Offense

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible and Progressives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bye, Bye, My Ol' Eskimo Pie

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

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

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

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

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

The Trouble with Touch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judgment for Believers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News Weakly - 10/10/20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

All Things

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

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

And then, there is Scripture.

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

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

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

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

My Vote Doesn't Count

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

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

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

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

Just Thinkin'

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

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

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

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

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

My Favorite Verse

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

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

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

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

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

France Leads the Way

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

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

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

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

Church Programs

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

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

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

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

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

News Weakly - 10/3/29

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

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

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

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

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

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

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

A Hermeneutic

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

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

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

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

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

On a Personal Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Become Who You Are

Jesus told Nicodemus, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) That's where we get that "born again" theme in so much of our Christianese -- the language we Christians speak so fluently even if others don't get it. So John wrote, "As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." (John 1:12) That is, contrary to popular thinking, we are not "all God's children." Only those who receive Him get that designation. Only those who place their absolute confidence in Him can be called "born of God" (e.g., 1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18)

Now, lots of Christians will tell you -- will insist, even -- that you can be "born of God" with no actual change at all. Well, of course, you're forgiven, but not much else. Scripture doesn't appear to agree with that. John wrote, "Everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." (1 John 3:3) That's an "everyone" term; it leaves no room for "Well, some." And "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9) As we discussed before, that's a "cannot" term, leaving no room for "except." Just on those two points (and there are many more), it would seem that "You can come to Christ and not change at all" doesn't actually make any sense … at all.

When you start from "born again" -- "born of God" -- it makes perfect sense. We are all products of our birth. We are all products of our upbringing. We aren't just hanging around out here without roots or influences; we are someone. And we will express that. So if we are "born of God" as John says, we will express that, won't we? So John says, "By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:10) (Note the uneven parallel, where the opposite of "practice righteousness" is "does not love his brother." We can conclude, then, that the righteousness we are to practice is to love our brothers and the unrighteousness they practice is to fail to do that.) And Jesus (speaking of false teachers) says, "You will know them by their fruits." (Matt 7:16) Same notion.

The Bible teaches that when we receive Christ -- invite Him into our lives as Lord -- we are born again -- born of God. We are a "new creature." (2 Cor 5:17) Our goal is not to become a better person; our goal is to become what we already are -- born of God. Our aim is to be an expression of the Spirit that lives in us. Our purpose is to purify ourselves and act as God's children rather than "the children of the devil." All we really want is to become what we are. Put that way, it doesn't sound as hard as it seems, does it?

Wondering Out Loud

Jesus gave His disciples a new commandment. "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (John 13:34) Love one another as He loved us. Now that's big, especially since He gave that command the night that He would be arrested, the day before He died for our sins. "As I have loved you." It so impressed the author of the Gospel of John that he repeated it in His first epistle.

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)

Interestingly, Paul had the same sort of command for husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. (Eph 5:25-27)

This command is a special command. It is especially for Christians. It is especially for husbands. It is particularly for Christians loving fellow believers and husbands loving their wives. And it is unambiguous. Not just "as you love yourself." Instead, "As I have loved you."

So it leaves me wondering: what does that look like? How would it look if we did that? Sure, it's a lot of self-sacrifice, but what would it look like if you, husbands, loved your wives that way? What would it look like if your church loved each other that way? What would it look like if you Christians loved other Christians in your neighborhood, your town, your state, your nation, your world that way? Just how different would things look if we sought to obey that one, simple, solitary command? What it look like if I worked harder at obeying that one, simple, solitary command in my home, my church, my world? For starters, I'd assume, it would look a lot less like it was about me, wouldn't it?

I Don't Have Enough Faith

Faith … either you have it, or you don't. Well, perhaps not. Jesus spoke of a "mustard seed" of faith and Paul wrote that to each of us is given a "measure" of faith, so there does appear to be a "quantity" to faith. Still …

There is a significant segment of the Pentecostal-type Christianity that tells me that I can and should speak in tongues, that I can and should be able to heal people, that sort of thing. "It's God's will," they tell me. So, why isn't it happening? "Well," they assure me, "clearly you don't have enough faith." Yes, that's what I said. I don't have enough faith. I don't have sufficient faith to say that God will definitely give me spiritual gifts X and Y if I request (demand?) it because, after all, I think the Bible says that the Spirit gives to each one "as He wills" (1 Cor 12:11), not me, and Paul asks obviously rhetorical questions when he writes, "Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?" (1 Cor 12:30) No, they don't. So my faith isn't sufficient to overcome that -- God, in my view -- so I'm only a second-rate Christian (at best) to those types.

There is a surprising number of Christians these days who are really into the "name it and claim it" kind of faith -- the Prosperity Gospel. It is big in the U.S., of course, but it is surprisingly popular in Africa and South America, too. They actually believe that God wants you to be happy and healthy and wealthy and wise. (Okay, I threw in that "wise" thing for the rhythm of the sentence.) They tell me that all I have to do is have enough faith and I can have all that. Steve Taylor sang, "I know You'll give me what I need; they say I need a shopping mall." Yes, that kind of stuff. So why don't I have it? In fact, why don't most of them have it? Well, it's obviously not God's fault. It's ours. We don't have enough faith. We don't even have enough faith to get our prayer "Help my unbelief" answered. So I could be really rich and really healthy and stunningly good-looking (Do they offer that, or was I just dreaming it?), but I don't have enough faith.

There is a significant segment of modern Christendom that has arrived at an amazing place in these last days. They have discovered that all of Christendom for all time has failed to properly grasp Scripture -- its meaning, its purpose, its veracity (or lack thereof) -- and they, in these latter days, have figured it out. To be fair, many have bought the lines offered by modern con artists. Like those who argue that the concept of biblical inerrancy is new, coming in around the 18th and 19th centuries, never before seen prior. Of course, history doesn't actually support that notion and the Bible (2 Tim 3:16-17) doesn't support it, but someone said it, so it must be true. So they've "moved on" while remaining "truly biblical." They discovered that the "God-breathed" Scriptures are actually wrong, certainly outdated, and clearly improved upon by modern ideas and morality. They discovered that Paul was wrong when he referenced "dishonorable passions" when men and women exchanged the "natural relations" for passion for the same sex (Rom 1:26-27). They realized that Sodom and Gomorrah died of inhospitality, not "sexual immorality" and "unnatural desire" (Jude 1:7). They figured out that Paul's "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12) was simple misogyny and could be removed now. They argue that "There is none who does good; no, not one" (Rom 3:10) actually means there are lots of people who do good. In fact, humans are basically good. And so on and so on. These particular elite and their followers (When did "elite" become in insult?) discovered that they had some sort of special "in" with God so that they could see all this when all of Christendom before them did not. I don't have enough faith for that. I don't think I'm that bright, that intelligent, that spiritual. I don't have enough faith in myself to believe that I can correct 2,000 years of consistent Christian thinking. I don't have enough faith.

So I'm stuck here in the mediocre. I just take God's Word for what it says, believing in a measly God who doesn't make mistakes and isn't limited by time or people and can actually mean what He breathes to be said and maintain it and keep it and have it be understood. See? Simplistic. I'm not up to reinterpreting the Bible or correcting the Church Fathers so that Scriptures can be manipulated into meaning nearly nothing at all. I'm just not that good. So I don't get miraculous spiritual gifts, magnificent wealth or health, or expert divine guidance to correct Christendom along the way.

And I'm okay with that.

Just One of Those Things

I love birds. I really do. I mean, they fly. How cool is that? But, seriously, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Bottom line, the intricacy and wonder of birds are indeed the iceberg that seem to sink the Titanic of Evolution. It is "irreducible complexity."

So recently I came across this article from Livescience.com. No, not a Creationist site. Quite the opposite. The article examines the question of how birds can navigate long distances. Darwin thought they memorized their twists and turns in one direction and simply reversed them to go the other way. Darwin was wrong. According to the article, about "50 animal species, ranging from birds and mammals to reptiles and insects, use Earth's magnetic field for navigation." Earth's magnetic field is so weak that scientists can't figure out how they can possibly do it. Apparently something in the birds' eyes produces a photochemical molecule that acts as a magnetic compass. Birds can "see" north or south. Now how cool is that? (Science still isn't clear on how they use it to navigate.) For me it's just one of those things; one of those "irreducible complexity" things that makes me a theist rather than not.

Now, look, there is a lot of stuff about birds. There is their unique hollow bone structure, their unusual feather coverings, their fascinating "velcro" feather structures, their built-in practices, their unique compositions … their obvious design features. All of this and more combines to scream "Maker!" and not "Chance!" And we know Who that Maker is.

News Weakly - 9/26/20

Hypocrisy or Just irony?
Vicky Osterweil wrote a book, In Defense of Looting. Hailed as "A fresh argument for rioting and looting as our most powerful tools for dismantling white supremacy," the book serves as a an explanation as to why it's okay for people to riot and loot and pillage. On the cover page is a warning. "The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book without permission is a theft of the author's intellectual property." It ends with "Thank you for your support of the author's rights." Nice double standard. "It's good and right to steal from and destroy others, but don't touch my stuff."

What's Right Is … Irrelevant
House Speaker Pelosi threatened to impeach Trump or Barr if the Senate sought to push through a Supreme Court nomination before Biden took office. It's the principle of the thing, you see. If we can't get what we want, we force it using any dirty trick at all. Oh, you may not recognize it; it's called "playing politics." And then there was Ruth Bader Ginsburg's last wish, "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." Trump called it a false story, but I'm wondering about how that was supposed to work. If Trump gets reelected, we should honor her wish and leave the seat vacant for four more years? I think it's clear the she was trying to restack the court along political lines, currently unnecessary given the fact too many "conservative judges" aren't very conservative anymore.

The New Justice System
We have to come up with some new phrases that accurately reflect "our truth." The original was "innocent until proven guilty" which was in distinction to most of the rest of the world's "guilty until proven innocent." Of course, that was then; this is now. So while we've headed more into the latter, "guilty until proven innocent," I think we've even moved beyond. There is "guilty even if proven innocent" (like the officers in the Rodney King case) and "guilty because we said so." It appears that for some the predisposition of "guilty beyond any exoneration" is applied to all white people and to all police officers of any color. All part of the new "Justice means exactly and only what we say." As demonstrated in Louisville.

Just Embrace Your New COVID Overlords
I'm still trying to figure this guy out. Anthony Fauci complained this week about the "divisive state" of U.S. society and how it is a roadblock to our pandemic response. What does he mean? He specified individuals who are "taking sides" on public health measures. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if an individual listens to the government and agrees to wear a mask, abide by social distancing, etc., that person is by definition "taking sides." He or she is siding with the government. On the other hand, America is built on individualism and equality, so it would appear that Fauci is opposed to individualism and equality and would prefer sheep to individuals of equal value. "If we want America to be safe in this pandemic," he appears to say, "we will require unthinking, unreasoning, unquestioning followers … with me as the leader. What we need you to do is to exercise your individualism and equality by following what I say without having an opinion." (By the way, for an amusing little fact for those who "question the COVID reporting" -- you rotten devils, you -- on September 9 Arizona reported -2 deaths. Just saying.)

The Unavoidable Double Standard
In an acknowledged and blatant attempt to be obstructionist, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer invoked the "two-hour rule," a rule that says no Senate committee or subcommittee can meet after Senate has been in session for 2 hours or after 2PM. (Does that rule strike anyone else as completely arbitrary?) "The move," the report says, "was intended to retaliate against Republicans, who have agreed to vote on confirming President Trump's nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy." Schumer said, "We invoked the two-hour rule because we can't have business as usual when Republicans are destroying the institution." Schumer further obstructed proceedings on Tuesday by blocking a briefing by the official leading election security efforts after Schumer had long complained that they weren't having enough briefings about election security. But on Wednesday the Democrats revoked their own rule so they could hold their hearing on Trump's "missteps in responding to COVID-19." Simple obstructionism. And a pure double standard. "If the GOP does it, it's 'politics'. If we do it, it's 'principles'." Clearly, "We will not abide by our own rule if it doesn't suit us. We will have business as usual if the business is attempted to harm the president." Just like Pelosi above.

Not Sure What to Think
Wisconsin has declared a public health emergency due to a surge in COVID-19 among people ages 18-24. College age. They're going back to college. And, being the responsible young adults they are, they are partying and ignoring the rules. Now, the university I work for has mandated a 100% testing of all students, but I'm pretty sure that testing people who had no symptoms and hadn't been tested before wouldn't look like a surge, would it? And they tell us that it is the 55-and-older crowd that is in danger from COVID while the younger folks often go without symptoms. That can't be the case here, can it? I don't know. As we know, masks don't protect you from getting the virus, so everyone needs to wear it full time, including the governor apparently alone in the room in which he is making his announcement. You know, just in case a cameraman might have it and cough in his direction.

Cutting Edge
California Governor Newsom has decided that by 2035 you can no longer buy a gas-engine vehicle in California. The ramifications are staggering. The "gas station on every corner" industry will necessarily vanish along with all those jobs. I think it would be ironic if the major oil industry in California would continue to provide products for the rest of the country while the state sought to remove it from existence. It will be a major boost to the zero-emission car industry since it will force 36 million cars to be zero-emission. And currently California has neither the infrastructure or a plan to handle all those cars -- charging stations, hydrogen fuel, etc. No telling what the impact will be to tourism when tourists can't expect to drive into the state and get fuel. But, hey, it will certainly decrease California's emissions if a substantial number of Californians find they can no longer tolerate living there. Would that make Newsom's plan "cutting edge"? (Yes, that's a pun.) It does sound a lot like China's plans to be "carbon neutral" by 2060. The primary difference is Californians voted Newsom in.

Another Dissenter
Capitol Hill Baptist Church (Capitol Hill Baptist is Mark Dever's church.) in Washington, D.C. is suing the mayor. The mayor banned worship gatherings over 100 people "even if held outdoors and even if worshippers wear masks and practice appropriate social distancing." CHBC meets outdoors, practices social distancing, and requires masks. The church claims that gathering the entire congregation "is a religious conviction." Area businesses and organizations can meet without the same restrictions. (This is Washington; think "racial justice demonstrations," etc.) The suit is over the mayor's violation of the 1st and 5th Amendments and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Draw your own conclusions about the mayor's views since she appeared at a gathering of 10,000 protesters and praised them for showing up.

A Snapshot into Media Bias
The story in the Washington Post was about a Seattle police officer who rolled his bike over a protester's head and has been placed on leave. The story about the same mob from the Washington Times was about a Seattle police officer bashed in the head by a protester with a baseball bat. Looking over the headlines on a search page, which approach do you think got the most ink -- the battered officer (1) or the mean one (15)? The message is clear; it's okay to bash a police officer, but not to bounce a protester. (Note: I'd suggest neither is okay.)

Pointed Humor
Considering my "Unavoidable Double Standard" story above, perhaps the Babylon Bee aimed this headline at me: "Nation Surprised To Learn All Politicians Are Hypocrites." This one, on the other hand, is just funny: "Biden Forgets To Put On Clothes, Media Praises His Majestic Outfit."

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.