Just Don't Think About It

Back in 1995, Mark Noll released a book titled The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. The opening line was, "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind." Mind you, Noll was not anti-Evangelical; he was concerned that his own "clan" was being ... stupid. There is no doubt that conservative Christianity suffers from an anti-intellectual bias. It's ironic, too, because 1) the world says "Faith and reason are in opposition" and we have to fight that nonsensical notion and 2) the Bible is full of commands to use our minds -- commands ignored by anti-intellectual Christians. So, too many of us have allowed the world -- the anti-God forces -- to define faith for us. In the words of the Great Theologian, Archie Bunker, "Faith is something you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." And apparently we just won't think that through.

Having bought that false dichotomy of faith versus reason while recognizing the lies of scientific anti-God pursuits from the 19th century on, we've opted to be skeptical of any reasoning and scholarly pursuits. So we've moved on. Faith is better than reason. Feeling is better than thinking. If you want to truly understand what God is saying, you need to "be led by the Spirit" by which we mean "Just don't think about it." Genuine theology, genuine doctrine, even genuine worship are all obtained by a moving of the soul and not some reading of an old book or rational analysis or something.

To be fair, it's not just Christians. Psychology Today argued that "anti-intellectualism is a very deep problem in America." Reading and critical thinking skills are on the decline. Common sense isn't common. We've decided that truth is relative and feelings determine what is or is not true and any disagreement on that is hate. So anti-intellectualism in the church is, in some sense, merely an extension of the anti-intellectualism we see in our modern world. The message is, "Just don't think about it." The Bible disagrees.

Think About It
It should come as no surprise, but the Bible is full of "think" commands. It does come as a surprise because, in our anti-intellectual path most of us have given up examining deeply God's Word. So while we might know the command, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2), we don't really take it seriously because that sounds a lot like thinking. We know that we are commanded, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37), but we don't put much effort into it. Scripture is crystal clear. "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" (Rom 1:18-19) The fundamental human sin problem is suppression of truth, specifically about God. And the basic judgment about us is "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). So we have a thinking problem and we don't want to think about it.

Let me make this clear. There is no contradiction between faith and reason. It is unreasonable (see what I did there?) to suggest that the Bible commands both faith and thinking which are mutually exclusive. "But if we're deceived and out of whack in our thinking, how can we do it?" Reasonable question. Paul told Timothy, "Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything" (2 Tim 2:7) Do you see that? Both/and. "Think." Think about what? What Paul said. Paul wrote Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So do it. But note that the fruitfulness of doing it is supplied by the Lord.

In the end, it turns out that 1) we are commanded to think and 2) thinking is commended (e.g., Matt 16:2-4). Who are we to presume that God is wrong in this? Is faith the opponent of reason? No! Faith sustains us through faulty reasoning, but faith means "to be convinced by the evidence" and that includes reason. So when God says, "Come now, let us reason together" (Isa 1:18), perhaps we ought to obey. To think or not to think; that is the question. The obedient believer will embrace loving God with all his mind and reason is no longer the enemy.

Jesus and the Bible

We are all aware of the conflict. Conservative Christianity holds that the Bible is the Word of God -- God-breathed -- and, as such, since God is infallible and inerrant, what God breathed in the pages of the Bible is infallible and inerrant. "Nay, nay," counters Progressive Christianity. "The Bible is a mish-mash, a conglomeration of 'the words of God' perhaps along with other human ideas interjected. As such it is absolutely not inerrant or infallible." The dividing line isn't vague or trivial. But both sides claim to like Jesus well enough, so I have to ask, what did Jesus think about it?

Ironically, at the first, the only source we have about what Jesus thought about the Bible is ... the Bible. Now, if the Bible is indeed the Word of God, that's not a problem. If, however, it is not, then arguing for Jesus while arguing against the Bible as wholly reliable leaves you in a wholly unreliable position. But, we have to try, right? Consider, also, that Jesus is God (e.g., John 1:1-3; John 10:30; John 8:58). Thus if "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16-17) and Jesus is God, all Scripture comes from Christ, and not just the "red letters."

So what do we know about what Jesus believed about the Bible? Jesus understood that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (e.g., Mark 7:10; Mark 10:3; Mark 12:26). In fact, He attributed to Moses what God said (Mark 7:10; John 7:19, 22) and attributed to God what Moses said (Matt 22:31). Jesus saw these two sources as interchangeable. Jesus believed that the Scriptures were authoritative (e.g., Matt 8:4; Matt 22:29; Mark 10:3; Mark 12:26; Luke 16:29; Luke 24:44; John 5:46). He believed the Scriptures were enduring (Matt 5:18). He believed the Scriptures represented unmitigated truth (John 17:17). In the end, then, based on the infallibility and inerrancy of God, Jesus believed in the same for the words God had breathed.

It should not come as a surprise, then, that the "Christian Left" disagrees with Jesus on the concept of Hell and judgment (e.g., Matt 5:29; Matt 7:21-23; Matt 23:33; Matt 25:41; Mark 9:47-48; Luke 12:5; 2 Thess 1:7-8). They disagree with Jesus on the problem of sin (e.g., Luke 13:1-5). They disagree with the Jesus with whom they claim to agree, a necessity if they disagree with Jesus on the fundamental nature of God's Word.

Let's not be deceived here. I'm not saying those dirty, rotten Progressives need the Gospel. I'm saying that we all need the Gospel. Every day. All the time. So don't follow their perspectives on these things knowing that they are in opposition to Jesus. On the other hand, don't suppose that because you aren't doing the same, you're better than them. We all need the Gospel. All the time.

Missing It

The Greek word translated "sin" in most English translations is ἁμαρτία -- hamartia (or some form of it). It means, most literally, "to miss the mark." You know, like a target you're supposed to hit and you miss.

I gotta be honest. "Miss the mark" just doesn't sound like that big of a deal. Like, "I was shooting for a 100% on that test and only got 99%. I missed the mark." Yeah, so? In the famous words of Maxwell Smart, "Missed it by that much." How is this significant?

But you have to ask yourself, "What mark am I missing?" One person may be playing one of those games in a store where you drop that claw and try to win a prize. "Oops! Missed the mark." No big deal. Someone else might shoot for that perfect score on the final. "Oops! Missed the mark." Could be of some importance, but not too much. You could be a police officer and you're tasked with shooting someone before they kill someone else. "Oops! Missed the mark." Now, this is more serious. "In fact, I accidentally shot the victim." Now we're really getting serious. Thus, "missed the mark" changes its gravity by the significance of the mark that is missed.

So, in biblical terms, when we sin -- when we miss the mark -- what mark are we missing and how significant is it?

Paul wrote to the Romans, "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen." (Rom 11:36) To Him be glory forever. In fact, that is the primary purpose of creation. David wrote, "All Your works shall give thanks to You, O LORD, And Your godly ones shall bless You. They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom And talk of Your power; To make known to the sons of men Your mighty acts And the glory of the majesty of Your kingdom. (Psa 145:10-12) We all know, "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." (Psa 19:1) And we are commanded, "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31) To Him be glory forever. That's why it is so significant that the verse we all know -- "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) -- lists that last phrase. Sin is falling short of the glory of God. Or, in terms of missing the mark, the mark we miss is God's glory and our proper recognition and acknowledgement of it. And that's our entire purpose here, the highest importance.

This, then, is the mark we miss. It's not small. It's not insignificant. It can't be overlooked. And the fact that we don't seem too concerned about it only makes it worse. We have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Rom 1:25) If you count that as a mere "oops," a faux pas, then you have no notion of how significant this issue is. If you do see it, you can begin to see the magnitude of sin. And, consequently, the magnitude of the Gospel.

News Weakly - 5/22/21

Haters Unite!
Joining the BLM movement to declare, "We hate police," the organizers of New York's gay pride parade have opted to ban police from their upcoming event. The message was not ambiguous. The NYPD is entirely corrupt; they need to "acknowledge their harm and to correct course moving forward." The gay pride folks do not need to acknowledge the good work that the NYPD as a whole has done or correct their own course moving forward. The police officers who are gay are "disappointed," of course. But I'm wondering how wise it was to announce, "We are removing law enforcement, so feel free to break the law here."

No Justice, No Peace
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) opted to boycott the traditional White House Eid celebration in protest of Biden's argument that Palestinians and Israelis "deserve to live in dignity, safety and security." So many surprises. The White House has a traditional celebration of breaking the fast of Ramadan? People are upset that anyone would think that people deserve to live in dignity, safety and security? Someone cares what CAIR does? So many surprises. (Note: let's be clear. The protest of this position says clearly that Israel has no right to live in dignity, safety, or security. Those who defend the Palestinians against Israel's efforts to defend themselves side with those who wish to eliminate Israel.)

Statue-tory Sexism
A 26' tall statue of the famous Marilyn Monroe pose standing over the subway grate (from the Seven Year Itch) is taking up residence in Palm Springs, California, and not everyone is pleased. The statue will face away from the front door of the Palm Springs Art Museum so people coming in will see her, but that means that people going out are going to be looking up her dress, a misdemeanor in California. The museum isn't happy and others are objecting to "objectifying" Marilyn. Now, of course, everyone knows about that photo and it has been iconic for ages, so why, all of the sudden, the "#Metoo Marilyn" crowd objects eludes me. It is "blatantly sexist," they say, and I'm not disagreeing, but is the plan to erase history (again) and the minds of most people (male and female, because objectification is not a gender-exclusive thing)? Obviously Marilyn didn't object to the pose.

Follow the Money
Governor Andrew Cuomo, under investigation for multiple accusations of sexual abuse, is the guy that is known for causing the deaths of tens of thousands of elderly New Yorkers from COVID. So it seems really off that he has a $5 million book deal on his leadership in the COVID pandemic. How many ways is that wrong?

More Pronoun Trouble
Singer Demi Lovato has announced that she is now non-binary. You know, not male or female, but both ... or neither. She's going with "they" and "them" for her pronouns. And the press is bowing to the lunacy. She decided after "a lot of "self-reflective work," apparently without the use of a mirror.

What's in a name?
I suppose we could either change with the tide ... or teach people the truth. Penn State is choosing the former. They are replacing "sexist and classist" words like "freshman" because that has "man" in it and "junior" because that follows western male father-son naming conventions ... and no one knows that "man" also refers to "members of the human race" and "junior" only follows naming conventions when someone uses it that way. (No one ever heard "My wife is 2 years my junior" and thought "western father-son naming convention?".) The terms are only sexist or classist if you choose to take them that way. You could teach your students the truth at this school or you could cater to emotional lies. This "higher learning" institution chooses the latter.

Equal Right to Die
Bernie Sanders seeks to work at crippling Israel in their efforts to defend themselves from constant attack. A report from May 8 said that Palestinian militants have fired more than 1,600 rockets from Gaza at Israel. Now, 400 went down in Gaza and 90% of the ones that didn't were interecepted by Israel's missile defense system, but that doesn't constitute "not an attack." That is good defense. In response, Israel has attacked 600 targets ... with precision weapons. The fact that a disproportionate number of Palestinians have died is due to Hamas's tactic of putting their weaponry and fighters in the middle of civilians and Israel's superior armament ... which is what Sanders and the Left would like to take away. "If we can just make the casualties more equal, we can be diverse and inclusive."

Believe Science
USA Today put out this fine story with the headline, "They gave birth and love their children, and they want to remind you that 'not all pregnant people are women.'" Because being born with ovaries by no means suggests that you have to have them to get pregnant. Or, to put it another way, to prove the proposition that not all pregnant people are women you have to first assume that we can be whatever sex we feel like we are, and that's what's known as circular logic.

Pride and Prejudice
I don't even ... So the story is that Lego has announced that its first LGBTQIA+ (their letters, not mine) set will debut on the first day of "Pride Month." Because, as we all know, sexual orientation and gender and who sleeps with whom has always been the point of Lego toys and Lego has, sadly, been very lacking in inclusion and diversity. Now you can have your kid play with a purple drag queen as a critical component of playing with Legos. In case you didn't know it, there are some places where inclusion and diversity are not the point.

Too Much
The Babylon Bee just had too much good material to work with this week. On that last story above, they reported that Lego is unveiling genderless bricks with no male/female connectors. (If you don't get it, look at the Bee story.) (The Genesius Times couldn't leave that one alone, either.) There was the story about Democrats wearing binkies to wean themselves off masks. There was the one about the man driving alone in a carpool lane who told the officer his preferred pronoun was "they." And right out of Star Wars comes the report that Luke Skywalker has been condemned for blowing up an Associated Press office located on the Death Star. I guess current events, for the Babylon Bee, has just been a target-rich environment.

Matchless Love

Years ago one of my friends bit into a nice pizza and was enraptured. "I love pizza," he said. "If I could, I would marry it." Because, you know, he loved it. And that's what love means.

John wrote, "We love Him, because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19). Oh, now, hang on. That was the King James version. It's funny because that first "Him" isn't actually in the original. So more literal versions today simply say, "We love, because He first loved us." That is, the only way we can know and emulate the kind of love he's talking about here is because God has done it toward us and has enabled it in us.

I've written about this more than once. Today's "love" is not the same as the kind often written about in the Bible. And it is this verse that points it out. If the kind of love the Bible commands is the love that is not known unless God shows and enables it, then perhaps we should look into what that might look like. So what does God's love look like? Obviously it's not the same as loving pizza. What is it?

First and foremost God's love is sacrificial.

By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4:9-11)

We knew that, right? I mean, John 3:16 says the same thing. God loved the world this way -- He sent His Son. Paul wrote, "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). The same thing. God's love is best demonstrated in His giving His Son on our behalf. But that last one carries with it another component. To whom was this love demonstrated? "Sinners." "The ungodly" (Rom 5:6). "Enemies" of God (Rom 5:10). You can see that this takes it a bit farther; indeed, farther than we might deem reasonable. It is sacrificial, sure, and what a sacrifice -- His Son. But we understand sacrifice for a loved one. This one we don't. We don't understand that kind of sacrifice for an enemy (Rom 5:7). God's love is best demonstrated, then, in sacrifice for enemies as well as friends.

What's another difference? We believe that love is affirming. And it often is, but we deny that it's love if it is not affirming. God disagrees.

My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by Him. For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives. (Heb 12:5-6)

That's not quite like our version, is it? Note that this discipline is for "the one he loves." Note also that the word, "chastises," is literally "to flog or scourge." Not mere teaching moments. So this would definitely be what we term "tough love," a concept today that is almost entirely absent and almost certainly denied. In fact, the text goes on to say, "If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons" (Heb 12:8). No "tough love," no relationship.

God's love for us -- that love that is the operating principle for the love we're supposed to have for Him and for others -- is not a warm and fuzzy kind of love. It's not "chemistry." It's not even predicated on how lovable we might be ... because the premise is we are not naturally lovable. It includes sacrifice -- at great personal cost. It includes training and even punishment. It certainly includes grace and mercy, and faithfulness (Lam 3:22). It certainly exceeds our ability to fully grasp (Eph 3:19). But the primary thing to remember is that this is love that God produces. It cannot, therefore, be the mere love that we think of. On the other hand, as believers -- as those being conformed into the likeness of His Son (Rom 8:29) -- it is possible for us. No, not possible; mandatory (John 13:35; 1 John 4:8; 1 John 5:1-3).

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. (Eph 5:1-2)

With Murderous Intent

I was reading in Romans 8 and I came across this.

For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if, by the Spirit, you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. (Rom 8:13)

"Put to death the deeds of the body"? That sounds ... a little extreme. But I remembered something I read years ago from a Christian psychologist.

The flesh, the enemy within, dons a friendly uniform, one that a Christian might wear, and suggests reasonable directions. We welcome him into our ranks. When he causes trouble, we try to whip him into shape, get him to cooperate with the program and stop interfering with our efforts to do things right. Or we work hard to figure him out. What makes him tick? Why does he demand gratification that way? Maybe a journey into the past will uncover the source of these crazy tendencies and enable us to reason more effectively with him.

What we need to do, of course, is shoot him ... And if he doesn’t stay dead, we must shoot him again, then beat him, then tie him down in the sand under a hot desert sun, turn loose an army of red ants on his body, and walk away without sympathy. And then we must do it again and again, 'til we're home. An overdone metaphor? Not when we see the enemy for who he is, for what he wants to do. We are at war. The enemy within is the flesh, and he wants to ruin our relationships and thwart God's plan.

What am I to kill? The answer, of course, is the flesh, that nature within me inclined to sin. But what is it? How do I recognize it? As a start, think of it this way: sin is any effort to make life work without absolute dependence on God. It is giving higher priority to my satisfaction than to God’s pleasure. It involves a follow-up commitment to find joy for my soul outside of God, a commitment rooted in the belief that there is something truly good that God does not provide. It boils down to self-dependence and self-preoccupation and self-centeredness, attitudes that look to other people and things for the satisfaction we were designed to enjoy. (From Connecting by Larry Crabb)

I think he's got something there.

Conspiracy Theory

Let me just say at the outset, "No! This is not about voter fraud or election rigging or vaccines aimed at giving you the mark of the beast. Let's move along."

Every society changes with time. It's just the way it is. But I've been noticing something interesting in observing our cultural shifts over the decades of my life.

One i've written about at length is marriage. It has been a long time coming, from the sexual revolution of the '60's to "no fault" divorce of the '70's, we finally, in the 21st century, self-consciously decided to redefine marriage from the union of a man and a woman for purposes of mutual support and procreation to ... well, it's undefined now. But it isn't "a man and a woman" and it isn't "for mutual support" or "procreation." None of that is in the definition or the picture. And, of course, with a demise of a purpose or definition, it's understandable that marriage is in decline -- at the lowest rate ever -- and children are born without father and mother family units in growing numbers and ... well, it's not looking good. That is the situation. Behind the situation, though, is an interesting fact. The longstanding, traditional definition of marriage was marked in Scripture as a depiction of the "marriage" of Christ and the Church (Eph 5:31-32). So today, if we try to point to marriage as an illustration of that blessed union, we've got nothing to show for it.

The Bible speaks often of love. Like us, there are lots of terms and/or connotations, but there is always one in Scripture that was elevated, special, different. It wasn't emotion; it was choice, attitude, and action. It wasn't dependent on the one who is loved; it was offered solely by the one doing it. The Greek word associated with this version is agape, and this version of the word transcends all the other concepts of love. This version is outwardly focused, intent on the best interests of others. It never fails. Today, of course, we've managed to redefine it. Badly. Now it is warm affection, a sort of chemistry, something that, generally, pleases us. It is often automatically connected to sex. But it is, very rarely, anything remotely resembling that biblical concept. So now when we read, "Love God with all your heart," we think, "Feel warmly toward God." When we read, "Love your neighbor as yourself," we think, "The greatest love of all is loving yourself." When we read, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35), we assume it's a warm feeling of affection for some vague "one another." We no longer have a word for agape. And, thus, we no longer have any mental connection to biblical love.

With the shift away from "marriage" as something meaningful (and descriptive) and the discarding of love as something selfless and sacrificial, but rather a passion and, oh, of course, sex, we've discarded any sense of sex as anything more than personal gratification. The notion of "I'm saving myself for marriage" is not honored, but ridiculed. The suggestion that sex has much more meaning than two bodies engaged in pleasure is considered silly. Sex just in marriage? Don't be stupid! But the Bible references marriage as "the two shall become one" (Gen 2:24) and sex as an image of our union with Christ (1 Cor 6:15). I suspect most Christians these days aren't aware of that. So our cultural shift to "free sex" (because we no longer know what "love" is) is a shift away from God's image of Christ and His body.

I don't know if you're seeing the pattern or not. It seems as if much of the cultural shifting of our modern society is directly away from ... God's primary concerns. He designed and described the world in patriarchal terms and we've decided patriarchy is an evil and, by implication, so is God. He indicated that in the same way that Christ is the head of a man, a husband is the head of his wife, and we have definitely thrown out that concept ... jettisoning His Lordship with it. Marriage as an image of the union of Christ and the Church, love as a clear picture of God's relationship with us (and that's not some warm, chemical emotion, let alone sex), sex as a picture of the union of believers with Christ's body, and now all this is down the drain. And this seems to be happening all over society where it correlates with God's Word. If God said it, we're going to controvert it. We'll deny it or mitigate it or change it into our own image. It isn't new, of course. The "Enlightenment" set out to show how we don't need God anymore; we have science. So they discarded miracles including the Resurrection and, as an obvious consequence, God's Word as meaningless. Modernism followed up with "We don't need God anymore; we have reason." Post-modernism followed up with "We don't need God anymore; we don't need to make sense of things at all." Darwin famously challenged Genesis (and, in that, God) and, although Darwinian evolution is largely discarded now, his challenge remains to this day. Prevalent cultures have made constant attacks on the Gospel, mitigating Christ, sin, redemption, hell, judgment, righteousness, everything that God intended to convey. It begins to look like a conspiracy.

And, I'm pretty sure, it is. Satan's conspiracy. Of course, "the prince of the power of the air," "the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2), "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4), the "father of lies" (John 8:44) will certainly enlist his followers. Unfortunately, too many of Christ's followers are getting swept along with it, completely unaware. That's what I find most disturbing. But Jesus said, "I will build My church" (Matt 16:18) and Paul said, "In all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:37), and in that I can find peace.

Church Elders

The New Testament is clear. The leadership of individual churches is supposed to be in the hands of "elders." Sure, there are multiple names, too. In Paul's letter to Timothy he uses the word "overseer" (or bishop in King James English) (or "supervisor" in Latin). The Greek is ἐπισκοπή -- episkopē -- which means to superintend, inspect, oversee. (And, I hope, you see where we get "Episcopalian.") In his letter to Titus with the same office in view he used the term "elder." That Greek is πρεσβύτερος -- presbuteros -- which means "elder" (go figure) in reference to age or maturity. Senior. (And, again, I hope you see where we get "Persbyterian.") In Ephesians Paul refers to "pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11) (where the term appears to be a single thought, like "pastor/teacher" as opposed to two different ideas). In Peter's first epistle he intermingles the "elder" concept with "overseer" concept and the "pastor" concept (except that no one appears to translate it "pastor" in this passage), so we have "elders" (1 Peter 5:1) who are exercising "oversight" (1 Peter 5:2) as shepherds (1 Peter 5:2) (as the "Chief Shepherd" does (1 Peter 5:4)). (Note: that "pastor" in Eph 4:11 is the same word translated "shepherd" here.) So leadership consists of this role which may referred to as "elder" or "overseer" or "bishop" or "shepherd" or "pastor." (Interestingly, although we generally think of church leadership as "pastor," the only place that word is translated in any English translations is that single Ephesians 4:11 verse. Still, "pastor" is predominate in our minds.)

We can discuss the role of this office -- what is it, what do they do, and how it is different than "deacon" -- and we can discuss the qualifications of this office (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9), and we can recognize that it is always a plurality -- never a single "pastor" in charge -- but I'm not going there. What I want to know is "Why elders?" Multiple places refers to these leaders as "elders" which can only be translated "elders" because that's all that the word means -- people who, in some sense, are older. Why?

It's really a question we have to ask due to our modern culture because no one else seemed to ask it. Throughout the Old Testament the leadership of towns and villages was always a group of "elders" (e.g., Gen 50:7; Exo 3:16; Exo 19:7; Exo 24:9; Num 11:16; Deut 21:18-21; Josh 7:6; Josh 20:4; Judg 8:14; 1 Kings 8:1 ad infinitum). Why elders? Today "Boomer" is a derogatory term ... for "elders." Today, a overwhelmingly common theme in shows and movies is how young people are the hope for wisdom and guidance while older people are just ... well ... losers. Today it is folly to trust yourself to old people. We all know this. So why do the Scriptures specify elders as leadership for churches?

I don't think that "elder" is intended to convey "old person" in a chronological sense. I think that it is intended to convey maturity in a spiritual sense. You see this in the requirement that he be "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2), "manage his household well" (1 Tim 3:4), and not "a recent convert" (1 Tim 3:6). You see this when Paul tells Timothy "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands." (1 Tim 5:22) Indeed, if you look over the qualifications for this role, it's hard to imagine being able to determine qualification in someone who hasn't lived some years and gained some maturity. I think there is also a sense of continuity in mind here. Our world likes new ideas, novelty, innovation. But the church is looking at "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) There isn't really much room for innovation there; continuity of that faith is really what's needed, and that's best accomplished by those who have continued in the faith awhile.

I think these are some good answers to the question, "Why elders?" At the end of it, though, I think the starting answer should be "Because it says so." It is undeniable that Scripture views leadership as best accomplished by elders, men of maturity who have lived long enough to gain wisdom and insight and can use it and share it. I know, I know ... that's not the popular perspective. I wonder, given our popular headlong rush away from godly living and thinking, if the fact that it's not a popular perspective isn't another reason to think it's a good perspective.

Is Masturbation a Sin?

It wasn't that long ago that the question itself would been laughed off the screen, so to speak. "A sin? Of course it is!" Well, we've come a long way since then, and we've figured out that a lot of what Christians throughout history have believed to be right and wrong are not. We've also figured out that the purpose of sex is primarily personal gratification. So how could it be wrong? So, is it a sin? Let's just set this down at the outset; there is no mention of masturbation in the Bible, positive or negative, so it is not a sin. End of story.

Or is it? Some argue that the story of Onan in the Old Testament is a story of mastubatory sin that resulted in the God striking him dead (Gen 38:6-10). Don't be silly. Onan did "spill his seed on the ground," but it wasn't where he spilled it that got him punished; it was his refusal to "perform his duty as a brother-in-law." Besides, coitus interruptus isn't masturbation by any stretch of the imagination. So that settles that.

Or does it? So, the Bible doesn't talk about masturbation and it is not talking about masturbation in the story of Onan, so are there any other considerations? I think so. The biggest reason that most in the history of Christendom considered masturbation a sin was not some vague Victorian sexual mores (because most of the history of Christendom took place long before Victorian sexual mores). No, it was because of the broad prohibition of "sexual immorality" (e.g., 1 Cor 6:13, 18; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; etc.). Sexual immorality, in the end, is broadly defined as any sex outside of marriage. So that would include at least most of masturbation. Don't stop there. Jesus said that lust was adultery (Matt 5:27-30). Can you masturbate without lust? The command is "Let all you do be done to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31) Are you giving glory to God in masturbation? Paul said, "Everything that is not of faith is sin." (Rom 14:23) Those questioning whether or not it's sin are likely not coming from the conviction of faith that it is not. Here's a helpful little hint. Do you hide the fact of masturbation? That could be a clear indication that it is not in faith. Paul also said, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything." (1 Cor 6:12) Is it possible to masturbate without it becoming a habit? If the fruit of the Spirit includes "self-control" (Gal 5:22-23), is that how we are to understand masturbation? Scripture says we are to "honor God with your body." (1 Cor 6:19-20) Does masturbation do that?

It is undeniable that masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible. As such, it does not fall in the category of categorical sin. There is the problem of sex outside of marriage. Masturbation has one singular focus: me. God designed sex as the union of a husband and a wife, especially for procreation. Masturbation is the absolute denial of that. So it can't be considered good. But if you can masturbate in marriage without lust with an eye to giving glory to God and utter confidence that it is not sin and without being mastered by it, but, rather honoring God in it and practicing self-control, well, then, I'd have to say that perhaps you're okay going ahead with that. If not, the masturbation may not be sin, but everything that drives and accompanies it is.

Enough?

In 586 B.C. the armies of Babylon descended as promised (e.g., Jer 1:14-16) on Judah. People starved, disease spread, warriors fled, the army scattered, and the king was captured. His sons were executed in front of him, then his eyes were gouged out and he was led away in chains. Jerusalem was burned, the walls torn down. The palace was burned and Solomon's Temple was sacked and set on fire. Millions were killed and most of those who weren't were led off to Babylon as slaves.

In his 60's by then, the prophet, Jeremiah, who had predicted it, for which he was abused and imprisoned, lived through it all. He is credited with writing Lamentations as a result. And it is real lament. In it we read things like "against me He turns His hand again and again the whole day long" (Lam 3:3), "though I call and cry for help, He shuts out my prayer" (Lam 3:8), "He has filled me with bitterness" (Lam 3:15), and "My soul is bereft of peace; I have forgotten what happiness is; so I say, 'My endurance has perished; so has my hope from the LORD.'" (Lam 3:17-18)

"Oh, my, my, Jeremiah!" we protest. "You call yourself a prophet from God and you talk about God this way? That won't do." You see, we have this notion that you either talk nice about God (and that's good) or you refer to God in the negative (and that's bad). But Jeremiah didn't. He embraced (and lamented) all the trials and tribulations laid on him as coming from God ... and trusted God:

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." The LORD is good to those who wait for Him, to the soul who seeks Him. It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD. (Lam 3:21-26)

Jeremiah allowed himself to experience the full ride. He didn't mitigate the pain and even the sense of hopelessness that accompanied it. He didn't try to excuse God or minimize the experience. Even so, he still found that waiting for God was good and that simply knowing God was his portion and His hope. Not the blessings. Not the comfort. Not the good times. God and God alone. Everything else -- blessings and tribulations -- was just gravy. A lot of gravy.

Is that you? Is that me? Do we find our hope in simply knowing God? Or are we requiring something more of God? More than just Himself?

News Weakly - 5/15/21

Historic and Revolutionary
Pastor Rick Warren and Saddleback Church had an "historic night" when they "ordained our first three women pastors." The term -- their term -- "historic" should have been a clue. Historically from the beginning of Christendom any reader of Scripture has understood that, while gifted and important in ministry in the church, women are not allowed to serve in the role of pastor (1 Tim 2:11-14). It hasn't been until the last hundred years or so that we've discovered that the Holy Spirit was a failure and the Scriptures were unreliable. One of the ordained women called this change in philosophy "revolutionary." Truly, a revolt against God's Word.

In Name Only
President Biden is a Catholic and a pro-abortionist. The two positions are diametrically opposed. So many in the Roman Catholic Church in America are pushing to block the president from receiving Communion. The Vatican says no. "We're opposed to killing babies in the womb, but certainly not in any meaningful way." If they were to actually take that stand, it would be "a source of discord rather than unity within the episcopate and the larger church in the United States." Sure, there is truth, even God's truth, but let's not get radical about it. "We're pro-life, but not if it makes anyone uncomfortable."

But, Of Course!
We are no longer able to define male or female and we are no longer concerned about biblical principles. So, if an Evangelical Lutheran church in California elects Megan Rohrer, the first transgender bishop in a major American Christian denomination, who would be surprised? As a hint to a basic problem, the story says, "The Rev. Elizabeth A. Eaton, ELCA’s presiding bishop, praised the synod for recognizing Rohrer’s talents." Got it. The story is very confusing, partly because the new bishop "uses they/them pronouns." Apparently this guy got expelled from a church youth group as a teen after coming out ... as a lesbian? Or is Megan a girl who identifies as a guy but kept the girl name and ... oh, I'll never be able to figure this stuff out.

Pronoun Troubles
The classic line from that Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck cartoon was, "Pronoun troubles." Instagram is solving it. They will allow users to select their pronouns. So we have the standard he/him-she/her stuff, but that's so passe. Now we have "they/them," "ze/zir," "xe/xem," and so on. If we're choosing pronouns, I'm going with "pthttt" and "your highness." Why not? It's just as useful.

Woke Rice
A gross injustice has been set right. We will no longer be regaled with racist derision of uncles who are black and work with rice. Gone is the brand, "Uncle Ben's," because everyone knows that black people can't be uncles and gone is the photo of the smiling black man because everyone knows black people don't have anything at all to do with white rice. Nonsense? You bet.

Silver Linings
Some good news, apparently. On one hand, reports are that Biden is thankful for the latest gas crisis because it distracts the nation from his inflation crisis, unemployment crisis, economic crisis, and border crisis. And, the story is out that Jimmy Carter is grateful for Biden because now Carter is hopeful that he won't be the worst presidential failure in his lifetime. Lots of silver linings!

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Is God Good?

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matt 7:13-14)

I suspect that, deep down, we don't really believe that. We don't really believe that the gate that leads to life is narrow and the way is hard and few find it. Why else would we think that "America is a Christian nation"? Why else would we demand that no one question others' salvation? The way is wide and easy and lots of people find it!

Perhaps it's just our way of coping, of managing the horrible reality that many around us don't know Jesus. Many we care about. Many close to us. Maybe among our closest friends, our own family, in our own homes. Now that is a terrible thought.

It's an awful thing to contemplate. Almost as bad as physical death. This is more of a living death, at once both death and, yet, still that glimmer of hope of new life. Most of those I know who have rejected Christ -- different, of course, than those who have never heard -- are what I consider "worst cases." They're immunized in a way. They've heard the gospel, even responded to it in some sense, but never made it their own good news. They often live lives of sin without regret and even call themselves "Christians" even though the evidence -- "their fruits" (Matt 7:16) -- isn't there. Our ability to reach these is seriously blunted because they know. They've heard, they've seen, they even think they get it. They've "tasted of the heavenly gift" and tasted the goodness of the word of God (Heb 6:4-5). They may have received it with joy, but, with no root, they've fallen away. The cares and deceitfulness of the world have choked it out of them, "and it proves unfruitful." (Matt 13:20-22) Some know it; some don't. Some are hostile and some are apathetic and some are oblivious.

People we care about. A daughter-in-law or a son, a brother or a sister, a parent or a grandchild. People that could very well be on that wide way instead of the narrow. People we love. And our words have failed us and our pleadings have fallen on deaf ears if we've tried to plead with them. Or, maybe, we've just let it go. Don't question. Because the possibilities are too horrendous to think about.

Yet, we are not without hope. The hands that shaped the universe, that hold it together moment by moment, are the hands that laid themselves on a cross to save us and the hands that hold our loved ones still. When careful arguments are at an end and words are done and we're left with prayer alone, we ought not shortchange that "alone." Those hands and that prayer is all that have ever succeeded in reaching the lost heart. It has never been our persuasive abilities or clever phrases or even our deepest love. It has always been Him. So we have to ask ourselves: Is God good? If He is good and He is God, will not the Judge of all the earth do right? That is hope that does not disappoint.

Unprepared

We get PSAs that warn us to be prepared. There might be an emergency; be prepared. FEMA offers an Emergency Preparedness Checklist so we can be prepared ... for anything, apparently. Earthquakes, floods, disasters of all kinds, and now, particularly, prepared in a COVID world -- disaster upon disaster.

What about us? What about us believers? Are we prepared? "What emergency?" you might reasonably ask. We have been warned that "all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." (2 Tim 3:12) "Oh, that," many American Christians respond. "Don't worry; we won't be persecuted." If you try to warn American Christians about this, you'll often get ignored, shushed, or even ridiculed. "Don't be silly."

Okay, fine, but Scripture is not ambiguous on the topic. Beyond that Second Timothy reference, John wrote, "Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you." (1 John 3:13) Peter wrote, "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation." (1 Peter 4:12-13) Paul wrote, "To you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake." (Php 1:29) Over and over God's Word tells God's people that they will suffer. So maybe you'd like to blow it off, but I'd recommend against it.

If we are to take this seriously, how would we prepare? Repeatedly we are told that we can rejoice in suffering (e.g., Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4). We can rest not in personal comfort, but God (Rom 8:28-29; Psa 34:19; Rom 8:18; 1 Peter 3:14; 1 Peter 4:12-19; 1 Peter 5:10). Paul wrote, "This light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison." (2 Cor 4:17) We are promised a crown (James 1:12). We are follwing Christ (1 Peter 2:21).

Burying your head in the sand probably isn't the best way to prepare for the tribulations we are promised. So prepare. Read God's Word. Know what God says about it. Know the God who says it. Before it happens, be ready for it to happen because we can be sure it's coming, but we can also be sure that God is faithful, and He is our ultimate preparation.

Bigger Than You Thought

Paul wrote his epistle to Rome primarily for the purpose of making sure they knew what the Gospel was (Rom 1:16-17). You and I don't really need that, right? We're educated. We're taught. We know what the Gospel is. "Good news! Jesus died to save us!" And it is, indeed, good news; the Gospel. But I suspect the Gospel is much bigger than we typically think of it.

The Bad News
Paul's explanation of the Gospel begins with a lengthy explanation of the problem (Rom 1:18-3:20). For 63 verses Paul waxes eloquent about the problem of our sin. We face God's wrath because we suppress the truth about God (Rom 1:18-20). We decline in our suppression of the truth to utter depravity (Rom 1:21-32). Neither Jew nor Gentile has an excuse (Rom 2). In the end, there is none righteous, none who seeks for God, none who does good; no, not even one (Rom 3:10-18). Really bad news.

The Good News (Rom 3:21-Rom 4:25)
On the tail, then, of this really bad news, Paul brings about the good news. This good news is amplified by the bad news. It's good to know that we "are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:24), but it's so much bigger when you see it from that bottom of the barrel we found ourselves in.

The Next Big Thing (Rom 5:1-21)
The bad news started with the righteous (just) wrath of God, so it is good news to find that because of our justification on the basis of faith we have peace with God (Rom 5:1). And while we were under Adam and, therefore, tied into sin, we are now under Christ which brings eternal life.

Bigger and Bigger (Rom 6:1-23)
It only gets bigger. Starting from the sin condition and moving joyfully to justified by faith, we now are identified with Christ. That means we are identified with His death to sin (Rom 6:2 ) and, further, new life in Christ (Rom 6:4, 8-11). Better yet, we become obedient, but not just obedient -- obedient from the heart (Rom 6:16). We're talking about a life change, a new being, a new living condition, a new person. So the Gospel promises "Sin shall not master you." (Rom 6:14) That is stunningly good news! From "only able to sin" to "sin shall not master you." We are looking, on the basis of Christ's death and resurrection, at the certainty of victory over sin.

Bigger and Biggest (Rom 8:1-39)
Romans 8 represents the pinnacle of the epistle. Despite our continuing struggle with sin (Rom 7), we see, ultimately, no condemnation (Rom 8:1). How can there be? God dwells in you! (Rom 8:9-11) We were enemies of God and now we are heirs with Christ (Rom 8:12-17). We are being conformed by God into the image of His Son (Rom 8:26-29). If God is for us, who can be against us? We are more than conquerors! (Rom 8:31-39)

This has just been a sprint, a quick overview of the Gospel as it is found in Romans. Just the high points. We understand that the Gospel means we are saved, and that is indeed good news, but the good news is so much bigger than that. Christ's perfect righteousness has been imputed to us. Not merely forgiven; declared righteous. On the basis of justification by faith, we have peace with God where we originally faced His wrath. We are identified with Christ's death to sin and now enjoy new life, which includes a new heart and defeating sin. We have God living in us. God has a plan and a purpose to shape us as heirs to be the image of His Son. We have God on our side!

What concerns me, then, isn't the Gospel. That's marvelous. What concerns me is that we, the recipients of the best news ever -- much better than we can even grasp -- might take it for granted, might take it without sufficient gratitude, might take it without the joy that it should engulf us with. That would be a very sad thing.

Be a Man

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. (1 Cor 16:13)

Odd. It doesn't say, "Get in touch with your inner child" or "Get in touch with your feminine side." It doesn't suggest, "Don't act like a man; all men are bad." Worse, this wasn't even written to men only; it was written to "to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor 1:2) There are certainly women under that heading. So, is Paul actually telling women to "act like men," too? (If so, as it appears to be, then it is not saying, "Don't get in touch with your feminine side.") What is he saying? Here's what it says more completely:

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love. (1 Cor 16:13-14)

I think, then, that this isn't about the male or female. This is about adulthood, about maturity. The contrast here isn't "Act like a man as opposed to a woman." It's about "Act like a man as opposed to a child." On the other hand, the characteristics that Paul is urging are often equated with "masculine," but, I would argue, mistakenly. If we wanted to urge a boy, for instance, to be brave and strong, we might say, "Man up." Does that mean we don't want girls to be brave and strong? By no means! We want girls to have those same "masculine" characteristics as well. So, what characteristics is Paul urging ... on all believers?

Be watchful
It's not just here (e.g., 1 Peter 5:8; Acts 20:31). Believers need to be watchful. We need to "Look out for the dogs," (Php 3:2), the wolves (Acts 20:29), those who would "climb in by another way" (John 10:1) "to steal and kill and destroy" (John 10:10). We need to be watching our brothers and sisters so we can restore them if they're caught in a transgression (Gal 6:1). It's not just in this verse. But we? We're pretty lethargic. We can be quite embracing. "Don't question their salvation. Don't be judgmental. Don't point out their sin. Don't bring an accusation against 'the Lord's anointed.'" Paul disagrees. He urges here that we be watchful. No, not judgmental, but neither should we be complacent. No, not accusatory, but neither should we pass over transgressions. We should watch for false teachers (Matt 7:15-16; 1 John 2:18-19) to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3-4) and for believers in sin to restore them (Gal 6:1), for instance. Be watchful "as men."

Stand firm in the faith
Again, this "stand" command isn't just in this text; it's all over (e.g., 2 Cor 1:24; Gal 5:1; Php 1:27; Eph 6:13). We aren't fighting earthly foes; we're in a spiritual battle (Eph 6:10-12) requiring spiritual weaponry (2 Cor 10:4-5). Stand firm "as men."

Be strong
"Be strong" isn't merely from Paul. He says it elsewhere as well (Eph 6:10), but it is a recurring theme in the Old Testament as well (e.g., Deut 11:8; Deut 31:6-7; Josh 1:9; 1 Chron 22:13; Psa 27:14; Psa 31:24; etc.). In all those references the concept is "be strong in the Lord." It isn't talking about mere human strength; it's the strength exercised by His people supplied by God for God's purposes. Be strong "as men."

Do all you do in love
These characteristics are distinct but not separate. We are to be watchful while standing firm, standing firm while being strong, and being strong while being watchful. So this last one actually encompasses and shapes them all. We are to be watchful in love, standing firm in love, and strong in love. Love is to motivate it all. No, of course not "warm affection" love. That's nice and all, but this is the love that we choose, the love that works for the best of others. It's the love that considers others as more important than I am (Php 2:3), that regards giving glory to God as the highest love (Matt 22:37-38), the love that doesn't hold grudges and rejoices with the truth and does not seek its own and believes the best of others and never fails (1 Cor 13:4-8). Love like that. Let everything you do be in love like that "as men."

In the end, then, this isn't about "maleness" or "femaleness." It's about being "a mature man" in the fullness of Christ (Eph 4:13), "no longer children, but speaking the truth in love" and growing up "into Him who is the head" (Eph 4:14-15). Act like that mature person.

Next Big Thing

The next assault is coming. It's a documentary called 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted a Culture. They've finally figured it out. All this time Christians got it wrong. God never said that homosexual behavior was sin. It was a mistake. We've figured it out now. We have it on good authority that the Holy Spirit failed for 2000 years to get this across and now we have it. Whew! All fixed now! As it turns out, Paul did not say, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) Nothing of the sort. Well, okay, most of the sort, but not that one phrase, "men who practice homosexuality." Definitely not in there. It was a mistake, you see, and all the modern translations that say that were forced to their translations by a mistake. Homosexual behavior has never been a sin and we've all -- from the beginning of time -- just misunderstood.

It's odd, of course, that this kind of stuff would come across as so influential. The weight of history is as light as a feather, apparently. The claim in the documentary is that the term in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 is a mistaken translation, so obviously it erases all the texts. The Old Testament texts (Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13) and the New Testament references (Rom 1:26-27) are no longer of any consequence. Or, to put it more clearly, you're a fool if you think you can reliably understand your Bible.

It's interesting, though. Did Paul say "homosexual" in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1? The word, as it turns out, is somewhat of a puzzler. It is ἀρσενοκοίτης -- arsenokoitēs. The King James translates it "those who abuse themselves with mankind." It's a two-part Greek word that sticks together "men" and "couch." In the Bible it appears only in those two places and in extrabiblical Greek texts it looks like it doesn't appear until after Paul used it. It could be that Paul coined the term himself. So what does it mean?

Back in 2015 the "glbtq Project" shut down its website because the online advertising business model didn't work. But they archived much of their data, so you can still find this entry on the Apostle Paul. Yes, a project aimed to be "the world's largest encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer culture and history" has an entry on Paul specifically because of his writings on LGBT issues. What do they say? Two words are in play here. One is arsenokoitēs and the other is malakoi. They say on the malakoi, "We can say with certainty, are males -- boys, youths, or adults -- who have consented, either for money or for pleasure, for some perceived advantage or as an act of affectionate generosity, to be penetrated by men." The former they say comes from the Greek translation of the Old Testament -- the Septuagint. It is the word used in those Old Testament passages. They conclude, based on their examination of the language and the history of the word, "The bad news from the Christian Bible is that it condemns same-sex desire and same-sex acts without qualification of age, gender, role, status, consent, or membership in an ethnic community." They are saying that the translation "those who commit homosexual acts" is precisely the intent of the texts. (They also point out that the Romans 1 text was "meant to condemn female homosexuality along with male.") These aren't "radical right homophobes"; these are pro-gay folks. They happily dismiss Paul because "Paul outlawed all sex except that between married couples" and who could take that seriously? But they certainly see that the translation is correct and the prohibition is ... biblical.

You can conclude a lot of things. You can conclude, "I don't much care what the Bible has to say." Lots of people do. You can conclude, "That's just outdated material." You can conclude, "It actually means something much different, albeit more obscure." But you can not conclude that the Bible is reliable, God-breathed, and able to be understood without concluding, as those at the glbtq Project did, that Scripture calls homosexual behavior a sin. Current gay biblical theologians in the 1946 project not withstanding.

Mother's Day, 2021

Paul wrote, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother' (this is the first commandment with a promise), 'that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.'" (Eph 6:1-3) A command with a promise; how nice. But ... do we do it?

It's interesting that Paul seems to equate "honor" with "obey." Is that a virtue anymore?

Paul told Timothy to treat older women as mothers (1 Tim 5:1-2). That's interesting. Apparently Timothy knew how to treat a mother. It would appear that Paul believed that treating women as mothers was something that could be easily understood. "But what about the kid that grew up with a lousy mother?" At first glance, that would seem to be a problem, but I would argue that all of us have an idea of what a good mother would be like, so even without the experience, we'd be able to treat older women as mothers and do it well.

I am not one of those who grew up without a good mother. I am one of the blessed who had a scintillating example of a godly mother. She taught us what we needed to know, urged us to be godly, and imitated Christ for us. She taught her daughters how to be godly wives just as our mother has been to our father. That has worked out well (as we knew it would). We boys learned to be gentlemen and to honor people everywhere, especially women. That, too, has worked out well. My mother immersed us in the Word and in the truth, and that has worked out very well.

I am indeed one of the most blessed when it comes to my mother. So I'm not as concerned about what to buy her for Mother's Day. I want to be sure that I am honoring her carefully and consciously all the time. And I pray that my daughter can become that kind of a mother to her kids. My mother fulfills the promise of Proverbs 31 -- "Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her." (Prov 31:28)

Happy Mother's Day, Mom.

News Weakly - 5/8/21

American Totalitarianism
Bruce (aka Caitlyn) Jenner was asked about his views on biological males competing with biological females as 34 states have made or are considering making policies preventing it. He said he was opposed to biological males competing with biological females. Bad call, Bruce. Yes, sure, you are transgender, but now you're anti-trans as well. The thought police have spoken. Insanely, but they have spoken. It is wrong, evil, and abominable to have an opinion that runs contrary to the ruling class who, obviously, can't be wrong.

And You Thought it was Just the Rich
We all know that Biden plans to continue to up the spending. We all know that he plans to do it by taxing the rich. I guess we know that's not entirely the case. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the Federal Reserve may have to raise interest rates. Why? To "keep up with President Biden's spending proposals." No, not just the rich; anyone who borrows money. That's not just the rich. Biden told Virginians that "people making less than $400,000 "will not pay a single penny in taxes." Biden ... "misspoke."

Perfectly Fair
Derek Shauvin was convicted of murder, and now we find that one of the jurors that convicted him participated in a protest about it last summer. I'm sure there was no prejudging, no overt bias. I'm sure he was perfectly fair.

Fight Makes Rights
The New York State Court of Appeals will hear the case. What case? The case for freeing the "wrongfully imprisoned" elephant, Happy, who lives at the Bronx Zoo. The Nonhuman Rights Project is "seeking recognition of her fundamental right to bodily liberty." Imagine that. First, it will necessarily end all zoos and other places where animals are not enjoying "bodily liberty" ... including places where endangered animals are protected. More importantly, it paves the way, lacking any other basis for "fundamental rights" (since we've eliminated God in this equation), for whatever "fundamental right" you may wish to claim.

Like the case of 15-year-old Oregonian, Olivia Moultrie. She's some sort of soccer superstar who now demands that "an unlawful barrier" to her playing in the National Women's Soccer League be removed. The "unlawful barrier" is an age restriction. We should, by no means, have age restrictions. If she can play at 15, let her play. If he can drive at 10, let him drive. If they can work at 8, let them work. What's with all these artificial, "unlawful barriers"? And why would any organization be allowed to make rules? We live in a world absolutely governed by "how I feel," resulting in the total loss of absolutes ... and reality.

As in the case of Laurel Hubbard, a New Zealand biological male who will be the first transgender Olympian when he competes as a woman in this summer's Tokyo Games. "I feel" trumps science and reality every time. And you will concur, or else.

Anti-Voting?
Once again the evil Republicans "advance a restrictive election bill", this time in Texas. Earlier this week it was Florida. Republicans have the gall to think that voting should be regulated to prevent fraud. Democrats have historically objected to preventing voter fraud, as demonstrated by mantras like, "Vote early; vote often." Currently it's considered racist to ask voters to identify themselves as legal voters. (We don't yet know why it's not racist in other circumstances like asking drivers to identify themselves as legal drivers or drinkers to show ID to prove they're of legal age, for instance.) Perhaps the Babylon Bee points it out best in their headline, "White Liberals Watch In Amazement As Black Man Acquires ID." I say "anti-voter fraud laws" and the media says "anti-voting laws." I suppose our biases are showing.

Honorable Mention
I had to point out this other story from the Bee. It's supposed to be funny, but I'm afraid it's closer to "Next year perhaps" rather than "That's just silly." It just feels like we're too close to "Greetings, menstruating partner, and may you have a satisfactory birthing person's day this year!" on a Mother's Day card.

God is Not Love

There are those -- they call themselves Christians -- who would like to tell you that Christ did not die to save us. There are, of course, shades of intent there. On one end of the spectrum they will claim He didn't die at all. On the other end, sure, He died, but it was not to save us. We aren't saved "by His blood." God's wrath was not satiated by His Son's death. That's just barbaric. No, no, Jesus certainly (probably?) died, but it was for other reasons, not to save us. God does that all on His own. He doesn't need to be propitiated. He doesn't need to be expiated. He's perfectly fine. Your sins are forgiven, such as they are. Come on in!

There are problems with that, of course. It sounds reasonable. It sounds more friendly. I mean, why not have a God who can just wave His hands and your sins vanish? You can forgive; why can't He? Well, first and foremost, if the Gospel is about God's justice (Rom 1:16-17) -- if the Judge of all the Earth will always do what's just (Gen 18:25) -- then "all is forgiven" without justice is a rank contradiction. If God is to be true to Himself, He must be just.

The second, perhaps most obvious problem, though, is that the notion contradicts Scripture. Over and over we read things like God putting Christ "forward as a propitiation by His blood" (Rom 3:25) requiring 1) God to be propitiated -- His wrath satisfied -- and 2) Jesus's blood to do it. The New Testament is rich with this kind of language, and dismissing it simply dismisses the Scriptures.

There is one other critical result of this assault on Christ's sacrificial death on our behalf. The result is a love shrinkage. Paul indicated that God demonstrated His love for us by sending Christ to die for us. Oh, Christ didn't die for us? Then where's the love? Scripture says that "because of the great love with which He loved us" God made us alive with Him (Eph 2:4-5) ... which, apparently wasn't necessary. Jesus said, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) Except, of course, we've just decided that He did no such thing.

It isn't surprising that people deny the good news that Christ died for our sin. This is "folly to those who are perishing." (1 Cor 1:18) It is a stumbling block to some and foolishness to others (1 Cor 1:23). But "to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor 1:18) So I'm not surprised that people would seek to diminish the problem of sin, diminish the cross, diminish the shed blood of Christ, diminish the gospel. They might even sound "wise." But it's not helping. If Christ didn't die for our sins, we've surrendered what God considered His best proof of His love. And that's not all we've surrendered.

Love and Marriage

Bill and Melinda Gates are getting divorced after 27 years of marriage. "We no longer believe we can grow together as a couple in this next phase of our lives," they say. That, apparently, is a primary purpose in marriage.

Doing some research into changes in the concept of marriage, I read, "Right up until the end of the 18th century, though, love and marriage were mutually exclusive." Really! So, prior to today's modern world, marriage was defined as "without love" and if you did love your spouse, well, then, you just weren't married becaue "love and marriage were mutually exclusive." Strange. Of course, the problem is not in the statement. The problem is in the definition of love. If by "love" you mean "a relationship built on warm affection and deep sexual passion," then there may not have been "love" in standard "marriage" in years past. But if the command of Scripture is "Husbands, love your wives ..." (Eph 5:25), then apparently God didn't think that love and marriage were mutually exclusive.

So one of the similarities between older times and today is it appears that defining marriage has always been botched. In the early 1900's people began to think that "marriage should be based on sexual attraction and fulfillment." If you would offer that reason today and you'd get a "Duh!" response. But is that biblical? The Gates believe it is based on being able to grow together as a couple. Is that biblical? Since then changes have included increasing sexual immorality, rising divorce rates, intentionally childless marriages, and, most recently, "same-sex marriage" which, at least statistically, appears to be putting an end to marriage at all. Since the 1970's, the marriage rates have dropped by 60%. No, of course it's not just "gay marriage." It's also the "free sex" revolution and women preferring careers to relationships and women's liberation and cohabitation and divorce rates and, well, sure, "gay marriage" which managed to singlehandedly, self-consciously redefine marriage to ... well ... not much at all.

What, then, is marriage? If we don't really have a grasp on it anymore, what is it? Marriage was instituted by God despite what "modern science" might suggest. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen 2:24) In that single sentence is some serious information. "Therefore," because it is a commentary on what just happened. God had just made Eve from Adam and Adam called her Woman (Gen 2:21-23). "Therefore" -- out of the connections that God built into the male and the female -- marriage. "A man shall leave his mother and father." This doesn't suggest or require an exit from the family, but it does indicate a new family. It isn't a division as much as it is a multiplication. A family -- mother and father -- produce an offspring who then joins with a woman. This new couple then forms a new family -- a mother and father -- and so on. "And hold fast to his wife." The King James says "cleave," as in "leave and cleave." The word is to adhere, to cling to, to be joined. Leave parents and be joined to a wife. How joined? "They shall become one flesh." A new family is now a new organism. Eve literally came from Adam's flesh; husbands and wives become one flesh still. Marriage is a union. It is certainly sexual in nature (1 Cor 6:16), but so much more. It is emotional, social, financial, spiritual, and more. Now, considering all of that, in what sense would we say that marriage is about "growing together as a couple"? In what sense would love and marriage be mutually exclusive or would marriage be predicated on sexual attraction and personal fulfillment? How small are these views??

There is one other critical aspect of marriage to consider here. In his instructions to husband and wife in his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul makes a large claim. He quotes that Genesis 2:24 passage and then he writes,

This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Eph 5:32)

A profound mystery. That is, all that marriage is exceeds our meager understanding. One aspect here, by God's design, points to the relationship of Christ and His Bride. What do we know about that relationship? We know that "Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." (Eph 5:25-27) We know that "God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8) He didn't die for a lovely bride, but a weak and ungodly (Rom 5:6) enemy (Rom 5:10) bride. He joins Himself to that bride to sanctify and cleanse her and present her without spot or wrinkle. Given that image, how do we work "marriage is about self-fulfillment and sexual attraction and warm fuzzy feelings" into the mix?

The Bible has more to say about marriage, but I think that it should be clear at this point that our version today, even among Christians, is an anemic devolution of the original. Yes, love and marriage go together, but nothing like the plain affection and sex we define as "love" today. Yes, "grow together" is part of it, but not in a self-serving, limited, "we've run out of that" possibility. Indeed, biblical marriage has commands to love and instructions to never divorce and the certainty of a union that will, in a very real sense, tear us apart if we try to break it. One can hardly find examples of this view of marriage in our culture today. Perhaps we need to become exceptions to that problem.

Good Advice

In Proverbs Solomon offers wisdom to his son. In there, he warns him to guard his heart. "Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life." (Prov 4:23) Then he offers practical advice:

Let your eyes look directly ahead and let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you. Watch the path of your feet and all your ways will be established. Do not turn to the right nor to the left; turn your foot from evil. (Prov 4:25-27)

I think Solomon's wisdom is a bit more extreme than most of ours. He warns to guard his heart by first guarding his eyes. "Look directly ahead." Not to the side. Not at the temptations. Not at the things that might draw you away. Not the billboard with the scantily clad woman or that click bait on the news webpage you're reading. Know where you're going and look that way.

Then he warns him to guard his paths. If you watch where you are walking, "all your ways will be established." "Don't turn right. Don't turn left. Don't even take a step toward evil. Walk on by." Earlier he had told his son, "Do not enter the path of the wicked and do not proceed in the way of evil men. Avoid it, do not pass by it; turn away from it and pass on." (Prov 4:14-15) Don't even get close. No, wait, more than that. Turn away from it.

Not us. Sure, we're aware of temptations and evil around us. We see it on our TVs and internet. It's quite difficult to avoid, in fact. It's just ... there. But it's okay. We'll be strong. We'll hold out. But too often we don't. We trip and fall. We turn right. Or left. We don't turn away; not in time.

Perhaps we would benefit from Solomon's advice. Perhaps we'd be better off taking drastic measures (Matt 18:8-9) to avoid the path of the wicked rather than dancing on the edges and thinking we might be immune. Instead we should guard our hearts, watch where we're going, know where we're going, and absolutely avoid those places of evil. Well, that is, if you have a problem with sin. If you've already arrived at perfection, none of this is applicable, of course.

COVID-21

One of the interesting symptoms of COVID-19 was the fairly common loss of the sense of taste and smell. Very odd, but a dead giveaway even for many who had very few or very mild symptoms. I think I've discovered the latest mutation of the COVID-19 virus. Let's call it COVID-21. The primary symptom of this version is less of those coughs and breathing problems and more of a loss of common sense. It might be more rampant than its earlier version ever was.

On Parenting

I was expressing my concerns about parents recently. So, since I don't like the appearance of complaining without the offering ideas, I thought I'd take a stab at parenting principles.

If we wanted to find verifiable principles for parenting, we'd likely not want to go to "modern techniques" or "the latest studies" despite that being the "go-to" for the world today. That's because we're hoping for the truth and we know that "all that is in the world — the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life — is not from the Father but is from the world." (1 John 2:16) We know that "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot." (Rom 8:7) So if we want God's truth, it's best not to go to the enemies of God for answers. On the other hand, Jesus said, "Your word is truth, (John 17:17), so maybe that would be a better option. What do we find there on principles for parenting?

There are indeed biblical parenting principles in Scripture for any parent who would care to find them. For instance, the Bible puts fathers on the hot seat for bringing them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4; Heb 12:7) without exasperating them (Col 3:21). Odd ... and so many of us thought it was the job of the church. Note, that doesn't mean mothers don't do it, too. It means that fathers are the responsible party. Parents are to prioritize impressing God's commands on their children. "Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up." (Deut 6:6-7) It is essential that parents bring up their children in the way they should go (Prov 22:6). (Why do so many modern parents appear to fail to understand that raising kids to be responsible adults is a primary job?) Fathers in particular, but mothers, too, are responsible to encourage, comfort, and urge their children to live lives worthy of God (1 Thess 2:11-12). Parents are to exemplify godliness to their children (1 Cor 11:1). And, despite all the world has to tell us today, Scripture is not vague when it says, “Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them." (Prov 13:24) "Careful" in the sense of diligent to do it as needed and diligent to do it carefully, not wantonly or foolishly.

There is one principle, though, that is fundamental and essential. If we are to love God with all of our being and love our neighbor as ourselves, it would seem quite clear that loving your children would be a fundamental principle of parenting. Unfortunately, I suspect that the world has worked so hard at diluting God's version of love that we might have a hard time recognizing that when we see it. It's not "be warm toward your children." It's not "encourage them in whatever they want to pursue." "But, wait a minute," you might be saying, "didn't you just say we're to love them? Isn't that loving them?" It could be, but, generally, no, it's not. It's not because of the sin nature. It's not because love isn't mere warm feelings. Love is seeking the best for the loved one. Sometimes that is decidedly not encouraging them to do what they want. It would be hate to encourage them to do what they want when what they want is bad for them. So let's keep that in mind rather than the world's "warm affection" version.

Love becomes a grand umbrella here. If the constant question is "What is best for my child?" it creates a pattern to live by. If it is "What is best for me?" that's a different pattern. But this kind of love is not always "nice." Scripture says, "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives." (Heb 12:6) (That's in stark opposition to the world's version that demands that any such thing is detrimental to children.) Discipline and chastening driven by love are parenting essentials. Discipline and chastening driven by anger, selfishness, or any other motive is not biblical and not love.

Paul told the Philippians,

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. (Php 2:3-4)

How's that for a parenting principle? If in general we are to consider others as more important than we are and look out for the interests of others, how much more when talking about family? How different does that look from modern parenting? Fathers, our first priority is our wife and our kids. Not us; them. Mothers, your first priority is your husband and kids. Not you; them. But we're pretty sure that parenting is all about us. What makes us feel good? What do we want? What's best for us? For instance, how does "me time" fit in this paradigm? (Note: I'm not saying it can't; I'm asking if they are the point.)

You know, if I'm honest, I think the fundamental principle for parenting properly begins and ends with love. Not the warm fuzzy type. The love that is always looking away from "me" and toward them. The love that always seeks their best even to my detriment. The love that finds its greatest joy in serving their needs rather than my own. Sometimes that's painful for them, but it has to be best for them. Sometimes it costs parents -- time, talent, money, resources, social gatherings, all sorts of things -- but if it's what's best for them, it's what love requires. I think parenting built on that principle would look a lot different than our current common version.

Proof of Love

We know that God is love (1 John 4:8). Everyone knows that. Well, sort of. But, really, how do we know that God loves us? I mean, how do you know that God loves you? Sure, it says He does, but do we have any reason to believe that?

Here's what the Bible says. We were dead in sins (Eph 2:1), but God, because of the great love with which He loved us, made us alive together with Him (Eph 2:4-5). That's pretty impressive. And it appeared to have been a theme in Paul's mind. To the Romans he wrote,

God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)

Same theme. But it's actually much bigger. He said, "While we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly." (Rom 5:6) Okay, so sinners and helpless and ungodly. But he wasn't done. "While we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son." (Rom 5:10) So, this love that God shows is for the helpless, for sinners, for enemies.

Paul points out the impossibility of this concept in the text. "One will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die." (Rom 5:7) "No one," he is saying, "would think it a good thing to die for helpless, enemy sinners. That just isn't what we might do." Christ did. The demonstration of God's love for us -- the living proof, so to speak -- is that Christ died for enemies. Not good people. Not righteous people. Sinners.

I wonder if sometimes we find the gospel bland. I wonder sometimes if we don't take it for granted. There really is no way to describe the vastness of this good news. God loves enemies -- sinners. He loves us so much that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. While we were dead in our sin, He made us alive together with Christ. That is God's version of proof of love. I think it's pretty conclusive.

News Weakly - 5/1/21

Mind Control
According to ABC News (and, obviously, every other news outlet), Oklahoma's governor signed 3 anti-abortion bills into law. It was because it is a "Republican-controlled Senate" according to the story (apparently because Democrats favor killing babies and calling it "reproductive rights"). The bills required those who do abortions be certified (quite clearly that's "anti-abortion" ... wait) and prohibited abortion if there is a heartbeat (because heartbeat does not constitute life; we know this because pro-abortionists have no heart and they are alive). (Idaho's governor signed the same law in his state.) Clearly the laws insure "safer abortions" (as if there is a safe way to kill a baby) and protects the lives of the baby in the womb (rightly termed "pro-life," not "anti-abortion"), but the media and the left won't ever let you hear that.

Clueless
On Friday, April 9, 2021, the African savanna elephant was put on the endangered list from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Seven years earlier, Wayne LaPierre, Jr., the executive VP of the NRA, and his wife killed two savanna elephants on a guided hunt. The outrage is palpable. "We're in the midst of a poaching epidemic, and rich trophy hunters like the NRA chief are blasting away at elephants while the international community calls for stiffer penalties for poachers – what message does that send?" They didn't kill an endangered animal. They didn't do it illegally. It isn't poaching. What message does it send? Some people haven't got a clue.

Trillion with a T
"I'm on a diet, but I just broke it with a piece of pie ... so I guess I'll go ahead and eat the whole pie." Lousy logic, but apparently it's Biden's logic. Last year the deficit jumped by $3 trillion for COVID relief. Then this year it jumped again with another $2 trillion COVID relief bill. "Well," he seems to think, "we've totally overrun any possibility to address any sort of national deficit, so let's push it on over the edge. Let's have an infrastructure bill for $2.6 trillion and, hey, why not another $1.8 trillion for American families? How will we pay for it? We won't! We'll just tax the people with money. No one likes them anyway." The government would steal from the rich to feed big government. Not all analysts think this is a good idea. The Babylon Bee made the point.

No Brainer
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is considering requiring police officers to get permission to pursue a suspect ... on foot. Well, it only makes sense. Think of it. They stopped high speed police chases when they realized there could be accidents. They took away nonlethal options from police when they realized they might hurt someone. And when do all these police killings take place? When someone resists arrest. Solution? Don't pursue people who resist arrest. It could put a complete end to police shootings if they just stop confronting potential law-breakers. I get it. The Babylon Bee does, too.

Surprise, Surprise
Seattle is reporting that over 200 police officers left their jobs last year citing "an anti-police climate." The story goes on to say, "Activists have applauded the reductions and called for additional city police department cuts." And the city council is considering a $5.4 million cut in the police department’s budget. Surprised? I'd be surprised if you were.

Pro-Female
West Virginia's governor just signed into law a bill that prevents biological males from competing with biological females in school sports. CNN calls it an "anti-transgender sports bill." Governor Jim Justice said, "I do not think that from the standpoint of our girls, that we ought to allow a situation to where, you know, for whatever reason may be, we end up with a superior athlete that could just knock our girls right out of the competition." I'd label it a pro-woman bill. The terms the media uses indicate the bias the media has. (Like on another story where CBS says, "Mike Pence praises Trump" versus Yahoo's "Mike Pence sucks up to Trump." No bias there!) An LGBTQ advocacy group said, "Lawmakers are sending a clear message that they don't value trans lives and would prefer we did not exist entirely." The language doesn't even make sense. ("We want to protect our girls" does not equate to "Trans lives shouldn't even exist.") (Note, by the way, that no one appears to be outlawing women who identify as males from competing with biological males.)

Uncommon
A small city in eastern Oregon, Baker City, has declared a state of emergency ... for the supreme lack of common sense in Oregon in terms of the response to COVID. They're trying to figure out how to counter the governor's edicts and declaring themselves a Common Sense Sanctuary. I kinda like it.

The Happiest Place
Disneyland in California opened this week 412 days into "15 days to flatten the curve." I think it's the new math. I'm just sayin'.

Parents

The pastor preached a sermon recently from Proverbs about creating family traditions. Well, specific traditions, like teaching your kids wisdom. He started off with the observation that parenting has decayed over time. It seems as if each subsequent generation of parents gets farther and farther removed from good parenting skills until very few these days even know that that means. For the vast majority, it's just, "Whatever I decide is best."

I observed that at my church there are no parenting skills being taught. There is no class for moms or dads to learn how to be good mothers and fathers. The Bible urges older women to teach younger women (Titus 2:3-5), and I think some of that is going on, but what are the older women teaching younger women about being good moms? What is their source of information? I ask because most of what I see and most of what I hear is our modern world's ideas. "You have to make 'me' time." And no one is teaching dads.

I raised a couple of boys. They're men now. They tell me I was a good dad. Now, I don't know if that's ignorance talking or actual. They told me that because I apologized to them for the mistakes I made as their father. But, thinking about "no one is teaching dads," I don't know if I would qualify myself as a good person to teach other dads, even with my sons' endorsement. Where do we get good parenting instruction? Where do we find good parenting principles? Where do we get good teachers and mentors for this? And if these are lacking as they appear to be lacking, is there any wonder that today's parents lack the skills and knowledge required to be godly parents? What I see offered most of the time is simply a secular notion of "good parenting" without any biblical backing.

Understand. I'm not complaining about "these modern parents." I'm not whining about "they're doing it all wrong!" I'm asking who has the secret code, the tribal knowledge, the experiential and biblical know-how to pass on to parents what God expects of them? I'm not complaining about "sin in the camp." I'm worried about families who don't seem to have the resources available to do the job. Parenting is a critical task in all societies. Christian parents should be the best informed and the most correct because they should have access to God's plan for that. I'm just concerned that they don't.

His Great Love

Ephesians 2 begins with a serious problems for humans.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins. (Eph 2:1)

That can't be good. And Paul spreads it on thick in the next 2 verses so that it looks like no hope for the home team, so to speak. But then, writing to "the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus" (Eph 1:1), he offers hope, he turns the corner, he shares the good news.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ... (Eph 2:4-5)

It is astoundingly good news. Thus, the "But God." In opposition to everything we could have anticipated, God did something else. Because He is "rich in mercy." "Because of the great love with which He loved us."

This idea left its mark on Paul. He says this in Romans:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person — though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die — but God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:6-8)

There it is again -- "but God." "Here's the problem," Paul is saying, "but God ..." The problem? We were the ungodly. We were sinners. We were enemies of God (Rom 5:10). This is not rational, Paul is saying. You don't die for those kinds of people. But God.

Paul magnifies God here. No, he doesn't make God bigger. He simply shows us how big He already is. If we don't believe the problem -- "dead in sin," "ungodly," "sinners," "enemies of God" -- then it's not a big leap, and "but God" has no real impact. However, in both of these texts, the really good news is that there is a serious problem, but God remedies it. And in both of these texts, there is the same back drop -- God's great love for those He redeems, for enemies He rescues.

Maybe you're like me. I know where I stand. I am no prize. I'm no great catch. I'm a sinner. If you are, "but God" is huge. And it has a big impact on how you live (Luke 7:47). On the other hand, if sin isn't that big a deal, then God is just being a wise investor in you. No big deal. And no major impact.