Liberals and Conservatives

Yes, sure, this is a political season so, obviously, you could be excused for thinking that I'm about to talk about politics. I'm not. Let's go with religion instead.

In religion the "liberals" are the one that are ... liberal with their theology. They're not stuck in the standard stuff, remaining in the traditional views. No, they're blazing new trails. The conservatives are the ones who would say, "The old ways are the best ways." Of course, in politics that statement may or may not be true. In politics things change. But in religion should they? It seems as if a religion is valid and true, then it shouldn't really change much, should it? I mean, maybe in expression, but not in principle. Not if it's true.

Well, of course, the religious liberals have no problem pushing the barriers because they don't care if their religion is right or wrong. They care about perception. "That old view isn't very comfortable. Can we pick up a new one?" The religious conservatives may recognize that the older view may not always be the most popular, but they assume the religion is true, so the view is true.

All this to point to an interesting phenomenon. When you take any religion there will be the liberals and the conservatives. In Judaism you have the orthodox Jews and you have the reformed Jews. We can assign our labels easily here. The orthodox Jews are the conservatives and the reformed Jews are the liberals. And never the twain shall meet. So it's interesting when you get to, say, Islam and compare it to, say, Christianity. In Islam you have the "radicals," those folks who are quite certain that the right thing to do is kill infidels for the sake of their God. Says so right there in their Book. Then you have the more common variety of Muslims who aren't out to kill anyone and can't figure out what's wrong with those Muslims who do. Let's look again at our two labels. Which is which? As it turns out, the liberal Muslim is the one that is not interested in killing anyone and the conservative is the one who is carefully following the Book (because their Book is actually sacred) and is likely to be called a "radical." Of course, on the Christian side it is entirely the opposite. The liberal Christian isn't too concerned about what the Bible says and pretty much wing it while the conservative Christian is the one that wants to follow the Bible and do what it says.

So, at the end, you end up with two very different religions. The conservative Christians are commanded to love God and love their unbelieving neighbors and the conservative Muslims are commanded to love God and kill their unbelieving neighbors. And peoplel say all religions are the same.

Intolerance

That's what we're all about these days -- tolerance. Oh, wait, which version? The dictionary says it is a "willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them." The problem with the dictionary is that it changes its definition. So in deference to the "new tolerance" as I'll call it, Merriam-Webster now says that it is "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own." A slight shift? Perhaps. In the original it was to allow something you disagree with; in the new it is to "sympathize with" something you disagree with. Or, in today's standard usage, it is to agree with and wholly embrace something you disagree with ... which, of course, makes no sense.

Okay, so we are in favor of tolerance in some form. Got it. But while the cry is for "tolerance" and bemoans those who don't "tolerate" what "we" do, there is an apparent double standard in that they won't tolerate those who don't tolerate what they demand must be tolerated. (The practice, to me, is as confusing as that sentence was.) "You must tolerate what we tell you to ... or we will not tolerate you." So, the problem I'm pointing out is not that they're "wrong," but that it's a double standard.

The premise, then, must be that we must tolerate what they say we must because what is not tolerated is that which is intolerable. See? Clear as mud. That there are things that should (versus "must") be tolerated and things that are not to be tolerated should be patently obvious. So what it comes down to is not the question of tolerance, but the question of what is intolerable.

Ah! Now we're getting down to the nitty gritty. Our current society will tolerate sexual immorality in most (not quite all) forms and unscientific concepts (like "you can choose your own gender" or "an unborn child is not an unborn child") as long as these things are popular. They will not tolerate the intolerable like the notion of the Bible as God's Word or the people who believe it is. By simple deduction, if God said those things, He is intolerable as well. Thus, by implication, all those who have gone before who believed such things are also intolerable. "Look," they are telling us, "we are happy to embrace those who have sex with the same sex regardless of what your Bible says about it and we're glad to honor those who think they're the opposite gender than what they were born despite what science might argue in that regard, but you people, your rotten old Bible, your lousy God, and your attempts to live by all that are intolerable and we will not put up with it."

Ah, tolerance. It's a lovely thing.

Spiritual Maturity

Scripture says that a primary purpose of the church is to build mature believers (Eph 4:11-14). Sometimes, I think, churches forget that. But, what does it take to build mature believers? Well, clearly, it's a teaching process.

Is that true?

Jesus told His disciples, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matt 28:18-20) So, yes, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" is part of that. Note, however, that Jesus did not say simply "Teaching them all that I have commanded you." The aim is "to observe" -- obedience, practice, performance. Not for salvation, but because of. Further, notice how He said that was done. "Make disciples." Not converts. Not notches on a spiritual gun. This is investing time and effort in lives, not checking off "Another Sinner's Prayer" done and moving on.

In Hebrews the author bemoans the readers' lack of maturity. "About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food." (Heb 5:11-12) The problem? "Dull of hearing." So why do we assume "That can be remedied by teaching"? Not according to this passage. "But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil." (Heb 5:14) According to this, maturity is not a matter of more information; it's a matter of "constant practice." And that's not accomplished in a classroom. It's not predicated on a program. This is built by practicing obedience. It is a function of "walking in the truth" (2 John 1:4). In fact, John defines love this way. "And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it." (2 John 1:6) (Compare with 1 John 5:2-3.) So "constant practice" would be the continuous process of loving God and His children through obedience to God. Practice, practice, practice

On one hand, this is bad news. There is no 3-year course you can take to arrive at maturity. There is no educational program that will get you there. No 12-steps to spiritual maturity. On the other hand, it is good news. We do know how to arrive at spiritual maturity. It's not nebulous or murky. It's clear -- constant practice. Walking in truth. Good works that bring glory to God (Matt 5:16). The more you do, the more maturity you gain. The less you do … well, you can do the math. Oh, and one more piece of good news. While this will be hard work, "It is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. (Php 2:13) We have work to do … enabled and empowered by God. So, let's get to it, okay?

News Weakly - 10/24/2020

Proper Identification
The Portland Police Bureau will now assign every officer a 3-digit number to be prominently displayed on their helmets during a protest (I understand the mayor's number is 666.) so that protesters can note the number and report anything they don't like. Protesters, on the other hand, will continue to wear masks and remain anonymous in their assaults, vandalism, and rioting in recognition of their constitutional right to privacy. Just to be clear, that is the 37th Amendment. (Just to be clearer, the Constitution only has 27 Amendments.)

Poverty Rising
Researchers report that 8 million Americans have slipped into poverty because of the pandemic. Blacks, Latinos, and children were hardest hit. The CDC, WHO, and Dr. Vauci are promising to make it up to them out of their own pockets. The media will kick in on that, too.

The Right Kind of Woman
Women gathered to march in protest of Amy Barrett's confirmation hearings. Wait ... what? Last time I checked Amy was a woman, right? Ah, yes, but not the right kind of woman, you see. You're not black if you don't vote for Biden, and you're not a woman if you care about unborn children.

Another Opinion
Did Evangelicals that supported Trump (and will again) get a bad deal?

Emperor Newsom
When will California secede from the Union? They only seem to care about being part of it when they can get aid from it. This week Governor Newsom assured Californians that they would not receive any COVID-19 vaccine until California approved it. "A panel of experts will review vaccines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration before they're distributed to Californians," he announced. Thank you, your highness. We bow to your greater wisdom.

COVID-Related Deaths
The coronavirus has exacerbated a succession of locust swarms that have plagued East Africa and the Red Sea region since 2019, annihilating crops and threatening food supplies and the livelihoods of millions. As people starve to death, we add up more COVID-related deaths. (Right?)

Got To Go
When the hearings for the confirmation of Amy Barrett ended, Sen. Dianne Feinstein did the unthinkable, the inexcusable. She hugged Lindsey Graham and said, "This has been one of the best set of hearings that I've participated in." Seriously? That kind of cordial interchange from a Democrat? Well, they just won't stand for it. They want her out. They want her out of her judiciary role. They want her out of her senator role. I guess if they're not assaulting the nearest Republican, they can't be in office. This is America! We'll have no common courtesy here, if you please.

Speaking of "got to go," there is another category. Actor Chris Pratt is in trouble. Why? Well, he belongs to a church that is "anti-LGBT" because they take a biblical view of it. And he doesn't hate Trump. He's openly Christian. "Chris Pratt," Twitter shouted, "has got to go." I find it interesting that people you wouldn't expect, like Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, neither Christian nor "Christian-sympathizers," have come to his defense. Downey Jr. referred to Pratt as "a real Christian who lives by principle." Mark Ruffalo said, "Look at how he lives his life."

Ex Cathedral
In Roman Catholicism, the pope can make statements ex cathedra meaning that his statement is with the full authority of the office and, therefore, infallible. Or, he might make a statement "ex cathedral". Of course, that's made up, but you get the idea -- a statement completely outside of Christian theology. Like Pope Francis did when he declared, "Homosexuals have a right to be part of the family." If he meant, "You might have family members who are homosexual and you should love them," I'm right there with him. If he meant, "Homosexuals are in the family of Christ," he's making a claim in direct contradiction to Scripture (1 Cor 6:9-10). Of course, in Roman Catholicism, Scripture isn't the authority it used to be, so ...

American Wimpy
Pat Chambers, the Penn State Men's basketball coach, has resigned his position because of "allegations of inappropriate conduct." "What conduct?" you ask. In a conversation with a former player who was leaving Penn State, he used the phrase, "I want to loosen the noose that's around your neck." Never, ever use the terms "noose" and "neck" in a conversation with a black person because it is "inappropriate conduct" worthy of center stage in the "cancel culture." In other news, lawmakers have finished their first draft of the 38th Amendment which guarantees a select group of Americans their right not to have their feelings hurt.

An Open Letter to Californians
Dear Californians,
We don't much care about your needs, your expenses, or your freedom. We will do our best to remove your cheaper Uber and Lyft access so we can protect their drivers even though neither the company nor the drivers want it. Oh, and all the rest, too. Your day workers, your stage hands, all the gig workers from Costco installation workers to tax professionals. And rest assured, if there is any way we can further cripple our economy or upset your lives, we'll hunt it down and incorporate it. You're welcome. --Governor Newsom

I Think the Babylon Bee is Following Me
First, noting my piece above about Chris Pratt, the Babylon Bee posted their own headline: "Hollywood Actor Outed as Conservative After Being a Decent Human Being." Then, in response to my story above about the pope, the Bee posted this headline: "Embarrassed Pope Suddenly Realizes He's Been Reading the Bible Upside Down the Whole Time." Kinda creepy the way they seem to be following me around, isn't it?

Social Justice: Modern Style or Biblical?

Social Justice is all the rage. It's what's driving the environmental movement and the BLM movement. It's largely behind Socialism. It is the current motivation for anti-racism and anti-sexism. It is the Democrats' way to make things right for the oppressed and underrepresented. It is even embraced in some Christian circles. The problem, of course, is that it's not biblical.

"Now, hang on," some will cry, "you know that helping the poor and defending the weak and all that is biblical! How can you say it's not biblical?" Why, thanks for asking that astute question. I'll try to answer that.

Scripture is clear that we are to love our neighbors. If any Bible-believing follower of Christ would like to deny it, they'd disqualify themselves from being Bible-believing. So we are supposed to "Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy." (Prov 31:9) We are told to "render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart." (Zech 7:9-10) John warns, "If anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" (1 John 3:17) And on and on it goes.

"Okay, thanks for making my point. It is biblical." Doing that kind of good is indeed biblical. I didn't deny that. What I said was that today's "Social Justice" is not. So what's the difference? In today's version, "Social Justice" is defined by the masses and by the government and not by God. Indeed, God is specifically left out of it. Our version today doesn't take into account our responsibility to God. And our version today doesn't take into account our choices. Today's version is coercive. "We will decide what is and is not justice and we will make you do it." So they will define "Social Justice" in their own image and tax you and completely disregard your need to obey God rather than man. They will steal your stuff and your joy and your obedience to God so that you will comply with their definition of Social Justice ... which, by the way, is neither.

It's ironic, then, that Christians embrace modern Social Justice without paying attention to the fact that legal and moral coercion by the state or the society is neither social nor just and call it "Social Justice." We are to do many of the things modern Social Justice demands, but our call is to do it out of love for God and love for our neighbors, and that pleases God. Our society couldn't care less about your love for God or your neighbors; they just require you to submit, or else. That is not biblical social justice.

Not Getting It

If you watch just about anything out of Hollywood that includes almost anything with a Christian presence, you will likely note that it is almost always wrong -- just plain wrong. It's not a Hollywood problem, though.

My grandfather heard the Gospel from my family for as long as I lived and he lived. When he would visit, he might go to church or a Billy Graham event or read things like Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict (both volumes) and the like along with constant conversations with his believing daughter (my mom) and family. One day when I was in my 50's and he was visiting, we were sitting around the table discussing, you guessed it, the Gospel. I don't remember what was said, but he suddenly blurted out, "Wait a minute! Are you saying that all you have to do to be saved is to believe??! That's it??" The discussion, of course, continued, but I was stunned. All that input over all those years and he never got it. Not once. Decades of truth and he never heard it.

What's the malfunction? Why don't Hollywood, my grandfather, or the millions of everyday folk who hear it get it? Why the grand disconnect?

If you think about it, it isn't really a surprise. The real question might be "Why do I get it?" I'm not smarter, wiser, more "in tune," more spiritual. In fact, according to Scripture, although it is patently present and true and reasonable, we miss it. It's not a failure of logic or facts or evidence. It's that it is not human, so to speak. Jesus said, "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) That is, without this alteration, "born again," we lack the ability to connect with "the kingdom of God." We don't have the right eyes or ears or senses. Paul says we are "dead in sin" (Eph 2:1). Jesus said, "People love the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds are evil." (John 3:19) Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:65) Paul wrote, "The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God." (Rom 8:7) All this to say that we cannot "see" it. We cannot connect with it. It runs counter to our sin nature and we are not going to understand it unless it is granted -- unless we are born again.

Sometimes when we share the Gospel we think that if we provide sufficient data points, enough reasoning, adequate logic, irrefutable evidence -- all that -- then we can win them over. It doesn't work that way. That is, that approach does not take into account the human problem -- "dead in sin." And I'm sure you've seen this sort of problem elsewhere. You know. You try to explain to someone why your political view or moral view is correct and all you get is stonewalling. It all makes sense to you, but they're just not getting it. Why? Because there are other things in the way that simple logic and evidence don't penetrate. Because when you bring up Christ -- and the world hates Christ (John 15:18-19) -- you're not going to get through that hate to provide your logic.

It sounds difficult, but the fact that some do get it tells us something critical. We're not in this alone. We're not smarter or better, but we do have the Holy Spirit at work. We do have Jesus to give. God opens hearts to respond (Acts 16:14). So while it is wise to give the best arguments, the best evidence, the best testimony, the truest information, and even the best delivery you can, in the end it is God who is at work, and "He does whatever He pleases." (Psa 115:3)

Everyone

The Bible makes some huge sweeping statements. Like, "No one does good, not even one." (Psa 14:3; Rom 3:12) Wow, really? No one? That's the claim. Or "All have sinned" (Rom 3:23).That's 100%. No exceptions. Certainly not you and absolutely not me. Jesus claimed, "No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65) That's a "no one" coupled with a "can" -- no human being has the ability. Really big.

I came across this one recently. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of Him." (1 John 5:1) Any time you see an "all" or a "no one" or, in this case, and "everyone," you need to pay attention because it's big. So what do we see in these "everyones"?

First, we have "everyone who believes." What do we know about them -- by definition, all of them? They have all been born of God. That is, you cannot "believe" if you are not born of Him and you can't be born of Him if you don't believe. The two are irrevocably linked. They can't be separated.

Second, there is an "and" followed by another "everyone." In this "everyone" we have the condition, "loves the Father." What follows can be confusing. You figure to see something like "Everyone who loves the Father loves the Son" or something like it, but that's not what it says. This one says that everyone -- each and every without exception -- who loves the Father loves His children. Who are His children? The rest of the "everyone" in the first "everyone" who are born of God -- those who receive Christ (John 1:12). This is saying that there are no exceptions. If you love the Father, you will love His children, your fellow believers, your fellow saints. Now this is consistent with what John had written earlier. "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar." (1 John 4:20) And earlier, "Whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes." (1 John 2:11) And, of course, all of this is just keying off Jesus's own words, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)

Third, the structure of the sentence with its "and" in the middle requires that the first "everyone" -- those who believe -- is the same as the second "everyone" -- those who love the Father. So these two "everyones" are the same people. Everyone who believes = everyone who has been born of God = everyone who loves the Father = everyone who loves His children. Perhaps you can begin to see how sweeping this is. If I say I believe in Christ but am not "born of God" or I don't "love His children," I'm deceiving myself. If I say I love God but not His people, it's a lie. These are all universally linked. Apparently when we believe -- when we are "born of God," beause these two cannot be uncoupled -- we are changed. We love God because of a new nature (2 Cor 5:17) and we love His people because of a new nature and, while we might slip from time to time or suppress it on occasion, it is part of who we are as believers, born of God. If that is not so for any individual, then that individual should be very concerned that there is no relationship with God at all.

That's a big "everyone."

Sojourners and Exiles?

In 1 Peter 2:11 Peter refers to us as "sojourners and exiles." That shouldn't come as a shock, really. Paul hints at this when he refers to us as "ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor 5:20), but declares clearly that "Our citizenship is in heaven." (Php 3:20) The author of Hebrews says that those who died in faith "confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth." (Heb 11:13) Jesus said, "You are not of the world." (John 15:19)

So why are we expecting to be central here? Why are we bemoaning the fact that Christianity is no longer the major influence that it was when the nation began? Why are we surprised that faith is moved out of politics, out of the public square? Why does it befuddle us that we are being marginalized, sidelined, shunted out? Well, that seems to be because we don't see ourselves as Scripture describes us. Hebrews says "Here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come" (Heb 13:14), and most of us are thinking, "No, this is where we belong and we need to make our voices heard!"

What would it look like if we viewed life in America as if we were aliens, visitors, outsiders? Or wherever you find yourself. Much of our approach to politics or church or interpersonal interactions is based on the sense that we're "in," part of the group. In fact, we're an important part of the group. What if we saw ourselves as strangers and exiles, sojourners just here temporarily? How would we approach life differently? How would we approach evangelism differently? How would it change our work ethic? How would it change our daily choices? We'd certainly be less concerned about creature comforts or political control. I think we'd be less strident. I know in human terms I'm miffed when, say, Canadians tell me how bad our country is. "Hey, you're visitors! Show some respect!" Well, we're outsiders here, but we sure don't act like it.

So what about us? Are we residents or visitors? Are we ensconced or just passing through? Do we hold a superior position -- "This is my home!" -- or a respectful one -- "I know this is your place, but I wanted to share some things with you."? Maybe I'm just seeing things askew, but having read all that about "sojourners" and "ambassadors" and looking at how we approach the people around us, it sure doesn't look like we believe that bit in the Bible about "Not of this world." I'm trying to imagine how different it would look if we did. Since I don't have a clear idea of what that would look like, I've clearly put in my roots too deep in this temporary land, haven't I?

Just One of the Fine Gifts God Gives

We like gifts. And we have a Good God. A Powerful God. A Loving God. So when we understand that we are His children when we receive Christ (John 1:12), we should really expect some fantastic gifts from the hands of that marvelous God. And we won't be disappointed. There is, first and foremost, salvation. No small deal given our original "dead in sin" (Eph 2:1), "hostile to God" (Rom 8:7), "enemies of God" (Rom 5:10) position. We are His adopted children (Rom 8:29). We have the Holy Spirit -- the Spirit of God living within us, teaching us (1 John 2:27) and empowering and enabling us (Php 2:13). And gifts! Individual gifts. Special gifts from the Spirit who "gives to each one individually as He wills." (1 Cor 12:11) He gives faith (Rom 12:3). Imagine that! God keeps giving and giving. Oh, and I know one of our favorites -- suffering! Oh, we love that!

Wait ... no? So, which part? "God doesn't give us suffering." Okay, let's look at that. Paul wrote to the Philippian Christians, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake." (Php 1:29) See that? "Granted." A gift. (Note that "believe in Him" is granted here, too, just as Christ said (John 6:65).) The language is clearly about God granting the gift of suffering for His sake. Peter offers a similar concept when he writes, "It is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil." (1 Peter 3:17) And "Let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good." (1 Peter 4:19) And Jesus said we are blessed when we suffer for Him (Matt 5:10-12). While all of humanity considers suffering a really bad thing, Scripture understands that, in the hands of a good and wise and loving God, it can be a very good gift.

"And we don't like it." So why don't we? Why don't we see it as a gift? Why don't we "rejoice in our sufferings" (Rom 5:3-5)? Why don't we "count it all joy" (James 1:2-4) when trials occur? Why, when God gives us these gifts, do we turn up our noses and question the goodness of God? Well, it's clearly because we're confused, deceived, short-sighted. We don't know, apparently, that "suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." (Rom 5:3-5) We aren't aware that "the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:3-4) We think we know better than God and this can't be a good thing. But it is.

It's not natural and it's not normal, but it is right. When we face various troubles, we are benefited (Rom 8:28) and God is glorified (1 Peter 4:13). When we are weak, His power is made perfect (2 Cor 12:9). So it's not God's gift of suffering that needs to be modified; it's our thinking about that gift. The proper response (the right, the accurate, the reasonable, the correct response) is to rejoice in it. I suspect we all have a bit of adjustment required in our perceptions to align that that mode of thinking. ("A bit of adjustment" -- is that an understatement?)

Diversity and Inclusiveness

Here's something I hadn't thought about before. We are currently in a huge "diversity" and "inclusivity" uproar. California has mandated that every publicly held corporation in the state would have at least one board member from an underrepresented community by 2021 … with more to come. Starbucks has declared that they will have 30% BIPOC (black, indigenous, people of color) by 2025. In Hollywood requirements are falling all around about inclusion of more of the underrepresented. Why all this furor? Well, because ... they're underrepresented. It appears that opportunity is not equally available for all.

Then there's this. I heard the other day, "God doesn't have grandchildren." What did they mean? They meant that every single person that comes to Christ comes on his or her own. No one gets in because they're white or rich or born in the right place with the right parents or anything like it. Christ died so that "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) Paul wrote,

In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:26-28)

Talk about inclusivity. Talk about diversity. In Revelation "they sang a new song, saying, 'Worthy are You to take the scroll and to open its seals, for You were slain, and by Your blood You ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,' and You have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:9-10) That's "every tribe and language and people and nation." True diversity. True inclusivity.

The real amazing thing, then, would be the stunning realization that you and I are in that group out of the sheer grace and mercy of God. "This is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." (Eph 2:8) I think we often miss the most diverse and inclusive group in the world -- God's people.

News Weakly - 10/17/2020

The Hateful Truth
According to the Washington State Department of Health, it is legal in that state to have your sex designation changed on your birth certificate to reflect your gender identity. So when Seahawks radio host Dori Monson tweeted about Washington governor discussing the state's adherence to science in a state where changing your birth certificate to reflect a different birth sex, the crowd went wild. The Seahawks suspended him. Seattle Pride demanded he be fired. This kind of "mockery" and "transphobic hate" will not be tolerated. It's actually true, but that doesn't matter. In this case it's hateful to recognize what's true. Monson was ridiculing a governor who "adheres to science" while ignoring biology, and that's hate. Besides, he made some comments critical of the BLM movement, so that was just career suicide. Note: When we can define "stating the truth" as "hate," we are proving my point about redefining words and then shoving them back down our throats.

A Good Example
Capitol Hill Baptist Church got its ruling. They had been meeting outdoors, wearing masks, and maintaining social distancing, but were refused a waiver from the city to be allowed to continue meeting. On the basis of the mayor's refusal to allow the church to meet while observing proper procedures, yet personally attending massive gatherings without any safeguards, the church asked the court to extend them the same First Amendment rights. The court agreed. And the church did it well. Of course, the city might appeal -- it may not be over -- but it was refreshing to see a church trying to do everything right while maintaining biblical integrity.

When Preference is Offensive
On the hot seat in front of the Senate, Amy Barrett (Why is everyone using her complete name?) was asked about whether she would roll back freedoms and protections for the LGBT community. She answered, "I have no agenda. I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference." And the crowd goes wild. An MSNBC producer tweeted that the term is "offensive and outdated." Senator Hirono took her to task for it. Keep in mind, Biden and Ginsburg and Feinstein and Durbin and even the Huffington Post and The Atlantic have used it all recently, but now it's offensive. So Merriam-Webster changed their definition (compared with this earlier one) to align with this brand new offense. Because, you see, if we can establish that there is choice involved -- any kind of choice at all -- then we can continue the discussion of the morality of it, and that will never do.

Monument Elite
The news has been filled for months with monuments being dismembered, toppled, and removed around the country. Racist, all. We will not tolerate it. Unless, of course, if it's Disney. Classic Disney films have been classified as "racist." You might think immediately of The Song of the South, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Disney itself has included films such as Dumbo, Peter Pan, and Jungle Book. They put a warning on them about "negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures." But, unlike the many monuments around, they have not removed them. They added, "we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together." Because with their money-making ability, they're valuable, while those stinkin' ol' statues are not. That kind of income must be tolerated.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
This week ABC hosted Biden's town hall where he "laid out his vision" while NBC faced backlash for hosting Trump's town hall in a "combative" event. There were calls to boycott NBC because Trump had tested positive for COVID early in the month even though Dr. Anthony Fauci and NIH clinical director Dr. Clifford Lane reviewed his most recent test and agreed that he was "not shedding infectious virus." Hosting Trump was "indefensible" because, well, it's Trump and he's bad and Biden is good. I think the whole thing speaks to the ugliness of most of today's media and the American public's inability or simple refusal to see it.

What We Have Here is a Failure to Get It
Former governor Chris Christie told Good Morning America that he regretted not wearing a mask to the White House. "It was a mistake," he said. "I was led to believe that all the people I was interacting with at the White House had been tested, and it gave you a false sense of security." Dear Mr. Christie, your mask, had you worn it, was never intended to prevent you from being exposed to the virus. Your mask was intended to protect others from you according to the CDC. People just don't seem to get that.

Dirty Underwear
C-SPAN's Steve Scully who was supposed to moderate a debate between Trump and Biden got in trouble after asking Antony Scaramucci if he should respond to Trump's accusation that Scully was a "Never Trumper." Scaramucci, if you recall, was a White House Director of Communications for 10 days in 2017 and is now opposed to Trump. Scully got in trouble because he was caught and then lied that he had been hacked, leaving the media's underwear -- anti-Trump bias -- exposed for all to see.

Shocked, I Tell You, Just Shocked
We've had a horrible year economically thanks to Trump. No, you know that's not accurate. Thanks to COVID and the draconian actions we've had to take to slow it down before it killed us all. But they'll blame it on Trump because I've already heard it. "He mishandled this crisis and we have massive unemployment" which, by the way, we would have had if you had been running it. Currently unemployment is at 7.9%, up from 3.6% in January but down from 14.7% in April. The news item Friday was that the U.S. budget gap tripled to a record $3.1 trillion. Yikes! Oh, wait ... that number seems familiar. Where did I ... oh, yeah, the $3 trillion the government gave out for COVID relief. So, you're telling me that because the government gave out $3 trillion in relief, we're $3 trillion in debt? I am shocked, I tell you, just shocked! Of course, if the Democrats had their way, that number would have already doubled. I'm not at all sure how Medicare and Social Security and all those other things will survive, but we shouldn't be surprised.

Unusual Babylon Bee Story
The Bee is mocking a news item of the week in this headline, "You Should Absolutely NOT Read The Disgusting, Totally False Story About Joe Biden's Son That We've Linked To In This Article." They're mocking the outrage against the "false" story that is well documented and that Twitter cut off the Trump campaign for repeating it. Their story is unusual for the Bee because they actually link to the story. Watch it, Babylon Bee. You might be accused of real news. But, then, it might be necessary this time since most of the MSM (mainstream media) seems to be skipping it themselves.

Totalitolerance

That's a fun word, isn't it? No? Okay, fine. So, what is it? Well, you take "totalitarianism" and "tolerance" and mush them together and get "totalitolerance." And what is that? It is the absolute demand that "Thou shalt be tolerant ... or else." Now, I'm not sure if you're paying attention, but that demand in itself is intolerant. Further, "tolerant" isn't an act so much as a thought process, so the command for tolerance is a thought command. And we are so close to a totalitolerant society.

Take the current gender climate. In 2018 a Virginia teacher says he was fired for refusing to use male pronouns for a biological girl that identified as a guy. In 2015 New York City decided that you can be fined up to $250,000 for refusing to use the pronoun of choice on the basis of gender identity or expression. Not to be outdone, in 2017 the governor of California outlawed it for the state. The only difference is that in California it is aimed at "hospitals, retirement homes, and assisted living facilities" and it could result in a fine of up to $1000 or a year in jail. These stories speak not of a passionate, "Can't we all just get along?" plea, but a thought control government.

How about the multiple stories of "haters" who have sought to appropriate their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion and run afoul of the law? We have all heard of the Colorado baker who asked the same-sex couple to use another baker for their wedding cake. House Democrats stood against him before the Supreme Court. Kim Davis is the fairly well-known name of the woman who refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples in Kentucky and was sued. The ACLU got her jailed and fined. We all know about Arlene's Flowers that was forced out of business because the owner opted not to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. We are all aware of a flood of these cases. These stories speak not of a passionate, "Can't we all just get along?" plea, but a thought control government.

Then there was the Obergefell ruling. In 2015 the Supreme Court manufactured, out of thin air, a new right for some Americans -- to marry someone of the same sex. It wasn't found in the Constitution or its Amendments. It did collide with the First Amendment right of religious liberty. But by judicial fiat SCOTUS ordered a new law of the land, and the principle of precedent demands that, right or wrong, those with their newly invented sexual liberty must be allowed to keep it and those who thought they had religious liberty can't. That's not tolerance. That's totalitolerance. If you're thinking wrong -- like "I am protected by the First Amendment" or "I believe what the Bible says" -- you're in for a rude and perhaps costly awakening.

Just a few examples of totalitolerance in America in our time. "Alarmist!" I can hear it. "You're just exaggerating!" I'm sure some think so. But we are currently in a climate that embraces both "tolerance" and the antilogical, "You have no place here if you don't agree" intolerance. Totalitolerance is a thing. Where our culture cries out for "tolerance" while denying the definition -- the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with -- it is not tolerance they cry for; it is totalitolerance. Our culture will tolerate anything except for those who believe in absolute moral values. It may or may not be governmental. It is certainly cultural right now. (Think "cancel culture.") It is aiming at thought control, and it is not tolerant.

Offense

That title is "offense" as in being offensive, not "offense" as having the football. Just in case you football fans were unclear.

There are people who get a kick out of being offensive. They probably call it something more like "edgy" or some other euphemism -- "It's all in fun" -- but it's really the shock and dismay they cause that thrills them. On the Internet they call them "trolls," but you know them in real life, too, I'm sure. Me? I don't like to offend people if I don't have to. Mind you, sometimes it's necessary, but I see what Paul wrote and take it seriously.

Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. (1 Cor 10:32-33)

So I try, so far as it depends on me, to be at peace with all (Rom 12:18). There are, of course, times when that can't happen. But how many times do we opt to "be offensive" when we don't have to? How many times do we decide "I will be myself!" or "I gotta be me!" or "Who cares what anyone else thinks? I'm just gonna do it"? Or say it? We often don't consider who we offend when we do what we do or how we do it.

There are certainly times when we offend people unnecessarily. On the other hand, sometimes we have no choice. Scripture is abundantly clear. To the world the cross in offensive (Rom 9:33; Gal 5:11; 1 Peter 2:8; 1 Cor 1:18-24). We know that the world hates Christ (John 15:18). So when I claim that Jesus is the only way to God, I will likely offend, but to do otherwise would be to deny Christ (John 14:6). When I declare that the Bible is the God-breathed truth (2 Tim 3:16), it certainly upsets some, but to do otherwise is to deny God. As Peter said when told to stop preaching the gospel, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20)

Paul said, "All things are lawful for me" (1 Cor 6:12), but went on to say, "If food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (1 Cor 8:13) I would hope that we -- the followers of Christ -- would take a similar approach. We will offend with the truth of God's Word, but we should avoid offending for something less important. It's a part of loving our neighbor, of considering others as more important than ourselves (Php 2:3). It's just biblical.

The Bible and Progressives

I like to joke about Ecclesiastes on politics. "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left." (Eccl 10:2) Clear enough, right? Well, mostly.

I've written a lot lately from 1 John because that's where we've been studying. Well, obviously, if we were in 1 John before, 2 John must be next. So I came across this gem.

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. (2 John 1:9)

What an interesting phrase. He speaks of those who "go on ahead." The NASB goes with "goes too far," but adds, "Lit. runs ahead" in the margin. The word is προάγων -- proagōn. The verb is present participle active -- an ongoing action. It might be "leads forward" or "to go further." Try as I might, I can't help but see "progressive" in this word.

Now, note, John doesn't say that going on ahead was wrong. He didn't say that we mustn't do that. What he warns about is being progressive and leaving Christ's teaching.

It's okay to look for new and interesting. It's fine to examine things, figure out new approaches, update language, use new methods, all that kind of stuff. "Progressive" in this language is not evil. Leaving Christ's teaching is. Departing from the Logos -- from the Word -- is a problem.

How much of a problem? If that's what they're doing -- moving ahead and departing from the teachings of Scripture -- then they don't have God. What is the sure test to see if you have God? Abide in the teaching. And what are we supposed to do? This is harsh, but it's Scripture. "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." (2 John 1:10-11)

There is, then, apparently good "progressive" and bad "progressive." Moving ahead isn't necessarily wrong. What is critical is remaining in the teaching of Christ. If we have the Father, we have the Son and we will remain. (Oh, wait, that's what John wrote over in 1 John 2:18-19, isn't it? Nice. Continuity.) And we aren't supposed to receive or even greet those who, in the name of Christ, don't keep His teachings. I'm not sure how many of us are keeping that command.

Bye, Bye, My Ol' Eskimo Pie

Meet the Eskimo. You'd better do it fast because it is now considered derogatory. Why? Let's look.

"Eskimo," according to the dictionary, refers to Native Americans (and more) who live up toward the Arctic Circle. They include the Yupik, the Inupiat, the Inuvialuit, the Nunavut, the Kalaallit, the Nunavik, and the Nunatsiavut. Think of it like "Asians" which includes all the "tribes" and countries of the Asian continent. It's just a group term pointing toward the Arctic Circle indicating "those people there." A rumor circulated for some time that the word meant "eaters of raw meat." Oh, now that's derogatory, right? Really, I don't know why, if you happen to eat raw meat. But most scholars now agree that the word comes from an Innu-aimun word, ayas̆kimew, which means "a person who laces a snowshoe." So it is a reference to wearing snowshoes or, far less likely, what they eat.

"Maybe, but it is a term applied by someone other than the people who bear it. That makes it derogatory." I find that interesting as well. We use "Asian" for people from Asia and "European" for people from Europe. We refer to Germans as "Germans." Turns out that the Germans use "Deutsch" for themselves and, oddly, aren't offended that we call them "Germans," the term we applied to them. And so on with Asians and Europeans and so on and so on. Conversely, I've met many people from China who have requested a new name when they come here. "You won't be able to pronounce my name, so give me one you can pronounce." That's what they told me. Now, I've always tried my best to pronounce their names, but one young lady from India told me to stop. "Please just go with the shortened version." So "Milly" it is, only vaguely connected to her real name. Because the term that is applied isn't as important as the relationship.

"But, some people have used the term in a derogatory manner." Likely true. Most haven't. And if we decide that "using the term in a derogatory manner" means "stop using the term," I suspect before long we'll run out of terms because we have a lot of derogatory people who are delighted to take any term at all and spit it out like it's a curse and -- poof! -- we've lost another term because of a small number of idiots. I mean, I heard a kid refer to another with the term "a cute little boy" and meant it to be cruel. So we eliminate it because of a bully? I don't think that's reasonable.

So we continue to dismantle reality. No longer can I buy an Eskimo Pie because misuse of an Innu-aimun word has led to disaster. I suspect that the disaster is really because a white person used the term and our culture today thinks that anything white people do is cruel. Or it's like the term "retarded." Long ago they used to refer to someone who was mentally challenged as a "moron" because "moron" meant someone who was mentally challenged. Then "moron" became offensive, ostensibly because it was derogatory but, I believe, actually because it denoted a difference between this person and most everybody else. So they changed it. "All we're saying is he's not as fast mentally. He's a bit slower than others. He's retarded." That was a grand change … until again it was viewed as derogatory and, again, I'm pretty sure only because it pointed to a difference. How long before the current "intellectual disability" dies the same death? "Eskimo" is like that. And the euphemism treadmill goes round and round.

The Trouble with Touch

I'm sure you've all heard of the concept of "unintended consequences." It's when you make a good plan -- let's call it "Plan A" -- only to discover that the plan, when implemented, produces unforeseen side effects. "Whoa! Did not see that coming!" So we have to scramble and come up with a "Plan B" to remedy the side effects that wouldn't have been there if we hadn't executed this "excellent plan."

Our response to COVID has, I think we all agree, been extreme. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, an extreme response to an extreme event is sometimes necessary. And if COVID is as extreme as, say, Dr. Fauci says it is, well, then, shutting down commerce and locking ourselves in our homes and social distancing and wearing masks is extreme, but necessary. Plan A.

Until we come across unintended consequences. Then we might have a problem.

We knew there would be consequences. You know we knew it because the government immediately sprung into action to give us "relief." No one is questioning the economic impact on the world. Not just us. Businesses have closed, jobs have been lost, people are losing house and even, worst case, life over these consequences. They might not be intended, but they weren't unexpected. But I can think of at least one unintended consequence that I haven't seen anyone talk about.

An article in Greater Good Magazine comes from Dr. Dacher Keltner, Ph.D., the founding director of the magazine and a professor of psychology at UC Berkeley. The article is about the science of touch. Keltner explains that touch is "our primary language of compassion, and a primary means for spreading compassion." He cites interesting studies like one where the person had to try to convey an emotion in a one-second touch on a stranger's forearm. "The odds of guessing the right emotion by chance were about eight percent," he says, "But remarkably, participants guessed compassion correctly nearly 60 percent of the time." We don't know why, but humans respond to touch in ways we don't quite grasp. He quotes Michelangelo's, "To touch can be to give life." Touch is critical to human beings. In another article he explains how "tactile contact is a foundation of the good life," enhancing community, connection, and teamwork. A Psychology Today article explains that "Touch is the first sense we acquire and the secret weapon in many a successful relationship." Studies show that "we appear to be wired to interpret the touch of our fellow humans." Touch increases the speed of communication, enhances connectivity between people, and even helps in healing. Touching is vital throughout our lives.

We've moved on, largely. We had already jumped head first into "internet dating" and "social media" where we can connect without, you know, actually connecting. We have chatrooms and MMORPG games where massive amounts of people can play and "be friends" without ever even seeing each other. We've been working hard to avoid contact, it seems And in today's COVID climate we're told not to have physical cocntact at all. We are mandated to physically disconnect. According to science, that's a bad thing. And, based on increases in suicides, depression, loneliness and such, I think we can clearly see actual, measurable, unintended consequences because of it. But we will not come up with a Plan B, will we?

Judgment for Believers

John writes in his first epistle about praying for brothers (any believers) that sin.

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death. (1 John 5:16-17)

Now, there is a question among believers what he meant by "a sin leading to death." Is that physical death or eternal? And I don't plan to figure that out for you here. What I want to address is the notion of consequences of sin.

Most of us understand that Christ, on the cross, declared with His last breath, "It is finished!" (John 19:30), and, by that, He meant, "Paid in full." It was done. For all who come to Him in faith, our sins are forgiven from top to bottom. Paul calls it "no condemnation" (Rom 8:1). And that's good news. We won't face the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev 20) because our names are written in the Lamb's book of life and we're forgiven, cleansed from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). Good news! So does this mean there are no consequences for Christians who sin?

Lots of Christians claim that's so. There is no "judgment" -- the Christianese term we banty about. But I don't think that's quite biblical. So maybe our Christianese needs some tuning.

The author of Hebrews says that "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives." (Heb 12:6) That should be sufficient information to prove that there are consequences to our sin even if they aren't eternal consequences. The word there is "sons," so it's not everybody and His action is "chastises," referencing "a whipping," so it's not just "teaching." That should be clear enough, but we can find more. We know about Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). There is nothing in their story to suggest they were not children of God, but when they lied to the Holy Spirit, they were struck dead. Pretty serious. Paul told about Corinthian believers who took the Lord's Supper "in an unworthy manner" (1 Cor 11:27) so that "many of you are weak and ill, and some have died." (1 Cor 11:30)

Look at that one for a moment. Paul explains why some are weak, ill, and even dead. "When we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world." (1 Cor 11:32) Paul says "we" are judged and he says we are judged "so that we may not be condemned." Thus, there is judgment for a Christian's sin, but not condemnation.

I've written in the past that many think that sin is not that bad. I think that our "Gospel Lite" version that says, "We have no consequences because we're in Christ" isn't accurate. It's not just the "antichrist" Christians (1 John 2:18-19) that underestimate sin. We can, too.

Does God sometimes judge us for sin? Yes. Is some of the suffering we encounter in our lives a corrective? Certainly. Now, Scripture is clear that not all that is unpleasant is just such judgment (e.g., Luke 13:1-5; John 9:3-4), but some is. So, in the end, we must "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness." (James 1:2-3) That is, while some of our trials may be judgment, not all are, but all are aimed at producing patience which leads to completion (James 1:4), a goal we can joyfully embrace from the hand of God.

News Weakly - 10/10/20

Statuesque
The story is that the Mellon Foundation has committed $250 million to "reimagine" U.S. monuments in this time of anti-monuments (so to speak). I have nothing sarcastic or snarky to say here. I'm just thinking who today's society would consider "heroic," worthy of emulating, and who could endure the test of time. In a time when a classy comedian like Bill Cosby, "America's Dad," gets 3-10 years for drugging and sexually assaulting someone, who do we think is going to stand the test of time? In a world where "My boy was a good boy, a heroic boy, a wonderful kid" is a reference to a thug, a gang member, a thief, or a killer, where in the world are we going to identify heroes that define the best of us?

Feeding the Trolls
So, among the conspiracy theory folks these days a favorite point is, "We don't trust the COVID reporting. We don't think it's accurate!" In order to quell these fears, the WHO has come out with their own unique numbers. Instead of the 35 million or so who have been infected, they say the number is closer to 780 million … or so. And while our best information says 1 million people have died of COVID-related causes, they say it's "certainly higher." That is, the WHO doesn't trust our COVID reporting. They don't think it's accurate. There you go, conspiracy nuts; your fears have been confirmed.

Just a Thought
There is much ado about President Trump's hint that he might not accept the results of the election and go quietly. Isn't the outrage a bit odd coming from an entire political party that still hasn't accepted the results of the 2016 election?

And Now for Something Completely Different
Not news this time, but an interesting piece (in opposition to what I've been saying this election cycle … and last). Something to think about.

Counting the Cost
The London Economic reported that "More than 2,300 people died from Covid-19 in the United States on the days President Trump was in hospital." The news outlet complained, "Since leaving care, any suggestion that the president’s brush with the illness would draw out a more empathetic response to Covid-19 have swiftly been dashed." In contrast, over 9,000 babies were executed by abortion in the 3 days that Trump was hospitalized. The media, the mothers, the doctors, and the public obviously don't care. Between February 2 and October 3 the CDC reports that more than 198,000 people have died of COVID-19 in the U.S. while something like 738,000 babies have been killed by choice. Any notion that this many babies killed during the pandemic might draw out a more empathetic response from the media or the public should immediately be quashed. I don't suppose too many will be mourning for them.

America Makes It Clear
Our nation is locked in a voting struggle for who will be our next president. Emotions are high. Politics is big. And Americans proved the depth of their concerns ... when their biggest takeaway from the debate between Harris and Pence was a fly on Pence's head. Seriously, America, get a grip. We have very real issues at stake here and a fly is not among them. But in America where the media treats Twitter like "the voice of the people," replacing actual interviews with tweets as a story, if this is what we can expect from voters, we should definitely lower our expectations for any serious voters.

Disqualified
During a townhall gathering an audience member asked Joe Biden about his "particular plan to protect women's reproductive rights in the U.S." with Amy Barrett possibly joining the Supreme Court. Biden didn't waver. "Number one, we don't know exactly what she will do, although the expectation is that she very well may overrule Roe, and the only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation to make Roe the law of the land. That's what I would do." I believe that a man whose fundamental promise is not only to refuse to protect the most vulnerable people of the land, but to make their murder legally protected by law is not qualified to be the president of that land.

But ... HIPAA
The Hill (and others) are reporting that rotten ol' Trump made doctors at Walter Reed Medical Center sign nondisclosure agreements before treating him last year. Two refused and were not allowed to be involved. So people decry this kind of secrecy. Except … we have laws in this country that prevent anyone from releasing personal medical information. When I check in at my doctor's office for my annual physical I have to keep my distance from anyone else checking in because there are laws. When a coworker recently was diagnosed with COVID, we weren't allowed to say who it was because there are laws. Just not for the president, I guess.

And ... There It Is If you've been here before, you know that one of the big things I talk about is "words mean something." I'm particularly concerned with our post-modern thinking that allows us to yank out words, turn them around in their meaning to suit our taste, and then impose them on everyone else. Nancy Pelosi is making my point for me. The 25th Amendment comes into play when the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." In this case, the vice president operates as president. Pelosi wants a commission to "evaluate presidential mental and physical fitness" where "mental fitness" could be defined by the commission as "doesn't think like we want him to" so he could easily be classified as "mentally unfit." Given that each chamber of Congress has to affirm the finding within 25 days and given that Vice President Pence would act as president ("Oh, no!"), I can only imagine that Pelosi is making this move 1) with the anticipation that Trump might win the election, 2) there is an expectation that she and her people can define "mental fitness" in their own image, and 3) they'll deal with Pence when they get there.

Just Pondering
The district attorney in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, announced there was not a sufficient case to charge the police officer who shot Alvin Cole with a crime. And the crowd erupted. Protests continue. You know, "No justice, no peace." But I'm wondering. If he had brought charges would that have sufficed? If the officer was tried and exonerated by a jury, would that have sufficed? I'm pretty sure that the only "justice" that would suffice would be termination of the officer's job or, perhaps, his life. I suspect "We call for justice these days, but it's only on our terms." We're not asking that justice be satisfied; we're demanding that we are.

Satire from Another Source This time from Genesius Times, the headline reads, "Biden touts abortion as 'mostly peaceful'." Fitting, given Biden's assurance that he plans to make abortion the law of the land. And again from Genesius Times because I commented on the topic above, we get, "BREAKING: Pence’s excellent debate responses fed by covert drone fly." Now, come on, that's humorous. Okay, not if you hate everything about this current administration, but to normal folks …

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

All Things

If all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17) and, therefore, not merely a human product, but a divine output, it would stand to reason that some Scripture would seem … not right. No, that was too soft. It would seem wrong, not what we expect, counterintuitive. Because God is not us; His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isa 55:8-9). And Scripture certainly is counterintuitive on occasion. Take the concept of pain.

Every normal human being has a natural response to pain. It is flight. It is withdrawal. It is protection. You don't think about it when you touch a hot stove; you yank your hand back. It's natural. And we tend toward the same innate approach in all sorts of human pain, from the physical to the emotional and on down the line. The programming goes something like this. "If pain, withdraw. If cannot withdraw, shelter in place and shield." So we build up protections and calluses and scar tissue. We put barriers in place to avoid previously painful relationships. We even get seared consciences (1 Tim 4:2). Whatever it takes to protect ourselves from pain.

And then, there is Scripture.

In Paul's second epistle to the church at Corinth he wrote about a difficult time. He referred to it as "a messenger of Satan" and "a thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor 12:7). His first response was what we would expect. "Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this." (2 Cor 12:8) No help. Then God told Him, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor 12:9) So Paul responded, "Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Cor 12:9-10) Paul embraced his weaknesses.

This isn't the only time this occurs in Scripture. The Book of Lamentations is a book from the prophet Jeremiah about, you guessed it, his lament. Everything was gone. His people had been carried off into captivity. God's promised judgment had occurred. Everything was ruined. And Jeremiah wept. In the 3rd chapter he complained about God. For 20 verses he bemoaned God's treatment -- God's wrath, Jeremiah's suffering, God's deafness to his prayers, Jeremiah's travail. "My endurance has perished," he said, "so has my hope from the LORD." (Lam 3:18) Pain. Time to withdraw or protect. But then he says, "But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope: The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. 'The LORD is my portion,' says my soul, 'therefore I will hope in Him.'" (Lam 3:21-24) Note that Jeremiah doesn't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Nor does he attempt to minimize his own pain. He doesn't make excuses or expect better days. What he does do is embrace his one and only hope -- "The LORD is my portion." He sees hope in hopelessness by looking to God. Not to better circumstances, but to God Himself. Jeremiah walked through the pain.

One other similar story; a familiar one, I'm sure. They were three friends of Daniel in Babylon. They got caught refusing to bow to an idol (Dan 3:12). The penalty was to be cast into a "burning fiery furnace." (Dan 3:11) (I guess "furnace" wasn't enough. Nor was "fiery furnace." Apparently a really, really hot furnace was on tap.) You remember the story. Faced with the option to bow or burn, they told the king, "Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace." (Dan 3:17) Escape, see? But, no. They went on to say, "But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up." (Dan 3:18) Like Jeremiah and Paul, these three opted to embrace the pain rather than avoid it based on their relationship with God. No protection. No defense. God was enough. And you remember how that came out. There was "a fourth man" in there with them (Dan 3:25) and when they came out, nothing was burned but their bonds.

"Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds," James wrote, "for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:2-4) We agree that that's just not natural. We don't "count it all joy." That's just crazy. Maybe in the "normal world," but not in God's economy. And you and I, family of God, are called to the same craziness. We're commanded to rejoice in the tough times (1 Thess 5:16-18) -- to embrace the suffering as a gift (Php 1:29) -- not because things will necessarily be more comfortable. They may; they may not. We rejoice because of God. It's because we have a relationship with a good and awesome and powerful God who always seeks what's best for us and we can trust Him in that. So we don't need to put up walls or develop calluses or run away from trials. In God's hand, we can be safe through the fire and know that it's the best. The world intends it for evil, but God intends it for good.

My Vote Doesn't Count

It is the favorite argument among those who don't vote ... and even some who do. "Why bother? My vote doesn't count." Now, of course someone (or something) counted their vote (except, perhaps, in the very rare case of voter fraud), so that's not what they mean. They are saying, "My vote doesn't determine who will be in office."

On the face of it, of course, that's foolishness. It wouldn't be an election if "my vote determines who is in office." That would be a dictatorship or something. Individuals aren't supposed to determine who is elected in an election; that's the job of the voters (plural). So each voter adds his or her perspective/preferences to the pot in the hopes that a sufficient number of voters will agree with them, but no single voter determines the outcome. Even in those strange cases where "that guy won by only two votes" or something like it it wasn't "my vote" that was one of those two. That version of "doesn't count" doesn't make sense.

So maybe your vote doesn't count; it doesn't determine the outcome. But your voice counts. And if the more you can get who agree with you vote, their voices make a difference. At the bottom of it, though, it is your integrity that counts. We are commanded to be involved with politics. "Wait … what?" Yes. We are commanded to pray for our leaders (1 Tim 2:1-4). God holds us responsible for our choices of leadership (Hos 8:4). We are warned about the problems of evil government (Prov 28:12). We are to pursue righteousness for our nation (Prov 14:34). We are to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Matt 22:21). (All of this written to people who had no say over their governments.)

It is true that, statistically, your vote doesn't count. I would argue that spiritually it does and morally it does and biblically it does. At no time does any one of us get to determine who is in office, but that's not how voting works. Voting is the expression of your opinion and, while no one else might know what that is, God does. So your vote counts insofar as it is an expression of obedience. Integrity counts. Obedience counts. Service counts. All are found in that vote. So, I guess it depends on your definition of "counts."

Just Thinkin'

"Whatcha doin'?" "Nothin'. Just thinkin'."

I was thinking the other day. No, don't notify the press; they wouldn't believe you anyway. We pretty much understand that the news media, whether it's the mainstream media or social media or the like, is pretty negative these days. They don't offer us much in the way of inspiration. It looks a lot more like terrorism to me. We need to be afraid to let our kids play in the park, to walk around without a mask, to be optimistic that there is hope on the horizon. We need to know that the best candidates we have for office are horrible. If the media is to be believed, our president is horrible and our legislative branch is horrible and our judicial branch is horrible and the states aren't much better. Always messing up somehow. As I read from some author whose name or book I can't recall, "There is a worm in everything." Now, mind you, I'm not suggesting that it isn't so. Beyond that, I'm not suggesting that it's worse now than before. But that's because I'm one of those few who think that people are not basically good.

So what am I thinking about? I remember earlier days. Much of it was even before my time. In those days the media was largely print or radio or the early days of television. Some of it was those newsreels in theaters. Some was posters. There was, in those days, a different feel to media. They were trying to help us through hard times. I've read some of the newspaper stories from World War II. They printed glowing reports of successes at war and, when they weren't successes, they included hope that things would turn around. They urged all Americans to work together, that things were going well, that we'll make it through. Largely positive stuff.

That's no longer the case. Studies indicate that the media has changed from news to opinion, from objective to subjective. All outlets have been biased, but something has changed. Outlets that were once conservative have shifted to progressive and biases have become more strident. "Truth decay," they call it.

Now, I can see it, but I can't explain it. What is it that has caused this decay in truth, this devolution of civil discourse, this alienation of a nation? My go-to answer is sin, of course, but what kind of sin? What is it that is pushing us away from hope and toward terror? Why this national shift from civility to unrest? I'm just thinking about it. That's all.

My Favorite Verse

Okay, sure, perhaps the title isn't 100% accurate. I'd have a really hard time nailing down an actual favorite verse. Still, at this moment this one verse has been sweet to me.

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Gen 50:20)

"Well, that's odd," you say. And I get it. Joseph is speaking to his brothers. He was talking about a specific event -- his brothers sought to kill him and then sold him into slavery. He spent years as a slave and then a prisoner. Then he rose to the #2 position in Egypt to save not only Egypt, but his own family. "Yeah, so? What's that got to do with you?"

Let me illustrate. Recently I developed a fever. Not COVID or anything; just an infection. It lasted part of one day -- nothing too big. But because of the fever, I wasn't allowed to go to work for 72 hours. I worked from home. The day I went back to work, the guy that occupied the cubicle next to mine wasn't there. It turned out that he had developed COVID. So, I had an infection which made me the only person in our office that was not potentially exposed to an active case of COVID. "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good."

These days I live there. Satan, his minions, and his children (John 8:44) are opposed to followers of Christ. Let's just say that they aren't thinking about our best interests. "You mean evil against me." So it's not just that God might protect me from that. In fact, He might not. But He absolutely means good. Not just "get by." Good. All the time (Rom 8:28). In a world of uncertainty at best and growing threats at worst, it's good to know that even if they mean evil against me, God means good.

France Leads the Way

French president Emmanuel Macron has announced a law to "free Islam" from "foreign influences." The aim is to combat "radical Islamism" while encouraging ... you know ... "regular Islam" or something. Macron made what I consider to be a terrifying statement: "Our challenge is to fight against those who go off the rails in the name of religion."

On the face of it you might wonder, "What's so bad about that?" I mean, we don't want hardcore terrorists who believe their calling in life is to die while killing infidels, right? We're all (well, almost all -- I guess not those guys) agreed on that, aren't we? But this is another one of those cases where words are supposed to mean something and just might not. Here, let me show you.

According to the story, "Associations found to be pushing ideas contrary to republican ideals could be ordered to disband." So, we understand "go off the rails" at first, but now we have a new definition of "off the rails" -- those whose ideas are "contrary to republican ideals." (Now, before you get yourself in a snit, remember, this is not "GOP" ideals, but those of the republic of France. Like those don't change, right?) What ideas are "contrary to republican ideals"? Here's an example. Earlier this year the the report was out that "homophobic crimes" rose by more than a third (36%) in France in the last year. "Homophobic attacks" include insults and "display of abusive banners." So, like in America, if you, say, refuse to bake a cake for a "gay marriage" because it violates your religious beliefs, you could be accused of "going off the rails in the name of religion" for having ideas "contrary to republican ideals." Like in America, if you believe nonsense like abortion is murder or God has willed men to assume authority over wives -- you know, stuff you find in the Bible -- you might get labeled "off the rails in the name of religion" with beliefs "contrary to republican ideals."

Now, of course, all of this is theoretical. The law is new and the statement is new and the story is new and, so far, no one has been arrested or disbanded or whatever. And, so far, it hasn't "crossed the pond," so to speak. Not my point. The point is that words mean something and "go off the rails in the name of religion" is entirely subjective. This is how good ideas get co-opted, turned around, and applied to an entirely different place that it was never meant to be … kind of like the recent ruling from SCOTUS where they redefined "sex" to include "orientation" and gender identity. Look for it. My "slippery slope" scenario may not be as far fetched as you might think.

Church Programs

We like programs. I'm talking about things like "12-step programs" and "business plans" and the like. We'll break things down into parts and offer "5 easy steps to a thinner you" or something like it. Even churches like programs. We have programs for the children and for the teens and for the young adults. We have programs for married people and programs for older adults. We have recovery programs and visitation programs and … well, all sorts of programs to do what church is supposed to do.

I don't like programs. Wait … am I allowed to say that? Maybe not, but it's true.

You see, programs are systems and church is people. Christian living is about the "one anothers" and not the mechanisms. As an example, a church I know started a program during this COVID crisis called "member care groups" where the leadership assigned names of members to a large array of leadership -- deacons, life group leaders, committees, that sort of thing. Good program, you see? Now everyone in the church had someone who would check on them weekly (so the program said) to see if they're doing okay in these hard times. Good program. But, of course, it didn't work. Why? Well, as a program it was fine, but as people it had a serious defect. You can't assign a "care group" to someone who didn't care. Programs, you see, are mechanisms and not people.

There are, in fact, lots of good programs out there. The problem is that programs don't take into account people. I'd like to see, perhaps, a sort of hybrid. I'm not opposed to structure ("programs"), but church has to be about people. So, let's say that someone thinks, "We should really make sure everyone in the church is cared for, looked in on, checked." That's some structure. A good purpose. "But the task is too big for me. There are too many people and there is too much need. I'll get others to help me." Okay, now we're moving to action. We're taking a good, "one another" idea that is inside the church's wheelhouse, so to speak, and trying to give it legs. That's good. The critical question at this juncture is how? How are we going to get others to help? In the example of that church I mentioned, they assigned people. What if, instead, we asked? What if, instead, we encouraged? What if, instead, we maybe modeled it and, oh, I don't know, taught it to others? You know, like discipleship or something. What if people with a passion for ministry sought to pass on that passion rather than invest in a program? What if we built a "pyramid scheme" kind of thing where a person who was moved by God to do this thing got three or four others that were willing to take part and learn and mentored them on it -- put them to work, gave them guidance, did it themselves while doing it with others, that sort of thing? And those three or four, as they became more comfortable and even excited about it would get three or four others to help and teach and work and guide and mentor them into the same thing. Now we'd have people moved by desire than command. We'd have a "care program" built by people whose hearts motivated them to, you know, care.

Just an example. It would work in all sorts of ways. But it would be motivated at its roots by "love one another" rather than "the pastor said so." It would be aimed not only at "do unto others," but to a large part "make disciples, teaching to obey all that I have commanded" (Matt 28:19-20). Imagine children's programs built on discipleship rather than curriculum. Imagine the effect on a high school group where each member was being mentored rather than herded by a program. Programs are fine, but church isn't about programs; it's about building believers to minister. I would guess that a lot of these types of ministries done for discipleship rather than program purposes would look similar to programs, but it's not about activities. It's about changed hearts and changed lives. Leaders can't check the book and see if you hit all the salient points. They have to check their hearts to insure they're actually ministering. Instead of a program structure, church should fundamentally operate around "love one another" with the critical "as I have loved you." Programs alone miss that connection.

News Weakly - 10/3/29

Filed Under "What could possibly go wrong?"
California has decided that the right thing to do is to "house transgender inmates in prisons based on their gender identity." So the biological female that identifies as a male will be rooming with other males who, I'm sure, will be kind and friendly as we know all prisoners are. And why would we have any concerns about that biological male amongst all the biological females? I mean, what could go wrong, right?

Inspiration
Strange story. Villagers in Romania have re-elected their mayor by a landslide. Not much of a story until they tell us that he died two weeks before from COVID. Good job, guys. Wait! Is that an option? Because in this upcoming election I can think of a lot of dead guys I'd rather vote into office …

Divisive
A 19-year-old American cyclist, Quinn Simmons, was suspended by his cycling team after responding with a "divisive, incendiary, and detrimental" tweet to a Dutch journalist who wrote, "My dear American friends, I hope this horrible presidency ends for you" followed by "If you follow me and support Trump, you can go. There is zero excuse to follow or vote for the vile, horrible man." Simmons's "divisive, incendiary, and detrimental" response was "Bye." As I understand it, the fact that it included an emoji of a waving hand that was not yellow, but dark, was the offense that terminated his career. Or perhaps it was his response to another who asked if he was a "Trumper." "That's right," he said and included an American flag. We have a totally bizarre version of "divisive, incendiary, and detrimental" sufficient to suspend someone these days. "If someone from this company supports Trump and uses a dark colored waving hand, we will no longer buy their product!!!" Sigh. We can tolerate a lot of things. We can tolerate a guy who believes he's a girl. We can tolerate a "husband and wife" where one of the two isn't actually "husband" or "wife" material (depending on the gender of the couple). We can tolerate rioting and burning in the name of racial equality. But if you support Trump or wave a hand that isn't the right color, you are out!

Anti-Choice
Seeking to soothe the fires around this Supreme Court Justice replacement thing, the media spilled the story that Supreme Court nominee Amy Barrett signed a letter in 2006 that included a call for the end of Roe v. Wade. Suddenly, I like this candidate more. But the story said that the letter came from "the anti-choice group St Joseph County Right to Life." Now, you may think that choice is essential and I don't think anyone would disagree that choice is good, except if you thought that choice should be unrestricted you'd be both mistaken and silly. In human society all sorts of choices are restricted. You aren't supposed to choose to drive the wrong way on a freeway or take certain drugs or kill your next door neighbor. Choice is not unrestricted. On the other hand, the "anti-choice" language folks -- the people that hang that tag on "right to life" folks -- are also preaching anti-choice. Specifically, they are demanding that, currently, about 3,000 children a day not be allowed the option to live. No choice at all. All rights, including "right to life," limit someone else's choices. Clearly the aim here is not to present the truth, but to distort it.

People of Praise
On the heels of that last story, there is this. Some are apparently outraged over Amy Barrett's connections to "an obscure Christian sect" which "opposes abortion and teaches God has willed men to assume authority over their wives and family." Shock of shocks. This group, "People of Praise," believes stuff right out of the Bible -- actually believes it. They're not a church; they're a community. According to their website, they are multi-denominational where they remain "faithful members of our own churches." They are crazy people, seeking to " live our daily lives in our families, workplaces and cities in harmony with God and with all people" and doing crazy things like moving into poor neighborhoods and seeking to "help meet pressing neighborhood needs." They are "grounded in a lifelong promise of love and service to fellow community members" while following their own consciences. These things should not be! As soon as we eliminate Amy as a Justice option, we'll have to see if we can root out this "love everyone" cult and put an end to it. Biblical living? Get real. We will not tolerate that, not here in "tolerant and inclusive" America.

Reality Satire
The Babylon Bee is at it again. It's headlines like these that might make you wonder, "Wait, is this real or is it satire?" The day before the Presidential Debate they offered, "CNN Pre-Debate Poll Shows Biden Clearly Won Debate" because 1) most of the media is so very biased against Trump and 2) most of America isn't waiting for these debates to choose. Tied to the "Amy favors not killing babies" story above, the headline from the Bee reads, "Bombshell Report Reveals Christian Believes Christian Things." (The story was extra fun because it envisioned people getting saved while digging through the Scriptures to find out how Christians are so very, very wrong.)

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

A Hermeneutic

I came across this the other day (Can you tell I've been in 1 John lately?).

They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:5-6)

John wrote his epistle to counter false teachers that were in the church and to reassure believers. His letter serves as a go-to to see if you are or are not saved. This passage here is one of those "tests." The world hears them; it doesn't hear believers. What is your experience?

I got to wondering. Is this a good hermeneutic? (Hermeneutics refer to the method of interpreting Scripture.) I think it might be. If this is true -- if John is reliable -- then I think that we can look at our own interpretations and ask, "What does the world think?" If the world would look at your interpretation of Scripture and have no problems with it -- no conflict, no outrage, no doubt, just applause, perhaps -- what does that say about your interpretation?

Scripture promises that the world will not hear it. If the world is happy with your version, I would think that would suggest a problem with your version. I'm not sure the reverse is true. I'm not sure I'd say that if the world rejects your view then it's probably right. There are lots of crackpots that the world should rightly reject along with believers. But if they are not disturbed by your interpretation, you might have a problem with your interpretation.

On a Personal Note

This is just from me about me on a personal note. I found an interesting quirk in me that was "fun" to watch. (No, not really fun.)

Last week I told someone I was reminded to pray for them every time they offered hate. I gave, as my primary thought, only a reference (1 John 4:20). So, what was my prayer? The text says,

If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. (1 John 4:20)

It's the same thought as in 1 John 3:15. (Now, remember, this is about my quirk, not the text.) So clearly I'm praying, despite the fact that he thinks he's saved, for his salvation. But that's not what I said. Why?

The truth is I'm uncomfortable telling someone, "You think you're saved, but I have grave concerns over that for you." I'm not comfortable telling someone who believes he or she has met the criteria for salvation that it might not be so. I've done it on (very rare) occasion, but I'm not comfortable with it.

The quirk here is that I'm the one that keeps telling you (and me) that the Bible is true even if we don't agree with it. I'm the one that keeps harping on the fact that God's Word is more reliable than our thoughts, perceptions, notions, or … feelings.

So here I am preaching to myself "Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar" (Rom 3:4) where "every man" includes me. I mean, if Jesus could say, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness" (Matt 7:23) or "The gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:14) or "You shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in" (Matt 23:13), perhaps it's not wrong for me to share those concerns. So, it would appear, my own discomfort is in opposition to Scripture. Something I'll need to consider and work on.