., 1 Thess 5:18), "intercession" (1 Tim 2:1), and more. Despite all of this, we still aren't clear on prayer. And that, dear reader, isn't opinion.
The Bible says and I quote -- "we do not know how to pray as we should" (Rom 8:26). Did you know that was in there? Did you know God's Word made that assertion? It doesn't say, "Sometimes we don't get it." It doesn't suggest that sometimes we do know how to pray. The text says that not knowing how to pray is a natural human weakness. If this is true (read "if the Bible is true"), then we must recognize that 1) we are supposed to pray and 2) we have a problem with prayer. Fortunately for us, God's Word offers a clear solution. Look at that whole sentence.
Prayer can be a sticky subject. "Why pray if God is sovereign?" First answer ... because He said to. Secondly, because it's good for us and our relationship with Him. Thirdly, because He promises to use our prayers in His work. All good reasons. But a reasonable question. "Really? Pray without ceasing"? Yes, indeed, the concept of unceasing prayer is hard for us to even grasp, but it is the aim. We suffer from distraction and inconsistency, from a feeling of disconnection and from dull faith. We feel like God isn't listening because God doesn't jump right on our requests. Lots of problems. But the fact is we are commanded to pray, to pray without ceasing, to pray without losing heart. Prayer is not limited to our narrow understanding or our limited experience. Ultimately prayer is powered by and translated by the Holy Spirit, and He can't fail. So, pray on. Perfect understanding is not the requirement or even aim. An entirely satisfactory experience is not the point. Let God be God and you just do your part. Talk to God. Remember, "You do not have because you do not ask" (James 4:2). Don't be your own limitation in prayer.
The Bible says and I quote -- "we do not know how to pray as we should" (Rom 8:26). Did you know that was in there? Did you know God's Word made that assertion? It doesn't say, "Sometimes we don't get it." It doesn't suggest that sometimes we do know how to pray. The text says that not knowing how to pray is a natural human weakness. If this is true (read "if the Bible is true"), then we must recognize that 1) we are supposed to pray and 2) we have a problem with prayer. Fortunately for us, God's Word offers a clear solution. Look at that whole sentence.
In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Rom 8:26-27)"In the same way," he says. In what same way? The prior text -- the context -- is about creation being subjected to futility (Rom 8:20-22). We ourselves "groan" for the time when we are finally adopted in our experience, finally redeemed bodily (Rom 8:23-25). In that way -- being currently unable to reach the perfection that is reserved for us -- we cannot reach perfection in prayer. We don't know perfectly how to pray as we ought. But we know we must pray and we long to pray correctly. God's solution? "The Spirit Himself intercedes for us." We have a sort of translator. The One who knows God's heart (Rom 8:27) intercedes for us in ways we don't grasp, "according to the will of God" (Rom 8:27). Now, remember, John wrote, "This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him" (1 John 5:14-15). So everything that the Holy Spirit intercedes according to the will of God for us is given to us.
Prayer can be a sticky subject. "Why pray if God is sovereign?" First answer ... because He said to. Secondly, because it's good for us and our relationship with Him. Thirdly, because He promises to use our prayers in His work. All good reasons. But a reasonable question. "Really? Pray without ceasing"? Yes, indeed, the concept of unceasing prayer is hard for us to even grasp, but it is the aim. We suffer from distraction and inconsistency, from a feeling of disconnection and from dull faith. We feel like God isn't listening because God doesn't jump right on our requests. Lots of problems. But the fact is we are commanded to pray, to pray without ceasing, to pray without losing heart. Prayer is not limited to our narrow understanding or our limited experience. Ultimately prayer is powered by and translated by the Holy Spirit, and He can't fail. So, pray on. Perfect understanding is not the requirement or even aim. An entirely satisfactory experience is not the point. Let God be God and you just do your part. Talk to God. Remember, "You do not have because you do not ask" (James 4:2). Don't be your own limitation in prayer.
Saturday, January 27, 2024
News Weakly - 1/27/24
The Lesser of Two Weavels
So, we're down to Trump or Haley as our possible Republican candidates with DeSantis dropping out. Trump followers are quick to point to Haley's adultery ... which she denied and has never been proven. The irony is thick, given Trump's infidelities, real or imagined. I personally think it's just sad that we can't find an actual candidate with character to run. But, I fear, America would never stand for that. "Character counts" was shot down in Clinton's day on the Left and flushed down the tubes on the Right now as well. "Character? We don't need no stinkin' character."
Unclear on the Concept
In a bid to improve our economy, Senator Bernie Sanders is pushing a bill for companies that pay their CEOs too much to either pay more taxes or pay their employees more. You know that those companies will simply take the loss and not pass anything on to their customers ... right? Yeah, right. But, on the upside, it will give the government $150 billion over 10 years, and if there's anything we need, it's more government and higher prices. Thanks, Bernie.
The Big Tent
Donald Trump has threatened to blacklist anyone who donates to Nikki Haley's presidential campaign. Now, that sounds a lot like extortion. And it cannot be construed as including everyone in the Republican party, for instance. If you are not on board with Donald Trump right now, you are not welcome. Nice.
Making Sense of it All
The economy, they tell us, grew "faster than previously estimated" in the 3rd quarter. 5.2%. It is confusing, though. Every day I read about big companies laying off large numbers of people. I read that weekly initial unemployment claims increased. I read that In-N-Out is closing their only Oakland store due to high crime rates. (The Bee says that In-N-Out is moving that store to a safer location in Gaza.) I read that big stores are closing in big cities due to crime, exorbitant rent, and the difficulty of hiring workers. So ... how do I put these together?
No ... Really
From the Bee, New York City's Museum of Modern Art has hired a non-binary, woke activist to tell kids that Israel is a "made-up place" while leading a workshop on Martin Luther King Jr's relationship to climate justice. Oh, wait ... that was an actual news story.
Truly, Truly, I Say Unto You ...
The U.N.'s top court ordered Israel to avoid genocide in Gaza ... but did not order a ceasefire. Israel says the allegation of genocide is "not only false,it's outrageous." Which it is; totally ridiculous. Hamas could actually and instantly produce a ceasefire on both sides by simply ... ceasing fire. Israel cannot produce a ceasefire by stopping shooting. Israel has showed no interest in "genocide"; just stopping the people that are shooting at them. Who is interested in genocide? The ones whose charter it is (Hamas) or the ones who are defending themselves (Israel)? Don't worry. Truth is no longer a concern these days.
We Should Bee Better
I would have laughed if it wasn't so sad. The story was that a missionary went to Joel Osteen's church to reach the people there who had never heard about Jesus. In politics, Nikki Haley is staying in the race. She got more votes in New Hampshire's Republican primary than any Democrat in history. And Texas is gearing up. They've put razor wire around the Alamo to prepare for a last stand against Biden, and Ted Cruz is growing mutton chops in preparation for a civil war.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
So, we're down to Trump or Haley as our possible Republican candidates with DeSantis dropping out. Trump followers are quick to point to Haley's adultery ... which she denied and has never been proven. The irony is thick, given Trump's infidelities, real or imagined. I personally think it's just sad that we can't find an actual candidate with character to run. But, I fear, America would never stand for that. "Character counts" was shot down in Clinton's day on the Left and flushed down the tubes on the Right now as well. "Character? We don't need no stinkin' character."
Unclear on the Concept
In a bid to improve our economy, Senator Bernie Sanders is pushing a bill for companies that pay their CEOs too much to either pay more taxes or pay their employees more. You know that those companies will simply take the loss and not pass anything on to their customers ... right? Yeah, right. But, on the upside, it will give the government $150 billion over 10 years, and if there's anything we need, it's more government and higher prices. Thanks, Bernie.
The Big Tent
Donald Trump has threatened to blacklist anyone who donates to Nikki Haley's presidential campaign. Now, that sounds a lot like extortion. And it cannot be construed as including everyone in the Republican party, for instance. If you are not on board with Donald Trump right now, you are not welcome. Nice.
Making Sense of it All
The economy, they tell us, grew "faster than previously estimated" in the 3rd quarter. 5.2%. It is confusing, though. Every day I read about big companies laying off large numbers of people. I read that weekly initial unemployment claims increased. I read that In-N-Out is closing their only Oakland store due to high crime rates. (The Bee says that In-N-Out is moving that store to a safer location in Gaza.) I read that big stores are closing in big cities due to crime, exorbitant rent, and the difficulty of hiring workers. So ... how do I put these together?
No ... Really
From the Bee, New York City's Museum of Modern Art has hired a non-binary, woke activist to tell kids that Israel is a "made-up place" while leading a workshop on Martin Luther King Jr's relationship to climate justice. Oh, wait ... that was an actual news story.
Truly, Truly, I Say Unto You ...
The U.N.'s top court ordered Israel to avoid genocide in Gaza ... but did not order a ceasefire. Israel says the allegation of genocide is "not only false,it's outrageous." Which it is; totally ridiculous. Hamas could actually and instantly produce a ceasefire on both sides by simply ... ceasing fire. Israel cannot produce a ceasefire by stopping shooting. Israel has showed no interest in "genocide"; just stopping the people that are shooting at them. Who is interested in genocide? The ones whose charter it is (Hamas) or the ones who are defending themselves (Israel)? Don't worry. Truth is no longer a concern these days.
We Should Bee Better
I would have laughed if it wasn't so sad. The story was that a missionary went to Joel Osteen's church to reach the people there who had never heard about Jesus. In politics, Nikki Haley is staying in the race. She got more votes in New Hampshire's Republican primary than any Democrat in history. And Texas is gearing up. They've put razor wire around the Alamo to prepare for a last stand against Biden, and Ted Cruz is growing mutton chops in preparation for a civil war.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, January 26, 2024
Proof Text
I've found it! The good news! No, not that good news. Even better! This news is so good that if John had written his first epistle prior to Jesus's birth, he could have saved Jesus the trip. This is that good. What is it?
This is the kind of muddled thinking that will get you in trouble. How do we know it's muddled? You know because with this kind of reasoning it is not possible to differentiate between "I love my mother" from "I love my wife" from "I love pizza" from "I love God" -- all as suitable evidence that I've been born again and know God. You know because it eliminates the entire reason Jesus came -- "to give His life as a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). You know because it eliminates "saved by grace apart from works" (Eph 2:8-9). You know because it eliminates the Gospel (1 Cor 15:1-6). Ultimately, then, you know because it contradicts essentially everything else we know from God's Word. But the world will tell you that love is a warm feeling and we've all had that. Social Justice Christians will tell you that love is giving to the poor and most of us have done that. And, as a rule, those who are not genuine followers of Christ are happy to discard Scriptures that don't suit their understanding and embrace those that do and call it "following God's Word." What did Paul tell Timothy? We are supposed to accurately handle the Word of God (1 Tim 2:15).
What is John saying, then? His epistle is largely a "how to tell if you're one of His" epistle. It is filled with "If-thens" like, "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:6-7) and "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us" (1 John 1:8-10). He even says, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). So this is about how you can know. Now, John was greatly affected by Jesus's command, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another" (John 13:34). Over and over in all three of his epistles he talks about this. So in the text in question, he specifically speaks to the "beloved" and says we must "love one another." This isn't a command for a general "love your neighbor." It's Jesus's, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). So John wrote, "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death" (1 John 3:14). So, to those who consider themselves believers, he says, "Everyone (of you believers) who loves is born of God and knows God." Conversely, "The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love" (1 John 4:8). That is, "You call yourself a follower of Christ, a new creation, a believer, but if you don't love your fellow Christians, it's a sure sign that you're mistaken. You can know you are born of God and know God if you actually carry out His command to love your fellow Christians as Christ loved you." How is that? Sacrificially. To the death. Or, as Paul put it, "gave Himself up" (Eph 5:25). That is the love in mind and that love is aimed at "one another" -- fellow believers.
It has been said you should never read a single verse in the Bible. Yea, yea, shock value, but the idea is you should always take context into account when you read. Yanking "whoever loves has been born of God and knows God" out of all context and making it that proof text in that form will lead you into all manner of error. God's people should want to do better. They should want to get what God has to say in His Word in context with all of God's Word. They should absolutely be ready to change their minds to align with God's Word rather than change God's Word to align with their thinking. And we who are followers of Christ need to love our fellow followers of Christ. That's the warning in 1 John 4:7-8.
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)Isn't that amazing? Or did you miss it? Look, he writes, "Love is from God," so, clearly, any love we give is from God. And what does that mean? "Whoever loves has been born of God and knows God." Wow!! Think of that! I love my wife, so I've been born of God and know God. A friend of mine isn't married but he loves gaming, so he is born of God and knows God. In fact, I cannot imagine a single human being in the history of human beings who never loved anything, so we can easily and obviously conclude that everyone in all of history has been born of God and knows God. And, what did Jesus say? "This is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God" (John 17:3). Anyone who has ever loved at all has eternal life, right? What else did Jesus say? In order to be saved, "You must be born again." So on both counts, anyone who loves at all has been born again and knows God, which means that they're saved, going to heaven, with eternal life. See? Jesus's visit really wasn't necessary at all, was it?
This is the kind of muddled thinking that will get you in trouble. How do we know it's muddled? You know because with this kind of reasoning it is not possible to differentiate between "I love my mother" from "I love my wife" from "I love pizza" from "I love God" -- all as suitable evidence that I've been born again and know God. You know because it eliminates the entire reason Jesus came -- "to give His life as a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). You know because it eliminates "saved by grace apart from works" (Eph 2:8-9). You know because it eliminates the Gospel (1 Cor 15:1-6). Ultimately, then, you know because it contradicts essentially everything else we know from God's Word. But the world will tell you that love is a warm feeling and we've all had that. Social Justice Christians will tell you that love is giving to the poor and most of us have done that. And, as a rule, those who are not genuine followers of Christ are happy to discard Scriptures that don't suit their understanding and embrace those that do and call it "following God's Word." What did Paul tell Timothy? We are supposed to accurately handle the Word of God (1 Tim 2:15).
What is John saying, then? His epistle is largely a "how to tell if you're one of His" epistle. It is filled with "If-thens" like, "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:6-7) and "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us" (1 John 1:8-10). He even says, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). So this is about how you can know. Now, John was greatly affected by Jesus's command, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another" (John 13:34). Over and over in all three of his epistles he talks about this. So in the text in question, he specifically speaks to the "beloved" and says we must "love one another." This isn't a command for a general "love your neighbor." It's Jesus's, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). So John wrote, "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death" (1 John 3:14). So, to those who consider themselves believers, he says, "Everyone (of you believers) who loves is born of God and knows God." Conversely, "The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love" (1 John 4:8). That is, "You call yourself a follower of Christ, a new creation, a believer, but if you don't love your fellow Christians, it's a sure sign that you're mistaken. You can know you are born of God and know God if you actually carry out His command to love your fellow Christians as Christ loved you." How is that? Sacrificially. To the death. Or, as Paul put it, "gave Himself up" (Eph 5:25). That is the love in mind and that love is aimed at "one another" -- fellow believers.
It has been said you should never read a single verse in the Bible. Yea, yea, shock value, but the idea is you should always take context into account when you read. Yanking "whoever loves has been born of God and knows God" out of all context and making it that proof text in that form will lead you into all manner of error. God's people should want to do better. They should want to get what God has to say in His Word in context with all of God's Word. They should absolutely be ready to change their minds to align with God's Word rather than change God's Word to align with their thinking. And we who are followers of Christ need to love our fellow followers of Christ. That's the warning in 1 John 4:7-8.
Thursday, January 25, 2024
When Tolerance Goes Wrong
One of the primary reasons Peter wrote his second epistle was the problem of false teachers.
Peter was deeply concerned about false teachers among the people of God. So was John (1 John 2:18-20; 4:1). So was Jesus (Matt 7:15-20; Matt 24:11, 24). So was Paul (Gal 1:6-9). So was Jude (Jude 1:4). (Are you picking up a pattern here?) They were a problem in Israel. They were a problem in the first century church. They remain a problem today. Given all these Scriptures and all these warnings, it seems odd to me that we are so tolerant of false teachers in the church. We nod and smile when a teacher tells us, "Well, you know, Genesis is myth because science teaches us that Evolution made us all." We don't raise a stink when a teacher tells us, "No, God did not make that man born blind; that was just a fluke of nature. God is not that kind of 'Sovereign'." They're saying a lot of good stuff, so we hold our tongues and applaud even when they write books about how eternal destruction (2 Thess 1:9) is a lie and everyone gets to heaven. "I mean, he's right about other things; let's not make this an issue." And we smile and keep quiet as the body of Christ gets infected with a virus that grows -- to its great harm -- and loses sight of the ability to recognize error when they see it.
We try to be tolerant, humble, all-embracing. God doesn't take the same approach (Deut 13:5; Jer 13:14-15; Gal 1:8-9). Perhaps, in earlier times, the church offered a different, improper response, burning heretics at the stake, and I'm not advocating any such thing. But, clearly, embracing false teachers in our midst is not the command to God's people. They should get the same treatment as every other sin. Address their error in private. If they don't repent, take one or two more. If they don't repent, take it to the church (Matt 18:15-20). Seek to restore (Gal 6:1-2). But don't embrace false teaching. It is destructive to the teacher and destructive to the listener and opposed, ultimately to God. It isn't a matter to be simply tolerated.
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1)The issue was critical for a couple of reasons. First, they will be "among you." They aren't outsiders. They're neighbors, church members, even church leaders. Second, their teaching, while brought in "secretly," ends up as destructive. Their teachings tear down God, His Word, and His people. Operating on sensuality -- their own personal desires -- they cause truth to be maligned (2 Peter 2:2). "They will exploit you with false words" (2 Peter 2:3). They entice unstable souls (2 Peter 2:14). They forsake the right way (which, by the way, requires that it is already there and known) and go astray (2 Peter 2:15). They are appealing, but offer no substance (2 Peter 2:17). They encourage fleshly desires and promise freedom, but are corrupt and enslaved themselves (2 Peter 2:18-19). They knew the way of righteousness and turned from it (2 Peter 2:21).
Peter was deeply concerned about false teachers among the people of God. So was John (1 John 2:18-20; 4:1). So was Jesus (Matt 7:15-20; Matt 24:11, 24). So was Paul (Gal 1:6-9). So was Jude (Jude 1:4). (Are you picking up a pattern here?) They were a problem in Israel. They were a problem in the first century church. They remain a problem today. Given all these Scriptures and all these warnings, it seems odd to me that we are so tolerant of false teachers in the church. We nod and smile when a teacher tells us, "Well, you know, Genesis is myth because science teaches us that Evolution made us all." We don't raise a stink when a teacher tells us, "No, God did not make that man born blind; that was just a fluke of nature. God is not that kind of 'Sovereign'." They're saying a lot of good stuff, so we hold our tongues and applaud even when they write books about how eternal destruction (2 Thess 1:9) is a lie and everyone gets to heaven. "I mean, he's right about other things; let's not make this an issue." And we smile and keep quiet as the body of Christ gets infected with a virus that grows -- to its great harm -- and loses sight of the ability to recognize error when they see it.
We try to be tolerant, humble, all-embracing. God doesn't take the same approach (Deut 13:5; Jer 13:14-15; Gal 1:8-9). Perhaps, in earlier times, the church offered a different, improper response, burning heretics at the stake, and I'm not advocating any such thing. But, clearly, embracing false teachers in our midst is not the command to God's people. They should get the same treatment as every other sin. Address their error in private. If they don't repent, take one or two more. If they don't repent, take it to the church (Matt 18:15-20). Seek to restore (Gal 6:1-2). But don't embrace false teaching. It is destructive to the teacher and destructive to the listener and opposed, ultimately to God. It isn't a matter to be simply tolerated.
Wednesday, January 24, 2024
Like a Lion
I'm going to use Dan Trabue as an example here, so don't get side-tracked into thinking about Dan. I'm pointing to a way of looking at things ... that Dan illustrates. Dan considers himself a Christian in a world where "Christian" is becoming a negative thing. He goes to church regularly and listens intently to his pastor. He works with the poor and marginalized and urges others to do the same. All good things. Dan doesn't say, "Don't believe in God." He just says, "Don't believe in the God that you believe in." He doesn't say, "The Bible isn't true; throw it out." He says, "The Bible doesn't mean what you think it means." Dan has a hunch that the longstanding, traditional understanding of Scripture is false -- that our hunch is wrong and his hunch is right. Again, I use Dan because he offers a specific version of thought processes here. He doesn't reject God. He doesn't reject church. He doesn't reject the Bible. But he does reject the God, the church, and the Bible that has long been the standard understanding. (He even recognizes that, speaking at times about how he used to believe that.)
I'm not asking you to look at Dan or refute Dan. I'm asking you to look at the line of thinking. In Eden, one of the local residents -- a serpent -- asked another local resident -- Eve -- "Did God actually say ...?" The serpent did not say, "You know, it's stupid to believe God. It's stupid to believe in God. Follow me instead." When she told him what God said, he simply denied ... the claim. "You will not surely die." Poor Eve had misunderstood. Naive Eve had misinterpreted. She had the wrong hunch. The real God knew that violating God's command would make her wise. He wasn't urging her to reject God. He was urging her to become like God. And that's how Satan works. If he said, "Look, throw out all you know about any divine being and come worship this rock as god," he knows everyone would laugh him off. So he deviates. "God is real, but He's not quite what you think He is ... what He has revealed about Himself." "God's Word is true, but it's not the Word you think it is. It's a more enlightened version" that, in the end, nullifies half of itself. Satan doesn't simply contradict and evict God and His Word. He just nudges people into side paths that, when followed, lead them away from God and His Word.
It is so subtle that we often don't see it, we often can't hear it. Like the serpent in the garden, it sounds reasonable (read "plausible arguments" - Col 2:4). It seems rational (like "philosophy and empty deceit" - Col 2:8). You can follow the logic (which, as it turns out, is "according to human tradition" and "the elemental spirits of the world" and "not according to Christ" - Col 2:8). Misled, then, by the seemingly reasonable nature of it all, we can miss (as they do) how it contradicts itself, how it contradicts Scripture, how it contradicts God. It turns out, then, that pursuing this new line of reasoning takes people to a new "God" who is not God and a new "Word of God" which is not God's Word and gives them a false sense of "being right" which they are not ... to their own detriment. Complaining about your "hunches," they urge on you their hunches that believers throughout history have been wrong and their hunches are right. Remember, "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). You know how they do that, right? They split their victims off from the herd, isolate them, and kill them. You can't go wrong staying with a biblical view of God and a confidence in God's Word as sufficient and authoritative, even if both contradict your own grasp of things.
I'm not asking you to look at Dan or refute Dan. I'm asking you to look at the line of thinking. In Eden, one of the local residents -- a serpent -- asked another local resident -- Eve -- "Did God actually say ...?" The serpent did not say, "You know, it's stupid to believe God. It's stupid to believe in God. Follow me instead." When she told him what God said, he simply denied ... the claim. "You will not surely die." Poor Eve had misunderstood. Naive Eve had misinterpreted. She had the wrong hunch. The real God knew that violating God's command would make her wise. He wasn't urging her to reject God. He was urging her to become like God. And that's how Satan works. If he said, "Look, throw out all you know about any divine being and come worship this rock as god," he knows everyone would laugh him off. So he deviates. "God is real, but He's not quite what you think He is ... what He has revealed about Himself." "God's Word is true, but it's not the Word you think it is. It's a more enlightened version" that, in the end, nullifies half of itself. Satan doesn't simply contradict and evict God and His Word. He just nudges people into side paths that, when followed, lead them away from God and His Word.
It is so subtle that we often don't see it, we often can't hear it. Like the serpent in the garden, it sounds reasonable (read "plausible arguments" - Col 2:4). It seems rational (like "philosophy and empty deceit" - Col 2:8). You can follow the logic (which, as it turns out, is "according to human tradition" and "the elemental spirits of the world" and "not according to Christ" - Col 2:8). Misled, then, by the seemingly reasonable nature of it all, we can miss (as they do) how it contradicts itself, how it contradicts Scripture, how it contradicts God. It turns out, then, that pursuing this new line of reasoning takes people to a new "God" who is not God and a new "Word of God" which is not God's Word and gives them a false sense of "being right" which they are not ... to their own detriment. Complaining about your "hunches," they urge on you their hunches that believers throughout history have been wrong and their hunches are right. Remember, "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). You know how they do that, right? They split their victims off from the herd, isolate them, and kill them. You can't go wrong staying with a biblical view of God and a confidence in God's Word as sufficient and authoritative, even if both contradict your own grasp of things.
Tuesday, January 23, 2024
Heart and Mind
I wrote recently about the problem of head and heart, about how what we believe (head) sometimes doesn't quite get to the heart as it should and we react in ways opposed to what we believe. There is another reality I perceive. We humans often find ourselves in a disagreement between mind and emotion. Think about it. (Get it?) Some people tend more toward the intellectual. They like ideas, facts, reason, that sort of thing. They can recite chapter and verse for what they believe and are rigid. Others like emotions. They think the only good worship is emotionally driven. They think the only good Christian is the one passionately in love with Jesus. All you thinkers out there are mucking up the works. Can't we just feel good about God?
Rationally, the problem is to be expected. Jesus told one of His questioners, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). Love God with everything ... including your mind. Many Christians today think that's wrong. They despise intellectualism as if it is non-spiritual. The right spirituality is to just let the Spirit move you. But God said, "Come now, let us reason together" (Isa 1:18). When the Pharisees asked Jesus for signs, He gave them a thinking example. "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah." (Matt 16:2-4). "You can think," He told them. "Think this through for yourself." On the other hand, the Scriptures are full of emotion. Nehemiah told the people, "The joy of YHWH is your strength" (Neh 8:10). "These things I have spoken to you," Jesus said, "that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full" (John 15:11). The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, etc. (Gal 5:22). We are supposed to "Rejoice always" (1 Thess 5:16). And so on. So when Jesus told His interrogator to love God "with all your mind," He also included "with all your soul."
I've known very few people in my life that seemed to master this fusion. Perhaps a John Piper type can do it. To meld right-thinking with right-feeling seems to be very difficult for us. When Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica, he warned about those who "refused to love the truth" and who "had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess 2:9-12). These got both sides wrong. They refused to believe the truth and they refused to love the truth. They refused to obey righteousness and took pleasure in unrighteousness. Mind and emotion. We need to engage both in our love for our Savior. And that seems a difficult thing to do because we generally tend toward one or the other. Either we think too much and miss the emotional rapture of knowing Christ, or we feel too much and miss the truth of knowing Christ. Our command is to love God with both soul and mind.
Rationally, the problem is to be expected. Jesus told one of His questioners, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). Love God with everything ... including your mind. Many Christians today think that's wrong. They despise intellectualism as if it is non-spiritual. The right spirituality is to just let the Spirit move you. But God said, "Come now, let us reason together" (Isa 1:18). When the Pharisees asked Jesus for signs, He gave them a thinking example. "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah." (Matt 16:2-4). "You can think," He told them. "Think this through for yourself." On the other hand, the Scriptures are full of emotion. Nehemiah told the people, "The joy of YHWH is your strength" (Neh 8:10). "These things I have spoken to you," Jesus said, "that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full" (John 15:11). The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, etc. (Gal 5:22). We are supposed to "Rejoice always" (1 Thess 5:16). And so on. So when Jesus told His interrogator to love God "with all your mind," He also included "with all your soul."
I've known very few people in my life that seemed to master this fusion. Perhaps a John Piper type can do it. To meld right-thinking with right-feeling seems to be very difficult for us. When Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica, he warned about those who "refused to love the truth" and who "had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess 2:9-12). These got both sides wrong. They refused to believe the truth and they refused to love the truth. They refused to obey righteousness and took pleasure in unrighteousness. Mind and emotion. We need to engage both in our love for our Savior. And that seems a difficult thing to do because we generally tend toward one or the other. Either we think too much and miss the emotional rapture of knowing Christ, or we feel too much and miss the truth of knowing Christ. Our command is to love God with both soul and mind.
Monday, January 22, 2024
Are We Okay With This?
In Isaiah 6 we read the story of the prophet's encounter with God. So overwhelmed was he that was undone. "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, YHWH of hosts" (Isa 6:5). God neither berated Him nor blew it off. Instead, a seraphim flew down with a coal and touched his mouth. The very next thing is God saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" and Isaiah answering, "Here am I; send me!" (Isa 6:8). And God said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; keep on looking, but do not understand.' Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed" (Isa 6:9-10). Wait ... what? Is that right? Does God actually wish to block some people from returning and being healed ... from salvation?
It's not only found here in Isaiah. When His disciples asked Him why He spoke in parables, Jesus said,
Just like Pharaoh, people with hardened hearts can expect to have their hearts hardened ... by God. In the story of the ten plagues, Pharaoh repeatedly hardened (Exo 7:22; 8:15; 8:32; 9:34) his already hard heart (Exo 7:13) until finally YHWH hardened his heart (Exo 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27). Explaining this, Paul wrote that God "will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Rom 9:15). "It depends," he goes on to say, "not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). God says He raised Pharaoh up to demonstrate His power (Rom 9:17) and Paul declares, "He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Rom 9:18). These seem like pretty harsh words from a God we like to think of as merciful and gracious, but they are His words. They aren't ambiguous or obscure. And there is no injustice with God. I think there are good explanations for this, but what are we to think? If this is God's revelation of Himself, are we okay with it? Or are we going to chide Him for it? Is it His right for His good and that's sufficient for us, or is He required to submit to our evaluation and approval?
It's not only found here in Isaiah. When His disciples asked Him why He spoke in parables, Jesus said,
To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. (Matt 13:11-13)He then quotes Isaiah 6:9-10 to them. Clearly Jesus thought it was the case. And in John's gospel, he wrote about how strange it was that, despite the miracles, people were still not believing (John 12:37). Why? "This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah," he said (John 12:38) and then quotes Isaiah 6:9, but with a slightly different emphasis. "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them" (John 12:40). No ambiguity there. It wasn't a commentary on how people fail to see. It was a commentary on God's actions and intentions. "He has blinded their eyes ..." Beyond all this, there is more precedent. Saul, if you recall, disobeyed God. So, the text says, "Now the Spirit of YHWH departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from YHWH terrorized him" (1 Sam 16:14). Huh? An evil spirit from God? Elsewhere, when God intended to kill Ahab in battle, the Scriptures say, "YHWH has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets" (1 Kings 22:23). Jumping ahead to future times, in the end when the "man of lawlessness" comes, we read, "For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness" (2 Thess 2:11-12). There it is again. For what reason? "Because they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thess 2:10).
Just like Pharaoh, people with hardened hearts can expect to have their hearts hardened ... by God. In the story of the ten plagues, Pharaoh repeatedly hardened (Exo 7:22; 8:15; 8:32; 9:34) his already hard heart (Exo 7:13) until finally YHWH hardened his heart (Exo 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27). Explaining this, Paul wrote that God "will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Rom 9:15). "It depends," he goes on to say, "not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). God says He raised Pharaoh up to demonstrate His power (Rom 9:17) and Paul declares, "He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Rom 9:18). These seem like pretty harsh words from a God we like to think of as merciful and gracious, but they are His words. They aren't ambiguous or obscure. And there is no injustice with God. I think there are good explanations for this, but what are we to think? If this is God's revelation of Himself, are we okay with it? Or are we going to chide Him for it? Is it His right for His good and that's sufficient for us, or is He required to submit to our evaluation and approval?
Sunday, January 21, 2024
Sanctity of Life Sunday
Democrats are kicking off an abortion rights campaign on the anniversary of 1973's Roe v. Wade decision. If there is anything this country needs it is a return to the freedom of killing the most vulnerable humans ... preferably on the taxpayers' dime. No woman should have to choose between responsible sexual behavior or losing their comfort zone. It's just ... well ... misogynistic. What they try to tell you is it's just "reproductive freedom." What they try to tell you is that Republicans want to control women. And the whole thing has been so obscured by emotional diatribes and, frankly, lies that it's hard to see the forest for the trees.
Let's be clear. The question of whether or not that unborn child is a human being is a settled scientific question. It is a human being. It is so settled that when we're talking in unguarded moments we routinely refer to that baby as an "unborn child." I recently saw an ad for a medication they were pushing with, among the many, a disclaimer that "This medication might harm an unborn child." "Wait a minute!" I ask the screen, "Haven't we said there's no such thing?" Of course there is, and we all know it. Federal law calls killing a child in the womb murder ... and then turns schizophrenic by saying, "Except in the case of abortion." There is no doubt that abortion for contraception kills human beings. Over 63 million in the 51 years of Roe v. Wade. That's an average of more than 1.2 million a year. On average, a baby died every 26 seconds for 51 years as a means of contraception. Why? The top three reasons are "It's not a good time" (36%), "The baby's father isn't on board with it" (26%), and "I've just got too much going on right now" (18%). After that, there are about 9% who claim "health concerns." They don't feel like they can handle the pregnancy physically or emotionally (which doesn't sound like "health concerns" to me). According to statistics, actual physical risk would constitute something less than 3% of pregnancies.
It's not women we're interested in dominating. (That should be patently obvious when a major portion of those in favor of life are women.) We believe that we are made in God's image. We believe that it is wrong to intentionally terminate the life of humans made in the image of God (Gen 9:6). That the loudest voices would be calling for the free and easy killing of babies as a good and honorable thing is disturbing. If we must not protect the most vulnerable, who then? If babies in the womb are worth nothing, who is? If we, as a society, have determined that the freedom to engage in any sort of sexual activity they please whenever they please is a higher good than the value of human life, I think we've found a reason that gun deaths are so high. And I think we've found a reason for Christians to obey Scripture when it says, "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior" (1 Tim 2:1-3). It's an election year. I think we should get on that in earnest.
Let's be clear. The question of whether or not that unborn child is a human being is a settled scientific question. It is a human being. It is so settled that when we're talking in unguarded moments we routinely refer to that baby as an "unborn child." I recently saw an ad for a medication they were pushing with, among the many, a disclaimer that "This medication might harm an unborn child." "Wait a minute!" I ask the screen, "Haven't we said there's no such thing?" Of course there is, and we all know it. Federal law calls killing a child in the womb murder ... and then turns schizophrenic by saying, "Except in the case of abortion." There is no doubt that abortion for contraception kills human beings. Over 63 million in the 51 years of Roe v. Wade. That's an average of more than 1.2 million a year. On average, a baby died every 26 seconds for 51 years as a means of contraception. Why? The top three reasons are "It's not a good time" (36%), "The baby's father isn't on board with it" (26%), and "I've just got too much going on right now" (18%). After that, there are about 9% who claim "health concerns." They don't feel like they can handle the pregnancy physically or emotionally (which doesn't sound like "health concerns" to me). According to statistics, actual physical risk would constitute something less than 3% of pregnancies.
It's not women we're interested in dominating. (That should be patently obvious when a major portion of those in favor of life are women.) We believe that we are made in God's image. We believe that it is wrong to intentionally terminate the life of humans made in the image of God (Gen 9:6). That the loudest voices would be calling for the free and easy killing of babies as a good and honorable thing is disturbing. If we must not protect the most vulnerable, who then? If babies in the womb are worth nothing, who is? If we, as a society, have determined that the freedom to engage in any sort of sexual activity they please whenever they please is a higher good than the value of human life, I think we've found a reason that gun deaths are so high. And I think we've found a reason for Christians to obey Scripture when it says, "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior" (1 Tim 2:1-3). It's an election year. I think we should get on that in earnest.
Saturday, January 20, 2024
News Weakly - 1/20/24
Note: I feel like some of these posts of late have been quite lengthy. I guess, to me, it was a slower news week, so I'll pass that break on to you and make this one shorter for your viewing pleasure.
________
Not Antisemitism?
"Thousands of people gathered in the nation's capital Saturday afternoon to call for a cease-fire in Gaza," the story says. It was a "sea of red and green Palestinian flags." I wonder why no one is calling for Hamas to cease fire, since they continue to launch rockets daily into Israel? "Israel needs to stop defending themselves and let Hamas continue their aggression!!!" Seems fair to ... someone?
Global Warming
The headlines were about how 150 million Americans were facing "dangerous cold" under winter weather warnings at the beginning of this last week. Nearly half the nation. Seriously ... snow in Texas? At the end of this week, another 100 million face more cold and people have died from it. I tell you, if this global warming keeps up, we're all going to freeze to death.
Justice Delayed
While Democrats are feverishly working to undermine democracy, Trump dominated the rest of the pack in Iowa. Now, if you want to eliminate Trump in November, you could simply put him on trial and find him guilty of insurrection. They're not. Why? Are they hoping the trial at the right time will shoot him down regardless of the verdict? Or are they simply afraid they can't convict him of something for which multiple agencies have exonerated him? Looks bad for Trump haters.
They're at it again
The Bee reported on a gender surgeon who gives appointment reminders in five years for reversal surgery. Ouch! In Texas, the story is that terrified Texans opened fire on strange white stuff falling from the sky. I mean, really ... snow in Texas? And, in the midst of the complaints about too many illegal immigrants getting shuffled to New York, at least one white liberal was seen removing his "All are welcome here" sign from the front lawn.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
________
Not Antisemitism?
"Thousands of people gathered in the nation's capital Saturday afternoon to call for a cease-fire in Gaza," the story says. It was a "sea of red and green Palestinian flags." I wonder why no one is calling for Hamas to cease fire, since they continue to launch rockets daily into Israel? "Israel needs to stop defending themselves and let Hamas continue their aggression!!!" Seems fair to ... someone?
Global Warming
The headlines were about how 150 million Americans were facing "dangerous cold" under winter weather warnings at the beginning of this last week. Nearly half the nation. Seriously ... snow in Texas? At the end of this week, another 100 million face more cold and people have died from it. I tell you, if this global warming keeps up, we're all going to freeze to death.
Justice Delayed
While Democrats are feverishly working to undermine democracy, Trump dominated the rest of the pack in Iowa. Now, if you want to eliminate Trump in November, you could simply put him on trial and find him guilty of insurrection. They're not. Why? Are they hoping the trial at the right time will shoot him down regardless of the verdict? Or are they simply afraid they can't convict him of something for which multiple agencies have exonerated him? Looks bad for Trump haters.
They're at it again
The Bee reported on a gender surgeon who gives appointment reminders in five years for reversal surgery. Ouch! In Texas, the story is that terrified Texans opened fire on strange white stuff falling from the sky. I mean, really ... snow in Texas? And, in the midst of the complaints about too many illegal immigrants getting shuffled to New York, at least one white liberal was seen removing his "All are welcome here" sign from the front lawn.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, January 19, 2024
When Head and Heart Disagree
Starting back in the '90s I learned a lot from R.C. Sproul. The biggest thing was the holiness of God. He really hit that hard and often and really well. And the Sovereignty of God; a huge topic with him. He wasn't a perfect man, but I learned a lot. So it was somewhat of a surprise to me to learn that Sproul refused to fly. He was afraid of flying. So he either drove or took a train to where he was going. And he went a lot. (Ironically, he and his wife were in the deadliest Amtrak crash in history, were both injured, and survived.) I was surprised because I wondered, "How can a man who believes in a truly Sovereign God be so afraid of some earthly possibilities?"
Turns out, of course, we're all in that condition in some ways. We all understand, for instance, that God is Sovereign over human government (Prov 21:1; Rom 13:1). So why do we worry about human government? Scripture is not vague on the promise of suffering and persecution, and that these will be to our benefit (Matt 5:10-12; Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4), but we still fear and even loathe suffering and persecution. We read the glorious promises about how God will "freely give us all things" (Rom 8:32) and "supply all your needs" (Php 4:19) and so on, and still we worry about our well-being. Just a few examples, but I think you get the point. It seems that, while we can claim orthodoxy (which, by the way, means literally "of the right opinion") and still feel heresy (a belief contrary to orthodoxy).
Let's not go too far with that. We all know that we have not reached perfection. We all know that the process of the entire Christian life is sanctification, the process of becoming more like Christ which is not achieved in this lifetime. We all need to be reminded that God is not finished with us yet. My aim here is not to point fingers, but to point to things we -- you and I -- might want to be aware of, to take stock of, to address in our lives. After all, if we are unwilling to act on what we say we believe, do we really believe it, or is it merely words? It can be a long way from head to heart, from hearing and acknowledging the truth to incorporating it in our very souls, but ignoring that fact won't make it happen sooner.
Turns out, of course, we're all in that condition in some ways. We all understand, for instance, that God is Sovereign over human government (Prov 21:1; Rom 13:1). So why do we worry about human government? Scripture is not vague on the promise of suffering and persecution, and that these will be to our benefit (Matt 5:10-12; Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4), but we still fear and even loathe suffering and persecution. We read the glorious promises about how God will "freely give us all things" (Rom 8:32) and "supply all your needs" (Php 4:19) and so on, and still we worry about our well-being. Just a few examples, but I think you get the point. It seems that, while we can claim orthodoxy (which, by the way, means literally "of the right opinion") and still feel heresy (a belief contrary to orthodoxy).
Let's not go too far with that. We all know that we have not reached perfection. We all know that the process of the entire Christian life is sanctification, the process of becoming more like Christ which is not achieved in this lifetime. We all need to be reminded that God is not finished with us yet. My aim here is not to point fingers, but to point to things we -- you and I -- might want to be aware of, to take stock of, to address in our lives. After all, if we are unwilling to act on what we say we believe, do we really believe it, or is it merely words? It can be a long way from head to heart, from hearing and acknowledging the truth to incorporating it in our very souls, but ignoring that fact won't make it happen sooner.
Thursday, January 18, 2024
Eternal
Perhaps the singularly most unpopular topic in the Bible is Hell. We've always understood it to be "eternal torment." It is so disturbing that not a few have tried to mitigate it. "No one goes to Hell. Haven't you read that everyone is saved?" "It's not eternal torment. It's annihilation." "I don't know what it is, but I know it's not that." So where does this idea of "eternal torment" come from?
Oddly enough, I suppose, the one who spoke most about this concept was the one so often equated with love and grace. Jesus spoke more about Hell than anyone else in the Bible. In Mark 9 He spoke about "unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43). He said, "And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'" (Mark 9:47-48). That last phrase was taken from Isaiah 66:24. These speak of torments, and they speak of them in "unquenchable," unending ways. He describes it as fire (Matt 5:22; 25:46). He speaks of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt 13:42; 22:13; 24:51). He described the torment in the story (the text doesn't list it as a parable) of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). Unquenchable fire, the worm does not die, gnashing of teeth, "outer darkness" (Matt 25:30), "Gehenna" (Matt 10:28). (Gehenna was a place outside Jerusalem that was used for burning children as sacrifice at one point and, if I'm not mistaken, was used to burn dead bodies in a war at another point.) Jesus had no problem discussing the horrors of Hell.
And not just Jesus. You'll find it in other places as well. Paul wrote of "those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thess 1:8) that they would "suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might" (2 Thess 1:9). Think about that. "Eternal destruction." If it was annihilation, "eternal" is a pointless adjective. Annihilation is defined as permanent. This isn't that. This is "destruction," an ongoing process. It is continuous ruination ... for eternity. But Paul doesn't leave it blank at that point. He explains in what sense. They are away from God's presence. That's not a geographical description. If it is true that all things consist in Christ (Col 1:17), then if God was not there, they would cease to exist. No, this is about perception. We get glimpses of God in life. We see Him in creation, in certain events, in momentary revelation. They won't. They will have no more sense of God. No hope. No joy. No purpose. Worse, they will be away from His glory. God is all about His glory and we are all about bringing Him glory. Without it, we are pointless.
Biblically, the place we refer to as "Hell" is a real place in which many will find their eternal home. No one will be there unjustly. It is a place of ultimate justice. Heaven, on the other hand, is a place of unmerited favor and mercy in the place of justice. Given the horrors of Hell, I would think we'd want to be diligent to urge people to avoid it. Especially since we have the solution.
Oddly enough, I suppose, the one who spoke most about this concept was the one so often equated with love and grace. Jesus spoke more about Hell than anyone else in the Bible. In Mark 9 He spoke about "unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43). He said, "And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'" (Mark 9:47-48). That last phrase was taken from Isaiah 66:24. These speak of torments, and they speak of them in "unquenchable," unending ways. He describes it as fire (Matt 5:22; 25:46). He speaks of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt 13:42; 22:13; 24:51). He described the torment in the story (the text doesn't list it as a parable) of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). Unquenchable fire, the worm does not die, gnashing of teeth, "outer darkness" (Matt 25:30), "Gehenna" (Matt 10:28). (Gehenna was a place outside Jerusalem that was used for burning children as sacrifice at one point and, if I'm not mistaken, was used to burn dead bodies in a war at another point.) Jesus had no problem discussing the horrors of Hell.
And not just Jesus. You'll find it in other places as well. Paul wrote of "those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thess 1:8) that they would "suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might" (2 Thess 1:9). Think about that. "Eternal destruction." If it was annihilation, "eternal" is a pointless adjective. Annihilation is defined as permanent. This isn't that. This is "destruction," an ongoing process. It is continuous ruination ... for eternity. But Paul doesn't leave it blank at that point. He explains in what sense. They are away from God's presence. That's not a geographical description. If it is true that all things consist in Christ (Col 1:17), then if God was not there, they would cease to exist. No, this is about perception. We get glimpses of God in life. We see Him in creation, in certain events, in momentary revelation. They won't. They will have no more sense of God. No hope. No joy. No purpose. Worse, they will be away from His glory. God is all about His glory and we are all about bringing Him glory. Without it, we are pointless.
Biblically, the place we refer to as "Hell" is a real place in which many will find their eternal home. No one will be there unjustly. It is a place of ultimate justice. Heaven, on the other hand, is a place of unmerited favor and mercy in the place of justice. Given the horrors of Hell, I would think we'd want to be diligent to urge people to avoid it. Especially since we have the solution.
Wednesday, January 17, 2024
Who Are These Evangelicals?
Salon magazine is complaining about Evangelicals. According to Salon, Evangelicals are the reason that Trump is so popular. Evangelicals are the reason that Trump won in 2016 and the reason he won in Iowa this week. Who are these Evangelicals? The Wall Street Journal rightly (I think) asks, "Just how Evangelical are these Evangelicals?"
In 2016, the media was full of stories about how "81% of white Evangelicals" voted for Trump. Now, on the face of it, it is patently false. First, I don't think 81% of white Evangelicals voted. I'm sure the percentage was lower than that ... likely much lower. So if, say, 50% of Evangelicals voted and 80% of them voted for Trump, that would be 40% of Evangelicals. To attribute that "81%" to all Evangelicals is nonsense. Second, by making the point that it was "white Evangelicals," they betrayed a racial component that neither supported the argument nor had any bearing on the truth. Third, by "Evangelicals" they mean "people who self-identify as Evangelicals." We live in a world now when "what I say means exactly what I mean, even if the words aren't what I mean." We live in a world where "Evangelical" had a definition, but people are happy to identify as such without actually qualifying for it. "Evangelical" is supposed to include "born again," a fundamental belief in an inerrant, authoritative Bible, a centrality of the Cross, and a focus on living the life and sharing the gospel. The word, in fact, is rooted in "the Gospel." Are these self-identified "Evangelicals" on board for any of that? So there is a sizeable number of "self-identified Evangelicals" that do not qualify for the term1, yet end up in this "81%" who voted for Trump then ... and now. "Evangelical" is now often defined as "white Republicans who consider themselves religious, but not Catholic." How far from the truth can we get?
Paul wrote, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:24). He was writing to sinning Jews at that particular moment -- "You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law" (Rom 2:23). We have our own version today. Most people today believe that "Evangelical" is a political movement. They are people who make politics our spiritual service of worship. They correlate how you vote with godliness. They claim to honor God -- the One from whom all authority comes (Rom 13:1) -- by insisting that the only way to achieve His will is to vote for Trump. True Evangelicals would be hanging, instead, on their faith in Christ and their confidence in the truth of Scripture, not on the polls. They would be focused on the Cross and sharing the gospel, not on religiously campaigning for a man who would be king. And I fear that the term, "Evangelicals," misused as it is today, is being used to give God a black eye, as it were. Because we're supposed to be in this world, but not of it, and either the media is misleading (and that's a given, isn't it?) or we are failing miserably (which is possible, too). God help us.
________
In 2016, the media was full of stories about how "81% of white Evangelicals" voted for Trump. Now, on the face of it, it is patently false. First, I don't think 81% of white Evangelicals voted. I'm sure the percentage was lower than that ... likely much lower. So if, say, 50% of Evangelicals voted and 80% of them voted for Trump, that would be 40% of Evangelicals. To attribute that "81%" to all Evangelicals is nonsense. Second, by making the point that it was "white Evangelicals," they betrayed a racial component that neither supported the argument nor had any bearing on the truth. Third, by "Evangelicals" they mean "people who self-identify as Evangelicals." We live in a world now when "what I say means exactly what I mean, even if the words aren't what I mean." We live in a world where "Evangelical" had a definition, but people are happy to identify as such without actually qualifying for it. "Evangelical" is supposed to include "born again," a fundamental belief in an inerrant, authoritative Bible, a centrality of the Cross, and a focus on living the life and sharing the gospel. The word, in fact, is rooted in "the Gospel." Are these self-identified "Evangelicals" on board for any of that? So there is a sizeable number of "self-identified Evangelicals" that do not qualify for the term1, yet end up in this "81%" who voted for Trump then ... and now. "Evangelical" is now often defined as "white Republicans who consider themselves religious, but not Catholic." How far from the truth can we get?
Paul wrote, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:24). He was writing to sinning Jews at that particular moment -- "You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law" (Rom 2:23). We have our own version today. Most people today believe that "Evangelical" is a political movement. They are people who make politics our spiritual service of worship. They correlate how you vote with godliness. They claim to honor God -- the One from whom all authority comes (Rom 13:1) -- by insisting that the only way to achieve His will is to vote for Trump. True Evangelicals would be hanging, instead, on their faith in Christ and their confidence in the truth of Scripture, not on the polls. They would be focused on the Cross and sharing the gospel, not on religiously campaigning for a man who would be king. And I fear that the term, "Evangelicals," misused as it is today, is being used to give God a black eye, as it were. Because we're supposed to be in this world, but not of it, and either the media is misleading (and that's a given, isn't it?) or we are failing miserably (which is possible, too). God help us.
________
1 In 2023, Ligonier did their annual "State of Theology" report. They ask basic questions about theology and include a specific breakout for Evangelicals. So, for instance, when Americans were asked, "Does God change?", 31% said, "No" while 52% said, "Yes." Among Evangelicals (who have the Bible which says God does not change), 43% said, "No" while 48% said, "Yes." Clearly a problem. While 67% of all respondents said that God accepts the worship of all religions, 58% of Evangelicals agreed, a marked improvement but a horribly bad number among people who claim to subscribe to the Bible. On whether or not Jesus was God, 54% of all respondents said He was not God and a stunning 44% of Evangelicals said the same. On "God counts a person as righteous on the basis of faith in Christ," 57% of all respondents and 80% of Evangelicals agreed. Which suggests that at least 20% of self-identified Evangelicals are not Evangelicals.
Tuesday, January 16, 2024
The Enemy of Freedom
We in America are, ostensibly, all about freedom. You know ... "land of the free" ... that kind of thing. But are we? In his epistle to the church at Colossae, Paul told them about his deep concern.
Isn't this what you see and hear daily? "God didn't make the world; it was Evolution. See? Look at the science." "The ultimate good is not truth; it is to be yourself." "It's not a sin to love a person of the same sex; love is never a sin." "Forget about Christ and His Word; speaking my truth is the most powerful tool we have." "God's instructions? Don't be silly. All I need is the freedom to be myself." Note, by the way, that it isn't simply all philosophy that is the problem. It is philosophy rooted in "human tradition" built upon "the elemental spirits of the world." "Genesis is just a myth. Science can tell you that." One commentator says it's like bringing a lamp to a sundial to tell time at night. "Your Bible is all well and good, but we know better." And this kind of philosophy is described as "empty deceit." This kind of philosophy, based on mere tradition and worldly perspective ends up canceling your freedom.
The text goes on to say that freedom is found in Christ (Col 2:8) who so far exceeds mere human tradition and elemental spirits because "in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9). How does human tradition and elemental spirits deal with that? How do they compete? But they do, don't they? Because in our world people -- even so-called "freedom-loving" people -- are swift to surrender their freedom to less than Christ. Jesus is God Incarnate. He is truth (John 14:6). Human philosophy can muddle about trying to guess at things; Christ gives a sure foundation.
Our world is confident they can figure it out on their own. Don't do it. Not you. Believers have something better. Believers have genuine freedom as opposed to, say, "free thinkers" who aren't allowed to think about certain things like miracles and God. (How does that make sense?) Or "Christians" who don't need God's Word to know what's true. They live in a world bounded by matter and human reasoning (Jer 17:9) and we live in a world under God. Real freedom. Not that (fleeting) version that America and so much of the world are choosing to prefer.
For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ. (Col 2:1-2)A great struggle, he said. What was it? That their hearts may be encouraged. How? By being "knit together in love." I love that. He was urging believers to be encouraged by being knit together in love. Sure, they had their differences. Sure they had their own problems. But, above everything else, their hearts were as one in love. To what end? To obtain the "riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery" which, he makes quite clear, "is Christ." Christ, having been previously unknown ("mystery"), is now revealed, and knowing and understanding Him produces full assurance. "I say this," he goes on to say, "in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments" (Col 2:4). Ah! The danger of "plausible arguments." He explains.
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Col 2:8)"Plausible arguments," then, run the risk of taking you captive. Philosophy and empty deceit could easily steal your freedom. They could wrap you up in their plausibility and cause you to lose your freedom. Now, isn't that odd? I think so, because the "philosophy and empty deceit" that he is talking about is a good description of the world in which we live.
Isn't this what you see and hear daily? "God didn't make the world; it was Evolution. See? Look at the science." "The ultimate good is not truth; it is to be yourself." "It's not a sin to love a person of the same sex; love is never a sin." "Forget about Christ and His Word; speaking my truth is the most powerful tool we have." "God's instructions? Don't be silly. All I need is the freedom to be myself." Note, by the way, that it isn't simply all philosophy that is the problem. It is philosophy rooted in "human tradition" built upon "the elemental spirits of the world." "Genesis is just a myth. Science can tell you that." One commentator says it's like bringing a lamp to a sundial to tell time at night. "Your Bible is all well and good, but we know better." And this kind of philosophy is described as "empty deceit." This kind of philosophy, based on mere tradition and worldly perspective ends up canceling your freedom.
The text goes on to say that freedom is found in Christ (Col 2:8) who so far exceeds mere human tradition and elemental spirits because "in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9). How does human tradition and elemental spirits deal with that? How do they compete? But they do, don't they? Because in our world people -- even so-called "freedom-loving" people -- are swift to surrender their freedom to less than Christ. Jesus is God Incarnate. He is truth (John 14:6). Human philosophy can muddle about trying to guess at things; Christ gives a sure foundation.
Our world is confident they can figure it out on their own. Don't do it. Not you. Believers have something better. Believers have genuine freedom as opposed to, say, "free thinkers" who aren't allowed to think about certain things like miracles and God. (How does that make sense?) Or "Christians" who don't need God's Word to know what's true. They live in a world bounded by matter and human reasoning (Jer 17:9) and we live in a world under God. Real freedom. Not that (fleeting) version that America and so much of the world are choosing to prefer.
Monday, January 15, 2024
Does the Bible Speak?
It's always amusing to me when people try to argue that the Bible is okay with homosexuality. It's mostly amusing because they start with a head nod toward the Bible, right? I mean, why would they care what the Bible says? Apparently it matters. But it's more amusing when they roll out such horrendous arguments. Huffington Post had an article some time ago giving "the best case for the Bible not to condemn homosexuality." Their argument, primarily, was "love." Love and condemnation are antithetical. It only follows, then, that if you love, there is no room for condemnation (and, oh, by the way, justice). Love excludes condemnation. You know, like when Jesus clarified such sins as adultery, murder, etc. That was His "inner hater" showing through. Not the best argument after all, I guess. Are there any more? Sure.
Jesus never said anything about it, so he was in favor.
This is what is known as an argument from silence. "Jesus never said" is used to assume that Jesus was in favor. A horrible argument. Jesus never said, "You should cook bread with little rocks sprinkled in the dough to keep your teeth clean and sharp." He must have been in favor. Jesus never said, "It is a sin to take a baby out to the barbeque and cook it for a good family meal." He must have been in favor. So, seriously, why didn't Jesus say anything about it? Well, the Jews (Jesus's primary audience) had Scripture, and their Scripture said, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22). Let's see, two men who lie with each other as a man might lie with a woman, eh? What do you suppose that is? I'll tell you what it is. It's clear. Jesus never said anything about it because it was clear. There was no one in Jesus's day crying out for gay rights, so He didn't address it. And He did uphold Scripture (Matt 5:18). Not hard to see. But, look, if you wanted to draw a conclusion from His silence on the subject, I think it had to be that He approved the common belief that homosexual behavior was a sin. Why? Well, He wasn't shy about addressing error in His culture. He wasn't reticent about speaking out boldly. If His current culture opposed homosexual behavior and denied homosexual marriage, why didn't He speak up? Why did He speak of marriage as between a man and a woman (Matt 19:4-6)? Why did He concur that sex outside of marriage was sin? No, an argument from silence is poor logic, but if you feel the need to use it, you will quickly see that His silence on the subject confirms His opposition to it.
The word, homosexual, doesn't appear in the Bible.
Another argument from silence. It's a funny thing, too. The word does not appear in the Bible. But, in fact, not one, single English word appears in the Bible. It was written in Hebrew and Greek, so of course it doesn't. So how do we end up with any English words? We translate. "But it's not in the King James." They're right. That, again, would have been an impossibility since the word wasn't invented until the late 19th century. So it's absence in the original or in translations prior to the 20th century is expected. Of course, then, there is a follow on ...
The word, homosexual, in today's Bible is a mistranslation.
"There was an error in translation," they say. "The word never appeared in the Bible until the Revised Standard Version in 1946 translated the terms 'malakoi' and 'arsenokoitai' in 1 Cor 6:9-10 as 'homosexuals'." Unfortunately, that doesn't hold water, either. First, the word didn't exist until the late 19th century, so no prior translation would have used it. Beyond that, it is pretty clear exactly what the original meant. There is an archive called the glbtq Encyclopedia Project -- an encyclopedia written by and for the LGBT community. In that archive, there is a piece on St. Paul. They argue that the term, "arsenokoitai," is the Greek version of Leviticus 18:22 coined by the Jews. They argue that Paul clearly forbade homosexual sex. They say, "The dependence of Paul's arsenokoitai on the Levitical arsenos koitén demonstrates unequivocally its source and confirms his intended meaning." They conclude, "The bad news from the Christian Bible is that it condemns same-sex desire and same-sex acts without qualification of age, gender, role, status, consent, or membership in an ethnic community." (That, dear reader, is what is called "evidence from a hostile witness.") No, no, it is clear that the original texts meant it and the latest translations that incorporate the latest language get it right.
Jesus told someone to come out of the closet.
You know how they laid claim of "Homosexual is not in the Bible"? Well then they turn around and say, "Jesus was in favor of gay." "Oh," you reasonably query, "how so?" So they point to the story of Lazarus (the one whom Jesus loved ... get it?) who died. When Jesus arrived, what did He say at the tomb? "Lazarus, come out." Well, there it is. He told Lazarus to "come out," which, as we all know, is a reference to gay people "coming out of the closet." So they reject the argument that homosexual is in the Bible even though the word didn't exist until the late 19th century, but they're pretty sure that "come out," which didn't mean what they mean until the 1930's, meant exactly that in Jesus's day. Now, you have to admit, that hurts the brain.
The Bible does forbid coercive sex and pederasty (sex between man and boy), but not in a loving relationship.
This one isn't as totally outlandish (on the face of it) as the previous ones. That, I suppose, is why it's more popular. It's just as wrong, but that doesn't matter, right? So, here's how it goes. They say that the Leviticus passages and the New Testament passages are not about loving homosexual relationships, but about abuse, rape, coersion, that sort of thing. If they admit that the Sodom and Gomorrah story (Gen 19:4-19) is about homosexual behavior (it is), they say it's about coercive behavior. (So they play both ends toward the middle.) That's primarily because, they say, that the Bible never envisioned today's loving same-sex relationships. And, after all, if the Bible is all about love, how could it not embrace same-sex love? Now, if you review the texts that talk about same-sex sexual interactions, there isn't a hint of this present. The Leviticus passages say, "If a man lies with another male in the same way as they would with a female ..." That's about coercion? What does that say about normal sexual mores in Israel back then? No, the text does not suggest anything other than normal male-female sex in comparison to what these men are doing with other men. "But," they counter, "that word, zâkâr, translated 'man', is also the word for 'child'." They will likely harken back to old German translations, untainted by the Reformation in general and American Christianity in particular. One of the earliest translations of the Old Testament is the Septuagint (300 to 200 BC), translating Hebrew into Greek. In the Septuagint, the word used is "arsenos" which is "man," not "child." Is that far enough in advance of the Reformation or American Christianity? This is a special dance done, hoping to mislead us into believing that we're wrong about Leviticus. That, of course, will lead us to ask, "What other parts of the Bible are falsified?" Which will lead us to conclude that the Bibles we have are not reliable.
At the end, then, we have this entire undergirding to consider. First, is the Bible reliable? The arguments against a biblical prohibition of homosexual behavior, while seemingly being supportive of the Bible, undermine it. "If I can't trust these texts, what else can't I trust?" But here's what the Bible tells us. Scriptures are not our work; they're God's work. They are "God breathed" (2 Tim 3:16-17). They have the authority of God behind them. Not only that, but they have the exact content that God intended, as given by the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:20-21). If God doesn't make mistakes, the Bible cannot be mistaken. But that's not all. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide His people into all truth (John 16:13). That means that we don't only have the written text; we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, if God is reliable, He has seen to it that we have had the truth all along. Since believers from before Christ and since have always understood the existing texts in both Old and New Testaments to prohibit homosexual behavior, we run up against this wall. Either God is not right and Jesus failed and the Holy Spirit didn't do His job, or what was believed from the days of Leviticus all the way through the 20th century regarding homosexual behavior -- that it was sin -- is still true. No amount of re-translating or wordly philosophy can change that. It is arrogant to suggest otherwise. "Well, they all had it wrong for all that time, but we figured it out." That, I think, is just as absurd as those arguments above. God, I believe, is fully reliable and fully capable and I will trust Him over them any day.
Jesus never said anything about it, so he was in favor.
This is what is known as an argument from silence. "Jesus never said" is used to assume that Jesus was in favor. A horrible argument. Jesus never said, "You should cook bread with little rocks sprinkled in the dough to keep your teeth clean and sharp." He must have been in favor. Jesus never said, "It is a sin to take a baby out to the barbeque and cook it for a good family meal." He must have been in favor. So, seriously, why didn't Jesus say anything about it? Well, the Jews (Jesus's primary audience) had Scripture, and their Scripture said, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22). Let's see, two men who lie with each other as a man might lie with a woman, eh? What do you suppose that is? I'll tell you what it is. It's clear. Jesus never said anything about it because it was clear. There was no one in Jesus's day crying out for gay rights, so He didn't address it. And He did uphold Scripture (Matt 5:18). Not hard to see. But, look, if you wanted to draw a conclusion from His silence on the subject, I think it had to be that He approved the common belief that homosexual behavior was a sin. Why? Well, He wasn't shy about addressing error in His culture. He wasn't reticent about speaking out boldly. If His current culture opposed homosexual behavior and denied homosexual marriage, why didn't He speak up? Why did He speak of marriage as between a man and a woman (Matt 19:4-6)? Why did He concur that sex outside of marriage was sin? No, an argument from silence is poor logic, but if you feel the need to use it, you will quickly see that His silence on the subject confirms His opposition to it.
The word, homosexual, doesn't appear in the Bible.
Another argument from silence. It's a funny thing, too. The word does not appear in the Bible. But, in fact, not one, single English word appears in the Bible. It was written in Hebrew and Greek, so of course it doesn't. So how do we end up with any English words? We translate. "But it's not in the King James." They're right. That, again, would have been an impossibility since the word wasn't invented until the late 19th century. So it's absence in the original or in translations prior to the 20th century is expected. Of course, then, there is a follow on ...
The word, homosexual, in today's Bible is a mistranslation.
"There was an error in translation," they say. "The word never appeared in the Bible until the Revised Standard Version in 1946 translated the terms 'malakoi' and 'arsenokoitai' in 1 Cor 6:9-10 as 'homosexuals'." Unfortunately, that doesn't hold water, either. First, the word didn't exist until the late 19th century, so no prior translation would have used it. Beyond that, it is pretty clear exactly what the original meant. There is an archive called the glbtq Encyclopedia Project -- an encyclopedia written by and for the LGBT community. In that archive, there is a piece on St. Paul. They argue that the term, "arsenokoitai," is the Greek version of Leviticus 18:22 coined by the Jews. They argue that Paul clearly forbade homosexual sex. They say, "The dependence of Paul's arsenokoitai on the Levitical arsenos koitén demonstrates unequivocally its source and confirms his intended meaning." They conclude, "The bad news from the Christian Bible is that it condemns same-sex desire and same-sex acts without qualification of age, gender, role, status, consent, or membership in an ethnic community." (That, dear reader, is what is called "evidence from a hostile witness.") No, no, it is clear that the original texts meant it and the latest translations that incorporate the latest language get it right.
Jesus told someone to come out of the closet.
You know how they laid claim of "Homosexual is not in the Bible"? Well then they turn around and say, "Jesus was in favor of gay." "Oh," you reasonably query, "how so?" So they point to the story of Lazarus (the one whom Jesus loved ... get it?) who died. When Jesus arrived, what did He say at the tomb? "Lazarus, come out." Well, there it is. He told Lazarus to "come out," which, as we all know, is a reference to gay people "coming out of the closet." So they reject the argument that homosexual is in the Bible even though the word didn't exist until the late 19th century, but they're pretty sure that "come out," which didn't mean what they mean until the 1930's, meant exactly that in Jesus's day. Now, you have to admit, that hurts the brain.
The Bible does forbid coercive sex and pederasty (sex between man and boy), but not in a loving relationship.
This one isn't as totally outlandish (on the face of it) as the previous ones. That, I suppose, is why it's more popular. It's just as wrong, but that doesn't matter, right? So, here's how it goes. They say that the Leviticus passages and the New Testament passages are not about loving homosexual relationships, but about abuse, rape, coersion, that sort of thing. If they admit that the Sodom and Gomorrah story (Gen 19:4-19) is about homosexual behavior (it is), they say it's about coercive behavior. (So they play both ends toward the middle.) That's primarily because, they say, that the Bible never envisioned today's loving same-sex relationships. And, after all, if the Bible is all about love, how could it not embrace same-sex love? Now, if you review the texts that talk about same-sex sexual interactions, there isn't a hint of this present. The Leviticus passages say, "If a man lies with another male in the same way as they would with a female ..." That's about coercion? What does that say about normal sexual mores in Israel back then? No, the text does not suggest anything other than normal male-female sex in comparison to what these men are doing with other men. "But," they counter, "that word, zâkâr, translated 'man', is also the word for 'child'." They will likely harken back to old German translations, untainted by the Reformation in general and American Christianity in particular. One of the earliest translations of the Old Testament is the Septuagint (300 to 200 BC), translating Hebrew into Greek. In the Septuagint, the word used is "arsenos" which is "man," not "child." Is that far enough in advance of the Reformation or American Christianity? This is a special dance done, hoping to mislead us into believing that we're wrong about Leviticus. That, of course, will lead us to ask, "What other parts of the Bible are falsified?" Which will lead us to conclude that the Bibles we have are not reliable.
At the end, then, we have this entire undergirding to consider. First, is the Bible reliable? The arguments against a biblical prohibition of homosexual behavior, while seemingly being supportive of the Bible, undermine it. "If I can't trust these texts, what else can't I trust?" But here's what the Bible tells us. Scriptures are not our work; they're God's work. They are "God breathed" (2 Tim 3:16-17). They have the authority of God behind them. Not only that, but they have the exact content that God intended, as given by the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:20-21). If God doesn't make mistakes, the Bible cannot be mistaken. But that's not all. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide His people into all truth (John 16:13). That means that we don't only have the written text; we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, if God is reliable, He has seen to it that we have had the truth all along. Since believers from before Christ and since have always understood the existing texts in both Old and New Testaments to prohibit homosexual behavior, we run up against this wall. Either God is not right and Jesus failed and the Holy Spirit didn't do His job, or what was believed from the days of Leviticus all the way through the 20th century regarding homosexual behavior -- that it was sin -- is still true. No amount of re-translating or wordly philosophy can change that. It is arrogant to suggest otherwise. "Well, they all had it wrong for all that time, but we figured it out." That, I think, is just as absurd as those arguments above. God, I believe, is fully reliable and fully capable and I will trust Him over them any day.
Sunday, January 14, 2024
Deists at Heart
The truth is we would all really like to be deists. "What's that?" you might ask. A theist is one who believes that God is in everything everywhere all the time ... you know, like the Bible says. A deist believes, essentially, that God started it all up, put into place physical laws and such, and then let it go. Now we're in control, as it were. We get to make absolutely free choices with no interference from God. We decide outcomes. We are the final arbiters of our own salvation. We ... are deists.
"I don't think we are," you'll likely say. "We believe in God." Deists do, yes. But what God? The Bible says that the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord (Prov 21:1). Can you look at, say, Joe Biden and say you believe that? The Bible says that God gives faith (Php 1:26; Eph 2:8-9; Rom 12:3; etc.) and even repentance (2 Tim 2:25). Did you figure that was your doing? The Bible says God does as He pleases (Psa 115:3) and no one can stop Him (Dan 4:35). Do you believe that? The Bible says that He keeps His own from ultimately stumbling (Jude 1:24). Did you think that was Him, or was it you? Jesus said, "Without Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). Do you think there's a lot you can do without Him?
That's just a brief sampling. Scripture is full of all that God does that we, in a sinful state, like to ascribe to ourselves. From salvation ("We can earn it if we try hard enough") to "saved by grace" ("Sure, we are saved by grace through faith, but we supplied the faith") to every breath we take and beyond, we like to think that we're capable and God has this "hands off" approach. Deists at heart.
"I don't think we are," you'll likely say. "We believe in God." Deists do, yes. But what God? The Bible says that the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord (Prov 21:1). Can you look at, say, Joe Biden and say you believe that? The Bible says that God gives faith (Php 1:26; Eph 2:8-9; Rom 12:3; etc.) and even repentance (2 Tim 2:25). Did you figure that was your doing? The Bible says God does as He pleases (Psa 115:3) and no one can stop Him (Dan 4:35). Do you believe that? The Bible says that He keeps His own from ultimately stumbling (Jude 1:24). Did you think that was Him, or was it you? Jesus said, "Without Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). Do you think there's a lot you can do without Him?
That's just a brief sampling. Scripture is full of all that God does that we, in a sinful state, like to ascribe to ourselves. From salvation ("We can earn it if we try hard enough") to "saved by grace" ("Sure, we are saved by grace through faith, but we supplied the faith") to every breath we take and beyond, we like to think that we're capable and God has this "hands off" approach. Deists at heart.
Saturday, January 13, 2024
News Weakly - 1/13/24
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Now, Scripture is clear. Scripture does not allow women to lead churches (1 Tim 2:12-15). So Eboni Turman was aghast when the Baptist Church didn't select her as their new lead pastor. And, in keeping with her "I don't care what Scripture says" approach, she's suing the church (1 Cor 6:1-20), making a mockery of God's Word and the church. Is she just trying to prove them right?
Thanks Again, California
Chevron is projecting a $4 billion loss in the 4th quarter due to California's hostile environment toward oil companies. Now, who do you suppose will make that up for the oil companies' losses? Can you say, "Higher gas prices"?
Not Promising
In filing to run for president in Illinois, Trump did not sign the standard loyalty oath. I don't know why, and it makes me wonder. People are outraged because the oath includes a promise not to overthrow the government. Biden said that Trump "is willing to sacrifice our democracy." The Chicago Sun-Times suggested it was because he already tried in 2021. Illinois Governor Pritzker said he had "already attempted it once." Mind you, on multiple occasions Trump was acquitted of insurrection, but that doesn't matter. They know that if you repeat a lie big enough and long enough, people will believe it, and it is no longer true that in America you are innocent until proven guilty. But, then, who is sacrificing our American Way now?
Four Fingers Pointing Backward
In North Carolina, the DNC has decided for its voters that "an election wasn't desirable." (Yes, that is a quote.) So they banned all Democrat challengers on the primary ballot; their only option is Biden. Because, as we all know, the Democrats are all about democracy ... while they seek to prevent voters from voting for their candidate of choice and point fingers at Trump for questioning the results of the 2020 election (one of their favorite tactics when they lose, too, it seems).
Threat to Global Peace
The pope called it a "threat to peace" and "despicable," and said it should be universally banned. What is that? Obviously not gay unions -- which he said should be blessed -- or even genocide in Gaza (which isn't actually happening). No, he was talking about surrogacy. Letting another woman carry a child for one that can't is a "grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child." I ... uh ... I'm sorry, I'm lost here. That is a threat to global peace? I don't even ...
Deprived Again
Israel has located a large underground weapons factory in Gaza. So now they're depriving poor Hamas fighters of their weapons?? What horrors will come next? Seriously, people, how can they keep saying that Israel is committing genocide when it's Hamas with the secret weapons factories hidden among their population? I'd like to know what kind of magic that side has used to bewitch what you might have thought were thinking people.
Can You Say, "Inflation"?
Biden's administration has a new rule that will put most gig workers out of the idependent contractor bin and into the employee bin where the government then mandates minimum wage, overtime pay, unemployment insurance, etc. Which, of course, will cost more. Which, of course, will cost you more. It's hard to keep track of "a living wage" when the target moves so quickly.
Another One Bites the Dust
You've heard of a "living wage" (as nebulous as that might be). Phoenix has become the first city to pass a "prevailing wage" law. As of July (lawsuits pending, of course), all workers on city-funded projects must be paid the same as others doing the same job. Talk about income equality. "We determine what everyone is being paid for that and you will pay it." Councilwoman Betty Guardado links it to "a living wage" without seeming to understand that by raising wages, the "living wage" shifts upward, requiring raising wages, which causes the "living wage" shifts upward, which requires ... well, you get the idea. I suppose Phoenix residents should expect higher prices and higher taxes soon. I suppose that this concept must spread to other places soon. I suppose you can see that "free enterprise" and capitalism are dying concepts.
That Oughta Learn Ya!
The Biden administration will start canceling student loans in February, teaching those poor students some valuable lessons, like "Expect the government to bail you out" and "Don't worry; you're not responsible for your own bills" and "Go ahead, borrow whatever you want. You won't have to repay it." You know ... helpful irresponsibility skills for later in life.
What Will It Bee?
The White House press secretary assured members of the media President Biden has done more to preserve democracy in the U.S. than any other totalitarian dictator in history. She might have a point. The Genesius Times had a story about the pope ousting bishops for being too Catholic. I think it might be true. And after that Alaskan Airlines 737 had problems in flight, the CEO of Boeing has assured passengers that all 737's are built to the highest diversity standards. There, that ought to make you feel better.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Now, Scripture is clear. Scripture does not allow women to lead churches (1 Tim 2:12-15). So Eboni Turman was aghast when the Baptist Church didn't select her as their new lead pastor. And, in keeping with her "I don't care what Scripture says" approach, she's suing the church (1 Cor 6:1-20), making a mockery of God's Word and the church. Is she just trying to prove them right?
Thanks Again, California
Chevron is projecting a $4 billion loss in the 4th quarter due to California's hostile environment toward oil companies. Now, who do you suppose will make that up for the oil companies' losses? Can you say, "Higher gas prices"?
Not Promising
In filing to run for president in Illinois, Trump did not sign the standard loyalty oath. I don't know why, and it makes me wonder. People are outraged because the oath includes a promise not to overthrow the government. Biden said that Trump "is willing to sacrifice our democracy." The Chicago Sun-Times suggested it was because he already tried in 2021. Illinois Governor Pritzker said he had "already attempted it once." Mind you, on multiple occasions Trump was acquitted of insurrection, but that doesn't matter. They know that if you repeat a lie big enough and long enough, people will believe it, and it is no longer true that in America you are innocent until proven guilty. But, then, who is sacrificing our American Way now?
Four Fingers Pointing Backward
In North Carolina, the DNC has decided for its voters that "an election wasn't desirable." (Yes, that is a quote.) So they banned all Democrat challengers on the primary ballot; their only option is Biden. Because, as we all know, the Democrats are all about democracy ... while they seek to prevent voters from voting for their candidate of choice and point fingers at Trump for questioning the results of the 2020 election (one of their favorite tactics when they lose, too, it seems).
Threat to Global Peace
The pope called it a "threat to peace" and "despicable," and said it should be universally banned. What is that? Obviously not gay unions -- which he said should be blessed -- or even genocide in Gaza (which isn't actually happening). No, he was talking about surrogacy. Letting another woman carry a child for one that can't is a "grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child." I ... uh ... I'm sorry, I'm lost here. That is a threat to global peace? I don't even ...
Deprived Again
Israel has located a large underground weapons factory in Gaza. So now they're depriving poor Hamas fighters of their weapons?? What horrors will come next? Seriously, people, how can they keep saying that Israel is committing genocide when it's Hamas with the secret weapons factories hidden among their population? I'd like to know what kind of magic that side has used to bewitch what you might have thought were thinking people.
Can You Say, "Inflation"?
Biden's administration has a new rule that will put most gig workers out of the idependent contractor bin and into the employee bin where the government then mandates minimum wage, overtime pay, unemployment insurance, etc. Which, of course, will cost more. Which, of course, will cost you more. It's hard to keep track of "a living wage" when the target moves so quickly.
Another One Bites the Dust
You've heard of a "living wage" (as nebulous as that might be). Phoenix has become the first city to pass a "prevailing wage" law. As of July (lawsuits pending, of course), all workers on city-funded projects must be paid the same as others doing the same job. Talk about income equality. "We determine what everyone is being paid for that and you will pay it." Councilwoman Betty Guardado links it to "a living wage" without seeming to understand that by raising wages, the "living wage" shifts upward, requiring raising wages, which causes the "living wage" shifts upward, which requires ... well, you get the idea. I suppose Phoenix residents should expect higher prices and higher taxes soon. I suppose that this concept must spread to other places soon. I suppose you can see that "free enterprise" and capitalism are dying concepts.
That Oughta Learn Ya!
The Biden administration will start canceling student loans in February, teaching those poor students some valuable lessons, like "Expect the government to bail you out" and "Don't worry; you're not responsible for your own bills" and "Go ahead, borrow whatever you want. You won't have to repay it." You know ... helpful irresponsibility skills for later in life.
What Will It Bee?
The White House press secretary assured members of the media President Biden has done more to preserve democracy in the U.S. than any other totalitarian dictator in history. She might have a point. The Genesius Times had a story about the pope ousting bishops for being too Catholic. I think it might be true. And after that Alaskan Airlines 737 had problems in flight, the CEO of Boeing has assured passengers that all 737's are built to the highest diversity standards. There, that ought to make you feel better.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, January 12, 2024
Fit for Glory
Paul wrote his two epistles to the church at Thessalonica to a church that was very young. He had been able to spend a very brief time there (Acts 17:1-10) before the crowd got ugly, so they went to Berea briefly (before the Thessalonians who didn't like him made trouble there, too) and then on to Athens. We're looking at a very young church. From there he sent Timothy to see if they were okay and, now in Corinth, received the news that they were thriving. So he wrote 1 Thessalonians followed just a month or two later with 2 Thessalonians to encourage a young but vibrant group of believers in the midst of poverty and persecution. In his second epistle, he writes,
There are a couple of words in that last verse that are ambiguous and ought to be examined. First is that word, "judgment." We typically think of judgment as punitive, but we know, in fact, it isn't always so. We often talk about having "good judgment" when we do things, and that's not punitive. It's wise. And this isn't punitive judgment; it's God's righteous wisdom. Yes, the persecution and afflictions are God's righteous wisdom. Why? That brings us to the second word: "worthy." He says it was "so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God." But, on one hand, they already were, right? I mean they were forgiven and they had the righteousness of Christ. That's worthy, right? So, maybe, worthy isn't the best expression there. The word also means "fit." The idea here is that God is using persecutions and afflictions to make them entirely fit for the kingdom. It echoes Romans 8. There Paul writes, "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 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" (Rom 8:28-29). All things work together for good "to those who are called according to His purpose." What purpose? God's purpose is to conform us to the image of His Son. And that takes a bit of work. A bit of major work. So He uses hardships to shape us into the image of His Son -- to fit us to the kingdom. So it's good judgment on His part.
Trials and tribulations are always troublesome for anyone, even Christians. They needn't be. Over and over again God's Word says that suffering is for our benefit. Tribulations perfect us (e.g., Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4). So He grants to us -- as a gift -- to not only believe, but to suffer for His sake (Php 1:29). Now, none of it feels good at the time, but a loving Father "disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Heb 12:6). In fact, if He does not, it indicates you are not a legitimate child of God (Heb 12:8). So bring it, Lord. You will walk with us through it and You will guarantee that it won't be too much and You will use it to make diamonds out of coal, a suitable reflection of You. Make us fit for glory, Lord, by any means.
3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater; 4 therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure. 5 This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. (2 Thess 1:3-5)He starts out with the obligation ("ought") they have to thank God for them. Why? Because their faith was greatly enlarged and their love was growing -- proofs of a genuine believer, a functioning church. I think it's interesting that Paul thanks God because of their faith and love, indicating quite certainly that God was growing their faith and love. He goes on to say that he brags about them to others because of their perseverance and faith in the midst of persecutions. Another key indicator of a genuine body of believers. But then it gets ... weird. "This," he says, "is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment." What is? Well, obviously, their persecutions and afflictions. So, wait ... who is receiving God's righteous judgment? Clearly it's those who are being persecuted. But we've already seen they are genuine believers genuinely saved. How does this work?
There are a couple of words in that last verse that are ambiguous and ought to be examined. First is that word, "judgment." We typically think of judgment as punitive, but we know, in fact, it isn't always so. We often talk about having "good judgment" when we do things, and that's not punitive. It's wise. And this isn't punitive judgment; it's God's righteous wisdom. Yes, the persecution and afflictions are God's righteous wisdom. Why? That brings us to the second word: "worthy." He says it was "so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God." But, on one hand, they already were, right? I mean they were forgiven and they had the righteousness of Christ. That's worthy, right? So, maybe, worthy isn't the best expression there. The word also means "fit." The idea here is that God is using persecutions and afflictions to make them entirely fit for the kingdom. It echoes Romans 8. There Paul writes, "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 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" (Rom 8:28-29). All things work together for good "to those who are called according to His purpose." What purpose? God's purpose is to conform us to the image of His Son. And that takes a bit of work. A bit of major work. So He uses hardships to shape us into the image of His Son -- to fit us to the kingdom. So it's good judgment on His part.
Trials and tribulations are always troublesome for anyone, even Christians. They needn't be. Over and over again God's Word says that suffering is for our benefit. Tribulations perfect us (e.g., Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4). So He grants to us -- as a gift -- to not only believe, but to suffer for His sake (Php 1:29). Now, none of it feels good at the time, but a loving Father "disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Heb 12:6). In fact, if He does not, it indicates you are not a legitimate child of God (Heb 12:8). So bring it, Lord. You will walk with us through it and You will guarantee that it won't be too much and You will use it to make diamonds out of coal, a suitable reflection of You. Make us fit for glory, Lord, by any means.
Thursday, January 11, 2024
Use Words When Necessary
The quote is generally attributed to St. Francis of Assisi. "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary." Mind you, Francis never said such a thing. It doesn't show up in any of his writings or in quotes from any of his disciples. He does say we Christians (actually, friars) should "preach by their deeds." So, what about it? Should we only "use words if necessary"? This isn't a St. Francis quote, but is the idea correct?
The idea, on the face of it, is nonsense. The "Gospel" refers to the "good news" about Christ. No amount of godly living will impart that information. In Paul's 2nd letter to the church at Thessalonica, he warns about God's retribution to "those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thess 1:8). If the Gospel is expressed in living a certain way, how does someone "obey" that? And, in Scripture, "preach" always means "to herald, to proclaim, to publish." The word, in fact, was generally used in reference to a public crier. Imagine that being performed in lifestyle only.
However, in another sense, the idea works. That is, "preaching" is using words to proclaim something. Thus using words is always necessary. And we know that, don't we? No, our problem, indeed, is that too often we forget that our actions must line up with our words. So the reminder that we should illustrate following Christ while we preach it is a good thing. Living the faith will never replace speaking the Gospel, but a failure to live it can be a loud noise to obscure the Gospel, can't it?
The idea, on the face of it, is nonsense. The "Gospel" refers to the "good news" about Christ. No amount of godly living will impart that information. In Paul's 2nd letter to the church at Thessalonica, he warns about God's retribution to "those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thess 1:8). If the Gospel is expressed in living a certain way, how does someone "obey" that? And, in Scripture, "preach" always means "to herald, to proclaim, to publish." The word, in fact, was generally used in reference to a public crier. Imagine that being performed in lifestyle only.
However, in another sense, the idea works. That is, "preaching" is using words to proclaim something. Thus using words is always necessary. And we know that, don't we? No, our problem, indeed, is that too often we forget that our actions must line up with our words. So the reminder that we should illustrate following Christ while we preach it is a good thing. Living the faith will never replace speaking the Gospel, but a failure to live it can be a loud noise to obscure the Gospel, can't it?
Wednesday, January 10, 2024
Drifting Along
From the author of Hebrews, we read,
That "pay closer attention" is an interesting phrase in the original. It is basically two words: prosechō, and perissōs. The primary word is prosechō. It means "to hold," "to apply yourself to," "to adhere to." It suggests firm action -- hang on tight. So the word itself means to pay attention. It is intensified by perissōs. That word is not just "abundantly," but "superabundantly." The translation above uses "closer," but the image of "hang on tight" is simply intensified with something like "a whole lot." "Pay closer attention."
Why? What's the big deal? What is the aim? There is a danger at hand. If we do not cling tightly -- with great attention -- to God's Word, we risk drifting. Now, on the face of it, that doesn't sound so bad, does it? Kind of relaxing. Easy. Restful. But drifting from the truth of God's Word, while it is certainly easy, is not safe. It is dangerous. The author of Hebrews warns that if we start from the truth and then drift, "How will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?" (Heb 2:3).
How about you? Are you paying attention? Drifting isn't hard work; it's the easiest thing we can do. Go with the flow. Don't fight the current. Don't "be on the wrong side of history." Drifting is normal. Look at the drift from truth in churches, in government, in education. It's easy, so you probably would hardly notice if you did drift. And the outcome is dangerous, perhaps even fatal. "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb 10:31). We ought to avoid sitting in a boat without an anchor when we have a firm anchor available. And, count on it. Go with the flow of culture, and you'll end up in dangerous waters.
Therefore we must pay closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. (Heb 2:1)"Therefore," he says. Why? Because God has spoken to us through His Son (Heb 1:1-2). Because His Son is His representation (Heb 1:3). Because He's better than the angels, and the Scriptures clearly tell us so (Heb 1:5-14). Therefore, pay attention. Pay attention to what? Pay attention to what God is saying. Pay attention to what He is saying in His Word. Pay attention to what He has said through His Son.
That "pay closer attention" is an interesting phrase in the original. It is basically two words: prosechō, and perissōs. The primary word is prosechō. It means "to hold," "to apply yourself to," "to adhere to." It suggests firm action -- hang on tight. So the word itself means to pay attention. It is intensified by perissōs. That word is not just "abundantly," but "superabundantly." The translation above uses "closer," but the image of "hang on tight" is simply intensified with something like "a whole lot." "Pay closer attention."
Why? What's the big deal? What is the aim? There is a danger at hand. If we do not cling tightly -- with great attention -- to God's Word, we risk drifting. Now, on the face of it, that doesn't sound so bad, does it? Kind of relaxing. Easy. Restful. But drifting from the truth of God's Word, while it is certainly easy, is not safe. It is dangerous. The author of Hebrews warns that if we start from the truth and then drift, "How will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?" (Heb 2:3).
How about you? Are you paying attention? Drifting isn't hard work; it's the easiest thing we can do. Go with the flow. Don't fight the current. Don't "be on the wrong side of history." Drifting is normal. Look at the drift from truth in churches, in government, in education. It's easy, so you probably would hardly notice if you did drift. And the outcome is dangerous, perhaps even fatal. "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb 10:31). We ought to avoid sitting in a boat without an anchor when we have a firm anchor available. And, count on it. Go with the flow of culture, and you'll end up in dangerous waters.
Tuesday, January 09, 2024
Haters
Our society today has this common, two-sided belief. On one hand, if you don't embrace views different than your own, you are a hater. Well, you either hate or you fear. On the other hand, if you love someone, you will endorse and encourage their life choices. You know, kind of a mirrored proposition. It's taken as true by many (most?). This is why so many who disagree with, say, homosexual behavior or transgender proponents are classified as "haters." They are "homophobic" or "transphobic" -- haters. It's impossible to look at the news or social media without concluding this is true.
There is, I would suggest, one tiny problem with this notion. It's not true. And, without defending one side, let's just look at the proponents to see if it's true. We have this premise: to fail to embrace opposing views is to hate, and hate is bad. On that premise, we see that those who don't embrace homosexual behavior or transgender ideology (as examples) are haters. The problem is this: those who are claiming this are, therefore, declaring themselves "haters." How? Well, they certainly refuse to embrace the views and choices of those who oppose what they are promoting. That, by their definition, is hate. And, to be fair, I would guess that a sizable number of them would embrace that accusation. "Yes, we hate those who don't embrace this position." But why is their hate deserved but the "hate" of the others not? Why is their hate good, but other hate is not?
I intend no answer to those questions. I don't believe the premise. I would argue that it is certainly possible to love someone -- love and not hate -- without embracing everything they say and do. In fact, I would argue that it is extremely common in any relationship. There is something you don't embrace in those you love. You put up with it. You tolerate it. You even encourage them to change it, perhaps. But you don't simply hate them for it. And, I'm sure, there are those who do. There are those who will hate another for something with which they simply disagree. But it isn't mandatory. It is possible and common to love someone without embracing everything about them. So you will have to decide. Is it hate to fail to embrace everything? And is hate bad? If "yes," then you are a hater, and that's bad. If not, don't hate because someone else simply doesn't embrace something you embrace. That makes no sense.
There is, I would suggest, one tiny problem with this notion. It's not true. And, without defending one side, let's just look at the proponents to see if it's true. We have this premise: to fail to embrace opposing views is to hate, and hate is bad. On that premise, we see that those who don't embrace homosexual behavior or transgender ideology (as examples) are haters. The problem is this: those who are claiming this are, therefore, declaring themselves "haters." How? Well, they certainly refuse to embrace the views and choices of those who oppose what they are promoting. That, by their definition, is hate. And, to be fair, I would guess that a sizable number of them would embrace that accusation. "Yes, we hate those who don't embrace this position." But why is their hate deserved but the "hate" of the others not? Why is their hate good, but other hate is not?
I intend no answer to those questions. I don't believe the premise. I would argue that it is certainly possible to love someone -- love and not hate -- without embracing everything they say and do. In fact, I would argue that it is extremely common in any relationship. There is something you don't embrace in those you love. You put up with it. You tolerate it. You even encourage them to change it, perhaps. But you don't simply hate them for it. And, I'm sure, there are those who do. There are those who will hate another for something with which they simply disagree. But it isn't mandatory. It is possible and common to love someone without embracing everything about them. So you will have to decide. Is it hate to fail to embrace everything? And is hate bad? If "yes," then you are a hater, and that's bad. If not, don't hate because someone else simply doesn't embrace something you embrace. That makes no sense.
Monday, January 08, 2024
Moral Compass
I recently read an article about "disturbing societal shifts that are challenging our moral compass." "Moral compass"? Interesting concept. A moral compass is our way of telling the right way to go, morally. We get that. But the question is, whose compass should we use? In a real compass, there is a "true north" so that all compasses point the same way. In today's social setting, there is no "true north" -- no "absolute morality" -- to point to, so our "true north" becomes "Whatever I think is right." Then we push that onto others and ... voilà ... we have a moral compass for everyone. Mine. No, not yours. No, not theirs. The one that I and the one the loudest voices use.
Some religious folks complain that atheists have no moral compass. Without God, they say, morality is whatever you want it to be. The premise is true, of course. Without a moral "true north" for everyone, morality is whatever you want it to be. It has no objective basis and, therefore, no universal standing. If my moral values are based on whatever I want them to be, there is no rational reason to tell you to comply with them. So it's not true that atheists have no moral compass. Some are very moral, but that's only because their moral compasses -- their internal sense of right and wrong -- sometimes coincides with what God says is right and wrong. What those who deny God's moral code do not have is a basis suitable for passing on to others.
It's not just atheists who have a problem with a moral compass. it's all human beings. By nature, Scripture says, "No one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12). By nature, "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). When our primary moral compass is "follow your heart," we belie the fact that we are unaware that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jer 17:9). We are not capable of a viable, reliable, self-constructed moral compass. That's why we need an absolute, a "true north" outside of ourselves. That's why we need God's Word expressing God's thoughts on what's best for God's creation. Among other things, a true moral compass. When they want to know whose moral compass we should follow, it's not yours or mine. It's God's.
Some religious folks complain that atheists have no moral compass. Without God, they say, morality is whatever you want it to be. The premise is true, of course. Without a moral "true north" for everyone, morality is whatever you want it to be. It has no objective basis and, therefore, no universal standing. If my moral values are based on whatever I want them to be, there is no rational reason to tell you to comply with them. So it's not true that atheists have no moral compass. Some are very moral, but that's only because their moral compasses -- their internal sense of right and wrong -- sometimes coincides with what God says is right and wrong. What those who deny God's moral code do not have is a basis suitable for passing on to others.
It's not just atheists who have a problem with a moral compass. it's all human beings. By nature, Scripture says, "No one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12). By nature, "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). When our primary moral compass is "follow your heart," we belie the fact that we are unaware that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jer 17:9). We are not capable of a viable, reliable, self-constructed moral compass. That's why we need an absolute, a "true north" outside of ourselves. That's why we need God's Word expressing God's thoughts on what's best for God's creation. Among other things, a true moral compass. When they want to know whose moral compass we should follow, it's not yours or mine. It's God's.
Sunday, January 07, 2024
Worth-Ship Service
Sunday is our traditional day of worship for most Christians. Well ... "day of worship" might be a little overstatement. I'd say that these days it's closer to "hour or so of worship." But you get the idea. However, what day it is and how long it lasts isn't my topic here. It is worship.
Worship is defined in the dictionary as "to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power." That works for me. Biblically, some misguided souls tried to worship that which was not God and were chided for it. Maybe it was an idol or maybe it was an angel, but anything worshiped that was not God was a bad idea. Only God deserves that honor and reverence. But what is it? A common term in the Bible is "fear" (Job 28:28; Psa 111:10; Prov 1:7; 9:10; 10:27; Matt 10:28; 2 Cor 5:11 etc.). Some will translate that as "reverential awe" (although in both the Old and New Testaments the word is "fear"), and that's okay as long as you remember that "awe" intrinsically includes a "sense of dread" or "fear." Scripture says that our reasonable worship is presenting our bodies as living sacrifice to God (Rom 12:1). And throughout Scripture there was song -- Psalms, hymns, spiritual songs (Col 3:16) -- that were used as worship as well as the preaching of God's Word. Biblically, worship is essentially assigning worth to the One who is worthy -- worth-ship.
Here's the strange thing. In our day, worship -- the kind that takes place on your typical Sunday morning -- has become something quite different. We go to church and have our standard "worship service" which will include, typically, some singing and some preaching. And we say, "I got a lot out of that." Or, "I don't know. Their choice of songs wasn't so good" or "His sermon wasn't that good" or the like. What we don't seem to consider is "What worship did I offer to God? What 'worth-ship' did I ascribe to the Lord? Did I express in deed and mind and attitude honor and reverence for my God?" Now, how did this come to be? How have we arrived at the place that a "worship service" is about what I get out of it? There seems to be a disconnect here. And it doesn't seem to be a good change.
Worship is defined in the dictionary as "to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power." That works for me. Biblically, some misguided souls tried to worship that which was not God and were chided for it. Maybe it was an idol or maybe it was an angel, but anything worshiped that was not God was a bad idea. Only God deserves that honor and reverence. But what is it? A common term in the Bible is "fear" (Job 28:28; Psa 111:10; Prov 1:7; 9:10; 10:27; Matt 10:28; 2 Cor 5:11 etc.). Some will translate that as "reverential awe" (although in both the Old and New Testaments the word is "fear"), and that's okay as long as you remember that "awe" intrinsically includes a "sense of dread" or "fear." Scripture says that our reasonable worship is presenting our bodies as living sacrifice to God (Rom 12:1). And throughout Scripture there was song -- Psalms, hymns, spiritual songs (Col 3:16) -- that were used as worship as well as the preaching of God's Word. Biblically, worship is essentially assigning worth to the One who is worthy -- worth-ship.
Here's the strange thing. In our day, worship -- the kind that takes place on your typical Sunday morning -- has become something quite different. We go to church and have our standard "worship service" which will include, typically, some singing and some preaching. And we say, "I got a lot out of that." Or, "I don't know. Their choice of songs wasn't so good" or "His sermon wasn't that good" or the like. What we don't seem to consider is "What worship did I offer to God? What 'worth-ship' did I ascribe to the Lord? Did I express in deed and mind and attitude honor and reverence for my God?" Now, how did this come to be? How have we arrived at the place that a "worship service" is about what I get out of it? There seems to be a disconnect here. And it doesn't seem to be a good change.
Saturday, January 06, 2024
News Weakly - 1/6/24
You Keep Using That Word
South Africa has lost its language skills. They took to the top UN court to accuse Israel of genocide in Gaza. Now, if Israel wanted to eliminate the Palestinians ("genocide"), they have the capability. Instead they keep warning the populace to move while they clean out those particular forces who are seeking the extinction of Israel ("genocide"). They offer aid and allow supplies and do all they can not to kill all Palestinians. If South Africa (and the rest of the world with the same accusation) has a valid complaint, it should be, "Israel is incompetent of comitting genocide." They keep using that word; I do not think it means what they think it means.
No Bias Reporting
A Los Angeles County deputy fatally shot a woman who was brandishing a knife. That's what the video showed. Of course, that's not what the stories say. They highlight that she was a "Black woman" who was "shot in front of her 9-year-old daughter." I am not excusing the officer for his actions that evening, but why do we have to have racism and sexism inserted in reporting where it may or may not be and certainly not even that in a balanced way. (No one ever reports that a black officer shot a white woman or that a black female officer shot a white guy ... in front of his kids. That wouldn't fit the narrative.)
Let's Get Ready to Rumble
The body that governs Olympic-style boxing, USA Boxing, has made a new rule in its rulebook. Now men who identify as women can legally pummel women who are actual women in the boxing ring. Given the nature of the sport (for instance, baseball wouldn't be nearly as dangerous for women and men to compete), what could possibly go wrong, right? Especially considering that science (not "trans-hate") affirmed that the biological sex and not the gender identity determines the performance. I wonder if women harmed by this ruling (read "beaten to a pulp in the ring by a biological male") can sue the USA Boxing organization.
And Your Point Is?
Continuing on that "No Bias Reporting" item above, in Greensboro, NC, an off-duty, white police sergeant attempted to stop a robbery and was shot and killed. Three black teenagers have been arrested. But, of course, you won't find references to the races of victim or perpetrators in the stories you find because we don't want to think about black people killing white people. It doesn't fit the narrative. I don't care what their race is -- victim or perpetrator -- either. I'm simply pointing out that the media is making a point when they include racial information in one direction but not in the other.
"Mass" Hysteria
Four people were stabbed on a train in Tokyo. Now, a mass shooting is when 4 or more people are shot in a single incident, so this qualifies as a mass knifing, I'd guess. Elsewhere in Japan, more than 100 people (so far) were killed and more than 500 were injured in a 7.5 earthquake. Japan is seeking to outlaw both knives and earthquakes. We'll see how that works out.
You're Fired
The (poorly named) Department of Justice is suing the state of Texas for new laws that would allow Texas to arrest and deport illegal immigrants entering their state. It will "infringe upon and counteract" federal efforts. Now, let me get this straight. The state of Texas arresting and deporting illegal immigrants will "infringe upon and counteract" the federal border patrol from doing the job ... which, from from all appearances they aren't doing. (Indeed, in 2020 the number was about 405,000, in 2021 it was 1.6 million, and in 2022 it was 2.6 million.) I think the DOJ is thinking, "We can solve the border crisis ... by eliminating the border. If you start defending the border, you'll mess up our strategy."
Thanks, But No Thanks
In his first campaign event of 2024, Biden is marking January 6 with the argument that Trump is a threat to democracy and freedom. Not like the threat to democracy that Biden and his party is bringing when they eliminate people from ballots without being convicted of a crime. Not like the loss of freedoms from his side of the aisle that required everyone to get a COVID vaccine until the courts stopped it. No, just the democracy and freedom that the Dems are willing to offer ... like higher taxes, failing economy, greater illegal border crossings, cowardice in Afghanistan ... all that democracy and freedom.
You Go, Gurl
The UN Women UK have selected a guy to be their "champion for women" this year. Munroe Bergdorf is a biological male who identifies as a female known for extreme anti-white racism as well as homophobic remarks, but he's your gal. Once again, a blow to women in the name of diversity and inclusion. Can't they find a real woman to play the part of a woman? I mean, who better to know about very female issues than a person who was born a male, right? You go, gurl.
It's Beeneath You To Doubt It
I think it's what we were all thinking, but the Bee hit the nail on the head regarding the story on Maine's Secretary of State canceling Trump from the ballot with the headline, "Democrats Disprove Claims They Will Covertly Rig Election By Rigging It In Plain Sight". And in football bowl games, we saw the Pop-Tarts Bowl, but only the Bee broke the story of Taylor Swift on a date with the Pop Tart guy.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
South Africa has lost its language skills. They took to the top UN court to accuse Israel of genocide in Gaza. Now, if Israel wanted to eliminate the Palestinians ("genocide"), they have the capability. Instead they keep warning the populace to move while they clean out those particular forces who are seeking the extinction of Israel ("genocide"). They offer aid and allow supplies and do all they can not to kill all Palestinians. If South Africa (and the rest of the world with the same accusation) has a valid complaint, it should be, "Israel is incompetent of comitting genocide." They keep using that word; I do not think it means what they think it means.
No Bias Reporting
A Los Angeles County deputy fatally shot a woman who was brandishing a knife. That's what the video showed. Of course, that's not what the stories say. They highlight that she was a "Black woman" who was "shot in front of her 9-year-old daughter." I am not excusing the officer for his actions that evening, but why do we have to have racism and sexism inserted in reporting where it may or may not be and certainly not even that in a balanced way. (No one ever reports that a black officer shot a white woman or that a black female officer shot a white guy ... in front of his kids. That wouldn't fit the narrative.)
Let's Get Ready to Rumble
The body that governs Olympic-style boxing, USA Boxing, has made a new rule in its rulebook. Now men who identify as women can legally pummel women who are actual women in the boxing ring. Given the nature of the sport (for instance, baseball wouldn't be nearly as dangerous for women and men to compete), what could possibly go wrong, right? Especially considering that science (not "trans-hate") affirmed that the biological sex and not the gender identity determines the performance. I wonder if women harmed by this ruling (read "beaten to a pulp in the ring by a biological male") can sue the USA Boxing organization.
And Your Point Is?
Continuing on that "No Bias Reporting" item above, in Greensboro, NC, an off-duty, white police sergeant attempted to stop a robbery and was shot and killed. Three black teenagers have been arrested. But, of course, you won't find references to the races of victim or perpetrators in the stories you find because we don't want to think about black people killing white people. It doesn't fit the narrative. I don't care what their race is -- victim or perpetrator -- either. I'm simply pointing out that the media is making a point when they include racial information in one direction but not in the other.
"Mass" Hysteria
Four people were stabbed on a train in Tokyo. Now, a mass shooting is when 4 or more people are shot in a single incident, so this qualifies as a mass knifing, I'd guess. Elsewhere in Japan, more than 100 people (so far) were killed and more than 500 were injured in a 7.5 earthquake. Japan is seeking to outlaw both knives and earthquakes. We'll see how that works out.
You're Fired
The (poorly named) Department of Justice is suing the state of Texas for new laws that would allow Texas to arrest and deport illegal immigrants entering their state. It will "infringe upon and counteract" federal efforts. Now, let me get this straight. The state of Texas arresting and deporting illegal immigrants will "infringe upon and counteract" the federal border patrol from doing the job ... which, from from all appearances they aren't doing. (Indeed, in 2020 the number was about 405,000, in 2021 it was 1.6 million, and in 2022 it was 2.6 million.) I think the DOJ is thinking, "We can solve the border crisis ... by eliminating the border. If you start defending the border, you'll mess up our strategy."
Thanks, But No Thanks
In his first campaign event of 2024, Biden is marking January 6 with the argument that Trump is a threat to democracy and freedom. Not like the threat to democracy that Biden and his party is bringing when they eliminate people from ballots without being convicted of a crime. Not like the loss of freedoms from his side of the aisle that required everyone to get a COVID vaccine until the courts stopped it. No, just the democracy and freedom that the Dems are willing to offer ... like higher taxes, failing economy, greater illegal border crossings, cowardice in Afghanistan ... all that democracy and freedom.
You Go, Gurl
The UN Women UK have selected a guy to be their "champion for women" this year. Munroe Bergdorf is a biological male who identifies as a female known for extreme anti-white racism as well as homophobic remarks, but he's your gal. Once again, a blow to women in the name of diversity and inclusion. Can't they find a real woman to play the part of a woman? I mean, who better to know about very female issues than a person who was born a male, right? You go, gurl.
It's Beeneath You To Doubt It
I think it's what we were all thinking, but the Bee hit the nail on the head regarding the story on Maine's Secretary of State canceling Trump from the ballot with the headline, "Democrats Disprove Claims They Will Covertly Rig Election By Rigging It In Plain Sight". And in football bowl games, we saw the Pop-Tarts Bowl, but only the Bee broke the story of Taylor Swift on a date with the Pop Tart guy.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)