News Weakly - 12/9/23

Antisemitism
The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas ended when Hamas fired rockets into Israel. So VP Kamala Harris is urging Israel to show restraint in responding because too many human shields used by Hamas have been injured. Apparently no one is calling for restraint from the terrorists who calling for the end of the Jews. Which, in my way of thinking, is definitely antisemitic.

Take the Bad with the Good
After the writers started it, the actors went on strike. They've been on strike since July 14. Now they've won $1 billion in new compensation and benefits, ending the strike in Hollywood. Of course, that story alongside Angelina Jolie's "Hollywood is a sick place" story seems like maybe ... just maybe ... actors not acting and writers not writing might be considered an improvement. (Oh, and can you guess who they're planning to pay for those new compensations?)

Your Tax Dollars at Work
Here's the plan. Biden pledges to take $6 billion of your tax dollars and give half to a private company to build its own Los-Angeles-to-Las-Vegas high-speed electric rail line because supplementing a single private entity with your money is in the best interest of the nation. The other half will go to the initial segment of a California-funded project between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Mind you, "The money is a fraction of the total cost to build the routes," so someone is going to benefit greatly from your dollars ... and it's not the American public. You're welcome.

Like Father, Like Son
Hunter Biden has now been indicted on 9 tax charges along with gun charges. I can hear Joe now, shouting, "I don't know the man!" just before the cock crows. Oh, sorry ... mixed metaphors.

Thanks a Lot
Biden (and his ilk) continue to drive the economy. This week they reported that job openings fell to the lowest they've been in 28 months (you know, soon after Biden took office) while jobless claims climbed. Keep this up and a lot more people will be able to vote on Election Day, 2024, without taking time off work.

Must Bee True
The kindly folks at Babylon Bee are standing in solidarity with their fellow fake news writers going on strike at the Washington Post. Nice. The latest GTA -- Grand Theft Auto 6 -- is coming, but some Californians are wondering why they'd play the game if they can just do the actual crimes without consequences in some California cities. Go figure. And three Ivy League presidents testified before Congress (real story) this week about campus antisemitism (which could cost one university $100 million in donations), saying, "Not all calls for genocide are bad." I'm sure the "from the river to the sea" movement (calling for the total elimination of Israel) has a lot of good people in it.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Debunked

It's interesting at this time of year the number of "click bait" offerings I see explaining that science has debunked Scripture. They're in lists, usually. You know, "20 things in the Bible disproved by science." That kind of thing. The first one, typically, is "Creation," because, as we all know, Evolution is a proven thing. I mean, it's not, but most seem to think it is. (At no point has science offered any theory of the origin of everything. Just "since the Big Bang" or the like. Further, "proof" is elusive, even for evolutionary science which, many people are unaware, is constantly changing because it keeps disproving itself.) And so it goes. Israel never crossed the Red Sea. That couldn't happen according to science. No global flood, of course. (It's important that you ignore the signs in nature around the world that might lead you to believe it did happen.) Obviously no one rises from the dead. And so forth. Of course, the definition of "miracle" is "an event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws," so by definition Bible miracles would defy science, but that doesn't bother people today.

I started with "It's interesting at this time of year" because one of the most common "Bible myths" debunked in these lists is the Virgin Birth. Now, there are some miracles without which Christianity could not exist. I'm thinking, first and foremost, of the Resurrection. Even Paul said, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Cor 15:14). Absolutely essential. But what about the Virgin Birth? Is that important? I would argue it is. I would argue that it is essential. Why? First, from a logical approach, Both Old and New Testaments called for it.

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (Isa 7:14)

"Now, Stan, you know that 'virgin' in that text could be translated 'maiden' and not mean a virgin at all." Okay, got it. So the claim in Isaiah that the sign that God would give would be the ordinary birth of a child to a woman. Got it. Remarkable, isn't it? No, the prophecy and promise was a sign (a common biblical term for "miracle") and a virgin, being with child, would indeed be miraculous. When Matthew quotes Isaiah (Matt 1:23), he refers to a "virgin" as well. You'd think a Jewish writer would know his Jewish Bible, wouldn't you? Another thing. If the Holy Spirit was supposed to lead His people into all truth, why is it that all Christians for all time up until the 19th century (the beginning of scientific inquiry into religion¹) understood it to mean "virgin" and not "young maiden"? That would make Him either an incompetent or an ineffective God, wouldn't it? One other logical possibility: it was just wrong. It's a fairy tale made up by people. Which, then, would mean that the Bible is not reliable for truth statements and Christianity is as much a myth as its source book is. No, no, for these logical reasons and more, "born of a virgin" is essential, not optional. There is, however, another reason why it is essential. Scripture claims that sin and death came "through one man" -- Adam. Through Adam, sin passed to all people. If Christ had been fathered by a human father, He would have inherited a human nature that included sin. But Christ's Father wasn't human. As such, Christ could live a sinless life (Heb 4:15), an absolute necessity for the spotless Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). In order for Christ's death to effectively pay for the sins of the world, He would have to have no sin Himself. That wouldn't be possible if He was born with a sin nature. Thus, a virgin birth where the father was not human was absolutely necessary.

Of course, not everyone agrees with this. Clearly those who deny it deny the reliability of Scripture. Those who deny it also tend to deny miracles at all. You likely will hear them shooting down Creation and Noah's Flood. They have no problem cutting and pasting their Bibles so the stuff they don't agree with is erased and new stuff is inserted to make it more palatable. But if "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17) and God is faithful and true, then those who deny the Virgin Birth or the rest do so at their own peril, because they are denying what God's Word declares to be true, and Jesus said, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). It's kind of hard to be classified as a Christian -- a follower of Christ -- while telling us that Christ was wrong, isn't it?
________

¹ Note: Religion in general and God in particular are all about the "supernatural." That is, this by definition is outside of nature, of science. It's like using a voltmeter to measure light intensity. Science is designed to analyze the natural and is not equipped to measure the supernatural. Thus, though there might be touch points between the supernatural and the natural where the supernatural leaves an imprint on the natural, the idea that science can be used to prove or disprove religion is definitionally nonsensical.

Pearl Harbor, 2023

It's only idle imagination -- wild conjecture -- I know, but what if? What if the attack on Pearl Harbor happened today, December 7, 2023? Given the current people in the current United States of America with the current culture and the current mindset, what would happen?

I'm pretty sure there would be loud voices for action, for retaliation, for safety and security. There would have been outrage, of course. But, if you consider, for instance, the response to October 7, 2023, it is my suspicion that there would have been louder voices opposing any of that. There would have been those calling for no war, those calling for the U.S. to disarm. There would have certainly been those urging a ceasefire rather than retaliation. I'm pretty sure there would even be "Pearl Harbor deniers." "It never happened. It's a conspiracy!" (I have, on my wall at home, a paper from July 21, 1969 with the news headline, "Man Walks on the Moon." Recently we had some work done in our house and one of the workers saw that and said, "That never happened." They're doing it today with the October 7 attack.) There would be marches blocking traffic and wreaking havoc demanding we do no harm. They tell me that 2,400 people died in the attack in 1941. They tell me that Japan lost 2.5 to 3 million people including something like 800,000 civilians in the subsequent war, compared to the 111,000 or so Americans who died. That would be unacceptable. No way. And, frankly, patriotism today likely wouldn't have been sufficient to supply the needs of the military to do anything about it anyway. There would undoubtedly be those gloating over it. "America got what she deserved." There would have been fingers pointing to the "sins" of colonialization and racism and such. I'd guess no small number would applaud Japan for their sneak attack. "America earned it."

The response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 was a surge of outrage and a rush to join the armed forces to secure our nation and punish those who threatened it. The people were willing to make extreme sacrifices overseas and at home to accomplish this. But we live in different times. If the loudest voices clamoring for a ceasefire in Gaza and the end of Israel are any indication, America would have gone out with a whimper. They call that "progressive" and "liberal." I'd guess there are still people around today who would choose different words for it.

Tolerance vs Intolerance

Tolerance. That's all they're asking for. Tolerance. But you conservative folk, you people that hold to an older position, you're intolerant. You don't embrace the new position. You need to be ... tolerant. You need to be inclusive. You need to be nonjudgmental.

In this "battle for the dictionary" world we now find ourselves, it is frightening to see people using words as weapons without regard for the words or their consequences. Tolerance, inclusivity, equality ... these kinds of words are bandied about without regard for their actual meaning and without regard for the outcome if we actually did what they intend we do with them. Take tolerance. To tolerate, according to the dictionary, is "to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them." Notice the critical component -- behavior or beliefs you might not agree with or approve of. If we're talking about things you agree with and approve of, there is no tolerance. There is no need for tolerance. You do not tolerate things you embrace. But today's "tolerance" means "to accept and approve of views opposed to your own." Again, it is not tolerance to accept and approve. It's compromise or acquiescence, but it is not tolerance. So think this through. You have View A and you have View B. They are in opposition. View B tells View A, "You must tolerate our view" by which they do not mean "You must allow us our view" but, instead, "You must reject A and embrace B." Clearly, when you turn that around, you can see it. View B is demanding "tolerance" from View A that requires the elimination of View A. But tolerance is allowing View A to go on even though View B doesn't agree. So those demanding tolerance are actually demanding the elimination of opposing views ... the opposite of tolerance.

You find this problem all over our culture today. "We are inclusive, and if you are not going to be our kind of inclusive, we're going to exclude you." "You need to be nonjudgmental, and if you are not, we will judge you." "You need to show tolerance to our position because we will not tolerate your opposition." It is, in fact, contradictory. It is irrational. It is insane. And we know the actual problem. "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). "Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened" (Rom 1:21). Or, putting it in Jesus's terms, "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44). Now, some might say that's intolerant ...

We Need Christmas

The songs say, "We need Christmas." Why? For peace and love. For warm feelings. For bringing everyone together. For the lights and the gifts and the decorations. To all of that I say, "Piffle!" But ... not to "We need Christmas." That we do need. Here's why.

We need a God Incarnate (John 1:14) to save us (Luke 19:10). He had to be a human like us, but He had to be deity to save more than one. We need a Savior (Luke 2:11), born of a virgin (Matt 1:23), because Scripture says that sin comes through Adam (Rom 5:12), so we need a Savior who was not fathered by a human male. We need Immanuel - God with us (Matt 1:23). He is, after all, the point of everything, and we desperately need to be connected to Him. We need a sacrifice (Heb 9:26), a Redeemer (Matt 20:28) who will take our place and bring peace, not merely between men, but between sinful man and a holy God -- reconciliation (Rom 5:1-11). We need the humility of the Son of God who became flesh (Php 2:5-8), experienced our trials and temptation -- a High Priest who was tempted as we are yet without sin (Heb 4:15). We need the promises fulfilled and the certainty of the outcome because of it.

We need Christmas. Christmas is a look back at the promises, the hundreds of prophecies of the Messiah, starting from Genesis 3 on into the Advent -- promises fulfilled at Christmas. Christmas is a look forward at the now-certainty that Immanuel is come, that salvation is at hand, that God wins and the future is bright for all who believe. So we give gifts to remember His inexpressible gift (2 Cor 9:15) and we string lights because He is the light of the world (John 8:12). Evergreen trees can remind us of the eternal life that Jesus brings (John 3:16). Christmas represents all of our hope in God and the Christmas celebrations provide a reminder of that hope and our need to celebrate Him, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, born back then in humble estate to live a sinless life, die for our sin, and rise again to new life so we can, too. Oh, yes, we really, really need Christmas. Christmas is a singularity, a completely unique point in all of human history, and marks the beginning of the fruition of God's plan for salvation for all who follow ... and all who came before. We need Christmas. And all that "peace and love" and "warm feelings" and "gathering together" is nice, too.

Misinformation and Disinformation

Last year the president tried to start up a new department -- a "Department of Truth" if you will -- to combat "disinformation." Or was it "misinformation"? To which the correct answer should have been "Yes." Misinformation is false information presented as true because the presenter believes it's true. Disinformation is false information presented as true because the presenter intends to mislead. Both are false information presented as true. The difference is intent.

For we who are merely onlookers -- recipients of information -- it has become quite difficult to separate the chaff from the wheat, the lies from the truth. We trusted our media, but mainstream media has changed in the last few decades from "providing the news" to controlling the narrative. They realized they had a platform to send out a message, so "the American public has a right to know" is out and "the American public should think what we tell them to think" is in. Trump liked the "fake news" line, and the 2020 election was full of it ... one way or another. The media assured us that there was "no widespread election fraud," but that didn't preclude localized election fraud and such fraud could have changed the outcome of the 2020 election. We'll never know ... because any opposing view is simply labeled "misinformation" and dismissed. There are reports of collusion between the Democrats, the FBI, Big Tech, and the media to cover up harmful stories before the 2016 and 2020 elections, but did it happen? We'll never know because such claims are labeled "misinformation" and dismissed. We all know that Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd on a street in Minneapolis ... until we no longer know that. Was the trial fair? Did all the evidence get presented? Convincing arguments are coming out now that says it was all a lie. We'll never know. Does science support or deny the whole "transgender" argument? Yes ... yes it does. Because some of the reports are that science opposes it and other reports say that science confirms it and we'll never know the truth, because any claim to the contrary of the current narrative is simply labeled "misinformation" and dismissed. And so it goes. The current power defines what "misinformation" and "disinformation" is and then seeks to enforce their definition. At the very least, they will demonize anyone who presents it. They won't argue against it. They won't trot out the data, point out the facts, present the evidence, lay out the reasoning. They simply hang the "misinformation" moniker on those who present it, brush off their hands, and move on. "Fake news." (They hated that phrase when Trump used it. They own it now.)

We live in a fallen world where the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). Satan, the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4), is the father of lies (John 8:44). If we are surprised that we are surrounded by lies, we're being naïve. So ubiquitous is the lie that it would be foolish of us to expect the truth from the world around us. It doesn't help that states like California and New York -- well known for Leftist thinking at the core -- are diving into "media literacy" curriculum for school kids to teach them to evaluate media sources ... by the State's biases. That's why I am so relieved to have God's Word -- undeniable truth from which to evaluate everything. I don't have to rely on the media. I don't have to rely on the government. I don't have to rely on myself. Jesus, the Word of God (John 1:1), claimed to be "the truth" (John 14:6). He claimed that God's word is truth (John 17:17). In a world of unreliable ("misinformation") and malicious ("disinformation") "truth," I'm so glad to have Truth Incarnate and God's breathed-out Word on which I can rely.

User's Guide

You've seen these things, I'm sure. Just about anything you buy comes with some sort of manual, some sort of user's guide. It tells you how to use the thing. And the more complicated it is, the bigger the guide. These tell you how to put stuff together, how to operate it, and -- very important -- what not to do. You know, things like, "Don't do this or you could die." Good to know.

I've always contended that God's rules are His "user's guide" for the human being. That is, if you want to get the best for yourself, follow these rules. Interestingly, Rule #1 is "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). Jesus lists that as "the great and first commandment" (Matt 22:38). Similarly, when God gave the Law to Moses, His first command was, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exo 20:3). So, love and worship God first. Got it.

Put these two ideas together. God's commands are for our best. His first command is He is to be first. Perhaps, then, you can see why our primary problem -- suppressing the truth about God (Rom 1:18) -- is so damaging. Failure to honor God literally makes us crazy (Rom 1:21). It leads to insane behavior (Rom 1:24-25) which leads to all manner of evil (Rom 1:28-32). But at the root -- at the start of this decline -- isn't just being bad. It is our failure to recognize and worship God. Every decay follows that starting point.

It begs the question, then, doesn't it? Do you want what's best for you? If so, is your first love God or is it something/someone else? Like, dare I say, you? Or other stuff? Is God your singular point of worship? If not, you're not doing God any damage, but you're certainly doing great harm to yourself, and that, dear reader, makes no sense at all.

News Weakly - 12/2/23

An Obituary for Common Sense
A company in Finland has put a new product for "transgender men." (Just to be clear, a "transgender man" is a biological woman who believes herself to be a man.) So "Vuokkoset launched the world's first tampon for men." Specifically "to meet the needs of trans men and non-binary individuals who might be experiencing having a period." Umm, hello? Anyone there? Is not a menstrual cycle a typical component of the definition of the female human being? It doesn't take a genius to figure this out, does it? No, but it does take a person willing to use common sense, a very rare commodity these days, it seems.

Fallible
For the second time in a month, Pope Francis has disciplined an American Cardinal because the cardinal was opposed to the pope's plans to revise the church. This one was a retired cardinal living on a pension and in Vatican housing, and he's getting kicked out. Because, as all infallible leaders know, the best way to deal with opponents ... is to cut them off at the knees.

Pro or Con?
It's almost not news, given how much of it is going on, but the other evening thousands protested in NYC. The stories called it a "pro-Palestinian protest." So, it makes me wonder. Why do they call it "pro-Palestinian" rather than "anti-Israeli" or, perhaps more accurately, "antisemitic"? Why do they (specifically the media, but the rest as well) get to choose a "pro" term rather than the obvious "anti" term, but we who favor life cannot be called "pro-life"?

Contradicting Yourself
In a recent dubia, Roman Catholic cardinals submitted some doubts to the pope for comment. One was regarding the need to update doctrine on the topic of the ordination of women, to which he replied (in essence), "No, Scripture is clear." Then he attended an International Theological Commission at the Vatican and complained that there weren't enough women. He urged the male theologians to "demasculinize" the church. Mind you, he pointed out earlier that Scripture is clear on the topic. Further, it has been my impression that most churches have been thoroughly feminized for a long time. So maybe the pope's recent health crisis affected his brain?

2 Bee or Not 2 Bee
Apparently the Newsom v DeSantis debate (real story) was to be sponsored by U-Haul since they figured that a lot of Californians would be looking to move once they found out what life was like in Florida. Makes sense to me. On the Israel-Hamas conflict, new posters calling for the release of Hamas hostages will include WNBA players because Netanyahu said, "If there's anything that can motivate Biden to move heaven and earth and bring a hostage home safely, it's a weed-smoking WNBA player/BLM activist." Makes sense to me. And, following the toppling of the National Christmas tree (real story), there is a report that a squirrel wearing a MAGA hat was seen scampering away moments before the fall. Could be.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Immaculate

Christmas is on the horizon, and recently I came across some discussions of the "Immaculate Conception." Not being Catholic, I had to figure out just what that meant because I wasn't sure those who were discussing it actually knew. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not about the Virgin Birth. That is, it isn't about how Mary got pregnant without sex. It's about Mary herself. The Roman Catholic claim is that Mary herself was sinless ("Immaculate") before, during, and after Jesus. We understand that all have sinned except Jesus, but the Roman Catholics disagree and argue that Mary was another exception. Add to that the concept of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and you have what the Roman Catholics refer to as a "Co-Redemptrix," a Virgin Mary who participates in the redemption of all people. But I'll let you folks who contend for such a role to squabble among yourselves. Not my problem.

It is true that the Virgin Birth is non-negotiable in Christian teaching. It is stated clearly (Luke 1:26-38 -- especially Luke 1:34-37). It was predicted (Isa 7:14). And it has been the accepted understanding of Scripture since Christ. But when we end up with a perpetual virgin Mary, we end up with a contradiction of Scripture. "Oh, no," the Catholics assure me, "those weren't brothers; they were spiritual brothers." Nice idea, but in John 2:12 John distinguishes between His brothers and His disciples. His disciples were His spiritual brothers, so why are these distinct? In John 7:3 His brothers urged Him to go to Judea so His disciples could see His works. Again, aren't those the same? In Mark 6:3, the people of His hometown opposed Him, saying, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" That can make no sense if "spiritual brothers and sisters" were in view. They were clearly talking about physical brothers and sisters in their midst.

Mary was, in a very real sense, the "mother of God." Jesus was God Incarnate; Mary was His mother. But the godhood of Jesus wasn't endowed by Mary; it was God. God is the originator of God (as it were). Mary was "full of grace" (Luke 1:28), but if grace is unmerited favor and Mary was "full of grace" because she was sinless, we have a problem -- grace is not unmerited favor. Even in the early church the first suggestion of Mary as sinless didn't come about until the 4th century ... oddly enough right around the rising of the Roman Catholic Church. From the Roman Catholics, the claim is that the first to teach about the sinlessness of Mary was Pelagius. Hmmm. And if Mary was without sin, why did she refer to God as her "savior" (Luke 1:47)? People without sin need no savior. Further, if Mary was without Original Sin and, therefore, without sin for life, who else is there? How many were/are there? Who says "all have sinned" when there could be a considerable list of those who haven't? In the end, we have to consider, if the Bible is that unclear and that unreliable, what else do we need to question? Jesus was born from a virgin, and His mother experienced great grace. Jesus was the only sinless man to ever live and His sinlessness qualified Him to pay for our sin. Be careful when others try to mediate that away. It is neither a biblical nor reasonable place to go.

That Pesky Context

Today's entry is from David. Enjoy. I did.
________
We're familiar with Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

We pull great ideas from that passage, like how His Word is able to pierce us and lay us bare before Him, how we are tripartite, not dipartite (we have body, soul, and spirit, not just body and spirit), how His Word helps us to understand our thoughts and intentions. And those are all great things, but we are missing something because we've taken it out of context. Just before verse 12, the author is describing the God's rest that has been promised and is to come. He says that Joshua was promised a rest that was not attained, which means that there is yet a Sabbath rest to come. Verse 11 says that because we have this promised rest to look forward to, we should strive to enter it so that we don't fall to the same disobedience as the Israelites.

As we're all familiar, when we see "for" or "therefore" or "because", we need to see how what follows is derived from what preceded it. And we have a "for" in verse 12. So how does the sharpness of the Word of God relate to the Sabbath rest promised by God? Because we are told to strive for the rest in verse 11, we must use God's Word to test our thinking and our hearts so that we know we are working toward that rest. The Word is able to pierce our hearts and minds to convict us or acquit us. And as we're still being sanctified, it will most often be convicting us.

Are we doing that? Do we use the Word to divide our actions from our intentions? Do we use the Word to strive for the rest that is to come in Christ? Are we ready to give account for our actions that did or didn't work toward entering His rest? I know I'm not, but I'm trying.

The Wrong Question

One of the most common attacks on the character of God is the question of God's goodness. It was Satan's earliest approach (Gen 3:1-5) and continues to this day. It's even a problem for believers. We're all fine with God when He's doing what we want Him to do, but when He doesn't -- especially when really unpleasant things occur -- we're miffed. (How's that for an understatement?) Or when we pray, even making godly requests, and God doesn't answer the way we want, we're baffled (or, of course, worse). We want to know why God doesn't do what we want Him to do.

The problem is that this is the wrong question. And the source of this problem is the point of origin. Unconsciously we are beginning with "me." "I know what's best. I know what's right. So when God doesn't do what's best or what's right, there's a problem ... with God." If we started from God, it would be different. "I know God is good and wise. I know God is loving and sovereign. I know that He always does what is right and best. Therefore ..." You see, if we start from what we know about God, then our question changes. If God is good and wise and loving, the question becomes, "What good and wise and loving thing is God doing in this instance?" And it wouldn't be a demand; it would be a question. If we know the character of God, we ask from His perspective rather than ours, with God at the top rather than ourselves.

Of course, it is the nature of the human being to begin with "me." That's why what would seem to be obvious -- "'My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,' declares YHWH" (Isa 55:8) -- eludes us so frequently. Instead of asking, in essence, "Why doesn't God do what I want?", it would seem most reasonable that we would "Seek the LORD while He may be found; call upon Him while He is near" (Isa 55:6) instead of requiring He bend to our "superior wisdom." Wouldn't it? A.W. Tozer wrote, "When I understand that everything happening to me is to make me more Christlike, it resolves a great deal of anxiety." What about you?

Lines and Circles

In the debates between biblical Christians and other Christians, there is a concept offered by the others that suggests that the biblical Christians are being too narrow, too closed. "You draw lines between people, but we draw circles. Jesus drew circles to encompass a large number while you Bible folk cut people out." Something like that. You get the idea. Is that true?

It is true. It is said that doctrine divides, but love unites. And it is true that doctrine (any truth statement at all) divides. That is, "This is true and anything contrary to this is false." As in, "2 + 2 = 4, and any other outcome is wrong." It just is. It is the nature of truth. So when Christians who follow God's Word say, "This is true," it is drawing a line dividing between truth and the lie. On the other hand, the circle illustration fails. Jesus did not draw circles that encompassed more people. Jesus said, "The gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:14). Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). Peter, Jesus's close disciple, said, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Scripture in general and Jesus in particular were exclusive, not inclusive.

Look, this isn't odd. If Medicine X is the only medicine that solves a particular malady, it's not mean-spirited or divisive to urge those with the malady to take Medicine X. And if God says "Y is a sin," it's not extremist or inharmonious to urge people not to do Y. If Jesus, the Word of God (John 1:1), held to exclusive and exclusionary ideas, it is mandatory that His followers should hold to the same ideas. Including people in a circle that Jesus never drew doesn't help those within or those without. And, sometimes, lines are indeed our friends.
________
On a sidenote, why is it that those who complain about those who draw lines vs their own better method of drawing circles intentionally exclude those who draw lines from their circles?

The Battle for the Dictionary

Paul wrote to the Corinthian Christians, "I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ" (2 Cor 11:3). Scripture is clear that there is a battle for the control of our minds. Satan wants it; Christ demands it (Matt 22:37). So, Paul says, a fundamental part of our worship is presenting our bodies as a living sacrifice which includes "the renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:1-2). In today's culture, that battle for the mind is being waged in our dictionaries. If they can remake our language in their own satanic image, we will be incapable of communicating the ideas that God and His Word present. Take away the language and the spoken and written word become futile.

This is self-evident in today's world. When we accepted "same-sex marriage" as a real term, we forgot entirely what "marriage" really was. Long before that, when we accepted "shacking up together" as a description of "love," we lost the meaning of the word. And so on. So, consider how this works. We know, for instance, that "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). Done. Clear as day. Except now we've redefined "love" to mean "sex" in most cases and, at its best, "warm affection." So this is a statement that God has deeply warm feelings about us, pushing possibly into something sexual (seriously, a "Christian author" wrote specifically that it was sexual and pointed to Jonathan Edward's writings about our "intercourse with God" as proof). And we are asked to do the impossible -- love one another. That is, feel warmly about all those people out there. Who can do that? So we descend into an abyss built entirely on a shift in the dictionary. And "love" and "marriage" are just the two quickest examples. The battle for the dictionary is everywhere.

We are commanded to "not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:2). Satan's preference is that your mind would be blinded (2 Cor 4:4). But we are required to love God with all we have including our minds (Matt 22:37). So Satan seeks to blind us by removing all references to God's instructions, either by distracting from His Word or by dismantling the language. A modern Babel. And we run the risk of being conformed to this world if we fail to see it.

Through a Glass Darkly

In Peter's first epistle he spoke to his readers about "the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:7). On this he wrote, "Though you have not seen Him, you love Him. Though you do not now see Him, you believe in Him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls" (1 Peter 1:8-9). We like that. We like that "salvation of your souls" especially. Of course, we talk and sing a lot about loving Him and all that, too, but, I wonder ... is that "rejoice with joy inexpressible and filled with glory" your experience?

According to Peter, loving Christ is joy inexpressible and filled with glory. Why is that? It is partly out of gratitude for that "salvation of your souls." Jesus said, "He who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47), so we who are forgiven much love much. It is partly the magnificence of our salvation that includes being "more than conquerors" even in the worst times (Rom 8:32-39). Paul wrote, "He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things?" (Rom 8:32). Because Christ died for us, we have the absolute certainty that God will provide all that we need. In Ephesians we read, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Eph 1:3) and then goes on to provide a partial list (Eph 1:4-14). There is the forgiveness of sin (1 John 1:9), the conferred righteousness of Christ (2 Cor 5:21), the provision for all we need (Php 2:13; Php 4:19), the certainty of eternity (John 3:16), and more. The list goes on.

I asked why we don't always experience joy inexpressible. The real question is how can we not? It is only our blindness that gets in the way. Our shortsightedness. Like Peter on the water, instead of walking to Christ in the storm, we look at the storm (Matt 14:27-31). We see through a glass darkly. The world swirls around us and we look away from the glory of Christ that is ours. So let's look to Him, be thankful for His vast blessings -- past, present, and future -- and believe when we can't see. Because rejoicing with joy inexpressible and filled with glory sounds like a really good way to live.

News Weakly - 11/25/23

Culture vs Faith
The Guardian published a piece extolling the grand news that "In blessing same-sex couples, the church's compassion has triumphed over blind faith." Of course, by "blind faith" they mean "believing the Bible" and the "triumph" is in allowing popular culture to dictate truth to the church. And, of course, the church in question here is currently the Church of England, although the same can be said for other denominations as well. But placing culture and popular opinion over God and His Word cannot be considered "triumph" or "compassion."

Subsidizing Genocide
Biden is making a move to stop the violence in Gaza. He's sending Iran another $10 billion. That ought to do it. Like the last payout he gave them ... just before the Hamas attack on Israel. Wait ...

This Just In
I just heard about this. Maybe you already had. Apparently a "Christian musician" -- Derek Webb, the lead singer for Caedmon's Call -- wore a dress to the Dove Awards. He did it to "surrender" his privilege of being a "straight white man" (read "to thumb his nose at biblical sexuality"). ("Plus," he added, "I have amazing legs.") I know, I know, we're not supposed question the spiritual condition of other people, but ... Jesus said, "You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matt 7:20).

The Horror of Child Deaths
In 2021, there were nearly 3.5 million deaths in the United States. Mind you, the CDC does not include abortions in that count. Which is significant because in 2021 there were 625,978 abortions reported, bringing the number of deaths to 4,084,675. In that same time period, the CDC claimed that 460,513 died from COVID, which means that abortions killed more than COVID in 2021 and that more than 15% of the deaths in 2021 were from abortions. In fact, more babies died of abortion in 2021 than people who died of cancer (the #2 cause of death in the U.S. in 2021, right behind heart disease). But, look, we're happy to curtail freedoms and impose ineffective vaccinations and do all kinds of things to prevent the spread of COVID, but kill as many children as you like if it means women can have their "reproductive rights."

Such a Deal
The cease fire has come. Under the required cease fire, Hamas plans to release 50 of their 240 or so hostages while Israel releases 150 Palestians arrested for crimes and mayhem. In addition, Hamas receives delivery of fuel and supplies. Mind you, since Oct. 7 over 9,000 rockets have been fired into Israel (which constitutes a "substantial reduction" since the ground war began). Mind you, Hamas has used a hospital as its command structure. Mind you, Hamas had months of supplies stored that they have refused to share with their people. Mind you, Hamas's unchanged charter includes the elimination of Israel "from the river to the sea." But the loudest voices abroad all want Israel dead and gone, so it looks bad for Israel. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Psa 122:6).

Just Bee Thankful
We just celebrated Thanksgiving Day (which ought to be a continuous event rather than a day), so the story is almost too true that a man erased an entire year's worth of exercise in one meal that day. Meanwhile, the Biden administration had assured us that the cost of a Thanksgiving dinner was way down ... just as long as you didn't buy anything. A group of transgender women (biological males that identify as female) had lunch with the pope (real story here), spurring the Bee to report on men pretending to be women having lunch with a man pretending to be Catholic. And, of course, the kicker, a story about a group of atheists waiting at the Thanksgiving table for a meal to evolve from nothing. Good luck with that.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Heart Disease

Politics, sex, and religion -- the topics we don't discuss at, say, a Thanksgiving Day gathering or the like. Funny thing. When those topics are discussed (approved or unapproved), it seems like it's always deeds and not attitudes. "Did you hear what he did this week?" "How can those people do that?" Sometimes -- less often -- we might venture a step deeper with "What were they thinking??" But in our current culture, actions and attitudes are distinct. You can address actions; you must leave off ... nay ... encourage attitudes. You need to affirm what other people feel. So we're left with responding primarily to behavior and leaving motives and attitudes alone.

I would hope that every Christian would see the problem with that. Jesus said, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matt 12:34). Jesus said, "What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander" (Matt 15:18-19). Jesus said, "The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (Luke 6:45). The repeated message from Scripture is that the problem is not our choice of actions, but our deceitful and desperately sick hearts (Jer 17:9).

The problems we see are clear on the surface -- murders, sexual immorality, hate, despicable deeds. They're all over the news on a daily basis. But those are just symptoms, problems that laws and crime prevention can only minimally affect. These deeds are not the real problem. The real problem is heart disease. Human beings are not fundamentally good (Rom 3:12). So all our righteous indignation about the bad things "those people" are doing is misspent. What they -- what we all -- need is Jesus. What we all need is death and resurrection; new life. We only find that in death to self by faith in Christ. We must be born again.

Thanksgiving Day, 2023

Psalm 107:1 says, "Oh, give thanks to YHWH, for He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever!" Clear enough, isn't it? Give thanks. Why? He is good. How? His steadfast love endures forever! Good start. The Bible, in fact, has a lot to say about giving thanks.

Paul wrote, "Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving" (Col 4:2). That echoes his instructions to the Philippians: "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God" (Php 4:6). Which is, essentially, an excellent subset of "give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (1 Thess 5:18). Or "giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph 5:20).

It would seem, then, that Thanksgiving Day is moot. We should be people of gratitude, people with an attitude of gratitude. We should be giving thanks in everything. Why? Because God is good. Because God's steadfast love endures forever. And because the consequences of failing to give thanks are too high (Rom 1:21). In which case "Thanksgiving Day" should be the first day of the rest of your thanksgiving life.

Is That Good Enough for You?

The psalmist wrote, "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Psa 119:105). That 119th chapter of Psalms, in fact, is an epic poem extolling the virtues of God's Word and the implicit obedience that should entail.

So the psalmist claimed, "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." Is it? Note the scope of the statement. The light, he claims, is "to my feet" and "to my path." Isn't that interesting? He's not looking at some grand illumination, some huge light that shows us everything. The imagery is of a lamp that lights just enough for you to walk where you need to walk. Is that good enough for you?

I've heard lots of complaints these days. "Scripture is outdated." "We've progressed beyond the Bible." I've heard many who complain that the Bible doesn't say enough. Not enough insight into the future. Not enough clarity. Not enough instruction. But Scripture says that the Holy Spirit moved men to write (2 Peter 1:21) what God breathed into them (2 Tim 3:16) so that "the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:17). That is, God's Word is sufficient ... one step at a time. Is that good enough for you?

God's Will for You Today

In his first epistle to the church at Thessalonica, Paul makes this statement ... twice: "this is the will of God" (1 Thess 4:3; 5:16-18). That first one seems oddly specific. There he explains that sanctification is God's will and then commands, explicitly, "avoid sexual immorality" (1 Thess 4:3), as if that is what he means by "sanctification." It's not, but it takes some work to see it. The second one is almost confusing.

¹⁶Rejoice always, ¹⁷pray without ceasing, ¹⁸give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. (1 Thess 5:16-18)

You see it there ... the specific phrase, "for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you." But what is "this" referring to? Is it "give thanks in all circumstances" or is it the whole list: rejoice, pray, give thanks? Based on the fact that it's one sentence, I'd argue that it is the latter -- the whole list. Okay, so, we who are concerned about God's will for our lives, we now have a list of things. Avoid sexual immorality. Check. Rejoice. Check. Pray. Check. Give thanks. Check. Next? Except, of course, it's not that easy, is it? That "avoid sexual immorality" is a "flee from," an "avoid at all costs" term. "Stay far away." Paul told the Ephesians, "Sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints" (Eph 5:3). And we live in a culture steeped in sexual immorality. And how about those other three? They seem straightforward as a list, but look at their modifiers. "Rejoice always." Okay, sure, we can rejoice ... sometimes. When things are good. But ... always? That, brothers and sisters, is God's will for you. "Pray ceaselessly." We pray ... but without ceasing? That, brothers and sisters, is God's will for you. "In everything give thanks." Hey, Thanksgiving is coming. We're all planning to give thanks, right? But in everything? That, brothers and sisters, is God's will for you.

Now, Paul doesn't say to give thanks for everything. He says to give thanks in everything. Still, this list is much more difficult when examined more closely. And, dear brothers and sisters, this list constitutes some of God's will for your life. Today. Tomorrow. Certainly not just Thursday. I think we must all acknowledge that, while we may be pursuing God's will and we may be doing some of His will, we all fall short of the actual intent that "always" and "without ceasing" and "in everything" entail. So we pray like Jesus prayed, "Not my will but Yours be done" and "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." And we seek, by His power, to accomplish His will ... especially when He gives us such explicit instructions.

Those Who Have No Hope

This year I've lost a couple of close people. My father died in March and, more recently, a lifelong friend. I'm not asking for sympathy. I'm simply pointing out that all of us will likely experience the loss of loved ones and all of us likely know others who have or will. So what are we to think?

The church at Thessalonica was suffering affliction and, apparently, people were dying. It's part of the reason Paul wrote to them. He said, "Therefore comfort one another with these words" (1 Thess 4:18). What words? Paul told them that when the Lord returns these dead loved ones will rise first and we will then join them to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess 4:15-17). So, Paul says, you have no need to "grieve as do the rest who have no hope" (1 Thess 4:13).

Some will tell you that grief is normal and healthy and we need to indulge it. Others will tell you, "Don't grieve! They're in a better place." So this text, in terms of those who lose loved ones, is interesting. Paul does not say that, as believers, we ought not grieve at the loss of loved ones. What he says is that we ought not grieve as those who have no hope. You see, we have hope. We have the hope of Jesus's return. We have the hope of the resurrection. We have the hope of being united with them and, together, being united with Christ for eternity. We have hope. So it's not wrong to grieve. It's not foolish to grieve. It's not a lack of faith to grieve. But our grief can be tempered with hope. Perhaps the most disturbing part of that text, then, is that there are those who actually have no hope. Now that is sad.

What Do You Have?

It was a short little hymn -- barely four short lines. We sang it often when the offering was taken. We didn't even sing the second verse. But it had an impact. Written by William How in 1858, the hymn was titled We Give Thee But Thine Own.

We give Thee but Thine own,
Whate'er the gift may be;
All that we have is Thine alone,
A trust, O Lord, from Thee.

Short and sweet, but think of the ramifications.

Scripture says that "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" (Psa 24:1). In Deuteronomy we read, "Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it" (Deut 10:14). In the New Testament we read, "All things were created through Him and for Him" (Col 1:16) and "Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor? Or who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen" (Rom 11:34-36).

Imagine if we bought that line of thinking. What would it look like? Your spouse, your kids, your family don't belong to you. Your job, your finances, your home, your belongings don't belong to you. Your life, your goals, your gifts and talents don't belong to you. They are all -- completely and totally -- a gift from God. You are their caretaker, intended to use them all for His glory. How would life look different if we thought of it in those terms? Paul asks, "What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" (1 Cor 4:7). Good question.

News Weakly - 11/18/23

If the Most Vulnerable Aren't Safe, Who Is?
Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment that makes it every woman's right to kill her baby in the womb. It's part, CNN says, of a "winning trend for abortion rights advocates." And you pro-life folks were thinking you had persuaded the country of the sanctity of life. No wonder they say we are now a culture of death. And you thought "gun rights" were the issue.

Confused Bias?
It is indeed sad, but I'm confused. CNN reported that three babies died in a Gaza hospital because Israel had besieged it. Now, for someone who values human life, that's sad, but I was under the impression that baby-murder was okay in CNN's book, so I'm confused. Which side are they on? Pro-life? Or simply antisemitism?

Showing Off
California's Governor Newsom visited China's president (to share techniques?) and made sure that San Francisco was cleaned up prior to Xi Ping's visit to San Francisco. It just looks bad, governor.

Judiciary Failure
The Supreme Court has, essentially, declared that protecting children from adult entertainment is a violation of the First Amendment. Pornhub is looking at setting up permanent displays for elementary schools. Get 'em while they're young, you know? Certainly before we teach them to read or write or think.

Your Best Source for Fake News
Israel is in trouble again (still?) for raiding a hospital of all things. Mind you, they found a Hamas command and control center in the basement (real story), but Hamas claims that all those weapons were strictly for medical use. And Governor Newsom keeps making the "news." On that recent fire that shut down the I-10, one story claims that Newsom blamed it on climate change while another claims Newsom arranged it to try to prevent more people from leaving California. And, of course, there is the classic photo of a Communist dictator welcoming President Xi to California. Finally, after the massive protest in London aiming to eliminate Israel from the Middle East (real story), the Bee reported that the Nazis finally occupied London 80 years after Hitler.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Godless

We know about atheists. They deny the existence of God. We know agnostics. They don't quite deny the existence of God; they simply believe they don't or can't know ... which ends up a denial of the existence of God. (I mean, how many agnostics conclude, "I don't know if there is a God, but I'm going to pursue it and live it"?) It is termed "godlessness," and given the rampant hostility toward God that the mind set on the flesh has (Rom 8:7), there is a lot of it, even among those who claim to believe in a God but ignore Him for most of their lives. Another version of "godlessness" is one that we all, to some degree or another, indulge to our own discredit. That one is what I'll call "practical atheism."

Practical atheism does not require that you disavow the existence of God. It only requires that you practice the idea at times. We see it a lot in secular living. We have the "sacred" and the "secular" and never the twain shall meet. Except that, if there is a God -- specifically the God of the Bible -- then the disctinction is nonsense, everything belongs to Him, and, therefore, everything falls in the "sacred." That would include your choice (or lack thereof) of spouse, your decision regarding children, your mode of dress, your job choice, your work ethic, your church life, your use of your time ... it goes on and on. And we -- Bible-believing Christians -- often operate as practical atheists. "This part has nothing to do with God and that part is His real concern." Which fundamentally cannot be true if "from Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom 11:36) -- if "in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:17). There is no part of Creation over which God does not say, "Mine," but you wouldn't know it by the way we live so much of the time oblivious to the fact that it's all His.

We are commanded to pray without ceasing (1 Thess 5:17) and "in everything give thanks" (1 Thess 5:18), which would constitute a constant dialog with God in everything. I would think that constant prayer and thanksgiving might go a long way toward avoiding practical atheism among people who would be horrified to find that they are just that at times -- godless.

Revealed Preference

Revealed Preference Theory is an economic theory that says that you can determine a person's preferences by their purchasing habits. Seems obvious, I know, but isn't the same true in life? Is it not obvious that you can determine a person's actual beliefs by what they do rather than what they say?

"Actions speak louder than words," we say, and I think it's true. When Al Gore declared his "inconvenient truth" about global warming (back when it was still called "global warming") but lived in a house that consumed the energy equivalent of an entire town and traveled everywhere on his tours in heavily-polluting vehicles and such, it seriously called into question what Mr. Gore actually believed. I mean, either it's a serious problem ... or it's not. Your beliefs should dictate your actions. So your behavior reveals your preferences -- you're actual beliefs. Like when a father and/or mother are firmly convinced that homosexual behavior is a sin ... right up to the point that one of their children comes out as gay. Then they're on the front lines stumping for gay rights. What you really believe will come out in your actions.

That might be a useful tool for what Paul calls "testing yourself" (2 Cor 13:5-6). We need to examine ourselves (1 Cor 11:28; 2 Cor 13:5; Gal 6:4), so it might be helpful to ask yourself, "Does what I do align with what I say I believe?" Are you against sexual immorality but practice it? Do you say you follow God's Word but ignore parts in your everyday actions? Is murder a sin but hate is perfectly acceptable (Matt 5:21-22)? Is adultery wrong but lust just fine (Matt 5:31-32)? Are you forgiven much but love little (Luke 7:47)? I'm not the one to evaluate whether or not you actually believe what you say you believe. That's your job. Now, don't mind me; I'll be over here examining my actions ...

A Modern False Dilemma

I wrote not too long ago about the "false dilemma" fallacy (from a slightly different angle). Then the other day I read an article from a self-identified "trans woman" (a guy who believes he's a girl, just to be clear) who was urging the LGBTQ+ community not to shut down communications with those who disagree. He ... sorry, she ... believed that open communication was the way to achieve acceptance. Now, that is an unusual position, given the standard practice of labeling all opponents as "haters" and "phobes" of some sort, but the interesting thing was that he/she didn't notice that at every turn he/she was labeling all opponents as "haters" and "phobes" of some sort. It was just in the vocabulary. So we have a false dilemma here. Either you accept the LGBTQ+ position and work to gain acceptance from others and give them their right and just standing, or you're a "homophobe" or a "transphobe" -- some sort of hater. And that is a false dilemma.

Consider. Meet Bob. Bob believes that he is Napoleon and he longs for your acceptance. (Please note: I am not here suggesting that the two -- transgender and the belief you are Napoleon -- are equivalent. I'm just using an obvious example of something that we can all agree is not true.) So, you can accept Bob's belief -- which would entail embracing his view and likely working to establish his rightful position as emperor of France -- or you are a Napoleon-phobe, a hater. Either you agree with his belief or you are a "phobe" of some sort, either hating (how "phobe" equates with "hate" I don't know) or fearing it. There is another option, isn't there? Could it be that there is something wrong with your friend, Bob? Could it be that Bob is confused and needs help? Could it be that a caring friend might seek to assist Bob toward the truth ... that he is not Napoleon? Without hate or fear? Indeed, with genuine love and concern?

That's not the narrative we have before us. You can embrace trans-"theology" (because it is, unavoidably, a theological position that says that God did not create humans as male and female) and the homosexual perspective and lots of other things that Scripture speaks otherwise to or you can hate. What you cannot do is love. That's not an option. "Now, can we talk?" No, apparently not. Since the position that my concern for your best interest is not allowed, I'm kind of stuck, aren't I? The classic false dilemma.

Dubious

This last summer five Roman Catholic cardinals submitted five dubia, literally "doubts" that they had regarding church positions on matters. Specifically they wondered if it wasn't time to reinterpret doctrine to align better with modern perceptions -- with "cultural changes of our time" -- on matters such as same-sex unions, the ordination of women, and whether or not you need to repent in order to be saved and the like. Pope Francis answered.

To the question, "Should we reinterpret Scripture?" Francis answered, "No. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't reevaluate our understanding" -- that we shouldn't "interpret better." That was his answer. However, if by "interpret better" we mean "we come to the opposite conclusion," that can't be "interpret better." To "interpret better" something like, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor 11:3) as "Man is not the head of a woman" (and, oh, by the way, therefore Christ is not the head of every man) is not mere "interpret better." It is erasure. To "interpret better" a text like, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:11-14) to read "It's perfectly acceptable for a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man" is a deletion, not "interpret better." These can only be reinterpretations where the Holy Spirit failed in 2,000 years to get the truth across to His followers and now, finally, in this elightened 21st century, we're finally getting right what we got wrong for the prior 2 millennia.

As far as I can see, Pope Francis didn't waver on any of the 5 dubia asked of him. I just want to present that outright. I only bring it up here because of the continuous and overwhelming pressure from within and without to "reinterpret" Scripture in view of "cultural changes of our time." So you'll hear about how the Bible never said anything about "loving homosexual relationships" or that God created the heavens and the earth (as opposed, as we all know now, to Evolution) or that wives are supposed to submit to husbands and the like and we need to change our beliefs because our times have changed. What they mean, however, is not "reinterpretation," but marginalization of Scripture. The thinking is, "I don't like what it says and I don't agree with what it says and, therefore, I either need to eliminate or change what it says." Very clearly this puts "me" -- the reader and interpeter -- in charge of God's Word. Which can never be the case. In fact, I would argue that if you don't ever find yourself challenged by God's Word as to what you believe, you are very likely using your own ideas and beliefs as a legislator of God's Word, a very dangerous place to be.
________
Note: Nothing above should be construed as anti-Pope or pro-Pope. He was only the vehicle I used to get to the problem. For instance, while his response to the dubia seemed fairly sound, he also decided that transgenders could be baptized right after he affirmed that repentance was necessary, so ...?

God's Fellow Worker

Paul was in Thessalonica for a relatively short time before the persecutions drove him out (Acts 17:1-10). Scholars guess maybe a month or two. But in that time he established a church. When he fled, he ended up in Athens, worrying about that young church experiencing poverty and intense persecution. Would they hold up? Did they have enough to stand? Concerned, he sent Timothy back to check on them (1 Thess 3:1-5). As it turns out, they did stand (1 Thess 3:6-13).

In the letter to the Thessalonians, Paul referred to Timothy as 1) his brother (which was unusual only in that he had also referred to him elsewhere as his "son" or his "child") and 2) a "fellow worker" (1 Thess 3:2). What's really interesting is that Paul did not refer to him as his fellow worker as he did of others at other times. No, he called Timothy "God's fellow worker in the gospel of Christ." Now, that's something. Paul recognized in Timothy that he was working with and for God. He says there that the task specifically was "in the gospel of Christ," which would make sense for an evangelist like Timothy, but Timothy wasn't going to Thessalonica to be an evangelist. He was going "to strengthen and encourage you as to your faith" (1 Thess 3:2). So what about the gospel is intended to strengthen and encourage existing faith?

We think of the gospel as "saved by grace through faith," as "Jesus died for my sins and now I'm forgiven." Generally, in our minds, it's "one and done." I've received the gospel. I'm saved. Thank you very much. But Timothy was working with and for God in the gospel to strengthen and encourage the faith of some who were young believers in the midst of affliction. How does the gospel do that? I think our typical understanding of the gospel is too limited. In Romans 8 we find one of the most amazing statements in Scripture. It's a rhetorical question. "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" (Rom 8:32). You see the outcome: He will freely give us all things. And that is wonderful, astounding, marvelous! But do you see how we can know that? The gospel. The fact that He did not spare His own Son. The fact that He delivered Him over for us all. In that gospel of salvation, then, we also find the good news of life. "If God is for us, who is against us?" (Rom 8:31). We are promised -- nay, destined for -- persecution (1 Thess 3:3; Rom 8:35-36), "but in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:37). In "tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword" (Rom 8:35), we overwhelmingly conquer because God loved us by sending His Son to die for us. The gospel is salvation, to be sure, but it is also victory over trials, victory in life and beyond.

Here in America, of course, we're not facing that much. Oh, sure, the mainstream media is pushing harder and harder to marginalize genuine Christians. (Look how hard they're working to tear apart the new Speaker of the House because he's a Christian.) Some have faced prosecution for their faith. And there are certainly noises of more and worse to come, but so far, so good, as they say. But we need not worry. We are not more than conquerors by avoiding the promised afflictions; we are more than conquerors in them because of Christ. That is, indeed, very good news. And the gospel is much bigger than we sometimes think. And we should be God's fellow workers in the gospel of Christ by strengthening and encouraging the faith of others facing difficult times. In fact, it sounds a lot like "making disciples." Now, let me think ... who was it that talked about "Go and make disciples ..."?

The Cup and the Bread

We all know the story. As Paul puts it,

I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. (1 Cor 11:23-26)

I've wondered about this phrase "as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup." What bread and what cup were they?

He took the bread and broke it, saying, "This is My body, which is for you." What bread? In the Passover meal the bread was a specific bread initially commanded by God: unleavened bread made in an unleavened house (Exo 12:15-20). Scripture uses "leaven" as a symbol for sin (e.g., Matt 16:6, 12; 1 Cor 5:6), so this bread symbolized moral purity. Breaking it, obviously, represented death. Beyond this, Jesus said, "I am the bread of life" (John 6:48) and "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh" (John 6:51).

As for the cup, Scripture clearly refers to the cup taken after supper (1 Cor 11:25). That would correspond to the 3rd cup of the seder meal, part of Jewish tradition in Jesus's day and beyond. In Jewish tradition (and in Jesus's day), that 3rd cup was called "the cup of redemption" or "the cup of blessing." Paul called it "the cup of blessing" (1 Cor 10:16) and Jesus referred to it as "the covenant in My blood" (Luke 22:20). For us, then, it represents the spilling of His blood, and, in that, redemption (Eph 1:7). So the psalmist says, "I shall lift up the cup of salvation and call upon the name of YHWH" (Psa 116:13).

We know that the elements represent His body broken for us and His blood spilled for us. These are important. More on the bread and the cup can be helpful facts and insights into what we know as Communion or the Lord's Supper. Our repetition is commanded (Luke 22:19), but our inattention can make it lose its meaning -- monotonous. And it is rich in meaning. We need this reminder and must not let our human frailties allow us to be lazy and forget. If Communion is boring to you, you're not paying attention. You might want to pray about that.

News Weakly - 11/11/23

Without Bias
The story reads (at all outlets I could find) something like, "Phoenix clears homeless encampment." The cads. The cruel government. The actual story was that over 700 homeless occupied several blocks in downtown Phoenix and the government offered them suitable housing elsewhere. More than 500 accepted. That is, they improved living conditions for 70% of them while the remaining 30% refused. But I'm confident the media intended no bias in their reporting, right?

Uniformity in the Name of Diversity
In Germany, a town daycare center, named Anne Frank Daycare, will be renamed ... in the interest of diversity. You see, Jewish Holocaust victims' names don't resonate with the community, so they want it gone. (I didn't make that up.) How is that "diversity"? "Making it align with us" is the opposite of "diversity."

With Prejudice
The headline reads, "Christian photographer wins right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples," but the truth is that this poor Christian had to go to court to retain his 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Because in our new, "progressive" world, "who I want to sleep with" overrides the Bill of Rights. We were pretty sure we were living in a secular society, but it would be more accurate to term it a "sexular society" I think.

Misinformation that was True
COVID was a huge pandemic, and in its wake there was a huge epidemic of "misinformation" -- conspiracy theories and fears and accusations that were labeled "proven false" and rejected without ... you know ... proving them false. One outcome was the belief that those who refused the COVID jab were the blame for the problem. To deny such a belief was "misinformation" ... until it wasn't misinformation. A new study in the Journal of Medical Ethics says that the unvaccinated were disproportionately scapegoated ... for simply considering "misinformation" as possibly true ... which, in the end, was often found to be just that -- true. That is, truth was often sacrificed in this pandemic, and I'm not at all sure it isn't still.

Beelieve it or Jam it
I liked this story, but ... Archaeologists have discovered Paul's completed AWANA vest, it seems. (Of course, you'd have to know what AWANA is to get that one.) Elsewhere, there have been so many tough confrontations between Dems and the GOP centered on abortion that Republicans might be considering compromising with the Left on the nuanced issue of baby murder. And riddle me this: if Bidenomics is so good, why are more grocery stores installing defibrillators at the checkout for when customers see the total, eh?

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

The False Dilemma

The false dilemma is a logical fallacy. My favorite illustration of this fallacy is a courtroom scene. The lawyer asks the witness, "Mr. Jones, yes or no; have you stopped beating your wife?" Mr. Jones can say, "Yes" which is an admission that he used to beat his wife or he can say, "No" which is an admission that he is beating his wife, but he cannot answer, "I've never beat my wife" because of this false dilemma. Get it?

In the book of Joshua, Joshua is standing outside Jericho before he "fit the battle." (Where did "fit" come from?) We don't know what he was doing out there, but apparently he was looking down at the beginning of this event because "he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn" (Josh 5:13). Well, now, Joshua is the leader of Israel getting ready to begin a major war with the people of this territory in general and Jericho in particular, so he had to ask, "Are you for us or for our adversaries?" And the warrior answered ... "No." False dilemma, you see? Joshua believed this "guy" was either for Israel or for Canaan and Joshua was wrong. This warrior was the "captain of the host of the LORD" (Josh 5:14). Now, if you had been following this story from, say, Abraham on, you might now be confused. This was either one of God's head angels or, more likely, a theophany -- a visible manifestation of God. He could be a Christophany -- a visible manifestation of the pre-Incarnate Christ -- or just God, but we know what side He was on, and it wasn't Canaan's side. Apparently, it also wasn't Israel's either. Whose, then? This Captain of the Hosts of YHWH was, obviously, for YHWH.

It is our own arrogance that trips us up on that false dilemma. We figure we're important and God is on our side. Ultimately, though, God is on God's side. Insofar as we are with Him on His side, He and we are working together, but never let your pride lead you to believe that He owes you. He is always on His side. He wouldn't be the only God if He wasn't. If God is #1, then God would be unfaithful to Himself if He didn't regard Himself as #1. Which only goes to magnify the grace and mercy and love He provides to us when He really doesn't have to.

The Fundamental Satan

The Bible tells us some stuff about Satan. We know he was a fallen angel and took a third of the angels (Rev 12:4) with him when he fell. We find he is called "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2) and "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4). Peter depicts him as a "roaring lion seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). Revelation refers to him as "the great dragon" and "the ancient serpent" (Rev 12:9). We have a lot of names and descriptions, but there is one very specific one that stands out. Jesus referred to him as "the father of lies" (John 8:44). Very specific. Do you ever wonder why? Why not "the father of sexual sin" or "the father of murder" or some other sin? I'll tell you why I think it is the specific term. I believe it is the fundamental basis of sin.

Satan made his debut on the world stage with a lie. "You will not surely die" (Gen 3:1-5). It was, literally, the lie that shook the world. Every sin that has followed after that is the result of pursuing lies rather than truth. When Paul introduces the problem of sin, he specifies, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). The suppression of truth. Jeremiah says that the basic problem with the human heart is that it is deceitful and, therefore, desperately sick (Jer 17:9). Natural humans cannot grasp the gospel because Satan has blinded their minds (2 Cor 4:4). The lie is the fundamental tool Satan uses and the fundamental problem that causes us to sin. The truth is there is no other God, but we pursue other gods, beginning with ourselves. The truth is children need to honor their parents, but we don't really believe that. The truth is that humans are made in the image of God, but we're okay with murder. The truth is that adultery rips apart people, perpetrators and victims alike, but we can live with that. And so on. Paul goes on in the 1st chapter of Romans to tell of the result of suppressing the truth: we "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom 1:25). That term, "a lie," is actually more literally "the lie," in that we served the creature -- primarily ourselves. And the lie became our operating template, which is why "God gave them up to a debased mind" (Rom 1:28). Natural Man does not operate on the basis of the truth. Natural Man is insane. I've often said that sin rots the brain, but the more accurate statement is that discarding the truth rots the brain, and sin results.

Herein, then, is the real problem. Jesus said that truth had a name. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). Jesus prayed, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). Any opposition to or defection from the truth, then, is opposition to and defection from Christ. Our world embraces that opposition on a daily basis. "Right and wrong are relative." "You are who you think you are." "Truth is what you make it." "I am the ultimate arbitrator of what is and isn't true." And each embrace of the lie -- from the father of lies -- is a step into more depravity. And we're so enamored with this flight from truth that we can't even see it. Why is the Word of God so important? Because "Your word is truth" and "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). In a fallen world our best practical source of truth is God's Word. As such, the father of lies will do all he can to repress it. Don't let him.

Why Did Jesus Come?

There appears to be disagreement about why Jesus came to Earth. "It was to preach to the poor." "No, no, it was to die for my sins." "Don't be ridiculous. It was to demonstrate love." And on and on. Of course, the question is not without clear answer. To know why the Word (John 1:1) came, let's just look at the Word.

If you think that Jesus came to Earth for one reason and one reason only, I would suggest that's a very narrow view. How often is God doing only one thing? So, we read, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matt 5:17). That's a reason Jesus Himself gave. Here's another. "Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for" (Mark 1:38). And, "For this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name" (John 12:27). As noted previously, He also said, "I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do" (John 17:4). In the next chapter He said, "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice" (John 18:37). Some of His reasons are unexpected, like, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind" (John 9:39). Contrast that with, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" (John 3:16-17). It's jarring to hear Jesus say, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matt 10:34-35), but He lists that one, too. We're much more comfortable with, "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45) (unless, of course, you're one who denies that Jesus came to pay the price for sin on our behalf). Very clearly Jesus claimed, "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). One that we like a lot is, "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (John 10:10). Just to name a few. Elsewhere we read, "God put [Christ] forward ... to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness ... so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:25-26). Unequivocally we find that, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim 1:15). Hebrews tells us, "Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives" (Heb 2:14). And in John's first epistle we find, "The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8).

Just a few examples of what we find in Scripture about why Jesus came to Earth. He came to fulfill the the Law. He came to preach the gospel. He came to glorify God, and to do so by doing the work that God sent Him to do. He came to testify to the truth. He came to bring judgment. He came to give eternal life to those who believe. He came to bring a sword between families. He came to serve. He came to give His life as a ransom. He came to seek and to save the lost. He came to give us abundant life. He came to demonstrate God's righteousness -- to make God both just and justifier. He came to confirm God's promises. He came to render death powerless. He came to destroy the works of the devil. All of that, and more. So, which one is it? The answer, of course, is "Yes." The answer is "All of the above." So when people try to boil it down to "one thing" -- always their pet notion -- you can be sure that they're not really interested in what Jesus had to say or the rest of the Word ... that is Jesus. He said He was "the Truth" (John 14:6), so all of that is the truth. Just accept it. And, perhaps, enjoy it.

Blessed Be the Name of the Lord

Picture Job. He just heard that everything he owned had been taken and all his kids had been killed. So, Scripture tells us, he "arose and tore his robe and shaved his head" ... makes sense ... "and fell on the ground and worshiped" (Job 1:21). Wait ... worshiped?? He famously said, "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). And Scripture tells us in so doing, "In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong" (Job 1:22). What did Job mean?

We all encounter unpleasant things in life. For many, "unpleasant" is an extremely mild description. Try "disastrous," "terrible," or "horrendous." We are all blessed in many ways and we all suffer loss in many ways. So what can we learn from Job here? First, note: Job believed that the theft of his wealth and the deaths of his children was ultimately from the hand of God. Later, when Job's own health was shattered and his wife told him, "Curse God and die," Job told her "Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:9-10). Notice that he understood both to be "from God." Do you? Second, Job freely accepted the good and the bad as from the hand of God. He didn't think God was being mean or negligent. When you encounter the negative, do you question God's goodness? Finally, Job blessed God. Job blessed God for the losses. That is, Job understood that God is in charge and God always does what is best and, therefore, these terrible losses ... were God's best. "Blessed be the name of the LORD." Do you?

We tend to think, when bad times come as they do for all of us, that it's simply a hardship to endure, an injustice to wait out, an evil perpetrated without purpose. If we don't actually blame God, we simply make excuses for Him. A temporary withdrawing of His protection for reasons unknown. A lack of faith on my part. "Just look at all the good God gives. I can endure some bad." But Job understood his tragedies, at least in some sense, to be a blessing from God. He did as Paul later commanded the rest of us; he gave thanks in everything (1 Thess 5:18). Do you believe that God is good ... all the time? Or is God open to our wise and superior judgment that sometimes His actions (or lack thereof) might not be up to snuff? Be careful how you answer.

Taking Offense

If someone says or does something to you that offends you, we call it "taking offense." So far, so good. Our current culture, however, has, again, redefined another term, it seems, and now make it an action, an aim, a goal rather than a passive response. What am I talking about? Take this recent story about the American Ornithological Society moving to change the names of dozens of birds. Why? Well, they are named after the people who had some sort of "racist" and/or slavery connection. So ... they're right out. No more "Anna's Hummingbirds," named after a French courtier, Anna d'Essling, by French naturalist, René-Primevère Lesson. There, you see? These were white people, so they have to go. Now, of course, Anna is just an example and only one of many. Are they renaming that hummingbird because she was white? I don't know. I could find no record of racism or slavery in either her line or that of Lesson. The truth is that almost no one knows if there was any such thing. Very few who know of the Anna's Hummingbird ever find out after whom it was named or even care.

What, then, is the problem? The American Ornithological Society wants to make bird names less offensive and more inclusive. Because most of the people (like me) who could recognize an Anna's Hummingbird or a Gambel's Quail were deeply aware and heartily offended by the names. Oh, wait, no ... that's not true. No, as in so many areas of our world today, people are not being offended; they are taking offense where none was offered, intended, or given. We now have the "microagression," "a subtle behavior – verbal or non-verbal, conscious or unconscious – directed at a member of a marginalized group that has a derogatory, harmful effect." Note that it can be "unconscious" and even unintentional. The "derogatory, harmful effect" is in the perception, not necessarily in the action. Whatever you do, do not tell someone, "I'm clearly not racist because I freely associate with people of color" because that is a microagression and will be taken as "derogatory" and "harmful." Psychology Today said taking offense is "an epidemic that seems to be spreading faster than Ebola." There is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, elitist, ageist, anti-fat, antisemitic ... a whole long list of offenses loaded up and ready to take. And, oh, we do, with gusto.

Paul warned Titus about false teachers, "especially those of the circumcision party" (Titus 1:10). He warned him not to listen to "Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth" (Titus 1:14). Instead, he said, "To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled" (Titus 1:15). Mind you, Paul wasn't saying, "Everything is pure." He was saying that lots of people "who turn away from the truth" make evil out of thin air. How do you know which it is? Watch out for those who "profess to know God, but they deny Him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work" (Titus 1:16). Those who turn away from the truth including those with "religious inclinations" who deny Him by their works are urging us all to "take offense" where none is given and none needs to be taken. We need not be so easily offended. The whole "pro-tolerance," "anti-judgmental," "inclusivity" movement that is sweeping out every corner of our world, it seems, is the most intolerant, judgmental, exclusive group I know. But, I suppose, me saying that will offend someone.