There's a popular old hymn I suspect you've heard called, "Peace in the Valley." The song looks forward to the day when "There will be peace in the valley some day." It looks for the time when "There'll be no sadness, no sorrow, no trouble I see. There will be peace in the valley for me." All good thoughts, but ... is it true?
The song looks to the end, when we are with Jesus. We know there will be a new heaven and a new earth, where God "will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away" (Rev 21:4). Clearly this is what author Thomas Dorsey was addressing when he wrote the song for Mahalia Jackson. So, sure, in that sense there will be peace in the valley some day. But I want to tell you a secret. We don't have to wait for "some day." Jesus told His disciples, "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid" (John 14:27). Paul told the Philippians, "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:6-7). Present tense. Right now. Peace is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). We can have peace now. This peace does not require "no sadness, no sorrow, no trouble." It's available in the midst of all that.
Yes, indeed, there will be a time when all genuine believers will experience no sadness, no trouble, no more tears. And it's good to keep that in mind. After all, it was God who told us it was coming. But, while you keep an eye on that future perfection, don't miss the present promise. Jesus gave us His peace. It is a peace that surpasses common understanding. And it guards your heart and minds in Christ. Present tense.
Thursday, February 29, 2024
Wednesday, February 28, 2024
Always Marry for Love
We Americans (and, I'm sure, much of the rest of the world) are a romantic lot, it seems. We have Harlequin and we have Hallmark and we have Valentine's Day and all that. Everyone knows that the only correct and viable reason for any two people to marry is love. That's quite obvious. But ... is it?
In Paul's letter to Titus, he urges Titus to have older women teach younger women (that's quite a chain) to "love their husbands and children" (Titus 2:4) (among other things). In his letter to Ephesus, he commanded husbands to "love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" Eph 5:25). Clearly, in Scripture, love and marriage go together. The only question I have is ... are we talking about the same thing? You see, when we say, "Always marry for love," what we're actually talking about is that romantic feeling, that heart-thumping emotion that steals our breath away and leaves our heads spinning. Marry for that love. It seems, however, quite outrageous to command wives to "love their husbands and children" when this emotional explosion is purely chemical and surely relatively short-lived. Telling husbands to love their wives is equally irrational since they never seem to feel it nearly as deeply as women do. And, ultimately, you can't command an emotion, can you? It's chemistry. It's a mystery. How can you command that?
I would urge people not to marry for love. Not that love. Not the love that comes and goes, that rides the ebbs and tides of emotion. It is irrational, untenable, and impossible. If "marry for love" refers to that kind of love, there is no marriage on earth that can survive that fickle rollercoaster ride. Marry, instead, for love. The kind of love that Paul described when he urged husbands to love their wives "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." The kind of love that 1 Corinthians 13 talks about (1 Cor 13:4-8) (including, especially, "love never ends"). Marry for the love that the Spirit provides (Gal 5:22), an outward-facing love that sacrifices self in order to obtain the best for those that are loved. Marry for the love that reflects God to the world (Eph 5:31-32). Always marry for that love. I'm sure it will include a lot of the romantic type we seem to want so badly, but it will include a lot more than that.
In Paul's letter to Titus, he urges Titus to have older women teach younger women (that's quite a chain) to "love their husbands and children" (Titus 2:4) (among other things). In his letter to Ephesus, he commanded husbands to "love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" Eph 5:25). Clearly, in Scripture, love and marriage go together. The only question I have is ... are we talking about the same thing? You see, when we say, "Always marry for love," what we're actually talking about is that romantic feeling, that heart-thumping emotion that steals our breath away and leaves our heads spinning. Marry for that love. It seems, however, quite outrageous to command wives to "love their husbands and children" when this emotional explosion is purely chemical and surely relatively short-lived. Telling husbands to love their wives is equally irrational since they never seem to feel it nearly as deeply as women do. And, ultimately, you can't command an emotion, can you? It's chemistry. It's a mystery. How can you command that?
I would urge people not to marry for love. Not that love. Not the love that comes and goes, that rides the ebbs and tides of emotion. It is irrational, untenable, and impossible. If "marry for love" refers to that kind of love, there is no marriage on earth that can survive that fickle rollercoaster ride. Marry, instead, for love. The kind of love that Paul described when he urged husbands to love their wives "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." The kind of love that 1 Corinthians 13 talks about (1 Cor 13:4-8) (including, especially, "love never ends"). Marry for the love that the Spirit provides (Gal 5:22), an outward-facing love that sacrifices self in order to obtain the best for those that are loved. Marry for the love that reflects God to the world (Eph 5:31-32). Always marry for that love. I'm sure it will include a lot of the romantic type we seem to want so badly, but it will include a lot more than that.
Tuesday, February 27, 2024
Storm Watchers
One of the local news stations enlists the aid of viewers to be "storm watchers." They will inform the media (literally) when weather events occur. Mind you, "sunny day" doesn't qualify. No, it's those harsh events, those snow storms and hurricanes and such. Good work if you can get it, I guess.
In a sense, we're all storm watchers. Remember the story of Jesus walking on the water (Matt 14:22-33)? Jesus's disciples were struggling through a storm, and Jesus walked out to them. They thought it was a ghost, but Jesus identified Himself. So Peter said, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water" (Matt 14:28). And He did. And the text says, "So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus" (Matt 14:29). Peter ... walked on water. Of course, Peter doesn't get the same press that Jesus did because, in the very next verse, it says, "But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, 'Lord, save me.'" (Matt 14:30). Peter walked on water -- a spectacular miracle -- and then ... didn't. Why? Because Peter became a storm watcher. Peter (wisely, some would say) saw the dangers and (reasonably, some would say) became afraid. Never mind that he was walking on water. Never mind that Jesus was right there with him. The dangers were real and immediate and he began to sink.
Ask anyone, "Who in history ever walked on water?" and they're obviously going to answer, "Jesus" and not "Peter." Why? Peter sank. And we do the same thing -- we storm watchers. We walk in the Spirit -- walk with the Lord. We know His abilities and intentions. We know that all things work together for good and we know He is always with us. There is nothing He cannot handle. And, yet, we look into the very real storm and panic instead of ... obeying (Php 4:6-8). Instead of trusting. Instead of marveling at His work as we watch. Nope! We watch the storm. We fear the circumstances rather than trust the Creator. Maybe we need to reevaluate that practice.
In a sense, we're all storm watchers. Remember the story of Jesus walking on the water (Matt 14:22-33)? Jesus's disciples were struggling through a storm, and Jesus walked out to them. They thought it was a ghost, but Jesus identified Himself. So Peter said, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water" (Matt 14:28). And He did. And the text says, "So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus" (Matt 14:29). Peter ... walked on water. Of course, Peter doesn't get the same press that Jesus did because, in the very next verse, it says, "But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, 'Lord, save me.'" (Matt 14:30). Peter walked on water -- a spectacular miracle -- and then ... didn't. Why? Because Peter became a storm watcher. Peter (wisely, some would say) saw the dangers and (reasonably, some would say) became afraid. Never mind that he was walking on water. Never mind that Jesus was right there with him. The dangers were real and immediate and he began to sink.
Ask anyone, "Who in history ever walked on water?" and they're obviously going to answer, "Jesus" and not "Peter." Why? Peter sank. And we do the same thing -- we storm watchers. We walk in the Spirit -- walk with the Lord. We know His abilities and intentions. We know that all things work together for good and we know He is always with us. There is nothing He cannot handle. And, yet, we look into the very real storm and panic instead of ... obeying (Php 4:6-8). Instead of trusting. Instead of marveling at His work as we watch. Nope! We watch the storm. We fear the circumstances rather than trust the Creator. Maybe we need to reevaluate that practice.
Monday, February 26, 2024
Christian Universalism
As we all know, the Bible teaches that everyone is saved. Oh ... you didn't? Well, look. First, we know that God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4). The Bible says Jesus is "the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). Well, if God desires it and Jesus accomplished it, it's a done deal, right? Oh, you're worrying about those "hell" texts. Did you know that "hell" in the Greek is simply a reference to the place of the dead. None of that "hellfire and brimstone" stuff. It's a false teaching from the church. I only listed a couple of the references, but you'll find that argument in various circles and in various Scriptures. So, what's wrong with it? Why don't we embrace that line of thinking? It's called "Christian Universalism" that holds that everyone is saved through the blood of Christ. That's so close to the truth that some miss it. That is, everyone who is saved is saved through the blood of Christ. So what's wrong with Universalism?
What if Universalism is true? What does that change? Well, you might be able to slide by Jesus's claim that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Maybe they're just born again ... without their knowledge or decision. But it's hard to dance around the language Jesus used describing what we know as "Hell." It was Jesus who warned that "these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt 25:46). Are you going to tell Him He was wrong? It was Jesus who spoke of Hell as eternal fire (Matt 18:8-9). Are you going to tell Him He misunderstood? It was Jesus who said, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:13-14). Are you going to offer Him a correction? Paul assured us, "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). No, Paul ... no faith required. When the Philippian jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul told him, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31). Nope! No faith required. And so it goes.
The Bible is full of warnings of eternal destruction for those who reject Christ. Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18). That's not trivial, and it's not unclear. Scripture is abundantly clear that there are two groups of people; those who repent in faith and those who don't. The former are saved and the latter are not. If this is not so, we could have used a much shorter Bible. "Everyone gets saved. The end." But, isn't there something we need to do, something we need to believe? "Refer to the last statement. The end." So, it doesn't matter what we believe, what we do? There is no point in trying to follow Christ? "Refer to the first statement. The end." Jesus is out. Paul is out. The rest of the warnings are pointless. Quick and easy. And fatal. Eternally.
What if Universalism is true? What does that change? Well, you might be able to slide by Jesus's claim that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Maybe they're just born again ... without their knowledge or decision. But it's hard to dance around the language Jesus used describing what we know as "Hell." It was Jesus who warned that "these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt 25:46). Are you going to tell Him He was wrong? It was Jesus who spoke of Hell as eternal fire (Matt 18:8-9). Are you going to tell Him He misunderstood? It was Jesus who said, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:13-14). Are you going to offer Him a correction? Paul assured us, "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). No, Paul ... no faith required. When the Philippian jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul told him, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31). Nope! No faith required. And so it goes.
The Bible is full of warnings of eternal destruction for those who reject Christ. Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18). That's not trivial, and it's not unclear. Scripture is abundantly clear that there are two groups of people; those who repent in faith and those who don't. The former are saved and the latter are not. If this is not so, we could have used a much shorter Bible. "Everyone gets saved. The end." But, isn't there something we need to do, something we need to believe? "Refer to the last statement. The end." So, it doesn't matter what we believe, what we do? There is no point in trying to follow Christ? "Refer to the first statement. The end." Jesus is out. Paul is out. The rest of the warnings are pointless. Quick and easy. And fatal. Eternally.
Sunday, February 25, 2024
How Do They Do It?
How do they do it? Those people that don't believe in God. Every day they wake up knowing that life has no purpose, that morality is on a whim, that there is no ultimate penalty and no ultimate reward. Circumstances occur randomly and without any point. Good things come and there is no one to thank. Bad things come and there is no place to glean hope. The world spins down crazier and crazier. "Sure, marriage can be between a man and a man. Sure, it never has been before. Sure, it violates the longstanding, traditional definition, but we don't need that anchor and we can do what we please." And marriage has no more meaning. "Sure, we understand biology. A male is a male and a female is a female ... unless, of course, they don't feel like it. Biology is unsure and science is unreliable and we absolutely must -- at the point of law, even -- subscribe to this new 'non-woman man' or 'non-man woman' as if it is real." And so on. Reality slides. Purpose is lost. Direction is pointless. Hope is a lie. How do they do it?
How do they do it? So many Christians I know. They recognize a "Sovereign God" but conclude, for some reason, that if His creation doesn't cooperate, He can't accomplish His will. They refer to Jesus as Lord, but believe that His hands are tied if His people don't have faith. They're quite sure that God never intends unpleasant circumstances and are, in fact, quite miffed if they occur. "Where was God?" They quote "My God shall supply all your needs" and worry about money, worry about having what they need. They are anxious about the next election, the next job, the next paycheck, the next friendship. They go to church looking for what they can get out of it and, if it doesn't measure up, they move on. They worry and suffer and find no hope. "If only God's people would do the right thing, then maybe God could act ..."
I know I have a different God than the first category. They have no God. That's easy. I don't know how they get through the chaos that is life without anything but the immediate. I know the second category claim the same God as I do, but why is theirs so pitifully weak and unreliable? Or is it me who is misguided in thinking that a Sovereign God is actually sovereign, that "My God shall supply all your needs" means I can rely on Him to supply all my needs? Am I the deluded one, and God is nothing like the one I read about in the pages of Scripture? I don't even know how they do that. I just don't get it.
How do they do it? So many Christians I know. They recognize a "Sovereign God" but conclude, for some reason, that if His creation doesn't cooperate, He can't accomplish His will. They refer to Jesus as Lord, but believe that His hands are tied if His people don't have faith. They're quite sure that God never intends unpleasant circumstances and are, in fact, quite miffed if they occur. "Where was God?" They quote "My God shall supply all your needs" and worry about money, worry about having what they need. They are anxious about the next election, the next job, the next paycheck, the next friendship. They go to church looking for what they can get out of it and, if it doesn't measure up, they move on. They worry and suffer and find no hope. "If only God's people would do the right thing, then maybe God could act ..."
I know I have a different God than the first category. They have no God. That's easy. I don't know how they get through the chaos that is life without anything but the immediate. I know the second category claim the same God as I do, but why is theirs so pitifully weak and unreliable? Or is it me who is misguided in thinking that a Sovereign God is actually sovereign, that "My God shall supply all your needs" means I can rely on Him to supply all my needs? Am I the deluded one, and God is nothing like the one I read about in the pages of Scripture? I don't even know how they do that. I just don't get it.
Saturday, February 24, 2024
News Weakly - 2/24/24
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
A survey was conducted at the end of 2023. The "2024 Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey" has demonstrated once again that modern Americans are nuts. They asked people (in the midst of today's media blitz) who was best and worst. Lincoln took best, and -- no surprise -- Trump took worst. How many could even tell you how good Monroe or Jackson or Truman were? How many had the information at hand to answer without media-fueled bias? Mind you, this so called "expert survey" placed Barack Obama (7) above Kennedy (10) and Joe Biden (14) above Ronald Reagan (16). We should all be clear that these are the opinions of people who don't know what they're talking about, so there's that.
War by the Numbers
Gaza death toll passes 24,000. Hang on, no, 25,000. Wait a minute, what I meant to say was 29,000. Sorry, it's hard to find accurate news. In a related note, Germany and Japan are suing the Allies from World War II for killing up to 8.8 million in Germany and up to 3.3 million in Japan when they didn't kill nearly as many Americans or Brits or Canadians or Australians. Remember, the rules are you can't kill significantly more than your opponent, no matter how treacherous they may be. (And, hey, those so-called "Holocaust" victims don't count, since we still have people saying it didn't happen.) Seriously, what do you suppose the purpose is in telling us this information?
Another Conspiracy Theory Proven
While a portion of Americans resisted taking a new mRNA-based vaccine for a Chinese virus sent over here, Dr. Fauci and the CDC assured us it was safe and effective. As it turns out, ain't necessarily so. A new study shows potential side effects including a increased risk of myocarditis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, spinal cord inflamation, blood clots in the brain, encephalomyelitis, and more. "Don't worry," they tell us, "they're rare." That's after prior studies that suggest that the vaccine was altering DNA ... which they told us couldn't happen, and the very well-known story of how the vaccine would prevent ... okay, not prevent, but decrease the effects ... well, maybe not, but certainly block transmission ... alright, so you could get it, you could still die from it, and you could still transmit it, but other than that, it was a very effective vaccine.
Coming Home to Roost
Mary and Jeremy Cox had their teen removed from their home for not using the right pronouns because their religion wouldn't allow it. An investigation found no abuse, but still took the juvenile. They are appealing to the Supreme Court. Like they said, if it can happen in Indiana, it can happen anywhere.
Upside-Down World
In our current upside-down world, "marriage" does not require "for life" or even "man and woman," which, I suppose, makes sense since "man" no longer requires man and "woman" no longer requires woman, so it stands to reason that a story would come out about how the teamsters would make a large donation to the Republican National Committee. Wait ... what?? Yep. $45,000. The teamsters, traditionally Dems to the core, donated to the GOP. Go figure. What next? Biden endorses Trump?
Apparently Bee is for Biden
With Biden paying off student loans with tax dollars, the Bee story of Gender Studies grad who wrote "Thank you" to the plumber who paid off her student loans makes sense. Then they had the story about Biden warning about Trump being the "greatest threat to America" while presiding over an invasion of America at the border. You know ... "Don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right." And merging racism with AI-generated women, the Bee had a piece on a black woman who finally felt included when Google's AI generated a black female Nazi soldier. Okay, that was over the top ... but I'm not sure how far from possibly true it might be in this day and age.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
A survey was conducted at the end of 2023. The "2024 Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey" has demonstrated once again that modern Americans are nuts. They asked people (in the midst of today's media blitz) who was best and worst. Lincoln took best, and -- no surprise -- Trump took worst. How many could even tell you how good Monroe or Jackson or Truman were? How many had the information at hand to answer without media-fueled bias? Mind you, this so called "expert survey" placed Barack Obama (7) above Kennedy (10) and Joe Biden (14) above Ronald Reagan (16). We should all be clear that these are the opinions of people who don't know what they're talking about, so there's that.
War by the Numbers
Gaza death toll passes 24,000. Hang on, no, 25,000. Wait a minute, what I meant to say was 29,000. Sorry, it's hard to find accurate news. In a related note, Germany and Japan are suing the Allies from World War II for killing up to 8.8 million in Germany and up to 3.3 million in Japan when they didn't kill nearly as many Americans or Brits or Canadians or Australians. Remember, the rules are you can't kill significantly more than your opponent, no matter how treacherous they may be. (And, hey, those so-called "Holocaust" victims don't count, since we still have people saying it didn't happen.) Seriously, what do you suppose the purpose is in telling us this information?
Another Conspiracy Theory Proven
While a portion of Americans resisted taking a new mRNA-based vaccine for a Chinese virus sent over here, Dr. Fauci and the CDC assured us it was safe and effective. As it turns out, ain't necessarily so. A new study shows potential side effects including a increased risk of myocarditis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, spinal cord inflamation, blood clots in the brain, encephalomyelitis, and more. "Don't worry," they tell us, "they're rare." That's after prior studies that suggest that the vaccine was altering DNA ... which they told us couldn't happen, and the very well-known story of how the vaccine would prevent ... okay, not prevent, but decrease the effects ... well, maybe not, but certainly block transmission ... alright, so you could get it, you could still die from it, and you could still transmit it, but other than that, it was a very effective vaccine.
Coming Home to Roost
Mary and Jeremy Cox had their teen removed from their home for not using the right pronouns because their religion wouldn't allow it. An investigation found no abuse, but still took the juvenile. They are appealing to the Supreme Court. Like they said, if it can happen in Indiana, it can happen anywhere.
Upside-Down World
In our current upside-down world, "marriage" does not require "for life" or even "man and woman," which, I suppose, makes sense since "man" no longer requires man and "woman" no longer requires woman, so it stands to reason that a story would come out about how the teamsters would make a large donation to the Republican National Committee. Wait ... what?? Yep. $45,000. The teamsters, traditionally Dems to the core, donated to the GOP. Go figure. What next? Biden endorses Trump?
Apparently Bee is for Biden
With Biden paying off student loans with tax dollars, the Bee story of Gender Studies grad who wrote "Thank you" to the plumber who paid off her student loans makes sense. Then they had the story about Biden warning about Trump being the "greatest threat to America" while presiding over an invasion of America at the border. You know ... "Don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right." And merging racism with AI-generated women, the Bee had a piece on a black woman who finally felt included when Google's AI generated a black female Nazi soldier. Okay, that was over the top ... but I'm not sure how far from possibly true it might be in this day and age.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, February 23, 2024
Help You Can Count On
In a recent post I said that Scripture is interpreted for us by the Holy Spirit, so a helpful line of consideration is to see if the Holy Spirit has taught the same thing through church history. Understanding that there has always been false teaching throughout church history, we aren't simply considering tradition or even preponderance of content. We're looking for a thread, as it were, of constant agreement from the beginning until today. If you interpret Scripture in a brand new way, it suggests the Holy Spirit has failed up until you came on the scene. I thought it would be interesting to do a sample run on this concept to see what we can see.
Consider, for instance, the topic of the Atonement. What exactly is that? Well, in all cases, in order to interpret Scripture, you have to use ... you know ... Scripture. Starting with "Well, in my opinion" doesn't work. What does Scripture say? Go from there. You can't interpret Scripture from "my opinion." You have to interpret it from Scripture. So what does Scripture say? Well, the Old Testament is full of atonement, a sacrificial system devised by God that included perfect lambs and scapegoats and all for the atonement of the sins of Israel. The concept carries over into the New Testament seemlessly. The author of Hebrews wrote, "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb 9:22). John the Baptist said about Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29). Same concept, new covenant. Jesus said, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Isaiah prophesied that YHWH would lay on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:6). Paul wrote "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Gal 3:13). Paul wrote of Jesus as "Whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith" (Rom 3:25). He told the Colossians that God canceled our "record of debt" by "nailing it to the cross" (Col 2:13-15). Leviticus says, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life" (Lev 17:11) and Ephesians says, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 1:7). Atonement, then, must include biblically a ransom, the shedding of blood, appeasement of God's wrath (the meaning of "propitiation"), redemption, payment. These factors aren't simply opinions; they're biblical.
So what does history say on the subject? The first theory of the Atonement was known as the Ransom Theory. Now, where do you suppose they came up with that cockamamie idea? Oh ... yeah ... Jesus. He said it. Not so radical, then, I guess. Actually, literal. Now ransom is a payment paid for the release of a prisoner. Okay, good, we have payment. Got it. In time, others came up with other theories. Mind you, other theories are not, in and of themselves, a problem. They just have to correspond to what we know. Anselm offered the Satisfaction Theory, holding that God's honor was offended by sin. Someone else offered the Moral-Example Theory that held that Jesus died to teach humans to be moral. (How the logic works on that I'm not clear, but ...) And so on. My point is that the Ransom Theory came straight from Scripture. When other theories surfaced, they were fine as long as they came straight from Scripture and didn't contradict the one that, you know, Jesus offered. To say, "Well, this also occurred in the Atonement" is fine, but "No, that Ransom Theory is wrong and my new theory is right" is simply contradicting Jesus, which won't work at all. When Jesus claimed He came to pay for sin and your pet Atonement theory says, "No, He did not," you know it can't be from the Spirit.
There are not a few who object to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement idea. They don't do so because it violates Scripture. They do so because it violates their opinions, their preferences, their own prior values. "A God of wrath who needs appeasement? Never!" Except it's in Scripture (e.g., Rom 1:18). "Jesus appeased God's wrath on our behalf? Don't be silly!" Fine, but that's what the texts say. "What kind of God requires blood for sin?" The God of the Bible ... repeatedly. And -- here's my real point -- that's what was believed in the first theory of atonement. If your version doesn't agree with that version (which is rooted directly in the words of Jesus), it would seem that you might be suffering from deception. My point here is not the Atonement. My point is that Scripture is interpreted for us by the Spirit. He doesn't change; He doesn't make mistakes. We have, biblically, deceitful hearts, so we have to count on a reliable aid to understand God's Word. He's that reliable aid.
Consider, for instance, the topic of the Atonement. What exactly is that? Well, in all cases, in order to interpret Scripture, you have to use ... you know ... Scripture. Starting with "Well, in my opinion" doesn't work. What does Scripture say? Go from there. You can't interpret Scripture from "my opinion." You have to interpret it from Scripture. So what does Scripture say? Well, the Old Testament is full of atonement, a sacrificial system devised by God that included perfect lambs and scapegoats and all for the atonement of the sins of Israel. The concept carries over into the New Testament seemlessly. The author of Hebrews wrote, "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb 9:22). John the Baptist said about Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29). Same concept, new covenant. Jesus said, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Isaiah prophesied that YHWH would lay on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:6). Paul wrote "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Gal 3:13). Paul wrote of Jesus as "Whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith" (Rom 3:25). He told the Colossians that God canceled our "record of debt" by "nailing it to the cross" (Col 2:13-15). Leviticus says, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life" (Lev 17:11) and Ephesians says, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 1:7). Atonement, then, must include biblically a ransom, the shedding of blood, appeasement of God's wrath (the meaning of "propitiation"), redemption, payment. These factors aren't simply opinions; they're biblical.
So what does history say on the subject? The first theory of the Atonement was known as the Ransom Theory. Now, where do you suppose they came up with that cockamamie idea? Oh ... yeah ... Jesus. He said it. Not so radical, then, I guess. Actually, literal. Now ransom is a payment paid for the release of a prisoner. Okay, good, we have payment. Got it. In time, others came up with other theories. Mind you, other theories are not, in and of themselves, a problem. They just have to correspond to what we know. Anselm offered the Satisfaction Theory, holding that God's honor was offended by sin. Someone else offered the Moral-Example Theory that held that Jesus died to teach humans to be moral. (How the logic works on that I'm not clear, but ...) And so on. My point is that the Ransom Theory came straight from Scripture. When other theories surfaced, they were fine as long as they came straight from Scripture and didn't contradict the one that, you know, Jesus offered. To say, "Well, this also occurred in the Atonement" is fine, but "No, that Ransom Theory is wrong and my new theory is right" is simply contradicting Jesus, which won't work at all. When Jesus claimed He came to pay for sin and your pet Atonement theory says, "No, He did not," you know it can't be from the Spirit.
There are not a few who object to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement idea. They don't do so because it violates Scripture. They do so because it violates their opinions, their preferences, their own prior values. "A God of wrath who needs appeasement? Never!" Except it's in Scripture (e.g., Rom 1:18). "Jesus appeased God's wrath on our behalf? Don't be silly!" Fine, but that's what the texts say. "What kind of God requires blood for sin?" The God of the Bible ... repeatedly. And -- here's my real point -- that's what was believed in the first theory of atonement. If your version doesn't agree with that version (which is rooted directly in the words of Jesus), it would seem that you might be suffering from deception. My point here is not the Atonement. My point is that Scripture is interpreted for us by the Spirit. He doesn't change; He doesn't make mistakes. We have, biblically, deceitful hearts, so we have to count on a reliable aid to understand God's Word. He's that reliable aid.
Thursday, February 22, 2024
Aliens Among Us
If we were to examine, carefully, what a "Christian" is supposed to look like, I think we'd be a bit ... startled. Genuine followers of Christ are not supposed to be "normal." Following Christ is not a casual thing. It is, in fact, radical.
Consider. Jesus said, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). Now, I know you've heard that before, but has it ever struck you as so ... out there? Deny self? That's not even reasonable in today's world. And yet, Jesus considers it a minimum. We are to forgive, without which we cannot be forgiven (Matt 6:14-15). We are actually commanded to be heavenly-minded (Php 4:8). We are expected to rejoice in trials (Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4). We are not supposed to be anxious (Php 4:6). Seriously, do you even watch the news? We aren't merely supposed to love God with all we are and love our neighbors as ourselves -- purely bizarre in itself -- but we're supposed to love the way Jesus did (to death), and that love shouldn't be an occasional sight among Christians; it should be the mark of every Christian (John 13:35). We're supposed to be husbands who love our wives by giving up self and wives who submit to their husbands as to the Lord. We're supposed to flee sexual immorality rather than indulge every opportunity. We're supposed to love sacrificially, live sacrificially, and count on God for everything. We are supposed to be counter-cultural. Being a genuine Christian is anything but normal.
The sad thing, of course, is that I would have to write this. The unfortunate fact is that we are way too normal. We don't stand out in our rejoicing in every situation. We aren't bizarre in our love for each other. We don't do our good works so that the Father will be glorified. We're just like everyone else. Well, maybe not fully, but, considering all that Jesus asks of us, certainly too much. You know ... the old line. "If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" I'm not sure how many of us could honestly answer "Yes."
Consider. Jesus said, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). Now, I know you've heard that before, but has it ever struck you as so ... out there? Deny self? That's not even reasonable in today's world. And yet, Jesus considers it a minimum. We are to forgive, without which we cannot be forgiven (Matt 6:14-15). We are actually commanded to be heavenly-minded (Php 4:8). We are expected to rejoice in trials (Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4). We are not supposed to be anxious (Php 4:6). Seriously, do you even watch the news? We aren't merely supposed to love God with all we are and love our neighbors as ourselves -- purely bizarre in itself -- but we're supposed to love the way Jesus did (to death), and that love shouldn't be an occasional sight among Christians; it should be the mark of every Christian (John 13:35). We're supposed to be husbands who love our wives by giving up self and wives who submit to their husbands as to the Lord. We're supposed to flee sexual immorality rather than indulge every opportunity. We're supposed to love sacrificially, live sacrificially, and count on God for everything. We are supposed to be counter-cultural. Being a genuine Christian is anything but normal.
The sad thing, of course, is that I would have to write this. The unfortunate fact is that we are way too normal. We don't stand out in our rejoicing in every situation. We aren't bizarre in our love for each other. We don't do our good works so that the Father will be glorified. We're just like everyone else. Well, maybe not fully, but, considering all that Jesus asks of us, certainly too much. You know ... the old line. "If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" I'm not sure how many of us could honestly answer "Yes."
Wednesday, February 21, 2024
Where Do You Stand?
Scripture says of the natural human being that he is not merely unwilling, but is actually incapable of understanding the things of God (1 Cor 2:14). We know that "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21), that the wicked "go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa 58:3). Natural humans are blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4), hostile to God (Rom 8:7), with deceitful and sick hearts (Jer 17:9). "There is no one who does good, not even one" (Psa 14:3; Rom 3:13). "No one understands; no one seeks for God" (Rom 3:11). This is the bottom line of our society, our culture.
Why is it, then, that we believers are so willing to draw our beliefs and our values from that culture? Why is it that we can be more skeptical of Scripture than societal perceptions? Think, for instance, of the concept of patriarchy. Everyone today knows that patriarchy is evil. I mean, that was (they tell me) a key message from the latest "Barbie" movie. It's that clear. Oddly enough, patriarchy is the principle that God instituted (1 Cor 11:3). Yes, yes, sinful men abuse God's principles, but that doesn't mean that the principle is wrong. In fact, if the principle is wrong, it is God who is wrong. And God furthers the principle by identifying as "Our Father" (Matt 6:9), as if that confers any status or standing. Yes, sinful humans have twisted the concept, so we've allowed it and gone along with it and arrived at the obvious conclusion that the claim that "the head of a wife is her husband" (1 Cor 11:3) is sexist and evil. So twisted is society's view on patriarchy that Christians who actually believe in a biblical version of it will not use the term because it cannot be addressed apart from the twisted views of society.
Consider some contrasts. Our modern world tells us that women must not submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24). "Studies have shown" that corporal punishment is harmful, not helpful (Heb 12:5-8). Today's position is that marriage is whatever you make it and only as long as you want (Matt 19:4-6). (On that last, it's very hard to define "marriage" in today's terms because it means so little anymore.) The loudest voices hold that homosexuality is normal (Rom 1:26-27). And on and on. When we subscribe to society, society's values, even society's science as our own -- our guide for life -- we do so against God's Word. When we reinterpret God's Word so that it aligns with society's views rather than vice versa, we make God a liar. And we do so with a smile and the confidence that we are followers of Christ. Don't be deceived; that's not following Christ.
Why is it, then, that we believers are so willing to draw our beliefs and our values from that culture? Why is it that we can be more skeptical of Scripture than societal perceptions? Think, for instance, of the concept of patriarchy. Everyone today knows that patriarchy is evil. I mean, that was (they tell me) a key message from the latest "Barbie" movie. It's that clear. Oddly enough, patriarchy is the principle that God instituted (1 Cor 11:3). Yes, yes, sinful men abuse God's principles, but that doesn't mean that the principle is wrong. In fact, if the principle is wrong, it is God who is wrong. And God furthers the principle by identifying as "Our Father" (Matt 6:9), as if that confers any status or standing. Yes, sinful humans have twisted the concept, so we've allowed it and gone along with it and arrived at the obvious conclusion that the claim that "the head of a wife is her husband" (1 Cor 11:3) is sexist and evil. So twisted is society's view on patriarchy that Christians who actually believe in a biblical version of it will not use the term because it cannot be addressed apart from the twisted views of society.
Consider some contrasts. Our modern world tells us that women must not submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24). "Studies have shown" that corporal punishment is harmful, not helpful (Heb 12:5-8). Today's position is that marriage is whatever you make it and only as long as you want (Matt 19:4-6). (On that last, it's very hard to define "marriage" in today's terms because it means so little anymore.) The loudest voices hold that homosexuality is normal (Rom 1:26-27). And on and on. When we subscribe to society, society's values, even society's science as our own -- our guide for life -- we do so against God's Word. When we reinterpret God's Word so that it aligns with society's views rather than vice versa, we make God a liar. And we do so with a smile and the confidence that we are followers of Christ. Don't be deceived; that's not following Christ.
Tuesday, February 20, 2024
Problems We Don't Have
A lot of people are concerned about a lot of things. Global warming is going to kill us all. Trump might get elected, which will be the end of America as we know it. Biden is going to push us closer to the brink of extinction. What will happen if we vote in the wrong person? The church is on the decline; will it end? Marriage is on the decline ... same question. Guns are killing children (and, apparently, abortion isn't). Christians are the bane of our existence (and, for reasons I don't quite grasp, not, say, Muslims or Buddhists or ...). All the way down to "Where is my next meal coming from?" Concerned about a lot of things.
I have some good news for you. Well ... some of you. As some of you know and claim to believe, we have a Sovereign God. This Sovereign God claims to be in control. That would mean that He (and not we) controls the climate. Those of you with a Sovereign God can work to change things, but you needn't worry that human beings are going to end this planet outside of His plan. God claims that "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of YHWH; He turns it wherever He will" (Pro 21:1). We know that "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1). So we vote and we express our wishes and views, but no "bad government" (wherever you fall on what is "bad government") can do what God does not intend for it to do. Statistics tell us that the church is in decline, but Jesus said, "I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18). Relax. As for marriage, humans didn't institute it; God did (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6). We can and should address the abuse and destruction, but, ultimately, we know Who is in control. All the way down to "Where is my next meal coming from?" We are told, "My God will supply every need of yours according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:19). We are assured, "He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things?" (Rom 8:32). Why should we worry?
We live in a real world with real problems and real difficulties. We should, obviously, address them, large or small. What we should not do is worry about them. We should not be wringing our hands and wondering, "Is it all going to end??" On one hand, yes ... yes it is. Exactly when God plans it and in the way He planned. On the other hand, we have nothing to actually worry about because our God ... and not all those other spiritual forces ... is in charge. We can and should work toward these concerns, but never allow them to bring you despair. We are assured that, indeed, the Lord gives and takes away ... and in every case we should bless the name of the Lord (Job 1:21). Relax. He's got this.
I have some good news for you. Well ... some of you. As some of you know and claim to believe, we have a Sovereign God. This Sovereign God claims to be in control. That would mean that He (and not we) controls the climate. Those of you with a Sovereign God can work to change things, but you needn't worry that human beings are going to end this planet outside of His plan. God claims that "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of YHWH; He turns it wherever He will" (Pro 21:1). We know that "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1). So we vote and we express our wishes and views, but no "bad government" (wherever you fall on what is "bad government") can do what God does not intend for it to do. Statistics tell us that the church is in decline, but Jesus said, "I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18). Relax. As for marriage, humans didn't institute it; God did (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6). We can and should address the abuse and destruction, but, ultimately, we know Who is in control. All the way down to "Where is my next meal coming from?" We are told, "My God will supply every need of yours according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:19). We are assured, "He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things?" (Rom 8:32). Why should we worry?
We live in a real world with real problems and real difficulties. We should, obviously, address them, large or small. What we should not do is worry about them. We should not be wringing our hands and wondering, "Is it all going to end??" On one hand, yes ... yes it is. Exactly when God plans it and in the way He planned. On the other hand, we have nothing to actually worry about because our God ... and not all those other spiritual forces ... is in charge. We can and should work toward these concerns, but never allow them to bring you despair. We are assured that, indeed, the Lord gives and takes away ... and in every case we should bless the name of the Lord (Job 1:21). Relax. He's got this.
Monday, February 19, 2024
Deceived?
Scripture says, "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). The obvious question is, "Well, if that's true, why do you think you can know it?" It is, in one sense, a completely misguided question -- "if that's true" -- but on the other hand I understand the question. It's a misguided question because the question assumes that the Bible is not true when it says that and that the questioner does know what is true. And it's not what Scripture is saying there. (By the way, that particular text is a quote from God. The Bible is not in question there; God is.)
So, what makes me think I can know what Scripture means and others can't? In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul told them, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). Notice the "cannot." It's not merely a matter of rebellion, of refusal. It's a matter of inability. So why would I think I (and all those like me) can understand Scripture where those relying solely on the "heart" -- on natural man -- cannot? First, we must agree that the Bible does not eliminate all possibility of understanding with these two passages (and others like them), or there would have been no purpose in giving us Scripture. How, then, can anyone think they can understand? One answer comes from the text. In the very next verse, God says, "I, YHWH, search the heart, I test the mind" (Jer 17:10). So, if the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, how can we even hope to understand God's Word? God does it. Isn't that what Jesus said? "When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come" (John 16:13). Jesus's followers have the guarantee of God's "Spirit of truth" guiding them "into all truth." So, while we have deceitful hearts and while natural man lacks the ability to grasp the things of God, those born of God (and no longer "natural man") have God's Spirit to tell them the truth.
"So," you will expect, "what makes you think you have the truth a not me? Maybe you're the misguided one." Maybe. We can ask a simple question that will get us most of the way there: "Is what I'm seeing in Scripture the same thing that God's people has seen in the past, or am I coming up with a novel or variant version?" A person who finds himself interpreting Scripture at odds with historic Christianity has to wonder why he or she got it right when no one else did before. Take, for instance, the question of the sin of homosexual behavior. They like to tell us the translation of "homosexual" (or "homosexual behavior") in 1 Cor 6:9-10 was a mistranslation by the Revised Standard translation in 1946. Before that, it actually meant "pederasty" -- sex between men and boys. Is that so? John Gill wrote his commentary in 1746-1763. He refers to the text in Lev. 20:13 as a reference to "sodomy" and the New Testament version (1 Cor 6:9) as "sodomites." The text itself says "a man who lies with a male" and the phrase from the Septuagint -- the Greek translation of the Old Testament from 4 AD -- is arsenokoitēs, which Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (published in 1841) translates "sodomite." The early church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea all condemned homosexual behavior. Taken together with the explicit text in Romans 1:26-27 where the act is contrasted with "natural relations" and just what "natural relations" means is detailed -- men with women and women with men -- it is quite clear that Scripture is talking about homosexual behavior -- male homosexual or female homosexual -- as sin. The acceptance of homosexual behavior in church doctrine didn't come about until the 21st century. So ... did the Holy Spirit fail for all this time to get across that it was simply pederasty that was a sin? Did all those led by the Spirit for 2,000 years miss this and only the "chosen few" today figure out the truth? If the Spirit is to be trusted and Jesus is to be believed, that's nonsense. God does not change (Mal 3:6). If the Spirit is doing His job, our understanding ought to coincide rather than collide. Sometimes we learn new things (like the full doctrine of the Trinity, as an example), but these new things cannot -- must not -- contradict what the Spirit already taught ... or the Spirit is insane and we're comletely without hope.
There will always be differences, variances, disagreements on some texts. Most of these are not critical. The overwhelming agreement says more than the minor differences we see. For instance, when Arminius's followers complained about the doctrine they were being taught, they complained about five points. Only five. Some see that as significant; I see it as overwhelming agreement. As we would expect from those whose ears are tuned to the Spirit and not relying on their own preferences and standards to decide what God means. If my interpretation is resting on my mind and my standards and my logic alone, I should be cautious. If Scripture changes my mind, my standards, my logic, and so on, that is a good indication that it's not me. Or, let's try this: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make straight your paths" (Pro 3:5-6).
So, what makes me think I can know what Scripture means and others can't? In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul told them, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). Notice the "cannot." It's not merely a matter of rebellion, of refusal. It's a matter of inability. So why would I think I (and all those like me) can understand Scripture where those relying solely on the "heart" -- on natural man -- cannot? First, we must agree that the Bible does not eliminate all possibility of understanding with these two passages (and others like them), or there would have been no purpose in giving us Scripture. How, then, can anyone think they can understand? One answer comes from the text. In the very next verse, God says, "I, YHWH, search the heart, I test the mind" (Jer 17:10). So, if the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, how can we even hope to understand God's Word? God does it. Isn't that what Jesus said? "When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come" (John 16:13). Jesus's followers have the guarantee of God's "Spirit of truth" guiding them "into all truth." So, while we have deceitful hearts and while natural man lacks the ability to grasp the things of God, those born of God (and no longer "natural man") have God's Spirit to tell them the truth.
"So," you will expect, "what makes you think you have the truth a not me? Maybe you're the misguided one." Maybe. We can ask a simple question that will get us most of the way there: "Is what I'm seeing in Scripture the same thing that God's people has seen in the past, or am I coming up with a novel or variant version?" A person who finds himself interpreting Scripture at odds with historic Christianity has to wonder why he or she got it right when no one else did before. Take, for instance, the question of the sin of homosexual behavior. They like to tell us the translation of "homosexual" (or "homosexual behavior") in 1 Cor 6:9-10 was a mistranslation by the Revised Standard translation in 1946. Before that, it actually meant "pederasty" -- sex between men and boys. Is that so? John Gill wrote his commentary in 1746-1763. He refers to the text in Lev. 20:13 as a reference to "sodomy" and the New Testament version (1 Cor 6:9) as "sodomites." The text itself says "a man who lies with a male" and the phrase from the Septuagint -- the Greek translation of the Old Testament from 4 AD -- is arsenokoitēs, which Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (published in 1841) translates "sodomite." The early church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea all condemned homosexual behavior. Taken together with the explicit text in Romans 1:26-27 where the act is contrasted with "natural relations" and just what "natural relations" means is detailed -- men with women and women with men -- it is quite clear that Scripture is talking about homosexual behavior -- male homosexual or female homosexual -- as sin. The acceptance of homosexual behavior in church doctrine didn't come about until the 21st century. So ... did the Holy Spirit fail for all this time to get across that it was simply pederasty that was a sin? Did all those led by the Spirit for 2,000 years miss this and only the "chosen few" today figure out the truth? If the Spirit is to be trusted and Jesus is to be believed, that's nonsense. God does not change (Mal 3:6). If the Spirit is doing His job, our understanding ought to coincide rather than collide. Sometimes we learn new things (like the full doctrine of the Trinity, as an example), but these new things cannot -- must not -- contradict what the Spirit already taught ... or the Spirit is insane and we're comletely without hope.
There will always be differences, variances, disagreements on some texts. Most of these are not critical. The overwhelming agreement says more than the minor differences we see. For instance, when Arminius's followers complained about the doctrine they were being taught, they complained about five points. Only five. Some see that as significant; I see it as overwhelming agreement. As we would expect from those whose ears are tuned to the Spirit and not relying on their own preferences and standards to decide what God means. If my interpretation is resting on my mind and my standards and my logic alone, I should be cautious. If Scripture changes my mind, my standards, my logic, and so on, that is a good indication that it's not me. Or, let's try this: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make straight your paths" (Pro 3:5-6).
Sunday, February 18, 2024
Fearfully and Wonderfully Made
My wife just got home from surgery yesterday. Spinal fusion. All is well. But I was looking at that structure -- the spine. The spine is the core of the human skeleton -- all the rest of the skeleton rests on the spine. The stack of vertebrae form the structure. Each has a hole in the center that provides a flexible sheath for the spinal cord. The spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body, providing input to the brain and output to the body. At various places in the spine, vertebrae allow a pathway for a nerve bundle to be distributed to their relative portion of the body. It's all a very complex system. The whole thing screams design. And I think to myself, "I don't have enough faith to be an Evolutionist."
I recently watched an old Outer Limits episode. A scientist was trying to accelerate Evolution to make people intellectual rather than emotional and, thus, put an end to war and all that bad stuff. The narrator, at the end, said, that this was the ultimate goal of Evolution. I was baffled. Evolution is an unguided, random, chance-driven system whereby various genetic changes occur causing gradual change over time. Good or beneficial changes will be retained because of the principle of "the survival of the fittest" while negative or irrelevant changes will go away. So ... what's this about "the goal" of Evolution? Without an intelligence behind it, how can something have "a goal"? Beyond that, if we allowed for the possibility of "a goal" in a non-thinking process, how could it be "good"? An undefined, non-entity has a randomly-selected "goal" to achieve an end it cannot know because it doesn't know anything. That makes sense to someone?
We are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made. Sometimes, modern medicine figures things out and they can do amazing things to remedy problems. Sometimes they can't. Much too often they don't really know what is going on in the body. Like magnets, they don't know what's going on, but they can see the outcome and use it, and we call that "science." It is these kinds of things that sing to the glory of the Creator who knew what He was doing, had a goal indeed, and a good one. I find great comfort in that Being even when putting myself (or my loved ones) in the hands of inferior doctors because, ultimately, God knows what He's doing ... every time.
I recently watched an old Outer Limits episode. A scientist was trying to accelerate Evolution to make people intellectual rather than emotional and, thus, put an end to war and all that bad stuff. The narrator, at the end, said, that this was the ultimate goal of Evolution. I was baffled. Evolution is an unguided, random, chance-driven system whereby various genetic changes occur causing gradual change over time. Good or beneficial changes will be retained because of the principle of "the survival of the fittest" while negative or irrelevant changes will go away. So ... what's this about "the goal" of Evolution? Without an intelligence behind it, how can something have "a goal"? Beyond that, if we allowed for the possibility of "a goal" in a non-thinking process, how could it be "good"? An undefined, non-entity has a randomly-selected "goal" to achieve an end it cannot know because it doesn't know anything. That makes sense to someone?
We are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made. Sometimes, modern medicine figures things out and they can do amazing things to remedy problems. Sometimes they can't. Much too often they don't really know what is going on in the body. Like magnets, they don't know what's going on, but they can see the outcome and use it, and we call that "science." It is these kinds of things that sing to the glory of the Creator who knew what He was doing, had a goal indeed, and a good one. I find great comfort in that Being even when putting myself (or my loved ones) in the hands of inferior doctors because, ultimately, God knows what He's doing ... every time.
Saturday, February 17, 2024
News Weakly - 2/17/24
That's Called "Irony"
After weaponizing the DOJ to take on their opponents (particularly Trump), the White House is complaining ... about a DOJ report that claims President Biden suffers from memory loss. Mind you, Joe is 81 and most 81-year-olds suffer from some memory loss. And it's not like the DOJ is telling us what we don't already know. But it's okay to use the Department of Justice to take down your own opponents, but not okay if they find something you don't like? Ironic.
TLS
The report is that Donald Trump would encourage Russia to do "whatever the hell they want" to NATO nations that haven't paid their fair share. I know there are Trump-haters (TDS) -- whatever he says or does is evil -- and Trump-lovers (TLS) -- he can do no wrong. I just wonder if this falls under "he can do no wrong" for Trump lovers. I mean, if he's perfectly willing to disregard treaties with other nations, why would you expect him to remain faithful to you?
Shrinkflation and Other Nonsense
Joe Biden issued a call to companies to stop shrinkflation. You know what that is (I hope). They sell you the same product at the same price ... with less in it. Go ahead. Try to find a "gallon of ice cream" these days. Not likely. Mind you, they're doing it to keep you buying because the price of everything has gone up so much ... thanks largely of late to the highest inflation in years due to Joe Biden's policies. "It's a rip-off," Biden said. Yes, it is, but it's not because of them. "The American public is tired of being played for suckers." I think there you're wrong, Mr. President. You're still in the running for president, aren't you?
Hardship or Not Hardship
The president wants to expand the repayment of federal student loans, this time for "hardship." Wait ... wait ... you're saying that you were already canceling loans for people who were not facing financial hardship? You weren't doing it for that before, but now you are? Listen, Mr. President, there are quite a few people I know facing financial hardship that could use your loan forgiveness themselves. Since you were forgiving loans for people who were not in hardship, how about these folks now, too? Or ... could it be you're simply buying votes?
Must Bee Biden
Making hay with the Biden satire opportunties, the Bee reports that Biden said he can't remember a single time his memory has failed him. That's beelievable. In another story, Biden, a devout Catholic (he says), is giving up cognitive tests for Lent. Good choice. And, just for fun, the folks at the Bee say a sad farewell to the inventor of Pop-Tarts who died this week. They show his casket being lowered vertically into a slot in the ground. I get it.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
After weaponizing the DOJ to take on their opponents (particularly Trump), the White House is complaining ... about a DOJ report that claims President Biden suffers from memory loss. Mind you, Joe is 81 and most 81-year-olds suffer from some memory loss. And it's not like the DOJ is telling us what we don't already know. But it's okay to use the Department of Justice to take down your own opponents, but not okay if they find something you don't like? Ironic.
TLS
The report is that Donald Trump would encourage Russia to do "whatever the hell they want" to NATO nations that haven't paid their fair share. I know there are Trump-haters (TDS) -- whatever he says or does is evil -- and Trump-lovers (TLS) -- he can do no wrong. I just wonder if this falls under "he can do no wrong" for Trump lovers. I mean, if he's perfectly willing to disregard treaties with other nations, why would you expect him to remain faithful to you?
Shrinkflation and Other Nonsense
Joe Biden issued a call to companies to stop shrinkflation. You know what that is (I hope). They sell you the same product at the same price ... with less in it. Go ahead. Try to find a "gallon of ice cream" these days. Not likely. Mind you, they're doing it to keep you buying because the price of everything has gone up so much ... thanks largely of late to the highest inflation in years due to Joe Biden's policies. "It's a rip-off," Biden said. Yes, it is, but it's not because of them. "The American public is tired of being played for suckers." I think there you're wrong, Mr. President. You're still in the running for president, aren't you?
Hardship or Not Hardship
The president wants to expand the repayment of federal student loans, this time for "hardship." Wait ... wait ... you're saying that you were already canceling loans for people who were not facing financial hardship? You weren't doing it for that before, but now you are? Listen, Mr. President, there are quite a few people I know facing financial hardship that could use your loan forgiveness themselves. Since you were forgiving loans for people who were not in hardship, how about these folks now, too? Or ... could it be you're simply buying votes?
Must Bee Biden
Making hay with the Biden satire opportunties, the Bee reports that Biden said he can't remember a single time his memory has failed him. That's beelievable. In another story, Biden, a devout Catholic (he says), is giving up cognitive tests for Lent. Good choice. And, just for fun, the folks at the Bee say a sad farewell to the inventor of Pop-Tarts who died this week. They show his casket being lowered vertically into a slot in the ground. I get it.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, February 16, 2024
The Wrong Direction
I've noticed something. In conversations regarding controversial things like "Can a person living in a homosexual relationship go to heaven?" (and so very much more), it seems as if we're asking these questions from the wrong direction. I'm convinced that the common error is that we ask them from our experience and the emotional ties we carry rather than from the known. That is, we assume that our experience (and, apparently, our emotional reactions to our experience) are truths from which we can evaluate other truth claims ... including Scripture. But both reason and Scripture tell us that's not true. From reason, just ask any police officer or lawyer about the reliability of eye witnesses. They will tell you that eye witnesses are notoriously wrong. From Scripture, we read, "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). That text claims that the human heart is deceitful and sick and that we aren't even aware of it. So if we are to answer these questions with any truth, what should be our approach? We need to ask from the known -- from the truth.
Look at the example above. Experience would tell us that "We know lots of good folks who are in homosexual relationships." We likely all know someone; we likely all care about that someone. Even more than one. But the question is not who you know or how you perceive them. The question is truth. God's Word says that those who indulge in sinful lifestyles (including homosexual behavior) (1 Cor 6:9-10) "will not inherit the kingdom." That's not my words; that's God's Word. I'm not basing that on my experience or my feelings; I'm basing it on what Jesus called "truth" (John 17:17). "Well," I've heard countered, "what if that person accepted Christ when he was 7? Does that mean he lost his salvation?" Again, you hear the experiential, emotional source, don't you? What does God's Word say? "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). We all sin (1 John 1:8, 10), but according to Scripture the one born of God cannot make a practice of it. It cannot be an ongoing, unrepented, let alone defended condition. If it is, that person is not "born of God." And we know that "many" will be self-deceived about their spiritual condition (Matt 7:21-23). Beyond that, Scripture tells us, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). So people who, in our vernacular, "leave the faith" don't leave the faith; they were never in the faith.
We are humans, born in sin. We have a sin nature. We were "dead in sin" and, "by nature, children of wrath" (Eph 2:1-3). By nature we are inclined only to evil (Gen 8:21). It stands to reason we will get some of this wrong. It makes sense that we might tend to prioritize our personal feelings and perceptions over God and His Word. When we do, we substitute ourselves for God. Believers have a new nature (2 Cor 5:17) -- as in "born again." Believers have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If it is true that God's seed abides in us, we are changed beings. We have new inclinations. Our "want to" changes. We seek to please God rather than ourselves ... in an ever expanding way. We must not allow ourselves to place our experiential and emotional perceptions over God's Word. That's clearly the product of the father of lies, and we know that's not in our best interest. We need to pursue answers from the known -- from the truth of God's Word -- rather than our feelings and perceptions. Anything else is misleading at best.
Look at the example above. Experience would tell us that "We know lots of good folks who are in homosexual relationships." We likely all know someone; we likely all care about that someone. Even more than one. But the question is not who you know or how you perceive them. The question is truth. God's Word says that those who indulge in sinful lifestyles (including homosexual behavior) (1 Cor 6:9-10) "will not inherit the kingdom." That's not my words; that's God's Word. I'm not basing that on my experience or my feelings; I'm basing it on what Jesus called "truth" (John 17:17). "Well," I've heard countered, "what if that person accepted Christ when he was 7? Does that mean he lost his salvation?" Again, you hear the experiential, emotional source, don't you? What does God's Word say? "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). We all sin (1 John 1:8, 10), but according to Scripture the one born of God cannot make a practice of it. It cannot be an ongoing, unrepented, let alone defended condition. If it is, that person is not "born of God." And we know that "many" will be self-deceived about their spiritual condition (Matt 7:21-23). Beyond that, Scripture tells us, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). So people who, in our vernacular, "leave the faith" don't leave the faith; they were never in the faith.
We are humans, born in sin. We have a sin nature. We were "dead in sin" and, "by nature, children of wrath" (Eph 2:1-3). By nature we are inclined only to evil (Gen 8:21). It stands to reason we will get some of this wrong. It makes sense that we might tend to prioritize our personal feelings and perceptions over God and His Word. When we do, we substitute ourselves for God. Believers have a new nature (2 Cor 5:17) -- as in "born again." Believers have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If it is true that God's seed abides in us, we are changed beings. We have new inclinations. Our "want to" changes. We seek to please God rather than ourselves ... in an ever expanding way. We must not allow ourselves to place our experiential and emotional perceptions over God's Word. That's clearly the product of the father of lies, and we know that's not in our best interest. We need to pursue answers from the known -- from the truth of God's Word -- rather than our feelings and perceptions. Anything else is misleading at best.
Thursday, February 15, 2024
The Blessed Hope
Some of you, I'm sure, have heard the term, "the Blessed Hope." At least, I hope you have, since it is a direct quote from Scripture (Titus 2:13). Paul wrote to Titus that we were "looking for the blessed hope." What is that hope? A lot of us think it's "heaven." You know ... the end of all tears, nothing but joy eternal, that sort of thing. And we do have that blessed hope, but that's not what Paul is referring to here. Paul here refers to "the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus."
Huh. The appearing of His glory is our "Blessed Hope," eh? How is that? First, God's primary concern is God's own glory, so it should be our primary concern as well (1 Cor 10:31). It is clear in Scripture that His glory exceeds our capability to grasp or even endure (Exo 33:20). So we need to be changed, and even then, being finite, we will not fully grasp His glory, but we surely will enjoy it. Beyond that, God's glory encompasses God Himself. That is, God's glory is God's self-expression. If we are truly lovers of God, His self-expression should be our greatest joy. Our Blessed Hope.
In the end, that Blessed Hope of the appearing of His glory does indeed include all those things we normally think about -- heaven, joy, eternal life ... all of that. But if all of that is your Blessed Hope and not so much His appearing -- His presence -- then you're missing out. If your greatest pleasure in heaven is the benefits of heavens and not the presence of Christ, you've missed the whole idea. Our Blessed Hope is to someday see Him as He is, face to face. At that point nothing else will matter. Is that your Blessed Hope?
Huh. The appearing of His glory is our "Blessed Hope," eh? How is that? First, God's primary concern is God's own glory, so it should be our primary concern as well (1 Cor 10:31). It is clear in Scripture that His glory exceeds our capability to grasp or even endure (Exo 33:20). So we need to be changed, and even then, being finite, we will not fully grasp His glory, but we surely will enjoy it. Beyond that, God's glory encompasses God Himself. That is, God's glory is God's self-expression. If we are truly lovers of God, His self-expression should be our greatest joy. Our Blessed Hope.
In the end, that Blessed Hope of the appearing of His glory does indeed include all those things we normally think about -- heaven, joy, eternal life ... all of that. But if all of that is your Blessed Hope and not so much His appearing -- His presence -- then you're missing out. If your greatest pleasure in heaven is the benefits of heavens and not the presence of Christ, you've missed the whole idea. Our Blessed Hope is to someday see Him as He is, face to face. At that point nothing else will matter. Is that your Blessed Hope?
Wednesday, February 14, 2024
What is This Thing Called, Love?
It's Valentine's Day. It's ... what? Many modern folk think that Valentine's Day has it's origins in the St. Valentine's Day massacre. Obviously it's not. Its actual origins are in a feast day that honored Saint Valentine, a martyr in Rome in the third century. As the story goes, Emperor Claudius II decided to outlaw marriage for young men because single men made better soldiers, but Valentine continued to perform marriages, so Claudius had him executed. Or it was the other Valentine that Claudius had beheaded? From prison, he wrote his own love letter to a young girl and signed it, "From your Valentine." That makes sense, but I've never been able to figure out what the card means that says, "Be my Valentine." What's a "Valentine"? A card sent, according to the dictionary. No, that can't be it. A marytr? Oh, I hope not ...
Valentine's Day today glorifies romantic love. I used the adjective because, frankly, we're all pretty vague on "love." We're pretty sure, for instance, that "being in love" is a good -- even the only -- reason to marry. But since that romantic sensation wavers, dies, perhaps returns -- is basically uneven at best -- it's obvious where today's folks prefer "till love does us part" in their vows. You shouldn't be married to someone with whom you are not "in love." Which, given the biblical definition of marriage, becomes a serious problem, since marriage is for life. We do know that love is not a constant. That is, "I love pizza" and "I love my mother" and "I love my spouse" are not all the same thing. And, yet, we seem to talk of it like it's a monolith -- a single, organized whole. It's not. And we know it. When we are told we are to "love your neighbor as yourself," only the most deviant would think of sex at a time like that. It's not that kind of love. Especially when the command is laid alongside, "Love the Lord your God." Not even remotely about romantic love. It's something else. It's not even "brotherly love." It's agape.
Everyone knows that, in fact, love is not simply love. There are different meanings to the term, from the base sexual content to the friendly brotherly type to the romantic and on to the sublime. That sublime version? Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 13, but the most concise version I know of is in Ephesians. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). "Gave Himself up." And what did that look like? He "emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Php 2:5-8). God, the Son, laying aside His own right to be "in the form of God" in order to die for His Bride. Self-sacrificing love without the mundane requirement of romance or appetite. Is that what a Valentine is? Somehow I'm pretty sure that's not what anyone has in mind when they say, Be my Valentine." That kind of love is rare even among believers. It shouldn't be.
Valentine's Day today glorifies romantic love. I used the adjective because, frankly, we're all pretty vague on "love." We're pretty sure, for instance, that "being in love" is a good -- even the only -- reason to marry. But since that romantic sensation wavers, dies, perhaps returns -- is basically uneven at best -- it's obvious where today's folks prefer "till love does us part" in their vows. You shouldn't be married to someone with whom you are not "in love." Which, given the biblical definition of marriage, becomes a serious problem, since marriage is for life. We do know that love is not a constant. That is, "I love pizza" and "I love my mother" and "I love my spouse" are not all the same thing. And, yet, we seem to talk of it like it's a monolith -- a single, organized whole. It's not. And we know it. When we are told we are to "love your neighbor as yourself," only the most deviant would think of sex at a time like that. It's not that kind of love. Especially when the command is laid alongside, "Love the Lord your God." Not even remotely about romantic love. It's something else. It's not even "brotherly love." It's agape.
Everyone knows that, in fact, love is not simply love. There are different meanings to the term, from the base sexual content to the friendly brotherly type to the romantic and on to the sublime. That sublime version? Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 13, but the most concise version I know of is in Ephesians. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). "Gave Himself up." And what did that look like? He "emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Php 2:5-8). God, the Son, laying aside His own right to be "in the form of God" in order to die for His Bride. Self-sacrificing love without the mundane requirement of romance or appetite. Is that what a Valentine is? Somehow I'm pretty sure that's not what anyone has in mind when they say, Be my Valentine." That kind of love is rare even among believers. It shouldn't be.
Tuesday, February 13, 2024
Being of Sound Mind
I'm currently working through Paul's epistle to Titus. I noticed something. In Titus 1, Paul told him to appoint elders with certain qualifications. One of those qualifications was that they be "sensible" (Titus 1:8). Hmm, sensible. What is that, exactly? Various translations include "serious-minded," "self-controlled," "sober," and "discreet," to name a few. The actual word used there is σώφρων -- sōphrōn. It's a combination of two other Greek words meaning "safe" and "mind." Essentially "of sound mind." Now, that's odd, isn't it? I mean, most Christians I know would say that the mind has very little to do with it. There is a strong current in much of conservative Christianity that is opposed to intellectualism. They lean more toward "feels like." Oh, they'll cast it in spiritual terms. You know, "follow the Spirit" and things like that. Because that seems more ... spiritual. Is that more biblical?
When Jesus was asked about the most important commandment, He didn't hesitate. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). Yes, we know that. But, did you notice? Right there, in all that "love," is "your mind." We are commanded to love God with all our minds. Paul calls on us to "be transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:2). There's that "mind" thing again. Paul wrote, "To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace" (Rom 8:6). Strange, isn't it? You'd have thought we were supposed to set our hearts, our emotions, our affections on the Spirit, but here Paul says that where our minds are set makes a big difference.
Here's what really struck me, then, back in Paul's letter to Titus. He said elders needed to be in sensible -- reasoning -- but he wasn't done. In the second chapter, he tells Titus that older men should, among other things, be "sensible" (Titus 2:2). There it is again. And that the older women should encourage the young women to "be sensible" (Titus 2:5). And for Titus to urge the young men to "be sensible" (Titus 2:6). And that Titus himself was to "live sensibly" (Titus 2:12). Now, I don't know about you, but I'm sensing a pattern here. It looks like all of us -- male, female, young, old -- should pay close attention to being sound of mind. Thinking. Or, in Jesus's terms, loving God with, among other things, all our minds. Think about it. that is, as long as you're not opposed to using your mind.
When Jesus was asked about the most important commandment, He didn't hesitate. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). Yes, we know that. But, did you notice? Right there, in all that "love," is "your mind." We are commanded to love God with all our minds. Paul calls on us to "be transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:2). There's that "mind" thing again. Paul wrote, "To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace" (Rom 8:6). Strange, isn't it? You'd have thought we were supposed to set our hearts, our emotions, our affections on the Spirit, but here Paul says that where our minds are set makes a big difference.
Here's what really struck me, then, back in Paul's letter to Titus. He said elders needed to be in sensible -- reasoning -- but he wasn't done. In the second chapter, he tells Titus that older men should, among other things, be "sensible" (Titus 2:2). There it is again. And that the older women should encourage the young women to "be sensible" (Titus 2:5). And for Titus to urge the young men to "be sensible" (Titus 2:6). And that Titus himself was to "live sensibly" (Titus 2:12). Now, I don't know about you, but I'm sensing a pattern here. It looks like all of us -- male, female, young, old -- should pay close attention to being sound of mind. Thinking. Or, in Jesus's terms, loving God with, among other things, all our minds. Think about it. that is, as long as you're not opposed to using your mind.
Monday, February 12, 2024
Porn is Not the Problem
Every Christian (and, frankly, most unbelievers) know, at least to some degree, that pornography is a problem in our society. It is ubiquitous -- everywhere. It is too readily available to young minds that have no means to process it and no training to avoid it. The medical community tells us it causes sexual problems for users and the legal community tells us it causes divorces and the Scriptures tell us that all manner of sexual immorality, which includes pornography (so much so that the Greek word from which we get "sexual immorality" in our Bibles is "porneia") is to be avoided at all costs (e.g., 1 Cor 6:18; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3; 2 Tim 2:22). So, good Christians rightly seek to avoid pornography, and, I'm sure, no small number (males especially, but females, too) suffer greatly from the effort. I would suggest, however, that pornography is not the problem.
Talking to a crowd one day, Jesus told them, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" (Matt 15:11). Peter asked Jesus to explain the parable (Matt 15:15). Jesus said,
Back to porn, then. Pornography is a problem, but not the problem. We are the problem. We sinners are the reason for our sin. If we didn't have evil thoughts, sexual immorality, etc. in our hearts, we wouldn't be doing them. That is, the real problem of porn (and all other sin) is that it tells us what we are inside. Paul said, "To the pure, all things are pure" (Titus 1:15). That is, if we were pure inside, we wouldn't have a problem outside. We aren't, so we do. What we need is an internal wash, a cleansing from within. What Paul calls, "the washing of water with the Word" (Eph 5:26). That is what we call the process of "sanctification." That is the real need. We need to be cleansed from the inside out.
Talking to a crowd one day, Jesus told them, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" (Matt 15:11). Peter asked Jesus to explain the parable (Matt 15:15). Jesus said,
Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man. (Matt 15:17-20)Jesus here does not place the blame for the sin -- in this case, "not washing their hands before eating" (Matt 15:2) -- on the violation, but on the violator. It's not what you do that is the problem; it's what you are. We aren't so much sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners.
Back to porn, then. Pornography is a problem, but not the problem. We are the problem. We sinners are the reason for our sin. If we didn't have evil thoughts, sexual immorality, etc. in our hearts, we wouldn't be doing them. That is, the real problem of porn (and all other sin) is that it tells us what we are inside. Paul said, "To the pure, all things are pure" (Titus 1:15). That is, if we were pure inside, we wouldn't have a problem outside. We aren't, so we do. What we need is an internal wash, a cleansing from within. What Paul calls, "the washing of water with the Word" (Eph 5:26). That is what we call the process of "sanctification." That is the real need. We need to be cleansed from the inside out.
Sunday, February 11, 2024
Grumble
In his first epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul calls on Hebrew history to make a point. "For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea ..." (1 Cor 10:1). He uses the time of Moses and Israel as a cautionary tale -- "Don't make the mistakes that they did." They all made it through the Red Sea and all ate food and water that God provided (1 Cor 10:2-4), but were not satisfied. "Don't be like them," Paul warns. How? Don't be idolaters (1 cor 10:7) or sexually immoral (1 Cor 10:8) or test God (1 Cor 10:9) or grumble (1 Cor 10:10). Wait ... grumble? What's the big deal about grumbling? Why would that be an issue? I mean, we all do that, don't we? Is that really up there with "idolatry" or "sexual immorality"?
Consider the claims and promises of God. We know, for instance, that "My God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:19). Which needs? All. Which are excluded? None. We know that "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" (Rom 8:32). What things? All. With what limitation? None. And what about hard times? We know that "tribulation brings about perseverance" (Rom 5:3), that the trials we encounter produces endurance which makes us complete (James 1:2-4). So even those difficulties we encounter God says are for our benefit, for our improvement. They make us fit for the kingdom (2 Thess 1:5). Nothing ... absolutely nothing ... can separate us from God's love (Rom 8:35), and, in fact, in all our trials we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us (Rom 8:37). Because of this, Job, in his despair, could declare, "YHWH gave and YHWH has taken away. Blessed be the name of YHWH" (Job 1:21).
So, how about that grumbling? We think it's minor. We think it's even valid. God should have done something else. God should have done something better. At least, God should have done something. And, the truth is, He did. He did exactly what He intended and, beyond that, exactly what was best for us. And we ... grumble. We call God a liar. We call God unfaithful and unfair. We call God mistaken at best. If only He would do what we wanted Him to do, all would be better. It's a lie, of course. It's nonsense. It is sedition. And, according to Paul, it's dangerous (1 Cor 10:10). Don't be a grumbler. You're only declaring God a failure, and that can't be good for your relationship with Him.
Consider the claims and promises of God. We know, for instance, that "My God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:19). Which needs? All. Which are excluded? None. We know that "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" (Rom 8:32). What things? All. With what limitation? None. And what about hard times? We know that "tribulation brings about perseverance" (Rom 5:3), that the trials we encounter produces endurance which makes us complete (James 1:2-4). So even those difficulties we encounter God says are for our benefit, for our improvement. They make us fit for the kingdom (2 Thess 1:5). Nothing ... absolutely nothing ... can separate us from God's love (Rom 8:35), and, in fact, in all our trials we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us (Rom 8:37). Because of this, Job, in his despair, could declare, "YHWH gave and YHWH has taken away. Blessed be the name of YHWH" (Job 1:21).
So, how about that grumbling? We think it's minor. We think it's even valid. God should have done something else. God should have done something better. At least, God should have done something. And, the truth is, He did. He did exactly what He intended and, beyond that, exactly what was best for us. And we ... grumble. We call God a liar. We call God unfaithful and unfair. We call God mistaken at best. If only He would do what we wanted Him to do, all would be better. It's a lie, of course. It's nonsense. It is sedition. And, according to Paul, it's dangerous (1 Cor 10:10). Don't be a grumbler. You're only declaring God a failure, and that can't be good for your relationship with Him.
Saturday, February 10, 2024
News Weakly - 2/10/24
Yawn
There were winners and losers, errors and oddities, at the Grammys, covered feverishly as if it was important.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The report is out that more than 3 out of 4 patients recovering from COVID are left with insomnia. It's stories like this that can make people lose sleep at night.
Side By Side
On their own, the two stories are not that interesting, but side by side, they become humorous. Kanye West compared himself to Elvis because he can't get work because of his anti-semitic rants. Lay that alongside NYC Mayor Adams who compared himself to Jesus because his leadership team excludes white people. What?? Waiter, I'd like two orders of "sanity check", please.
Check!
The Columbus (Nebraska) Police Department was conducting a welfare check on a 17-year-old subject reported for potential self-harm. The officer shot and killed the suspect. No more potential self-harm. Done. Now, we all know that's not the whole story ... but that's all we have, and that looks like a really bad "welfare check."
Hypocrisy
The pope is denouncing the "hypocrisy" of critics of his blessings for same-sex couples. Mind you, this same pope said of blessing same-sex unions that the church "cannot bless sin." So, no, I guess allowing blessings for same-sex unions is not hypocrisy on his part; I guess that's heresy.
Not Right
The Supreme Court of Hawaii has decided, consciously, to jettison the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. While they denied the right to carry a concealed gun in public without a permit, the ruling said, "We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public." So, they are now determining your rights. It's not really a surprise. I just wonder, what could go wrong when a state can decide to eliminate constitutional rights on a whim?
Ain't Misbeehavin'
I'm sorry, but with Groundhog Day barely in the rearview mirror, this just made me laugh. The report was out that Joe Biden saw his shadow this week and attempted to shake its hand. In other news, a study was published that called attention to the fact that "Don't Tread On Me" flags are apparently not working anymore. You know, like those helpful "No Gun Zone" signs at schools. And, not the Bee, I read that Claudine Gay, the former president of Harvard, landed on her feet. She's now the CEO of Xerox, citing her extensive experience at copying things. Congratulations!
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
There were winners and losers, errors and oddities, at the Grammys, covered feverishly as if it was important.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The report is out that more than 3 out of 4 patients recovering from COVID are left with insomnia. It's stories like this that can make people lose sleep at night.
Side By Side
On their own, the two stories are not that interesting, but side by side, they become humorous. Kanye West compared himself to Elvis because he can't get work because of his anti-semitic rants. Lay that alongside NYC Mayor Adams who compared himself to Jesus because his leadership team excludes white people. What?? Waiter, I'd like two orders of "sanity check", please.
Check!
The Columbus (Nebraska) Police Department was conducting a welfare check on a 17-year-old subject reported for potential self-harm. The officer shot and killed the suspect. No more potential self-harm. Done. Now, we all know that's not the whole story ... but that's all we have, and that looks like a really bad "welfare check."
Hypocrisy
The pope is denouncing the "hypocrisy" of critics of his blessings for same-sex couples. Mind you, this same pope said of blessing same-sex unions that the church "cannot bless sin." So, no, I guess allowing blessings for same-sex unions is not hypocrisy on his part; I guess that's heresy.
Not Right
The Supreme Court of Hawaii has decided, consciously, to jettison the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. While they denied the right to carry a concealed gun in public without a permit, the ruling said, "We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public." So, they are now determining your rights. It's not really a surprise. I just wonder, what could go wrong when a state can decide to eliminate constitutional rights on a whim?
Ain't Misbeehavin'
I'm sorry, but with Groundhog Day barely in the rearview mirror, this just made me laugh. The report was out that Joe Biden saw his shadow this week and attempted to shake its hand. In other news, a study was published that called attention to the fact that "Don't Tread On Me" flags are apparently not working anymore. You know, like those helpful "No Gun Zone" signs at schools. And, not the Bee, I read that Claudine Gay, the former president of Harvard, landed on her feet. She's now the CEO of Xerox, citing her extensive experience at copying things. Congratulations!
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, February 09, 2024
Biblical Marriage
There is very little in human culture that predates marriage. It is instituted by God in Genesis.
Beyond that, and something that didn't come out until much later, we learn that God planned for a hierarchy in marriage where "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor 11:3). We discover that marriage is a mutual submission (Eph 5:21) where the wife submits to her husband as to the Lord (Eph 5:22) and the husband loves his wife by surrendering self for her (Eph 5:25-26). We see that there is, indeed, a sexual component beyond simple procreation, where "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Cor 7:4). That is, our sexual relationships are designed to be sacrificial rather than self-serving. Perhaps most important, we find that marriage was designed as an illustration of the relationship of Christ and the church (Eph 5:32). The Bible has much to say about marriage. All this ... and more.
How is it, then, that we seem to miss it so completely? How is it that we can imagine a "marriage" that is a short-term project -- "till love do us part"? How can believers see it as the thing that meets my needs? How can we see the union of two men or two women as "marriage"? Or applaud when two Christians who can't stand each other opt to separate but not divorce to "honor their marriage commitment"? Why do we find husbands who find it their assignment to "make her submit" and wives who are quite sure that they'll "never submit to him; he doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain"? Why is it, as clear as Scripture is, that modern marriage among Christians seems to be so very far from God's instructions? How can we, followers of Christ, consider God's commands on this as backwards, incoherent, unreasonable, and "on the wrong side of history"? There is something really wrong here.
YHWH God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:22-24)Jesus attributes that quote about "a man shall leave his father ..." to God Himself (Matt 19:4-6). Marriage, then, from the beginning was the union ("become one flesh") of a man and a woman, a covenant for life between God and two people. We know that one of the primary functions of marriage was originally, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it" (Gen 1:28). We also know that the relationship was designed to be complementary -- a suitable helper. So marriage from the beginning was a lifelong union of a man and a woman for purposes of procreation and for mutual support.
Beyond that, and something that didn't come out until much later, we learn that God planned for a hierarchy in marriage where "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor 11:3). We discover that marriage is a mutual submission (Eph 5:21) where the wife submits to her husband as to the Lord (Eph 5:22) and the husband loves his wife by surrendering self for her (Eph 5:25-26). We see that there is, indeed, a sexual component beyond simple procreation, where "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Cor 7:4). That is, our sexual relationships are designed to be sacrificial rather than self-serving. Perhaps most important, we find that marriage was designed as an illustration of the relationship of Christ and the church (Eph 5:32). The Bible has much to say about marriage. All this ... and more.
How is it, then, that we seem to miss it so completely? How is it that we can imagine a "marriage" that is a short-term project -- "till love do us part"? How can believers see it as the thing that meets my needs? How can we see the union of two men or two women as "marriage"? Or applaud when two Christians who can't stand each other opt to separate but not divorce to "honor their marriage commitment"? Why do we find husbands who find it their assignment to "make her submit" and wives who are quite sure that they'll "never submit to him; he doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain"? Why is it, as clear as Scripture is, that modern marriage among Christians seems to be so very far from God's instructions? How can we, followers of Christ, consider God's commands on this as backwards, incoherent, unreasonable, and "on the wrong side of history"? There is something really wrong here.
Thursday, February 08, 2024
The Attack on Democracy and American Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court today will hear arguments on whether or not states can keep Trump off their primary ballots. The rationale is the prohibition in the 14th Amendment that prevents those guilty of insurrection from being president. Admittedly, that amendment was part of a Civil War response, but the language is what the language is, so without rescinding the law, it's still the law. Here's the problem. Trump has not been convicted of insurrection. He hasn't even been formally accused of insurrection. He's not on trial for insurrection. So ...?
Consider the facts. In February of 2021, the Senate voted to acquit Trump for inciting an insurrection. In August of 2021 the FBI reported "scant evidence" of a coordinated attack. Now, the Cambridge Dictionary defines "insurrection" as "an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence." Britannica says it is "an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects." No "organized," no "insurrection." The FBI also reported no guns were found in the Capitol building (except, of course, for the Capitol police, who were the only ones to shoot anyone during the riot). No "armed," no "insurrection." And no evidence that Trump or his allies were directly involved. All the reports indicate no organization, no guns, and no evidence of Trump's direct involvement. That means no insurrection and, even if you stretch it to an insurrection (because we're so fond of stretching words to brand new definitions these days), Trump, without direct involvement, was not guilty of it. So ... why are we still debating whether or not he can be on the primary ballots? He isn't even being tried for insurrection in the courts. No such charge has been made. How can he be guilty of insurrection when it violates all the facts? The ruling from SCOTUS will not be on whether or not they can block Trump for insurrection. The ruling will be whether or not Trump is guilty of a crime he has not been officially accused of or tried for. The ruling will be whether or not a man can be regarded as guilty until proven innocent.
Now, anyone who has read this blog over the last couple of elections would know that I'm no Trump fan. It's my opinion and I'm free to have it. I'm not a Trump-hater, but neither am I a Trump-lover. I don't say this in favor of "my guy." I say this because facts are facts, justice is justice, and eliminating candidates you don't like on an illegal basis is just as much an assault on democracy as what they complain Trump did. It's not justice; it's not democracy. And as little as I want to have to come to a Trump vote again, I am still against this assault on democracy and American jurisprudence. If we can consider Trump guilty of insurrection without a trial or conviction, what's next?
Consider the facts. In February of 2021, the Senate voted to acquit Trump for inciting an insurrection. In August of 2021 the FBI reported "scant evidence" of a coordinated attack. Now, the Cambridge Dictionary defines "insurrection" as "an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence." Britannica says it is "an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects." No "organized," no "insurrection." The FBI also reported no guns were found in the Capitol building (except, of course, for the Capitol police, who were the only ones to shoot anyone during the riot). No "armed," no "insurrection." And no evidence that Trump or his allies were directly involved. All the reports indicate no organization, no guns, and no evidence of Trump's direct involvement. That means no insurrection and, even if you stretch it to an insurrection (because we're so fond of stretching words to brand new definitions these days), Trump, without direct involvement, was not guilty of it. So ... why are we still debating whether or not he can be on the primary ballots? He isn't even being tried for insurrection in the courts. No such charge has been made. How can he be guilty of insurrection when it violates all the facts? The ruling from SCOTUS will not be on whether or not they can block Trump for insurrection. The ruling will be whether or not Trump is guilty of a crime he has not been officially accused of or tried for. The ruling will be whether or not a man can be regarded as guilty until proven innocent.
Now, anyone who has read this blog over the last couple of elections would know that I'm no Trump fan. It's my opinion and I'm free to have it. I'm not a Trump-hater, but neither am I a Trump-lover. I don't say this in favor of "my guy." I say this because facts are facts, justice is justice, and eliminating candidates you don't like on an illegal basis is just as much an assault on democracy as what they complain Trump did. It's not justice; it's not democracy. And as little as I want to have to come to a Trump vote again, I am still against this assault on democracy and American jurisprudence. If we can consider Trump guilty of insurrection without a trial or conviction, what's next?
Wednesday, February 07, 2024
Don't Be a Cretan (Titus 1:12-13)
Paul wrote his epistle to Titus to encourage the young man in his task. Titus was left in Crete by Paul with a specific assignment: "that you would set in order what remains" (Titus 1:5). Now, Crete is a relatively small island, but even in Paul's day it was known as the island of 100 cities. You have to believe that there would be more than, say, 2 cities there for Titus to deal with. And Crete was a mountainous island without connecting roads to the cities (because they were largely ports). So this was going to be an arduous assignment. But the terrain and the number of churches were not the real difficulty. Crete was infested ... with false teachers.
So, what instructions did Paul think would help Titus in this task? "Appoint elders in every city." Wait, Paul, Titus has to face all these problems and you're most concerned about church polity? Yes, indeed. Think about it. Crete had "many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain" (Titus 1:10-11). (Apparently Paul didn't think "freedom of speech" extended to church life.) Dangerous liars were all around inside the churches. How do you counter that? How do you silence them? You need leaders who are above reproach and who know how to manage family (because God's people are a family). You need leaders who are not working for themselves, but working as stewards of God. They're not concerned about their own interests, not prone to heated exchanges, not serious drinkers, not out for personal gain. They are good with people, love what is good, reasonable-minded. They do what is right in Man's eyes and in God's eyes. Oh, and they are anchored in the Word, especially as it was always taught. They're not coming up with new takes on a text. That's what you need in the face of seriously bad teachers.
That list I just gave you was a summary of the list of qualifications Paul gave Titus for the leadership of the churches in Crete (Titus 1:6-9). He says why they need those qualifications: "so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). If we are to refute the lies -- to put things in order -- we have to silence the liars. You do that by 1) godly living and 2) godly doctrine. You do that by being rooted and grounded in God's Word, "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 1:3). Paul didn't hand down arbitrary qualifications for leadership in church. He handed down the list (breathed out by God) of the qualifications of those who would need to continue to defend God's people against the liars who were promised to show up in our gatherings. They would need to "reprove them severely" (Titus 1:13). Interestingly, it was necessary "so that they may be sound in faith." Which, of course, is why we still see today this constant attack on Christian behavior and, above all, the Word of God. When it comes from inside the church, you can guess what the real source is. And when we neglect the leadership requirements and the purpose, it does not bode well for the church.
So, what instructions did Paul think would help Titus in this task? "Appoint elders in every city." Wait, Paul, Titus has to face all these problems and you're most concerned about church polity? Yes, indeed. Think about it. Crete had "many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain" (Titus 1:10-11). (Apparently Paul didn't think "freedom of speech" extended to church life.) Dangerous liars were all around inside the churches. How do you counter that? How do you silence them? You need leaders who are above reproach and who know how to manage family (because God's people are a family). You need leaders who are not working for themselves, but working as stewards of God. They're not concerned about their own interests, not prone to heated exchanges, not serious drinkers, not out for personal gain. They are good with people, love what is good, reasonable-minded. They do what is right in Man's eyes and in God's eyes. Oh, and they are anchored in the Word, especially as it was always taught. They're not coming up with new takes on a text. That's what you need in the face of seriously bad teachers.
That list I just gave you was a summary of the list of qualifications Paul gave Titus for the leadership of the churches in Crete (Titus 1:6-9). He says why they need those qualifications: "so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). If we are to refute the lies -- to put things in order -- we have to silence the liars. You do that by 1) godly living and 2) godly doctrine. You do that by being rooted and grounded in God's Word, "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 1:3). Paul didn't hand down arbitrary qualifications for leadership in church. He handed down the list (breathed out by God) of the qualifications of those who would need to continue to defend God's people against the liars who were promised to show up in our gatherings. They would need to "reprove them severely" (Titus 1:13). Interestingly, it was necessary "so that they may be sound in faith." Which, of course, is why we still see today this constant attack on Christian behavior and, above all, the Word of God. When it comes from inside the church, you can guess what the real source is. And when we neglect the leadership requirements and the purpose, it does not bode well for the church.
Tuesday, February 06, 2024
The Bible on Divorce
Any good Christian can tell you when the Bible approves of divorce. Let's see ... that would be for adultery, abandonment, and ... oh, yeah ... abuse. You might be interested to know that no such approval is in our Bibles. Let's take a look.
In Matthew 19, Pharisees tested Jesus with the loaded question, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" (Matt 19:3). (The original "no-fault divorce" option.) This was a no-win, you see? If He said it was, they'd have Him for disregarding marriage. If He said it wasn't, they'd get Him on ignoring Moses. Jesus answered, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:4-6). What was His answer? It was not, "Sure!" (obviously). But it also wasn't, "Well, there are a few reasons ..." His answer was a resounding, "No! What God has joined together, let not man separate." They unloaded their second volley -- "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" (Matt 19:7) Jesus undercut them in a heartbeat. "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt 19:8). Don't miss what He did there. First, it was "Moses did not command; he allowed." In no case is anyone ever commanded to divorce. Second, He gave the only reason for divorce: "your hardness of heart." That is, "If your hearts weren't so hard, there would never be any option for divorce." Jesus followed that with the famous "exception clause" -- "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Mat 19:9). I've mentioned in the past the problem with "sexual immorality" in this text. He did not use the word for "adultery"; He used the word for "sexual immorality." He used the word for adultery in the next phrase, so He knew the word. Why do we assume He was talking about adultery as an exception? Beyond that, He did not say that divorce was approved in that case. He said that remarriage wasn't adultery.
Scripture talks about divorce for sexual immorality (often understood to be "adultery") and for abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (1 Cor 7:12-16). In the former case, it was actually about remarriage. In the latter case, it does not approve of initiating the divorce. It speaks of the unbeliever leaving. Jesus said the only reason any believer gets a divorce is hardness of heart. God says, "I hate divorce" (Mal 2:16). Now, we know that divorce happens. If your spouse divorces you, you have not sinned. Clearly. And we know that divorce is not the unpardonable sin. But given Jesus's words on the subject, I would think that divorce would not be a possible solution in a believer's toolbox. If we are followers of Christ, lovers of God, I'd think we'd be pursuing His best and not His least. "I know God hates that, but I'm okay with it," would not be a godly line of thinking.
In Matthew 19, Pharisees tested Jesus with the loaded question, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" (Matt 19:3). (The original "no-fault divorce" option.) This was a no-win, you see? If He said it was, they'd have Him for disregarding marriage. If He said it wasn't, they'd get Him on ignoring Moses. Jesus answered, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:4-6). What was His answer? It was not, "Sure!" (obviously). But it also wasn't, "Well, there are a few reasons ..." His answer was a resounding, "No! What God has joined together, let not man separate." They unloaded their second volley -- "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" (Matt 19:7) Jesus undercut them in a heartbeat. "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt 19:8). Don't miss what He did there. First, it was "Moses did not command; he allowed." In no case is anyone ever commanded to divorce. Second, He gave the only reason for divorce: "your hardness of heart." That is, "If your hearts weren't so hard, there would never be any option for divorce." Jesus followed that with the famous "exception clause" -- "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Mat 19:9). I've mentioned in the past the problem with "sexual immorality" in this text. He did not use the word for "adultery"; He used the word for "sexual immorality." He used the word for adultery in the next phrase, so He knew the word. Why do we assume He was talking about adultery as an exception? Beyond that, He did not say that divorce was approved in that case. He said that remarriage wasn't adultery.
Scripture talks about divorce for sexual immorality (often understood to be "adultery") and for abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (1 Cor 7:12-16). In the former case, it was actually about remarriage. In the latter case, it does not approve of initiating the divorce. It speaks of the unbeliever leaving. Jesus said the only reason any believer gets a divorce is hardness of heart. God says, "I hate divorce" (Mal 2:16). Now, we know that divorce happens. If your spouse divorces you, you have not sinned. Clearly. And we know that divorce is not the unpardonable sin. But given Jesus's words on the subject, I would think that divorce would not be a possible solution in a believer's toolbox. If we are followers of Christ, lovers of God, I'd think we'd be pursuing His best and not His least. "I know God hates that, but I'm okay with it," would not be a godly line of thinking.
Monday, February 05, 2024
Koinōnia
Philemon isn't a really popular book in the Bible. I rarely see anyone cite something in Philemon to make their point. But I ran across an interesting concept there that has larger ramifications.
Philemon, if you recall, is a letter written by Paul in prison to a friend in Colossae. ("Beloved brother and fellow worker" Paul calls him.) It seems that a slave belonging to Philemon ran away, ended up in Rome, and then ended up in Paul's orbit, where Paul led him to Christ. Onesimus (his name means "profitable" or "beneficial") found Christ and served Paul until Paul decided the right thing to do was to send him back to Philemon. "I have sent him back to you in person," Paul says, "that is, sending my very heart" (Phm 1:12). Paul expected Philemon to forgive Onesimus and to receive him "no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord" (Phm 1:16). He asked for Philemon's consent. What did he use to urge Philemon to consent? Not force, but he reminded him of "the fellowship of your faith" (Phm 1:6). Interesting phrase. Several Bibles translate it differently -- The "communication of your faith," the "faith which you have in common," the "sharing of your faith" -- but the root word is κοινωνία -- koinōnia. The literal meaning of that word is "partnership." Now, I was told that "fellowship is essentially two fellows in one ship." Fine, so applying that to "partnership," we now have "two partners in one ship." Do you sense the difference? In the former, we're only connected by the "ship," but in the latter we're connected as partners in that "ship." Paul says later in the letter, "If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me" (Phm 1:17). There's the same word, this time translated "partner." On that basis, Paul intended for Philemon to forgive Onesimus, surrender his ownership of Onesimus, and consider him family instead.
We Christians are used to the term, "fellowship." We enjoy the "fellowship of the Spirit" (2 Cor 13:14; Php 2:1) and fellowship with fellow believers (1 John 1:7). We understand church -- the gathering of believers -- to be for fellowship. If we replaced "fellowship" with "partnership," how would that affect our relationships? If we understood, as Paul did, that believers share a partnership in the faith, would that alter our perceptions? Of the faith? Of the church? Of our expected relationships with other believers? It would certainly mean that the "remote Christian" -- the growing numbers who think church online, for instance, is perfectly suitable -- would need to rethink that position. It would fit nicely with all the "one anothers" of Scripture to which we are called. How are we doing with "fellowship"? Or, rather, how are we doing with "partnership"? It changes things, doesn't it?
Philemon, if you recall, is a letter written by Paul in prison to a friend in Colossae. ("Beloved brother and fellow worker" Paul calls him.) It seems that a slave belonging to Philemon ran away, ended up in Rome, and then ended up in Paul's orbit, where Paul led him to Christ. Onesimus (his name means "profitable" or "beneficial") found Christ and served Paul until Paul decided the right thing to do was to send him back to Philemon. "I have sent him back to you in person," Paul says, "that is, sending my very heart" (Phm 1:12). Paul expected Philemon to forgive Onesimus and to receive him "no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord" (Phm 1:16). He asked for Philemon's consent. What did he use to urge Philemon to consent? Not force, but he reminded him of "the fellowship of your faith" (Phm 1:6). Interesting phrase. Several Bibles translate it differently -- The "communication of your faith," the "faith which you have in common," the "sharing of your faith" -- but the root word is κοινωνία -- koinōnia. The literal meaning of that word is "partnership." Now, I was told that "fellowship is essentially two fellows in one ship." Fine, so applying that to "partnership," we now have "two partners in one ship." Do you sense the difference? In the former, we're only connected by the "ship," but in the latter we're connected as partners in that "ship." Paul says later in the letter, "If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me" (Phm 1:17). There's the same word, this time translated "partner." On that basis, Paul intended for Philemon to forgive Onesimus, surrender his ownership of Onesimus, and consider him family instead.
We Christians are used to the term, "fellowship." We enjoy the "fellowship of the Spirit" (2 Cor 13:14; Php 2:1) and fellowship with fellow believers (1 John 1:7). We understand church -- the gathering of believers -- to be for fellowship. If we replaced "fellowship" with "partnership," how would that affect our relationships? If we understood, as Paul did, that believers share a partnership in the faith, would that alter our perceptions? Of the faith? Of the church? Of our expected relationships with other believers? It would certainly mean that the "remote Christian" -- the growing numbers who think church online, for instance, is perfectly suitable -- would need to rethink that position. It would fit nicely with all the "one anothers" of Scripture to which we are called. How are we doing with "fellowship"? Or, rather, how are we doing with "partnership"? It changes things, doesn't it?
Sunday, February 04, 2024
We're With You, Pastor
The sermon was on abortion and the group that followed was discussing the sermon. In the midst of the discussion, one fellow commented, "You're preaching to the choir. We're all on board with all you're saying." Nice. Except, as the discussion continued, we discovered that we were not all of the same mind. Some favored abortion for rape. Others thought, "We shouldn't try to tell anyone what to do." And so on.
I'm not writing this to go on about abortion. I'm writing this to address "We're all on board with all you're saying." Why is it that we hear preaching on the same topics over and over? Why is it that we see the same arguments online over and over? And I'm not just talking about abortion. I'm talking about abortion, homosexual behavior, transgender questions, politics, doctrine ... so much more than abortion. Why do we keep at these topics? Why do I harp so much on the meanings of words or on the importance of Scripture or ...? Clearly it is because we are not all on board. Obviously, unbelievers take a different opinion. If that surprises you, you're not reading your Bible. They are hostile to God (Rom 8:7), unable to understand the things of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14), dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3), and all that. It should be no surprise that they don't agree with what God has to say. But, among believers, we have this problem. We ... slip. We listen too long to the wrong side -- "Did God really say ...?" We allow our perceptions of our experiences to override a clear understanding of God's Word. We fail to ask God (most obviously through His Word) what He thinks. We creep into conforming to this world rather than being transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:2). Face it; we just don't do the necessary work. We don't fight the current. And before long you have a room full of Bible-believing Christians who ... disagree with the Bible ... and don't even know it.
Scripture says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). Key components: 1) breathed out by God, 2) profitable for teaching what is right, pointing out what is not, redirecting what is not to what is, and continually teaching the right way, and 3) completely sufficient. It's all we need to be complete and equipped. We call ourselves biblical Christians, but too often our actions and positions and attitudes don't reflect it. I know; we're all in process. I understand; no one arrives at perfection this side of heaven. I'm just suggesting that we all need to be careful about not getting complacent because we've heard it before and we're all pretty sure we're all on board with what God wants. We're not. Not one of us. Our job is to figure out where we're not and fix it. Repeatedly.
I'm not writing this to go on about abortion. I'm writing this to address "We're all on board with all you're saying." Why is it that we hear preaching on the same topics over and over? Why is it that we see the same arguments online over and over? And I'm not just talking about abortion. I'm talking about abortion, homosexual behavior, transgender questions, politics, doctrine ... so much more than abortion. Why do we keep at these topics? Why do I harp so much on the meanings of words or on the importance of Scripture or ...? Clearly it is because we are not all on board. Obviously, unbelievers take a different opinion. If that surprises you, you're not reading your Bible. They are hostile to God (Rom 8:7), unable to understand the things of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14), dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3), and all that. It should be no surprise that they don't agree with what God has to say. But, among believers, we have this problem. We ... slip. We listen too long to the wrong side -- "Did God really say ...?" We allow our perceptions of our experiences to override a clear understanding of God's Word. We fail to ask God (most obviously through His Word) what He thinks. We creep into conforming to this world rather than being transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:2). Face it; we just don't do the necessary work. We don't fight the current. And before long you have a room full of Bible-believing Christians who ... disagree with the Bible ... and don't even know it.
Scripture says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). Key components: 1) breathed out by God, 2) profitable for teaching what is right, pointing out what is not, redirecting what is not to what is, and continually teaching the right way, and 3) completely sufficient. It's all we need to be complete and equipped. We call ourselves biblical Christians, but too often our actions and positions and attitudes don't reflect it. I know; we're all in process. I understand; no one arrives at perfection this side of heaven. I'm just suggesting that we all need to be careful about not getting complacent because we've heard it before and we're all pretty sure we're all on board with what God wants. We're not. Not one of us. Our job is to figure out where we're not and fix it. Repeatedly.
Saturday, February 03, 2024
News Weakly - 2/3/24
Special Case
The pope continues to leak. In a recent interview he said that Africans were a "special case" in opposition to homosexuality. "For them," he said, "homosexuality is something bad from a cultural point of view." With the exception of the "special case," then, Francis is pretty sure that we can all be included, not divided, over homosexuality. Odd thing when the "special case" is the "small ideological group" that happens to ... you know ... agree with the Bible on the topic. Eventually he hopes, apparently, to get everyone on board with selectively jettisoning Scripture.
Don't Begg
Pastor Alistair Begg got himself in trouble when he told someone an interview that he advised a Christian grandmother that she could certainly attend her grandson's marriage to a transgender person. He figured as long as she made it clear that the grandson knew she was a Christian and didn't affirm his choices, she could go celebrate his (non)wedding. Oh, and bring a gift. Mind you, one's sex is not a matter of choice (Gen 1:27). Mind you, marriage has a definition (completely unrelated to gender) (Gen 2:24). So this whole "marriage to a transgender" thing is so far outside of functional that "bring a gift" can't begin to touch it. How a Christian, following God's Word, could attend a celebration of a barn fire like that and consider it "kind" is beyond me.
Best Trump Imitation -- "You're Fired!"
According to the Los Angeles Times, the L.A. Times is laying off more than 20% of their newsroom. Because, as we all know, the economy under Biden is booming. (Of course, the Bee is telling of the tragic report that there are still a lot of journalists that have not been laid off.) What's the matter? Running out of news that's fit to print?
Lost Cause
The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings with five major social media platforms. Snap, Discord, X, Instagram, and Facebook are all being questioned about child safety amid growing concerns about harms these platforms are doing to children. Of course, putting that toothpaste back in the tube isn't really possible, is it? And since parents appear to be unable to regulate their own children in this area, why would we expect the folks making all that money off of it to do so? "How can we save this obviously dangerous technology?" doesn't seem like a reasonable question.
Economic Ping Pong
They tell me that 107,000 jobs were added in January. That's good, right? Then they tell me that jobless claims climbed to a 3-month high, businesses are hiring slower, and layoffs seem to be increasing. Oh, hang on, I don't know what I was thinking. Apparently they added 353,000 jobs, unemployment remained the same, and no one knows what they're talking about. Benjamin Disraeli (apparently) referred to "lies, damned lies, and statistics," where, apparently, statistics are the worst kind of lies. I suppose you'll have to choose the news that suits your bias here. "Jobs were added -- Biden is great!" or "Unemployment is rising -- Bidenomics stink!"
Let It Not Bee So
President Biden is shrewder than we thought. Between Russia trying to grab Alaska and Iran attacking Americans in the Middle East, it looks like he's going to distract from a possible civil war here by starting a world war elsewhere. In other news, the guy who damaged a statue of Satan in Iowa is being charged with a hate crime (actual story). The Bee reports that Iowa is also charging God with a hate crime for planning to cast Satan into the lake of fire. In a related story, the Bee offers a guide to which statues can be torn down. George Washington? Yes. Satan? No. Abraham Lincoln? Yes. Michael Jackson, remembered for "fun sleepovers" with kids? No. Helpful stuff.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
The pope continues to leak. In a recent interview he said that Africans were a "special case" in opposition to homosexuality. "For them," he said, "homosexuality is something bad from a cultural point of view." With the exception of the "special case," then, Francis is pretty sure that we can all be included, not divided, over homosexuality. Odd thing when the "special case" is the "small ideological group" that happens to ... you know ... agree with the Bible on the topic. Eventually he hopes, apparently, to get everyone on board with selectively jettisoning Scripture.
Don't Begg
Pastor Alistair Begg got himself in trouble when he told someone an interview that he advised a Christian grandmother that she could certainly attend her grandson's marriage to a transgender person. He figured as long as she made it clear that the grandson knew she was a Christian and didn't affirm his choices, she could go celebrate his (non)wedding. Oh, and bring a gift. Mind you, one's sex is not a matter of choice (Gen 1:27). Mind you, marriage has a definition (completely unrelated to gender) (Gen 2:24). So this whole "marriage to a transgender" thing is so far outside of functional that "bring a gift" can't begin to touch it. How a Christian, following God's Word, could attend a celebration of a barn fire like that and consider it "kind" is beyond me.
Best Trump Imitation -- "You're Fired!"
According to the Los Angeles Times, the L.A. Times is laying off more than 20% of their newsroom. Because, as we all know, the economy under Biden is booming. (Of course, the Bee is telling of the tragic report that there are still a lot of journalists that have not been laid off.) What's the matter? Running out of news that's fit to print?
Lost Cause
The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings with five major social media platforms. Snap, Discord, X, Instagram, and Facebook are all being questioned about child safety amid growing concerns about harms these platforms are doing to children. Of course, putting that toothpaste back in the tube isn't really possible, is it? And since parents appear to be unable to regulate their own children in this area, why would we expect the folks making all that money off of it to do so? "How can we save this obviously dangerous technology?" doesn't seem like a reasonable question.
Economic Ping Pong
They tell me that 107,000 jobs were added in January. That's good, right? Then they tell me that jobless claims climbed to a 3-month high, businesses are hiring slower, and layoffs seem to be increasing. Oh, hang on, I don't know what I was thinking. Apparently they added 353,000 jobs, unemployment remained the same, and no one knows what they're talking about. Benjamin Disraeli (apparently) referred to "lies, damned lies, and statistics," where, apparently, statistics are the worst kind of lies. I suppose you'll have to choose the news that suits your bias here. "Jobs were added -- Biden is great!" or "Unemployment is rising -- Bidenomics stink!"
Let It Not Bee So
President Biden is shrewder than we thought. Between Russia trying to grab Alaska and Iran attacking Americans in the Middle East, it looks like he's going to distract from a possible civil war here by starting a world war elsewhere. In other news, the guy who damaged a statue of Satan in Iowa is being charged with a hate crime (actual story). The Bee reports that Iowa is also charging God with a hate crime for planning to cast Satan into the lake of fire. In a related story, the Bee offers a guide to which statues can be torn down. George Washington? Yes. Satan? No. Abraham Lincoln? Yes. Michael Jackson, remembered for "fun sleepovers" with kids? No. Helpful stuff.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, February 02, 2024
Old Testament Wisdom
I'm retired now and into my "Social Security years." Unlike many, I don't mind that I'm getting older, but it is heart-warming to see a command from God with people like me in mind.
Mull that one over for awhile.
You must stand up in the presence of the aged, honor the presence of an elder, and fear your God. I am YHWH. (Lev 19:32)That is so not the practice in today's culture ...
Mull that one over for awhile.
Thursday, February 01, 2024
Definitions
The pastor preached a sermon on abortion. Afterwards, the group gathered to discuss the topic. I was taken aback at the wide range of responses from a group of people whose first premise is "Scripture first." It appears that we don't know what we're talking about. So I thought I'd try to do this carefully.
First, then, some definitions. By "abortion" we mean the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. I have to say that because the term is also the medical term for any termination of a pregnancy. That would include miscarriage. When we talk about "pro-life" and "abortion," it's not about "spontaneous abortion." It is not even about the removal of a dead baby from the womb. Remember ... "life." It's about the choice to kill an unborn, living child. Which takes us to "pro-life." By "life" we don't mean "all life of all kinds." It is specifically human life. We aren't concerned about terminating a cow's pregnancy. We won't be protesting eating meat. "Pro-life" is a positive stance on the value of human life. Which takes us to "Why? What makes human life so important?" Scripture tells us, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27). And it was serious. One of His first laws was "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Gen 9:6). The image of God in humans is sacred in the sense of "set apart for God." God has placed special value on human life. Thus, it is that life that we are "pro" -- in favor of and in defense of. Now, add to the mix the fact that Scripture teaches that God "opens" and "closes" the womb (e.g., Gen 29:31; 30:22; Isa 66:9). No child is conceived without God's express permission and intervention. And Psalm 127 tells us they are "a reward from God" (Psa 127:3). So the unborn child is God's choice; a gift from God.
So, where are we? We're not concerned about natural loss of a pregnancy; it's the intentional termination of a life which we call "abortion." Since God made humans in His image, human life is especially precious. It's the reason there has been a death penalty for murder, but not for slaughtering a cow. And all conception is God's work. Thus, to intentionally end the life of the child in the womb is an assault on God. That would include cases such as rape or incest, since God opens and closes the womb. But, since human life is the precious thing here, a woman whose pregnancy will kill her should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy to save her life. We'd conclude the same in the case of a home invasion (for instance). We shouldn't be killing people, but it is "justifiable homicide" if a person is intent on killing you or your family. Saving a life is the only exception ... because "pro-life" is concerned about human life and God's valuation of His creation -- human beings. So when we waffle about "women's choice," we stand in stark contrast to God's instructions. When we dither on "rape or incest," we deny God's Sovereignty and grace. And when we nitpick on "It's not a person," we're simply drawing arbitrary lines that neither Scripture nor science demarcate. Instead, we hearken back to the days when women were deemed "not persons" or black people were considered "not persons." I'd think that would be something we'd all want to avoid.
First, then, some definitions. By "abortion" we mean the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. I have to say that because the term is also the medical term for any termination of a pregnancy. That would include miscarriage. When we talk about "pro-life" and "abortion," it's not about "spontaneous abortion." It is not even about the removal of a dead baby from the womb. Remember ... "life." It's about the choice to kill an unborn, living child. Which takes us to "pro-life." By "life" we don't mean "all life of all kinds." It is specifically human life. We aren't concerned about terminating a cow's pregnancy. We won't be protesting eating meat. "Pro-life" is a positive stance on the value of human life. Which takes us to "Why? What makes human life so important?" Scripture tells us, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27). And it was serious. One of His first laws was "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Gen 9:6). The image of God in humans is sacred in the sense of "set apart for God." God has placed special value on human life. Thus, it is that life that we are "pro" -- in favor of and in defense of. Now, add to the mix the fact that Scripture teaches that God "opens" and "closes" the womb (e.g., Gen 29:31; 30:22; Isa 66:9). No child is conceived without God's express permission and intervention. And Psalm 127 tells us they are "a reward from God" (Psa 127:3). So the unborn child is God's choice; a gift from God.
So, where are we? We're not concerned about natural loss of a pregnancy; it's the intentional termination of a life which we call "abortion." Since God made humans in His image, human life is especially precious. It's the reason there has been a death penalty for murder, but not for slaughtering a cow. And all conception is God's work. Thus, to intentionally end the life of the child in the womb is an assault on God. That would include cases such as rape or incest, since God opens and closes the womb. But, since human life is the precious thing here, a woman whose pregnancy will kill her should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy to save her life. We'd conclude the same in the case of a home invasion (for instance). We shouldn't be killing people, but it is "justifiable homicide" if a person is intent on killing you or your family. Saving a life is the only exception ... because "pro-life" is concerned about human life and God's valuation of His creation -- human beings. So when we waffle about "women's choice," we stand in stark contrast to God's instructions. When we dither on "rape or incest," we deny God's Sovereignty and grace. And when we nitpick on "It's not a person," we're simply drawing arbitrary lines that neither Scripture nor science demarcate. Instead, we hearken back to the days when women were deemed "not persons" or black people were considered "not persons." I'd think that would be something we'd all want to avoid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)