Prostitutes

One of those odd rules God gave to Israel was the whole "tassels" thing.

"Speak to the people of Israel, and tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a cord of blue on the tassel of each corner. And it shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the LORD, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after. So you shall remember and do all My commandments, and be holy to your God." (Num 15:38-40)

He tells the rule there -- put tassels on the four corners of their clothes. He includes the instruction to "put a cord of blue" in them. He tells why: "For you to look at and remember all the commandments of the Lord." All well and good. (And, I'll be honest, I don't actually understand how the 4 tassels help that, so ... moving on ...) What's really interesting is what follows. They were to remember His commandments for a reason. What reason? So they would obey them and "not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after."

Pretty tough language, isn't it? He describes their propensity to follow after their own hearts and eyes as prostitution. How is that prostitution? Well, consider. What is a prostitute? A prostitute is someone who engages prostitution. (Thanks, Free Dictionary. That wasn't helpful.) It is someone who engages in sexual activity for pay. In a more general sense, it refers to someone who compromises principles for personal gain.

God is drawing a parallel here. "Obey My commands. The alternative is to sell what I have invested in you for personal gain." How do they sell what He has given them? They pursue their own heart and their own eyes. They do what pleases them rather than what pleases God. They tell God, "You are not enough. What you've given me is not enough. Our relationship is not enough. I want what I want and will get it on my own."

In the Old Testament, God referred to Israel as His wife. In the New Testament, the Church is portrayed as "the Bride of Christ". There is a human parallel here offered in the relationship of God's people with their God. That parallel is marriage. And when God's people stray, He calls it "adultery". "You, God, are not enough. I'm looking elsewhere." The exact same concept.

This is not a world problem. The world doesn't have this relationship with God. The world is already immersed in its own pursuit of its own pleasure with a total disregard for God. No surprise there. This is a problem for the people of God. It is a failure to cling to God, a refusal to find our satisfaction and joy in Him. What does that look like? What is that refusal? It is when we pursue our own hearts and our own eyes. I do it. So do you. Who are the whores in the text? Each and every one of us that opts to pursue our own ideas and vision rather than God's ideas and heart. God says it is a natural inclination.

It's an old joke. "If anyone ever calls you a two-bit whore, you just hit them with your sack of quarters." Don't have a sack of quarters. Let's keep our heart and eyes on Him. Prostitution among believers is not a good testimony. "Remember and do all My commandments, and be holy to your God."

People and Ideas

I talk a lot here about ideas. Is God Sovereign? What does marriage actually mean? What does God say is the proper family hierarchy? Isn't it absolutely clear there is "male" and "female"? Lots of ideas. Some are acceptable to my readers; some are not. Some are controversial, others are just "new", and some are "yawn". (I don't think I have ever actually offered something new; just a different slant, perhaps.) Some rouse ire and others rouse a cheer. But they're almost exclusively about ideas ... not people.

There is a sharp difference between an idea and a person. In a debate it is a logical fallacy to attack the person rather than the idea. It's called ad hominem. And it is oh, so common. (Think today's president for a quick and dirty example ... in both directions.) Attacking an idea based on the person that offered it is not reasonable or helpful.

But way beyond that, there is a stark difference between straightforward ideas and their outworking in individuals. Ideas have pretty clear cut issues, pretty easy lines, fairly simple ways of viewing them. Sure, some get tricky and complicated, but, still, all in all they're easy to examine. People, on the other hand, are complex. There are histories and backgrounds, emotions, individual stories, individual circumstances, individual individuals. Take, as a simple example, the idea of weight loss. Non-controversial, right? I mean, it's easy. To lose weight, eat less and exercise more. Done! That is, until you get to people. While, for the largest portion of us, the idea might be true, there are still the few. They are affected by hormones and imbalances, psychological or genetic situations, big or little bones. (Seriously, has anyone ever said, "I'm not skinny; I'm just little boned"?) As it turns out, the idea of weight loss is simple and straightforward, but it is not always helpful to apply the simple idea to all people. Our ideas and how people actually fit into them are not always the same.

It is here, then, that we need to be careful. For instance, the Bible is not unclear that homosexual behavior is a sin. Argue all you want; it won't change the fact. However, that is the idea, not the person. It is the principle, not the outworking. We need to retain that idea, but then we need to interact with the people. Slapping them upside the head with "homosexual behavior is a sin" isn't often the right way to go. We must not ignore the struggles of sinners. After all, we are sinners. People need to be considered. People need to be loved. The Gospel is an idea and the truth, but we must consider how people will best receive it rather than lobbing the idea over the wall.

The phrase is often, "Love the sinner; hate the sin." I don't actually care much for it. But I do differentiate between truthful principles and personal interactions. Telling a believer going through difficult times, "All things work together for good, you know" may be a true statement, but it won't likely help the person. And while we ought to love the truth, we are commanded to love one another. So we mustn't abandon the truth because that wouldn't be loving, but neither should we ignore the individual. Christians are supposed to be marked by their love for one another. Many of us seem to have the "truth statement" down. More of us might need to work on loving sinners who need the truth we have.

Judge Not

It is listed as the best known verse in the Bible, especially among unbelievers. It used to be John 3:16, but now it's Matthew 7:1. "Judge not, that you be not judged." And the world shouts "Hallelujah!" because now those darned Christians have to shut up or violate their own Savior's commands. Jesus commanded His followers not to judge.

Or did He?

The first hint that this is not an actual command for Christians not to judge in any way is in the context of the command. Jesus warned them to examine themselves -- the famous "log in your eye" section -- and then said, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matt 7:5) Note, then, that Jesus does not rule out "taking the speck out of your brother's eye." He simply requires that they check themselves first. He goes on to say the famous "pearls before swine" comment which, by definition, requires recognition of "swine", a judgment. Just a few verses later Jesus speaks of the false prophets about whom He says, "You will recognize them by their fruits." (Matt 7:16) Jesus meant something, of course, but His "Judge not" simply cannot be understood to mean "Never make a judgment call; you are not allowed to recognize sin or call it sin." He says, for instance, "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother." (Matt 18:15) Try to fit that into the standard sense that the world uses when they throw "Judge not!" at us.

What, then, did Jesus mean when He very clearly said "Judge not, that you be not judged"?

Well, first and most clearly, Jesus explained about His own command that our first priority -- our first task -- is to judge ourselves. "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you." (Matt 7:2) Whatever measure you're using to judge another, then, be sure you use it first on yourself. That's when Jesus uses that "log in your own eye" metaphor. "You think you're judging rightly, but you're actually overlooking your own large failures while focusing on another's smaller failure." We need, then, to hold ourselves to the standards we're applying to others.

Also implied in the text is a standard. The standard is outside of "me". That is, we don't get to be the standard. We know this because we're supposed to hold ourselves up against this standard. We -- human beings -- don't get to set the standard and say, "All of you need to measure up to me." There is something else, something higher. That is, at issue is not whether we are allowed to recognize sin as sin, but what is the standard of sin. It is not us. It is God Himself and His standard offered in His Word.

One other thing I think needs to be noted. In Jesus's metaphor of log and splinter, you should notice one thing. The aim of this "check yourself out first" thing and judging by the right standard is quite clear. Jesus assumes that the point is to "take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matt 7:4-5) Identifying sin is not the point. Identifying evil is not the aim. We aren't supposed to simply tell people that what they're doing is wrong. The aim is repair. The goal is to fix problems rather than simply identify them. And when it comes to sin, we are in possession of the best possible remedy. So our pointing out that homosexual behavior is a sin, for example, is a truth statement, but does no good if it ends there. The goal is to remove the problem and that is accomplished by Christ alone.

Despite what you may have been told, Jesus actually told us to be "fruit inspectors" (Matt 7:16). Scriptures are full of judgments we need to make -- recognizing what God calls sin and repenting from it. We must necessarily examine ourselves for it and we are, on the basis of love, commanded to help others in the same thing (e.g., Gal 6:1). Clearly we must examine ourselves first. Clearly we need to address our own errors before we attempt to assist others. Then we must attempt to assist, not condemn, others. That is our "judge not". "Don't condemn them; help them."

Above All

Michael W. Smith made the song popular -- Above All.

Above All
by Lenny LeBlanc and Paul Baloche © 1995 Integrity Music

Above all powers, above all kings
Above all nature, and all created things
Above all wisdom, and all the ways of man
You were here, before the world began

Above all kingdoms, above all thrones
Above all wonders, the world has ever known
Above all wealth, and treasures of the earth
There's no way to measure what You're worth

Crucified, laid behind a stone
You lived to die, rejected and alone
Like a rose, trampled on the ground
You took the fall, and thought of me
Above all.

Really great song. Talks about how Christ was above all -- all powers, all created things, all wisdom, even time. And, yet, He became a man and died on my behalf "And thought of me above all." It's a wonderfully warm song. An actual tear-jerker, really. That the One who was above all would die for me, would think of me above everyone and everything else ... that's ... well, amazing.

But is it right?

This is, to me, a prime example of our modern "me" Christianity. We appear to be missing the point. We appear to believe that it's all about us. We're amazed at His grace that saves sinners from eternal torment and we're delighted that He would deign to die for us and attribute to us His righteousness and call us sons, fellow heirs. It's all truly amazing. It really is. That isn't the mistake. The point is in thinking that it's about us.

Paul told the Roman Christians that "from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen." (Rom 11:36) He told the Colossians "all things have been created through Him and for Him." (Col 1:16) He told Titus that Christ "gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession who are zealous for good works." (Titus 2:14) Further we are commanded "whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31) Would it make sense, then, that the Son of God would violate God's own command -- God's own nature -- to do something other than to the glory of God? It would seem to me, then, that the Bible is abundantly clear that it's all about Him, not us. If we wanted to be accurate in that Michael W. Smith song, we'd have to say, "He thought of Himself above all." But, of course, that doesn't have the same ring, the same feel, the same impact.

And therein lies the problem. Our default setting is "me above all". The notion that He thought of me above all, then, feeds right into that setting. It is, unfortunately, our default sin nature setting. Because reality would demand that the Ultimate God would think of what was right above all every time ... and that would be Him.

In fact, this ends up actually more amazing than "He thought of me above all." You see, the Father, according to the plan laid out before time began (Titus 1:2) sent His Son to die to save creatures He made in order that they would become conformed to the image of His Son (Rom 8:29) to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph 1:5-6). The more amazing thing is that God sent His Son to die on our behalf to save us for His glory. The amazing thing is that He finds us useful to the only important mission of the universe -- the praise of His glory.

Does He love us? Certainly. Did He die to save us? Absolutely. Does He think of us? No doubt. Value us? Surely. But we are not the end. We are the means. He loves us for the glory we can give Him because He deserves all glory. He grooms us for the glory we can give Him because He deserves all glory. And we could receive no higher honor than to be given the opportunity to shine to His glory.

Walt Harrah offered a modified version of the song. I think he nails it perfectly

Above All

Above all powers, above all kings
Above all nature and all created things
Above all wisdom and all the ways of man
You were here before the world began

Above all kingdoms, above all thrones
Above all wonders the world has ever known
Above all wealth and treasures of the earth
There's no way to measure what you're worth

Crucified, laid behind a stone
You lived to die, rejected and alone
Son of God, Lamb for sinners slain
Exalted Lord, we worship you
above all.

Now that's the way we should sing it.

News Weakly - 3/4/2017

Reality Bites
Remember Rachel Dolezal? She was the white woman who said she was black and ran the Spokane, Washington, chapter of the NAACP until she was "outed" as white. Well, now she's " jobless, living on food stamps and is days away from being homeless." The only jobs she has been offered since then are in reality TV and porn. But she's not apologetic. "I don’t think you can do something wrong with your identity if you’re living in your authenticity, and I am," she told the Guardian.

It's unfair. It's wrong. If "he" can feel like he's a "she" and we are supposed to accept and embrace it because "she" is "living in my authenticity", why don't we have to embrace Rachel's reality? Why do we have to embrace one "felt reality" and not the rest? Why must we accept "gender reality" or "sexual reality" or "marriage reality" in direct opposition to ... you know ... real reality and not this one? In what world does this make sense? Oh, the humanity!

A Whole Lot of Learnin' Going On
Interesting school news of late. I already wrote about the preschool teacher in Arlington, Texas, who was blasting anti-semitic rhetoric to social media including the claim that not enough Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Any other pleasantries you'd like to pass along to the kiddies, dear? Then there was this Ontario, Canada, 8th grade teacher who thought it would be a good idea to assign homework to have the kids figure out how to make and inject crystal meth. Nice. And let's not forget this New Jersey middle school teacher who prevented a fourth grader from talking about his project to collect gloves for poor children and informed him that stuff "belongs in Sunday school, not the classroom." What does belong in the classroom is an instructional video on the 5 pillars of Islam. Christianity and Judaism? No. Islam? Mandatory.

Oh, yeah, there's a whole lot of learnin' going on. You can rest assured it's not all that you think or want.

Truth in Media
This is interesting. I talked to people in the last years of the Obama presidency and asked, "Where's this much-vaunted economic recovery?" From what I could see, stores, big and small, were going out of business, people were out of work, incomes weren't going up ... on and on and on. "Oh, no!" they told me adamantly, "All the data says we're seeing a huge economic recovery!" Fine. I wasn't. But they and the media would have none of it. "If there were any economic problems," they all assured me, "they were all carryovers from the previous administration." Until now. With the "Great Change" Artist out of office and the hated Trumpster at the helm, suddenly they're reporting that "The number of U.S. retailers ranked at the most-distressed level of the credit-rating spectrum has more than tripled since the Great Recession of 2008-2009 and is heading toward record levels in the next five years." Now, you have to admit that's not classic "economic recovery". Nor can it be laid at the feet of a president who hasn't been in office 100 days. But we'll think it's the Donald's fault and ignore the 8 years of silence from the media on the subject because that's what we expect from the media -- spin, not truth.

Remove All Doubts
Disney was once the "family" company. You know. "Can I take my kids to see that movie?" "Well, it's a Disney." "Oh, yeah, so, good, it's safe." In case there was any question about their current status as the "family" company, there should be no question. "The highly anticipated live-action remake of Disney's 'Beauty and the Beast' will make history this month as the first film by the animation company to feature an openly gay character in a love scene." Just the thing you want to take the kids to see, right? No. Disney is not a safe place to find family-friendly movies. We've long suspected it, but this should remove all doubts.

In the Courts
So, let's see ... well, in Columbus, OH, a 19-year-old woman was sentenced to 9 months in prison for livestreaming images of a man raping a 17-year-old girl. (The actual rapist got 9 years.) Then there's the 20-year-old woman who recorded herself raping a 4-year-old boy and then posting it online. And there was a 12-year-old boy charged with murdering a 21-year-old store clerk in Arkansas. He cannot be charged as an adult, but he sure can kill like one. This kind of stuff can be depressing.

Ash Wednesday
March 1 was Ash Wednesday this year. It is supposed to mark the beginning of 40 days of fasting. Why ash? Because ash is supposed to represent repentance. You know, "sackcloth and ashes." So it would appear that the sheer irony is completely missed when some opted to make it a "gay Christian" day by using "glitter ash". "Ash Wednesday kicks off the six-week somber season called Lent," the article says, so a "fabulous" kick off is good for a somber season of repentance marked first by a complete defiance of God's explicit commands, right? Sigh.

And There It Is
So, the next Alien movie trailer is out because we haven't had enough Alien movies and this one includes a gay couple as part of a colonization mission to ... wait ... hang on a minute ... a gay couple to colonize a planet? What were they thinking? Don't they know that same-sex couples can't bear offspring? Don't they know that makes no sense? And ... there it is ... the perfect example of what's unnatural about same-sex couples and what happens when we divorce child-bearing from sexual relationships.

Right Again?
Recently President Trump blamed Obama for the protests all over the Republican sphere. The world guffawed. Loser. Lunatic. Idiot. Except ... Trump was right. Turns out a group of "former congressional staffers" from the Obama administration have formed the "Indivisible movement" aimed at opposing Trump at the local level by interrupting and disrupting townhall meetings for Republican members of Congress.

Now, look, I was clear that I was not a Trump fan. I'm still not. But when the Left continues to prove him right, it gets increasingly difficult to stay over here in thorough opposition to his views and agenda.

Living in Escher's World

You know who M.C. Escher is, right? He's the artist known for those remarkable pictures of scenes that are so amazing, beguiling, even beautiful ... and utterly impossible. They are pleasing to the eye, but what you must never do is follow them through because you will find yourself stuck right up against the wall of reality with nowhere to go.



Take, for instance, his famous work, Waterfall.

It is really an interesting piece, a house, apparently, with its own stream and waterfall. Except, the waterfall, if you trace it out, feeds ... the waterfall. An impossibility.

Kind of like "We demand $15/hour minimum wage!" Oh? Where is that money coming from? Well, it will come from ... your $15/hour income. Easy! See?

Consider Escher's Convex and Concave. 

An entire village, built with real efficiency, where the whole community can be close and friendly and ... wait ... hang on a minute, nope, that's not working. You can't get there from here.

Wrong angles, lamps hanging from stairs, windows where they couldn't be, ladders to walls that are floors, and all the while a couple of monsters getting ready to devour everyone.

Like the ACA where everyone is insured but very few can afford to use it or the ever-popular "Tolerance!" that doesn't tolerate and "No Judgment!" that is so judgmental or the "reality is determined by how you feel" except when "how you feel" violates "our reality".

Escher's fascinating work seems to me an illustration of our society today. It is largely built with beautiful lines, appealing images, warm feelings, but whatever you do, don't follow it to its logical conclusion. You'll find yourself up against logic and reason and reality that just won't let you go where you thought you were headed.

Apparently Escher was a prophet. Or it's just that God was right when He said, in essence, that sin rots the brain. We appear to be living in Escher's world.

Repentance?

I'm trying to figure out how this works. I'm only using this story as an example because you know it's only one of many, but there is this story out of Arlington, Texas, of a preschool teacher, Nancy Salem, who was fired because she posted not one, but a series of tweets about killing Jews. One said, "How many Jews died in the Holocaust? Not enough!" Okay, so, good, she was fired. As it should be. This isn't what we want teaching preschool. The part I don't get, however, is this.

Salem has since released a statement that said she was "truly sorry for the pain and hurt my words caused, especially to members of the Jewish faith."

Is that it? Is that how it works? You dump out appalling hate on the Internet and, when you're caught, simply say you're "truly sorry"? John the Baptist preached repentance, but with a different flavor. "Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham." (Luke 3:8) You can see that's much beyond, "I'm sorry." This kind of repentance shows in a change in lifestyle. This kind of repentance goes beyond mere words likely intended to put out the fire others have set on you.

It's easy to think of this story and my writing about it as an attack on Muslims or anti-Semitism or whatever else you may think, but I'm not pointing at Nancy Salem. I'm pointing at so many of these events where an apology appears to be required, even if no genuine repentance is forthcoming. Like the Mark Cuban assault on the Bleacher Reports tweet that was "disrespectful" of one of his players. With foul language and outright threats Cuban forced the Bleacher Reports to take down the tweet he found offensive and apologize ... because foul language and threats are not disrespectful, but making a joke is. But my point isn't Cuban, as two-faced as he was. My point was the apology. Repentant? Not likely. Just scared of the consequences.

I don't understand how that's supposed to work. Make a bad tweet or comment or something, face the wrath of the anonymous Internet, and "repent" with an "I'm sorry; it was a poor choice of words", and it's all good. It's not. And an "I'm sorry" is not defined as repentance.

Behind this point is my important one. You and I ought not be satisfied with this kind of repentance in ourselves. If it's avoiding fire or pain or seeking to get along, it's the wrong kind of repentance. The right kind changes how you and I live. The right kind is accompanied by fruit -- the fruits of repentance, the obedience of faith (Rom 16:26). Let's not practice self-serving repentance. Real repentance will prevent us from repeating those things of which we have repented.

Redefining Reality

It used to be that change took time. Lots of time. In the last half of the 20th century, we managed to find ways to speed that up. Where knowledge at one time was a slow, steady ramp, if you showed a graph of knowledge that included the last half of the 20th century, it would have looked more like a hockey stick. At the end of World War II knowledge doubled every 25 years or so. Now it's more like 12 months (depending on the subject, of course). In 1950, the stereotypical "get married, have kids, mom stays home" mentality was still firmly entrenched and in a mere 25 years the Sexual Revolution brought us rampant promiscuity, "living together", and declining marriage. In no time at all, it seems, we're going from the "unthinkable" to "policy" in record time.

This high-speed shift has received its biggest boost from the worldview known as postmodernism that argues that, since there is no overarching meaning to life, reality is as you define it. Modernism was largely a move toward materialism, what was "real", what was measurable, "not all that religion stuff", things like that. The idea was that if we took a worldview rooted in reality we could solve the world's problems. Two world wars put that idea to bed, and postmodernism took root with its "define reality as you like" idea. What we've seen for the last half century is the growth of "define reality as you like". Unfortunately, that doesn't really work. I mean, if you define, say, "murder" as evil and I define it as advantageous, we're going to have problems. A genuinely relative reality doesn't really function. So now the aim is to redefine reality from your "unthinkable" to my "policy".

When the Supreme Court in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case of 1992 struck down Pennsylvania's abortion regulations -- regulations like requiring informed consent, spousal notice, and parental consent -- Justice Anthony wrote in the majority opinion that "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Justice Anthony said that liberty is the right to define one's own reality. Justice Anthony legislated what we have today as policy.

Take, for instance, the "born this way" idea, where "I'm gay because I was born this way" (with its apparently required "and, therefore, it's good" conclusion). Modern psychology says they are not "born this way", but are born with this tendency. Never mind. Same thing, right? (Note: the answer is "no".) A 1993 study argued for a "gay gene" (and people wondered if it wouldn't be ethical to abort a baby with that gene), but subsequent studies disproved the genetic idea and genes don't determine our choices of what we do. No science to date has demonstrated "born this way", but today it's an "established fact" -- the new reality. To deny it is to deny science (and be a hater).

Look at the graphs of acceptance in society for gay mirage. In 1988 it was 12%. In 2006 it was 35%. In 2010 it was 46% for and 40% opposed. That is a rapid shift from "unthinkable" to "policy".

And then there's this "transgender" thing. Who would have thought, 5 years ago, that "male" and "female" were entirely subjective? Who would have imagined that individuals can, by thinking it, change their gender? Oh, they can't change their height and God knows lots of people have lots of trouble changing their weight without a whole lot of work, but your gender is entirely defined by how you feel. Your race? No, no, that's not up to you. Neither can you alter the fact that not one guy who has determined he was a girl has been able to get pregnant (as an example). But the unbelievable "you are whatever gender you feel you are" has gone from "unthinkable" to "policy". Trump's attempts at making that a States' choice are classified as horrendous, hateful, mean. If you are a thinking, kind human being at all, you have to accept that the teenage boy who thinks he's a girl would feel uncomfortable in a locker room or bathroom for boys and should be allowed without question to make all those girls feel uncomfortable in a locker room or bathroom with a biological boy. Haters.

That's the current approach. 1) Redefine how we define reality. Not "what is", but "what we feel". 2) Redefine the breadth of that definition. Not "what we feel", but "what this particular group feels". 3) Apply that new definition to everyone. Poof! Now you crazy people stuck in a "What are you talking about? Can't you look and see the truth?" world are just backward haters and we are the forward thinkers. Get on the "right side of history" bandwagon and abandon mental health, all who enter here.

My Feelings Versus God's Facts

We like to think that we can trust our feelings. Follow the latest political or social or moral arguments and they're almost always couched in emotional terms. The truth is that our emotions are simply the reflection of what we're thinking. As such, they can be very revealing. Here is a list of feelings I put together alongside the facts God has given us in His Word.

My Feelings	God’s Facts
1. Nobody loves me.	I am loved. John 13:1; 14:21; 15:13; Rom. 5:8; 8:35-39; 1 John 4:10, 16; 3:1; Rev. 3:19
2. Why doesn’t anything good ever happen to me?	All things work together for good. Rom. 8:28
3. I’m good for nothing.	I am highly valued by the highest being in the universe – God. Rom. 3:24; 1 Cor. 7:23; 6:20; 1 Pet. 1:18-19 I am viewed as pure by God, a new creation. Jer. 31:34; Psa 103:12; Rom. 6:4-11; 2 Cor. 5:17-20; Eph. 4:24; Heb. 8:12
4. Why couldn’t I be … (better looking, more athletic, taller, shorter, skinnier, smarter, etc.)?	I was personally designed by God. This includes my physical characteristics, my parentage, and my circumstances. Job 10:10-11; Psa. 139:13-16; 119:73
5. He/she made me angry (any feeling that is admittedly wrong).	Each of us is responsible for our own responses. James 1:14
6. I don’t have any skills (abilities to contribute to my world).	To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 1 Cor. 12:7, 16, 22, 23
7. I’m a loser, a failure.	I am a conqueror. Rom. 8:37 I have the power for all things I must do. Phil. 4:13

Remember, the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). Feelings can be useful, but it's far better to trust God's Word.

"Why does He still find fault?"

In Romans 9 Paul walks through the standard objections of God's choice of who He will save. The first objection is "Is it fair?" (Rom 9:14) Paul assures his readers that there is no injustice with God. Salvation is based on His mercy and His selection alone (Rom 9:16) The second objection is "Why does He still find fault?" (Rom 9:19) If God is sovereign and God chooses whom to save and God saves them, how can He find fault with anyone? That is, if God is Sovereign, can Man be held culpable?

There is an interesting passage in Isaiah that might address this question. (Paul doesn't. "Who are you, oh man, to answer back to God?" (Rom 9:20).)

Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger
And the staff in whose hands is My indignation. (Isa 10:5)

What's going on here? It is God speaking. He is pronouncing "woe", the ancient Hebrew curse. He is pronouncing this curse upon Assyria, an idolatrous nation. What else do we know about Assyria? They are "the staff in whose hands is My indignation." Okay, now, hold on. This is a curse on an idolatrous nation who God is using to punish Israel. Huh? God is sending them and commissioning them (Isa 10:6) and they are doing it and He is pronouncing a curse on them. How is that possible? They're going to do what God intends them to do and He is cursing them for it? Why?

Yet it does not so intend,
Nor does it plan so in its heart,
But rather it is its purpose to destroy
And to cut off many nations. (Isa 10:7)

Oh, now that's interesting. So Assyria is assigned by God to punish Israel for her idolatry, but Assyria is not doing it because God has assigned them to do it. They are doing it for their own bad reasons. And that is why God is pronouncing this woe upon them.

It's an interesting juxtaposition of Man's free will and God's Sovereignty. It is a clear case of God's overarching rule and Man's responsibility for his own actions. Like Judas Iscariot, predestined to betray Christ and with a woe pronounced against him for it (Luke 22:22), Assyria was God's chosen tool that opted for personal gain to attack God's people. God permitted, even ordained it because God's people needed correction, but Assyria isn't free of culpability for it because of their sinful motivation. Regardless of where you stand, the Bible is clear that God is regarded as absolutely Sovereign and Man is culpable for his sinful choices.

I Approve

Reading in John, I came across this passage I've come across before. In chapter 11 we have the wonderful story of the resurrection of Lazarus. We find "Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what He did, believed in Him." (John 11:45) In chapter 12 crowds were gathering to see Jesus and Lazarus (John 12:9). We have the Triumphal Entry where they "took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, 'Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!'" (John 12:13) Then foreign God-fearers asked to see Him (John 12:20-21). God Himself speaks to the crowd (John 12:28). It's a good time for Jesus. And, yet, we read this.

Though He had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in Him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." Isaiah said these things because he saw His glory and spoke of Him. (John 12:37-41)

If you're paying attention, this is a disturbing passage. We like to think that God hopes to save everyone and works toward that end and all that -- very warm and friendly stuff -- but this seems to say otherwise. This appears to say that there are those who cannot believe (John 12:39) -- actually lack the ability -- and the reason that they cannot believe is "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." (John 12:40) Notice that it doesn't say that they have blinded their eyes and hardened their heart. It doesn't even say that the god of this world has done it. It says "He", speaking of God, has done it.

Now, there are all sorts of twists and turns we can take here to try to alleviate this. Maybe it doesn't mean that He did it. Maybe it just means that He allowed it. They did it to themselves. Like Pharaoh who hardened his own heart until God accomplished it by merely letting him do it to himself. Maybe it means that God allowed Satan to do it. So maybe it doesn't require active participation on the part of God to make these people blind and deaf. What remains inescapable is that 1) He knew about it in advance and 2) allowed it to happen. He knew there would be some -- always will be some -- who cannot come to believe because they are spiritually blind and deaf.

So, go about whatever dance you want to make that work for you. Maybe you'd like to think that God is not capable of changing that. Not me, but maybe you would. Maybe you'd like to think that God prefers Human Free Will to His own, so He won't interfere. Again, that is not for me, but maybe it is for you. Maybe you're even fine with "God did it". But it remains inescapable that in some sense this was God's foreordained plan. He knew it or allowed it or caused it and did not change it.

My question for you, then, is not how or even why. My question for you is, if this was actually God's plan, is that okay with you? If God planned to have people who could not believe and repent and He either could not or did not do something to overcome that, does that meet with your approval?

You see the problem, don't you? On one hand it is entirely possible that we could end up disapproving of God's choices or capabilities or actions. On the other hand we're actually submitting God to our approval. As if we have any grounds to do so. Seems to me our only right response is, "Not my will, but Yours, O Lord." If your only response is the right one -- "Whatever You do is right, Father. Blessed be the Name of the Lord." -- then you're in the right place. If you're thinking that God has to pass inspection, then you're standing directly on the core of idolatry -- "I will be like the Most High."

News Weakly - 2/25/2017

Modern Societians
I was reading a story about how the Church of England's House of Bishops had, after much analysis and discussion, voted to encourage "a culture of welcome and support for gay Christians" while affirming that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It has brought division, however, as the church has voted to reject the report of the leadership. The House of Bishops voted 43-1 in favor and the House of Laity 106-83 in favor, but the Clergy just didn't quite make it with a 100-to-93 vote against it (two abstaining). Their official position now? "Not to take note". It has nothing more to say. Start over. Wise leaders like the "Reverend Bertrand Olivier, who's gay, told the BBC the Church needed to reflect modern society."

The LGBT group that called for the rejection of the report said "the Synod's vote was a 'victory for love and equality.'" A victory, apparently, over the reliability and authority of Scripture. God was wrong (Gen 2:24). Jesus was wrong (Matt 19:4-6). Paul was wrong (Eph 5:31). All of Scripture on the subject is wrong. All of the history of humanity and of Christianity has been wrong. And when John warned that we should not be allied with the world (1 John 2:15), apparently the "Reverend Bertrand Olivier" would say that John was wrong as well. Fortunately we have a new model for Christian religion -- modern society. Forget "Christians". We should now be "Modern Societians".

Old News
The Reuters headline reads, "U.S. inquiries into Russian election hacking include three FBI probes." There is an opening picture with the caption, "Voters cast their votes during the U.S. presidential election in Ohio." So, now we know what the story is about. Russia hacked the election, changing the votes made by American voters.

Except ... that's a lie. It isn't the story. It isn't even the allegation. They are not saying that Russia got into our voting system to affect or change the outcome. Instead, the FBI "is trying to identify the people behind breaches of the Democratic National Committee's computer systems." The "hack" was not our voting systems, but the illegal release of private details from the DNC's computers. Kind of like what others did to Michael Flynn -- the illegal release of private information. The hack is believed to have "exposed the internal communications of party officials." That is, the information wasn't false. It was true; they just didn't want everyone to know what they did and the only right thing to have done was to keep Americans in general and Democrats in particular blind to their activities.

So let's summarize. We have a national party wishing to cover up the truthful evils that they committed and we have a major media outlet attempting to cast this story as a hack by a foreign government into the American vote of November. Unfortunately, two lies do not make a truth. Russia did not hack the American vote, and the Democratic Party was not honest and forthright in their campaigning. According to the story. And at some point people are going to have to decide -- are folks like WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden and the Russian hackers heroes for releasing secret information or not? You can't have it both ways.

Then ... Who Is?
In honor of Presidents Day, thousands across the nation ... opted to dishonor America's president. In major cities across the nation they gathered to declare that President Trump is "Not my president". They do not offer an alternative¹. They apparently have no president. Nor do they recognize that the nation has no alternative; we have one president. I suppose, then, that they're willing to go without the nation and its benefits because they don't like its leader, right? No, I don't suppose so. The one I found particularly amusing was the Chicago one that had "a pointed purpose: unity." I see. Ignoring the fact that a sufficient number of Americans voted for this president to put him in office, we will call "Not my president" a call to "unity". "We want to fight the entirety of the administration," said one of the coordinators². Excellent. That ought to draw us all together ... you know ... into anarchy. So, Trump is not your president. Then ... who is? (And do you suppose if some of us had said, "Obama is not our president" they would have applauded our "call to unity"?)
________

¹ There were calls for impeachment; signs are too short to tell why. I'm wondering if they'd be satisfied with the result -- President Mike Pence. Or will we just have a total revolution on our hands?

² I'll tell you what I'm waiting for. The headline reads "Trump had oatmeal for breakfast" followed by "Americans have started boycotting oatmeal because Trump ate it." I'm not sure that's an outlandish possibility.

________

States Rights No More
Texas looked at those videos showing Planned Parenthood doing really bad things to and with baby parts and moved to defund Planned Parenthood in Texas. You know, the state opted to decide how to spend their money. Silly Texans. A federal judge told the state they cannot cut funding to Planned Parenthood. It's one thing (a bad thing, to be sure) that murdering babies in America and, therefore, by extension, Texas is legal. It's another thing that the federal courts mandate that the state and, therefore, by extension, the people of Texas have to pay for it. That is, the federal courts have mandated that Texans (and, of course, the citizens of all states providing money to Planned Parenthood) be complicit in murder.

The Bill of Rights attempted to limit the rights of the federal government in favor of the rights of the State and the rights of the individual. Thanks to our turned-around society, that's turned around.

The Sad Loss of a Life
Another senseless police killing in New York. Apparently on Tuesday a bull escaped from a Queens slaughterhouse and valiantly made a break for freedom. Police tried to corral the animal and eventually had to shoot it with tranquilizers. The bull died. On Wednesday night New Yorkers gathered for a candlelight vigil to commemorate "Courage" (the name they gave the bull). "No one deserves cruelty, abuse, torture or murder." "We're here fighting for our brother." "Another innocent victim was cut down in the street." Just a few quotes from the story.

Seriously, folks, you can't make this stuff up. Killing babies? Absolute right. Killing animals intended for the slaughterhouse? A travesty of justice. Wait ... I'm confused ... did she just say, "We're here fighting for our brother"? I thought you guys came from monkeys. Sigh. Can't keep up.

What's the Big Deal?

In June, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States made a momentous decision to redefine life for Americans forever after. How did they do that? They voted to redefine marriage. Consciously. They recognized that the longstanding, traditional definition had always been for all time the union of a man and a woman, but they opted to rewrite that definition to include two people of the same gender. (Why only "two"? Why "people"? No one can say.)

You'd think that would end the question. It's now law. In fact, it's no longer legal to meaningfully disagree. And, still, some of us argue on. Some of us -- you know, Bible-believing Christians and such -- still try to make the point. So what's the big deal? Why go on with this?

As I said before, I'm teaching the book of Ruth. It's a really good story. And it's short! All the better. But there is so much packed in those four chapters. The widow Moabite woman, Ruth, follows her widowed mother-in-law back to Bethlehem. They're trying to make ends meet. Ruth goes and gleans in Boaz's fields. Naomi tells her he's one of her closest relatives. So Ruth, "a woman of excellence" (Ruth 3:11) asks Boaz to redeem her. And he does. Ruth and Boaz marry and they produce Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David, the eventual father of Christ. All good stuff. But Ruth is better than a love story. Ruth is a love story for the ages.

In Ruth we see the concept of the "kinsman-redeemer". It's a Hebrew term from Hebrew law where a close relative can buy a relative in trouble out of trouble. We hyphenate the term ("kinsman-redeemer") because in Hebrew it's one word. The word might be translated "close relative" or "redeemer" ... or both. And the image is unambiguous. Boaz serves as Ruth's "kinsman-redeemer", where he pays the price to redeem her from troubles she has no way of escaping. In so doing, he also buys her as his bride -- that's part of the deal. And the picture is quite robust. Christ became human to be our kinsman so that He could pay the price of redemption when we had no option of getting out of our sin problem and He bought for Himself a Bride, the Church. Paul says, "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church." (Eph 5:31-32)

We have argued of late against "gay marriage" because that's not a thing. But before that it was the feminists arguing for egalitarianism -- we're all completely equal -- over complementarianism, where the Scriptures teach that the husband is head of the wife (1 Cor 11:3) and the wife and husband are equal in value but complementary in operation, each filling the gaps in the other to make a more whole "one". And before that it was divorce. Is it okay to divorce for any reason? No (Matt 19:3-6). But they pushed through "no-fault divorce" and we buy it more than we should. Before that it was reproduction. Do we really need to "be fruitful and multiply", or can we refuse to bear children with the help of contraception? Hardly a Christian today questions that one. Of course sex is recreational, even for married couples, and bearing children is optional rather than optimal.

But, you see, what we've done over the last half of the 20th century into the 21st is to dismantle every aspect of God's picture. Marriage was designed to be the analogy we could see of Christ's relationship to the Church. He bought her and paid for her. He becomes one with her, together for life. He is her head. Together they reproduce. It is a whole and clear picture. But piece by piece our culture, following their father of lies, has dismantled it and piece by piece we've let them until they arrive at this point where marriage means mostly nothing at all and we go along.

Big deal? Yes, indeed. God's version of marriage gives us a kinsman-redeemer who buys us out of sin, becomes one with us, keeps us for life, and reproduces with us. How many of today's generation see any of that as "marriage"? Take apart biblical marriage and you take apart my Savior, my salvation, my security, my purpose -- my life. It's a really big deal. And we have surrendered time and again. And appear to be doing so today. To our shame.

A Jealous God

Scripture, we know, is the Word of God. Some of Scripture is actually God's words. One such place is in Exodus 20 where God is giving Israel the initial covenant that we know as "The Ten Commandments". God speaking says, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." (Exo 20:2) Got it. He goes on to warn against "no other gods in My presence" (Exo 20:3) and against making images to worship (Exo 20:4) and tells why. "You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me ..." (Exo 20:5) In Deut 4:24 we read "The LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God." Moses warned the people to destroy their idols saying, "for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Exo 34:14) So God self-identifies as jealous and Moses says His name is Jealous.

Now, hang on. Isn't jealousy bad? Isn't God ascribing sin to Himself? It might be helpful if we took a look at this concept.

In English, the word can be used synonymously as "envy". But there are other meanings. The root of our word, "jealous", is the Latin for "zealous", and many try to say that it isn't jealousy in view in those passages, but zealousy. Okay, no such word, but you get the idea. He's zealous, not jealous. The Hebrew doesn't help. The root word is qânâ', meaning "zealous" ... or "jealous". Strong's goes on to say that it can be translated as jealous, zealous, or envious. Great! Clear as mud.

Then I came across this. According to vocabulary.com, "Envy is when you want what someone else has, but jealousy is when you're worried someone's trying to take what you have." Oh, now that makes a difference. That provides some distinction. If jealousy is a concern for someone trying to take what is yours, then it is not necessarily sin, is it? We might say, for instance, "I guard my privacy jealously." That's not an evil jealousy. It's not envy. It's simply, "My privacy is mine and I intend to protect it." So to call it sin, you have to answer two questions. First, is it yours? If you are anxious about someone taking what is yours, but it isn't actually yours, then that's not a valid jealousy. Second, is it something you need to guard? Your religious freedom, for instance, may be something that's yours, but a zeal to protect it isn't biblical so intense emotions over it aren't reasonable.

There is, then, a bad jealousy and a good jealousy. Which is it for God? When He claims to be jealous, is He right to do so?

First question: Does it belong to Him? He told Israel, "I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine." (Lev 20:26) We are all, in fact, under God's ownership. As Creator, He is the Owner of everything. Yes, then, everything in general and Israel in particular belong to Him.

Second question: Is He right to zealously guard what is His? Yes, indeed! A spouse is linked ("the two shall become one") to the other half and is right and correct to guard that link. It isn't sin when a spouse is rightly concerned about an intervening person attempting to steal away the partner. God is much, much more than a spouse. He is much more right in jealously guarding what is His.

If this is accurate, the ramifications are large. First, God owns everything. That means your shoes, your home, your car, your family, your life, your freedoms -- everything, including you, belongs to Him. That makes us stewards, not owners, caretakers, not possessors. It ought to change our entire view of things. Second, the idea that He jealously guards what is His ought to give us great comfort. Jealousy a sin? Maybe. But not in God's case. In His case it's a good thing, an excellent thing.

Enough

John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937), considered the richest American in history, was once asked how much money was enough. He famously replied, "A little bit more." Welcome to American thinking. Well, welcome to human thinking. Most of us are pretty sure that what we really need is "a little bit more." Christians are not immune. Even churches seem to seek "just a little bit more" -- more attendees, more money, more fame, more influence in their world.

So, Christian, how much is "enough"? How much is enough stuff? How much is enough comfort? Conversely, is the smallest pain considered "too much"? How much difficulty is too much difficulty? Paul characterized greed as idolatry (Col 3:5); do we characterize it as good? How much is enough?

John Piper told a group of college students, "I'll tell you what makes Jesus look beautiful. It's when you smash your car, and your little girl goes flying through the windshield, and lands dead on the street ... and you say through the deepest possible pain, 'God is enough.'"

Is God enough?

Your God, My God

I'm teaching on Ruth for the next couple of weeks. (Don't worry. Just a substitute teacher. They normally have a real one.) I was looking at the beginning of the story. A Jewish family moved into Moab because of a famine. Their sons married. Then the father died and the sons died and Naomi was left with two daughters-in-law. She sent them away, but Ruth refused to go.

"Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the LORD do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me."
(Ruth 1:16-17)

I got to thinking about that. Ruth was surely not the first "convert". There were certainly many "sojourners", "foreigners within the gates", people who, though they couldn't join the bloodline of God's chosen people could, at the very least, join their faith. What the New Testament referred to as "God-fearers". So Ruth joined this crowd. "Your God, my God."

I got to thinking about those God-fearers. Do you suppose it was easy for them in Israel? I mean, if you read about Israel in the Old Testament, theirs was a history of idolatry, spiritual adultery, chastisement and exile. Elijah at one point thought he was the last believer and God had to tell him, "I have kept 7,000 men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." (1 Kings 19:18; Rom 11:4) So the pickin's could get pretty slim for fellow believers among God's chosen people. How did those God-fearers do?

Then I got to wondering. What about now? What about in churches with Jesus's name attached? What about among self-professed believers today? How hard is it today for people who come into "the group" because they long for a closer relationship with Christ and look for it among fellow believers? Is that difficult at times? Is it as hard for them as it was for Elijah? I suspect that might be the case.

We represent Christ in the world. We ought to do it carefully and accurately. Starting with love.

Internet Connections

When I was young I had an interest in aircraft. Of particular interest was the fighters and pilots of World War I and World War II. In my readings, I came across a report that in World War II they found that sending young men into the battlefield proved to be tougher than they thought. They could give them guns and train them to shoot at those round targets with some accuracy, but when they put them in the trenches and told them to shoot the people in the other trenches, it became more difficult. You see, at least back then it was easy to shoot a target, but hard to shoot a person. That was why the job of the pilots was so different. They were not shooting people; they were shooting targets. The targets were other planes or buildings, trains, or tank columns on the ground or the like. They didn't look into the faces of the people they had to kill in those planes and such, so it wasn't the same as the soldier in the foxhole. I read about one P-51 pilot involved in a large air battle over Belgium. In the course of the fight he brought his guns to bear on a Heinkel bomber and it burst into flames. The crew bailed out, but the pilot's parachute caught on the tail of the plane and he went down with it. That P-51 pilot looked locked eyes with that other, doomed pilot and was never able to fly in combat again.

Welcome to our world today. This is where we live. Whether driving down the road or cruising the Internet or using your smartphone, we operate in a world largely disconnected from actual people. Oh, we think we're more connected. We aren't. Those cars have drivers and maybe passengers, sure, but we see cars. That tweet was written by a person, of course, but we see words, not people. And our responses, whether it's road rage or an online battle of words, demonstrate that we are not talking to people; we're attacking something else.

The truth is that we are talking to people. We are honking at drivers. We are tweeting those mean things to genuine human beings. We are blasting rude and unkind responses to accounts on Facebook. But like those pilots in war, we just don't see it. So we don't experience the same natural inhibitions that we would if we were face to face. We enjoy the separation, the sense of anonymity, the safety of distance, and we just let fly. Compounding the problem, interaction by car, Twitter, Facebook, and the like is never the same as face to face. There is no nuance, no body language, no tone of voice, no knowing wink. What would have been understood as purely humorous in person is taken as deadly serious when drained and filtered through the Internet. Add to that the Internet troll, people who get their jollies by anonymously going around being rude and unkind just to get a rise out of others, and it's hard to think that our "more connected" world is actually more connected.

Okay, look, I don't like it when people complain without offering anything constructive. "I don't like that" doesn't help anyone. Offer a solution, an alternative, something. So, while it's true that I really don't like how disconnected we've become on our phones and computers thinking all the while that we're more connected, it doesn't do any good just to say that. What, then, do I want? I want believers to take a look at their own practices. I want us to remember that we're called to love. We're told to season our speech with grace (Col 4:6). We are told to defend the faith, but to do so "with gentleness and reverence." (1 Peter 3:15) We are supposed to let our good works show so that God will be glorified (Matt 5:16). Let's see if we can't be more conscious as we do these things in our electronic world and our driving world and any other interactions that we're having interactions with people instead of thinking that a separation from the face is an excuse not to obey Christ. Let's see if we can work on that, okay?

Never Happened

Imagine that your computer goes down from terminal viruses and there's nothing you can do. It will cost more to fix it than to replace it. So you go buy a new one. The day you bring it home you look into and purchase an excellent anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-malware, anti-every-bad-thing-that-can-be-done-to-a-computer piece of software. You install that bad boy and then you start out with your new computer. A year later you get notified that your subscription is up and it's time to pay for the renewal. "Now wait," you might tell yourself, "in all the time I've had this computer I have not once had a problem. It has never gotten a virus, never gotten malware, never glitched, never hiccuped. It has run great. What possible reason would I have for spending that money for another year of that software when I haven't needed it yet." You might. We often do. And, of course, you would be seriously in error. Why? Well, you can see it from here. The reason your computer has run so smoothly all this time was that software. It's just that the absence of problems masks that fact.

We do that with God. "Dear God, help me! I'm in trouble." And the trouble vanishes. "Oh, never mind, God; I've got this." Worse, we never notice (because, honestly, we can't) the problems that don't occur. That red light just when you were in a hurry that, had you been in that intersection at that moment someone would have run the light and hit you. The job you would have hated that you don't get hired for. The spouse that would have made your life miserable but you didn't marry. All sorts of things you never knew because God was at work.

It's difficult to remember to be grateful for the things we're aware of that God has done for us. It's nearly impossible to remember to be grateful for the things He's done that we never knew. But don't be fooled. That's a long, long list of things. Don't think that you're doing all this on your own. And don't ignore what He does just because it's not obvious. Instead, "in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus." (1 Thess 5:18) Oh, and go ahead and renew that subscription.

News Weakly - 2/18/2017

You Keep Using That Word ...
"Fighting for their family," the article begins. How heroic! "Stop prosecuting consenting adults," he begged. Sounds reasonable, right? It's actually a protest in Utah against an unfair law that would keep polygamy illegal in that state. Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states, but apparently Utah is the important one. It is classified as a third-degree felony. So when Kody Brown, the Sister Wives husband who admits on national television to violating this nationwide law, declares, "I'm a father, a husband, and a lover, not a felon", he does so thanks to today's standard of redefining words. Just as a person who comes into this country against the law would be classified as an "illegal alien", a polygamist would have to be classified as a felon. But thanks to our modern language where "I get to define the words you use" (like "human", "murder", "marriage", "illegal"), Brown is not a felon. And thanks to the ardent efforts of anti-marriage forces intent on redefining marriage to mean something ... else ... there is no basis for defense against polygamy, polyamory, or anyone who might wish to marry their pet or their fence. On the other hand, the law has not, of late, been known to be rational, so I can't predict where this will end up.

Trump's Travel Ban
I was not aware of a travel ban by President Trump, but apparently it's real. A school district in Canada (Windsor, Canada, is just south of Detroit, believe it or not) has canceled all field trips to the U.S. because of "President Trump's travel ban." Now, the only "travel ban" I can imagine they're referring to is the one that temporarily blocked people from seven Middle East countries from coming in until they could fix the vetting process ... the one that was overturned by the court. So that one doesn't block anyone from Canada, doesn't effect Canada, and doesn't exist.

This is the product of "fake news" ... what we call "mainstream media".

By Whose Definition?
Republicans voted to block a regulation from Obama's administration that would prevent people with mental disorders from buying guns. Now, on the face of it, we might be ready to ask, "What??!! How can you favor selling guns to mental cases?" It's not that simple. First, "The regulation was crafted as part of President Barack Obama's efforts to strengthen the federal background check system in the wake of the 2012 massacre of 20 young students and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut." Contrary to popular belief, a rule like this would have made not one difference in the Sandy Hook shooting. That atrocity was perpetrated by a guy with mental problems who illegally procured the weapons from the mother he killed to do so. Second, Republicans were concerned about the vagueness of the law, not fitting into "the federal mentally defective standard."

I'm not sure what I conclude on it. On one hand, passing a gun law that doesn't address the problem it is intended to fix is foolish. On the other hand, preventing people with mental problems from buying weapons makes sense. On the other hand, using terms like "assault weapons" and "mental disorders" sound like clear-cut terms, but they're not in the least. And since we've demonstrated a clear lack of interest in defining and maintaining the definitions of terms, I'm not sure it makes sense to ban "assault weapons" and purchases by people with "mental disorders" when they can mean "any weapon that can be used to assault someone" and "people who don't agree with me." Nail down some real definitions, and I'll be better able to come up with an opinion. When the Left can assure me that it cannot mean, "We don't allow Republicans to buy baseball bats" I'll reconsider.

A Day Without Immigrants
Thursday was "celebrated" as the National Day Without Immigrants where immigrants everywhere stayed home from work to show how important immigrants are to the American economy. The story said it was "aimed squarely at President Trump's efforts to step up deportations, build a wall at the Mexican border and close the nation's doors to many travelers." Because any attempt at protecting this nation or protecting borders from illegal crossings is an attempt at eliminating immigrants everywhere.

Come on, America, you can think better than this, can't you? Can't you? What concerns me is that the correct answer is "No" and this is the best we're going to get. Saying the, "The Bible says that homosexual behavior is a sin" is not saying, "I hate gays." Saying that "Marriage throughout human history has been the union of a man and a woman" is not saying, "I would like to outlaw homosexuals everywhere." Pointing out that there are two genders, male and female, is not the equivalent of hating transsexuals. And wishing to keep our borders secure from illegal entry like every other nation does is not "anti-immigrant."

Comparing Evils
Good news: Michael Flynn, going in as National Security Adviser, has resigned after having been outed as lying about his conversations with Russia. We don't need or want a lying National Security Adviser in Washington. Bad News: It was accomplished by "anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats" committing "political assassination." It was accomplished by monitoring phone calls from Flynn and then leaking them. It was accomplished by illegal means.

President Trump's policies and actions have, to many, been unwise and unfair, but they have not been classified as illegal. His opponents, on the other hand, are leaking secret government data to the public. So on one hand we have "unwise and unfair" and on the other "illegal". You'll have to decide which is worse. You might not want to wait to decide that until after they've illegally tapped your phone and released your private conversations.

Say No to Religious Freedom
It should not come as a surprise, but Barronelle Stutzman, the 72-year-old grandmother who had no problem providing flowers to gays but refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding lost her case in the Washington State Supreme Court case. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is planning to take it to the Supreme Court. The ACLU is expecting Stutzman to surrender all of her business and personal assets except for her home. The conclusion at this point is that the First Amendment is subjugated to "civil rights" where yours don't count as much if you're a Christian.

Our Anti-Immigrant President
It had to happen. Based on Trump's widespread distrust of all things alien, He has deported the Statue of Liberty. Must be true; I read it in the Internet.

Philosophy

Paul's epistle to the church at Colossae is an interesting letter. He wrote it because of the gnosticism there, a philosophy of "higher knowledge" that argued that they knew better than Scripture. Paul wrote,

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Col 2:8)

Now, you might be tempted to think that you would be able to easily see "philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition", but Paul was writing "that no one may delude you with plausible arguments." (Col 2:4) So it would appear that Paul thought that these philosophies would sound plausible and they (we) might be deceived by them. It is my suspicion that many of us today have failed to heed this warning.

What kind of deceitful philosophies from human tradition might we encounter? Well, there was once the notion that men are the most important gender; women are the least important. In this overbearing patriarchal mode (still found in many places in the world today), men were allowed to lord it over women and women were without options. Over against this we find the biblical philosophy that says that men and women are of equal value (Gen 9:6), that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church (Eph 5:25-30) and to treat them with understanding and honor (1 Peter 3:7). Not the same thing.

Today's society, overrun as it is with radical feminism, has offered a new philosophy. Men are the least important gender; women are the most important gender. Equal error in the opposite direction. According to Scripture, "the head of a wife is her husband" (1 Cor 11:3), fathers are responsible for their children (Eph 6:4; Col 3:21), and wives are to submit to their husbands as they would to Christ (Eph 5:22-24; 1 Peter 3:1-6). Not the same thing.

Very popular today is the philosophy that people are basically good. It's a friendly philosophy and some people are appalled that anyone would disagree (despite all the evidence to the contrary). This philosophy based on human thinking is the source of all sorts of errors such as redefining marriage, redefining child-rearing, and removing sexual immorality from the list of sins. "It's not wrong if we love each other." The Bible, on the other hand, claims that all have sinned (Rom 3:23), that all are born sinners (Psa 51:5; Rom 5:12), and that, in fact, "no one does good, not even one." (Rom 3:12) In short, the biblical philosophy on the subject is that people are basically evil.

A lot of people are convinced today that morality is defined by that which causes harm. It doesn't matter that this is an incoherent notion. It isn't immoral, for instance, for two consenting adults to engage in sadomasochistic activities, defined as harm. It is immoral for two consenting people to engage in the same activities if one of them is 17 years old. How does this work? Further, can we really tell what "harm" is? How many "good" things have we discovered actually does harm in the long run? Still, that's the basic definition of morality for many. Scripture defines morality in terms of what God commands and what He forbids. The creature doesn't get to override the Creator on these things. Philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition would disagree.

So far I'd guess you've been nodding your head and saying, "Yeah, I can see that." Here's one that might not go as well. Have you bought a philosophy according to human tradition rather than according to God's Word on the subject of marriage? The Bible indicates that marriage is the lifelong union of a man and a woman (Gen 2:24) for purposes of mutual support (Gen 2:18) and procreation (Gen 1:28). Our world does not. I mean, in almost no way does our world allow for any of that. They might agree to "union" and limit it to "two people", but that's about it. And the "union" that they admit to is a totally soluble one, where the biblical version is "one flesh" -- dissoluble. Yet I know that Christians have bought into the idea that procreation is a personal thing and there's no reason to think that it should be for everyone (or, at least, for almost everyone). They disagree that it is for life, citing all sorts of exceptions from adultery on down through irreconcilable differences. In fact, Christians have so largely embraced our world's shifted version of marriage that the step from where they are to "two people, not just man and a woman" that just occurred in the courts a couple of years ago is a pretty small step. Deceitful philosophy according to human tradition, not Scripture. And we've been taken captive by it. Why? Because it sounded so plausible.

How about this one? I know that all of us suffer from this one to some degree. What is the purpose of life? The world tells us it is, bottom line, primarily to enjoy ourselves. Christianity says we should be good while we enjoy ourselves. You will find, in fact, a sort of "sanctified hedonism" that says, "God wants us to be happy, so we really ought to do what makes us feel good." Even "God owes us that." Scripture says the primary purpose of all creation, us included, is to glorify God (1 Cor 10:31; Rom 11:36) and to enjoy Him (Psa 73:24-26; John 17:22, 24). Do you see the vast difference? Do you see how everything changes between the philosophy according to human traditions and the biblical version here? Our world hinges on my pleasures, my comfort, my preferences, my desires. The biblical version hinges on God's glory and aligning my life to enjoy Him. And, yet, we Christians constantly run up against these two, complaining about God's failure to make us more comfortable or keep us from difficulty and seeking our own pleasures rather than passionately seeking His glory. Why? Well, to be honest, the former sounds a lot more plausible than the latter. It's just not the right one. So we find ourselves taken captive by deceitful, human philosophy.

Noah Webster's dictionary from 1828 includes this in its definition of "philosophy":

... philosophy is a general term denoting an explanation of the reasons of things; or an investigation of the causes of all phenomena both of mind and of matter ... The objects of philosophy are to ascertain facts or truth, and the causes of things or their phenomena; to enlarge our views of God and his works, and to render our knowledge of both practically useful and subservient to human happiness.

True religion and true philosophy must ultimately arrive at the same principle.

Can you imagine that? "The objects of philosophy are ... to enlarge our views of God and his works ..." Go figure. Today's Merriam-Webster simply defines it as "all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts." Noah Webster's version, where philosophy and true religion arrive at the same place, is a reference to philosophy not from human tradition. Merriam-Webster's version is in line with the philosophy that Paul warns against. Be careful not to find yourself deluded by plausible arguments.

Immigration Query

At a protest against Trump after the most recent ban on Muslims from America (which, if you're not paying attention, never happened) some protesters carried signs saying, "No ban, no wall!" (Okay, maybe there was no exclamation mark, but you get the idea.) Now, we can discuss all over the place whether or not there should be a wall and we can debate at length whether there actually was a "ban on Muslims" or whether it's wise to remove all limitations, or whether or not all ideas that Trump has are, by definition, evil, but that's not where I'm headed here. What I want to know is from the protesters. What is it you want?

It appears to me that the emotion, demagoguery, and rhetoric of this particular, loud side is calling for no limits. Not "no wall", but "no boundaries", where "no wall" is just "no wall or any other lines". The 84 Lumber commercial that Fox refused to air for Super Bowl LI appeared to suggest that it is heroic and beautiful for people to travel long distances to come into America illegally and for us to stop them isn't fair, isn't kind, isn't right. The hero of that commercial was the 84 Lumber guy who made sure to negate the entire purpose of a border and immigration laws by putting in a large, easily accessed, unregulated gate. Yea for him! Really?

Now, let me be clear. I am in favor of immigration. The president of 84 Lumber said that the point was that there should be a "big door" in the "wall" to allow people that want to come to America to work, to join, to be productive citizens, that kind of thing. I say, "Yes!" And I am not opposed to improving immigration laws. I say, "Do it!" I will go further. If the government one day passed a law that the requirement to come into this country was to get across the border and, by the way, we're taking down all impediments to that pursuit, I would have no complaints about illegal immigrants in this country. Because, you see, I am in favor of immigration. I am opposed to illegal immigration. No, wait, I can make this easier. I am opposed to illegal -- that which violates the law -- when the law doesn't violate commands from Christ. And there are no commands from Christ on the subject of who can live in what country.

So I'm asking the protesters, is that what you want? Is the aim to eliminate all borders? Or, at least, all American borders? (No one is protesting the restrictive immigration laws for Mexico, Great Britain, Australia, or any others, it seems. Just America.) And if so, are you willing to do the same in your personal life? No borders? "Come on in! My house is your house; my stuff is yours." Or do you practice walls and borders in your personal life and just don't want this country to do the same thing on a national level? Is this just another shot at enforced wealth redistribution on a worldwide scale? Now, I know none of those protesters read my blog. I'm not expecting an answer. I'm just wondering.

Musing

I'm just thinking aloud here, so to speak. Relativism is king these days. Morality is relative. Words are relative. Reality is relative. These things are whatever you think they are. It's all good.

So why is it that, while morality and definitions and reality are all whatever you think they are, people are quite certain that they are not what Christians think they are. "I think that I'm a male trapped in a female body." "Good for you!" "I think I'm a female trapped in a male body." "Embrace the real you!" "I think that there are only two genders -- male and female." "Hater!" Just an example.

For Christians morality and reality are indeed relative -- relative to what God says is moral and true. Why is it that every other morality is embraced and celebrated and Christian morality is despised? Isn't this a bit contradictory? I mean, is it or is it not relative?

Empty Calories

The grandkids offered this little treat to their grandma for Valentine's Day. Very nice. Very sweet. If you looked at the basket of goodies attached to the stuffed owl, you'd see what looked like a very sweet treat, in fact. A good sized box full of chocolates.

That is, until you read the nutritional label. Take a look.

"Serving Size: 4 pieces. Number of Servings: 2"

Interesting. So the 8 or so pieces of candy you see at the top of this "pile" of goodies in the box are all there is. It is completely empty underneath. Nothing at all. Empty space. It looks all sweet and generous and all, but underneath it's useless ... at best.

So much like sin. Looks sweet. Promises big things. Even tugs at the heart strings. But underneath it's hollow, empty, worse than useless. The Valentine box will contribute to bad health. Sin will contribute to spiritual death. And yet we are happy to pursue both. Enraptured by the surface appearance, we find ourselves robbed in the end. We are offered Christ and all He has, but we're satisfied with a few pieces of candy and a stuffed doll because it looks so tempting.

Jesus said, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." (John 10:10) The picture is of the thief. I recommend the abundant life.

Galileo v the Church

Today is the anniversary of Galileo's conviction for heresy in 1633. The story is one of the popular "See? Science and religion are opposed" arguments. That nasty, narrowminded church locked him up in a deep dark prison for his science. Turns out the popular story isn't necessarily the accurate story. It might be enlightening to find out the truth. It appears we're still doing it today.

Definitions

We are debating almost daily about the definitions of terms. More accurately, the definitions of ideas. You know how it goes. Normal people think "There is male and there is female" and we come to find out that those are only two choices of a possible 50 or more and if you limit it to binary gender you're just a hater. Huh? We think that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and we find out that it's some sort of close relationship between (two) people apparently. (The "two" is in parenthesis because it is the current requirement, although nothing in the current argument for it supports or requires "two" ... or even "people".) Some people think that "equality" means "of the same value" or "having the same opportunities", but apparently it is more at "the same". People used to think that "family" was defined by blood or legal relationships, but many today commonly believe that their favorite pets and even good friends are just as much "family" now. The federal government defines the fetus in the womb as "human" ... unless its mother wants to kill it. It's all very confusing.

We're long past the days of the prescriptive dictionary. Webster wrote his in the 19th century to define words. That is, "This is a reference work. If you want to know what a word means, look here. If you think it means otherwise, you're wrong." No longer. Now they're descriptive. "This is a representative work. We've tried to gather the various meanings that people assign to the words in our language. It is always a work in progress. Good luck with it." Language, like morality and reality, is apparently relative. So are the meanings behind the words.

So where do I go to get my definitions? There are a variety of sources, to be sure, but I'm really interested in the important things at the moment, things like "male and female", "marriage", and "human". Where do I go to get these definitions? I mean, no one is contending much about "red" or "pizza", but there is very nearly a battle over "life".

My preference, when I can get it, is to use a biblical definition. You know, what did God say? How does God define things? For instance, we read, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen 1:27) It doesn't take a super genius to figure out that God is operating on a binary gender system. They weren't "malish" and "femalish". They were "either/or", not "both/and" ... or any other combination you might think of. So I define gender by one of two modes -- male or female. So I don't recognize the growing numbers of possible genders offered in various places in our culture as valid. I'm not saying it's immoral; I'm saying it is outside of the definition of the idea of gender.

Lots of people are free to define marriage however they want. I am not. We have a biblical definition. "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen 2:24) This clearly defines marriage from God's perspective as the union into a family of a man and a woman for life (because "one flesh" makes "two fleshes again" impossible) for mutual support (Gen 2:18) and procreation (Gen 1:28). Now, people are certainly free to define it (or, currently, to fail to define it) however they wish. I will just point out that mine is based on Scripture and the rest are ... not. Those without regard for Scripture will see no problem there, but I think that it should be abundantly clear that I am not free to define it any other way. I'm not saying it's immoral; I'm saying that other possibilities are outside of the definition of the idea of marriage.

Consider another. "Human" is "made in the image of God" (Gen 9:6) and Scripture clearly refers to the unborn as human (e.g., Psa 139:13-15; Jer 1:5; Luke 1:41-44). I don't get to define a fetus as a "tissue blob" just because women would like to be free to kill them.

Just some examples. The point here is not that everyone must agree with my definitions. The point is that 1) they aren't my definitions -- they're from God's Word -- and 2) I have no option to play fast and loose with terms defined by God. In postmodern relativism where words mean whatever you want them to (although most are quite sure they don't mean what I say they mean) and reality is defined by how we feel, I cannot expect rational living or reasonable thinking. I'm just unwilling to live or think that way myself.