The Evil Rich

It is assumed in many corners that "rich = evil." We saw it in the "Occupy Wall Street" protests against the "1%." We see it in the Social Justice Warriors who argue that rich people need to have their money removed to make the world a more equitable place. We even see it in Christian realms arguing that Jesus commanded us to "sell all that we possess and give to the poor" (Luke 18:22). (Oddly enough, it is a very rare Christian who quotes this, means it, and does it themselves.) Even among those who don't believe being rich is the same as being evil, there is a gut feeling that it just might be. I mean, didn't Paul write, "Money is the root of all evil"?

What does the Bible say? Let's address that first biblical reference. A rich young ruler asked Jesus, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 18:18). Jesus's first response was to question his ability to define "good." "No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19). But Jesus told him in order to inherit eternal life (not necessarily the same as being "saved") that he had to keep the commandments (Luke 18:20). Interestingly, the commandments Jesus gave him were the "horizontal" ones, the people-to-people ones. The Ten Commandments have two components -- vertical and horizontal. The first is a right relationship with God and the second is with each other. The young man claimed to have kept the horizontal part, so Jesus went to the vertical. "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me" (Luke 18:22). This was not a command. It was not a universal requirement. Jesus was simply pointing out that "Section One" -- love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind -- was a failure. This young man loved his money more than his God.

The second text is also interesting. First, as some of you have noticed, it isn't in the Bible. (Which is why I gave no reference.) Here's the actual quote.

For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (1 Tim 6:10)

It does not say money is the root of all evil. It says that the love of money is a root. And it doesn't actually say "it is the root of all evil," but that it is a root of all sorts of evil. So the problem here isn't money; it is love. It gets even clearer if you take it in context. Paul was warning Timothy about those who advocate different doctrines (1 Tim 6:3) and mistakenly see godliness as a way to gain wealth and power (1 Tim 6:5). Instead, Paul says, godliness is a means of great gain when it includes contentment (1 Tim 6:6). If we are satisfied with what God gives us ("contentment") then we can avoid the "snare" of wanting to get rich (1 Tim 6:9) -- the love of money (1 Tim 6:10). So, no, Paul isn't saying that being rich is a sin; he's saying that loving money is.

If you'd like further confirmation, just look a little farther down in the same chapter.

Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. (1 Tim 6:17)

Interesting, isn't it? Not "Instruct those who are rich to sell everything." Not "Tell them to repent." No, tell them to fix their hope on God. He supplies us with all things to enjoy. Biblically, then, being rich is not a sin. Loving money is. Placing your trust in money is. Seeking to be rich is. Or, conversely, failing to be content with what God has given us. So we need to ask ourselves not "Do I have too much money?" but "Do I love money?" We have a helpful tool here to answer with -- "Am I content with what I have?" If the answer is "No" (as our society tells us it should be), then we have a problem. And it's not money. It's the rich young ruler's problem -- loving possessions more than God. And that is sin.

The Cleansing?

Recently the Pew Research Center came out with a study that suggests that in less than 50 years Christians could make up less than half of the U.S. population. "Oh, my!" "If Christians keep leaving religion at the same rate observed in recent years," they say, by 2070 the best outlook for Christianity is 54% in America and the worst case would be down around 35%. "Oh, my goodness!!" Of course, I would argue that it's all nonsense, and not necessarily because their numbers are wrong.

First, what do we mean by "Christians"? For most of us today the term refers to anyone who claims it. No context. No content. Just the simple claim. Years ago a friend of mine told a woman, "I am a Christian, you know." She answered, "Aren't we all?" That kind of thinking. But is that a "Christian?" In institutional terms, it can refer to that organization we call "Christianity" that has no qualifications except the willingness to call it your own. In biblical terms that's not Christianity. Christianity in the Bible is referred to as "the faith" and requires adherence -- agreement with -- the faith to be part of it. Frankly, so does every other organization. "If you want to be part of us, you have to agree with us." So today's modern "Christianity" is an anomaly and a bizarre one. Instead, Jesus (You know, the one for whom "Christianity" is named) said, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:13-14). That is, modern society says "The gate that is 'Christianity' is wide and many find it" in direct contradiction of Christ. Jesus said, "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt 10:37-38). In distinction, modern, "crossless" Christianity denies it all. So, I would argue, that's not "Christian." And, I would suggest, Christians -- Jesus's version -- have always been a minority.

The fear of Christians and the fear of many in this country regarding Christians is the political power they wield. They wield that power in a democracy because they are a "majority." And when they become a "minority," they won't. So this report, for Christians (by their reckoning) is that they'll lose political power. For the rest, it's good news. But genuine Christians were never about political power. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). He went on to say, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt 28:18). So political power here and now is meaningless. Instead, we serve a God who is able to do "exceedingly abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us" (Eph 3:20). Our modern pseudo-Christianity may lose political power, but Christians have no need to be concerned about that. Not with that kind of power within.

It is said that America is (or, at least, was) a Christian nation. Since no nation can meet the demands of faith and practice that identifies one as "Christian," it is nonsense, of course. But that's not what is meant by the term, "Christian nation." The term refers to a nation whose laws and culture tend more toward the laws and values that are found in (genuine) Christianity than in the world. And there was a time when a majority of unbelievers would still submit to those kinds of laws and values even if they didn't believe in Jesus. In that sense, we were, once, a Christian nation. And, in that sense, we clearly are no longer that nation, as we watch such laws and values erode in our time. But the truth is, Christians (the genuine type) are not driven by laws or social pressure; they are driven by the Spirit within. So if the Pew Research Report is perfectly accurate, what we're looking at is not a decay of Christianity. It is as peeling off of a false veneer to reveal the real core of what it means to be a follower of Christ. (In biblical terms, "They went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19).) Our real concern won't be political power or even a decline of the faith; those are false concepts. It will be that we have submitted ourselves "to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy" (Jude 1:24). Because He is the One who builds His church. Because in Him we are more than conquerors (Rom 8:37).

Oh, Behave

If you look through the pages of the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, there are some things in there that are not, things you were pretty sure were but, as it turns out, really aren't. One of the most obvious is the "right to privacy." It's not in there. It may be implied. Your right against illegal search and seizure, for instance, might hinge on some aspect of a right to privacy, but, in fact, the right to privacy is not in our Constitution.

One that is currently coming up more often in the news these days is parental rights. In the same way that pro-abortion folks have believed that abortion is a constitutional right, we seem to have believed all along that we have parental rights to direct the upbringing and education of our children. So when schools and doctors, for instance, start encouraging our children to change genders and hide it from their parents, we are miffed. (Is that an understatement?) We are outraged at the violation of our constitutional, parental rights. And, as it turns out, they're not in there. You can be prosecuted for failing to execute your parental responsibilities, but you have no legally protected rights in that regard. We believe that parents should be allowed to raise their children, for instance, in biblical teaching, protected by our rights as parents. It's not in there. Some states have those rights in their laws, but they're not protected by the federal laws. So today, 21 states have policies that require teachers to assign new names and pronouns to students who identify as "trans" without notifying or getting the consent of parents. Because your so-called "parental rights" are not protected by our Constitution. What are we to do?

Be the Parent
Let's face it; being a parent is work. Hard work. Continuous and lifelong work. Most parents think the hard work is that early "no sleep" phase. Would that it were so easy. After that it only gets harder. Fathers are told, "Do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Eph 6:4). It is the duty of all parents to discipline and instruct their kids in the Lord. Wait ... let me look again. We all seemed to think it is the duty of all parents to be their kids' best buddies. Hmm. Not in there. Imagine that. Children will have friends throughout their lives, but parents are much more rare ... and much more necessary. God has assigned you parents to be ... parents. So we parents need to teach and train and guard our kids while they're young and do the same, in modified fashion perhaps, for life. Because we live in a world hostile to God and we are their first line of defense.

Guard their Influences
The psalmist wrote, "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers ..." (Psa 1:1). Solomon wrote, "Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm" (Prov 13:20). Paul assured the Corinthians, "Do not be deceived: 'Bad company ruins good morals'" (1 Cor 15:33) So what do we do? "Well, we don't want to interfere in our childrens' lives too much. We don't want to come across as too harsh. Let's let them choose their own friends." Or, let's put it another way. "Since Satan is the 'god of this world' (2 Cor 4:4), let's let his people be our kids' primary influence."

Not only are their peers a primary influence; so are their teachers (which makes it odd that so many parents opt out of teaching their own kids). We elected to let schools teach our kids "information" and churches teach our kids "religion" and ... well ... at least that's off our plates. As public schools have become more inculcated with anti-Christian teaching and principles, it becomes clearer that public school teachers, while certainly not all bad, are not all safe. Safe in the sense of not contravening your influence, not teaching your kids that you're wrong, not turning your kids against you and your God. And churches are certainly (hopefully) better, but how many are actually teaching kids rather than entertaining them? How many are pushing your kids to dig deeper into God's Word? How many are challenging your kids to love God? From what I've seen over the last 30 years or so, that is declining, but most parents aren't paying attention.

Be the Parent
("Didn't he just say that?" Yes, I did, but ...) There is more. What your kids need more than anything is a united mother and father so dedicated to their relationship with God that they emulate Christ's relationship with the Church in their marriage in front of their kids and live dedicated to Him, to each other, and to their children. Our world tells us that's confused. Our world tells us, "You need 'Me time.' Your kids' needs are not nearly as important as your own." So we pursue our own relief and hand the kids off to "responsible adults" -- school teachers, church youth groups, etc. -- and the gaggle of unbelievers that must necessarily form a large part of the kids' friends, and are baffled when we see too much of the world in our children. We minimize our own influence and can't figure out why 1) we find our own influence minimized and 2) why we didn't see these things coming. "My child would never do that." What makes you think you would know? Are you close enough to see? And our world has warned us against godly discipline, and we're not doing it. It's not because the Scriptures are unclear (e.g., Prov 23:13-14; Heb 12:7-8; etc.) It's because we aren't being the parents we are supposed to be.

Satan has a plan. He has a plan for our children: divide and conquer. Cut them out of the "flock" where the flock is parents and other godly influences and then bring them down. Modern parents buy it. Even Christian parents. We neglect our responsibilities as parents and focus instead on our own felt needs and can't figure out where we went wrong. We seek to be our kids' pals and not their parents -- "Too authoritarian" -- and find our influencing waning quickly, even in small children. Most importantly, we forget that we are commanded to love and teach our children and we are empowered by God to do it. I would argue that Satan is executing his plan very well. I would suggest that executing God's plan for parents and their kids with extreme prejudice might be important right now. The goal of our instruction is love (1 Tim 1:5). Ignoring God's plan for our kids with us as their responsible parents is not love.

Jesus v Paul -- Let's Get Ready to Rumble!

At one point in His ministry Jesus had a young man ask Him, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" (Matt 19:16) Jesus, unaware that salvation was by grace through faith, mistakenly told him the works he needed to do to be saved: follow the laws (Matt 19:18) and sell all you have and give it to the poor (Matt 19:21). It was that last good deed, apparently, that the man lacked, so he was pretty high up on the "godly" ladder, so to speak. Unfortunately, he just couldn't reach that top rung (Matt 19:22). Jesus went on to give His disciples (who wondered, "If the rich can't make it, how can anyone?" (Matt 19:26)) what we call today the Prosperity Gospel. "Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for My name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life" (Matt 19:29). So we have this dilemma. Paul claimed we are saved by faith apart from works and Jesus claimed we are saved by selling all we own and giving to the poor ... but don't worry; when we do, we get rich. Who was right? Hang on. The question gets worse. If the two, Jesus and Paul, are categorically opposed -- if one is wrong and the other is right -- then where is your "Word of God" now? In what possible sense can the Bible be God's Word if it is obviously and blatantly wrong? First, let's put that to rest. Jesus and Paul don't contradict each other. The man asked how to inherit eternal life, not how to be saved. How does one inherit, on his own, eternal life? Live perfection. This man didn't and Jesus pointed it out. So what was Jesus's gospel?

The Gospels tell us that Jesus preached the gospel. Of course, His gospel was not "Believe that I have died and risen again and you will be saved" because, well, He hadn't yet. No, Jesus preached a "kingdom" gospel -- "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt 4:17; Mark 1:15). Matthew wrote, "He went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people" (Matt 4:23). He sent His disciples to preach the same (Luke 9:2). In fact, the first proclamation of the gospel -- of "good news of great joy" -- came at His birth. The angel told the shepherds, "I bring you good news of a great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:10). The gospel -- the good news -- then, is Jesus. He is the good news, the gospel.

How? First, there is the gospel -- good news -- that He came ... came at all. Second, there is the gospel that He is the Savior promised from old, the Messiah, the Lord. So it would stand to reason that He would preach a gospel -- good news -- of His kingdom which was promised before and was "at hand" -- coming to its fruition now. That kingdom would be established on His death and resurrection (Php 2:5-11). That kingdom includes "All authority in heaven and on earth" (Matt 28:18). Our typical gospel is "Jesus died to save us." Jesus's gospel was much, much bigger ... and no less. Did Jesus preach His death? Sure! He told His disciples repeatedly. He told them about the "new covenant" at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20). He referenced perhaps the most explicit prophecy of the death of the Messiah (Isa 53) and applied it to Himself (Isa 53:12; Luke 22:37). He told of the praying sinner who went home justified because he looked to God and not self (Luke 18:9-14). Jesus did preach that gospel ... and more.

The Philippian jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?" to which Paul answered, "Believe that Jesus died and rose for the forgiveness of your sins and you will be saved." Oh ... wait ... no he didn't. He said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). Paul's gospel was "the Lord Jesus." What does that include? It includes a Son who clothed Himself in flesh and came to Earth to die (Php 2:5-8). It includes "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:1-9). It includes this life -- the "here" -- and the next -- the "hereafter." It includes faith in the Son of God and faith in the Risen Lord. It includes, in the words of the old hymn, "Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow." There are those who would have you believe the gospel is "A better life now." There are others that are quite certain it is "In the sweet by and by." Both are right ... and wrong. The gospel is for now and later. The gospel is the kingdom of God now and forever. It is both better now and better later and so much more. Both exceed our limited views. And, no, Jesus and Paul don't contradict.

Going to Church

More than 30 years ago I worked with a guy in the Air Force who was a fellow believer. I found out he and his family attended the Methodist church near his home. "How long have you been Methodists?" I asked. "Oh, we're not," he answered. It turned out that he had an unusual approach to church. Being in the Air Force, we all knew that we were ultimately transients. The longer we were in, the more we would move. And those of us who were Christians would have to find new churches wherever we went. Well, this guy had his own method. He would, by choice, attend the church nearest his home that he could attend. He figured his aim in going to church was to minister rather than be ministered to. He figured that more neighbors would be in that church than one farther away. He figured it would be easier to invite an unchurched neighbor to that church than one farther away. Church, to him, was ministry.

Sure, there are nuances. I specified, for instance, the nearest church "that he could attend." The closest church to one place I moved to was the Church of Light and Love which touted itself as a "Christian church" but operated on the premise that "if God is love, then love is God and we'll love ... in the modern, secular, 'let's have a lot of sex together' way." Not one to attend. Not a Christian church. That is, some are too far out to attend. So there were some additional concerns, but the principle remains. We like to attend where we are comfortable and fed, but that's not the purpose of the church. It's not even the aim of the Christian life. The Christian life is a crucified life (Gal 2:20) and the aim of the church is the building up of the body of Christ (Eph 4:12). There is an interesting verse in the passage in Ephesians where Paul is speaking to this directly. While explaining the purpose of the church, he says, "Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph 4:15). Notice the direction. We are to grow up into Christ how? Not "Others speaking to us in love," but us speaking truth in love. As we speak the truth, with love as our aim (1 Tim 1:5), we grow up into Him. That is to be our purpose, of course, and it is accomplished by speaking, rather than being spoken to, by ministering rather than being ministered to.

My friend way back then did not see this as a command, a divine instruction for all believers. He didn't think that all godly people ought to attend the nearest church. He did it because he thought he ought to. I came away considering the principle. Are we in it to minister or to be ministered to? Are we part of a church so we can be fed, or so we can feed others? Which is more biblical? I have retained the unshakeable notion that we are to be ministers more than "the ministered to" whether it's by attending the closest or by ministering wherever we attend. I'm pretty sure our American "consumer church" lifestyle is not what the Savior had in mind.

More

Paul commanded Timothy "first of all" in the process of fighting the good fight (1 Tim 1:18) to pray (1 Tim 2:1-2). To pray a lot. To pray in many ways. To pray for everyone and especially for those in authority. Why? Today a lot of people are skeptical. Pray? In crisis or in calamity people will say, "Our prayers are with them" and others will complain. "What good is prayer?" As it turns out, prayer is amazingly effective. Prayer can do ... more.

According to Scripture, God is able to do more than you ask (Eph 3:20). "Oh, I don't know," some might say, "I can ask a lot." Okay, but, in fact, that Scripture says that God can do far more than you ask. "Really?" you question. "I mean, I have some pretty big requests." Maybe, but that text actually says He is able to do "far more abundantly than all" you ask. The terms are superlatives. He is able to do more, far more, abundantly more, beyond all we ask. Still, the skeptic answers, "I don't know. I have a pretty vivid imagination." Fine, let's go there. He "is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think." If you can dream it, He can exceed it. The God to whom we pray is able to exceed our wildest dreams. Why pray? Because that's the God to whom we pray.

Then, having answered every one of our objections as to His capability, Scripture takes it one step further. We are to pray for everyone because He can answer, but He does so "according to the power at work within us." Yes, He is "out there." Yes, He is Transcendent. So, sure, it sometimes feels like it's "pie in the sky," religious talk. It's not. It's here and now. It's real and actual and in place. God has the ability to exceed your wildest imagination when you ask, and He does it by using power already working in you. Present. Imminent. People can dismiss the power of prayer all they want. They can tell you that praying for people in trouble, in need, in authority is all nonsense. God thinks otherwise. God can do exceedingly more than we can ask or even imagine. We should pray ... especially for His glory (Eph 3:21).

News Weakly - 9/17/22

Another Fine Example
The headline read "Watering while Black: anatomy of a pastor’s Alabama arrest. Well, sort of. A neighbor told police a suspicious person was in a neighbor's yard, but it was just one of the neighbors watering plants while the other one was away. The man arrested was a black pastor. And the "arrest" was more of a "questioned and detained in place" until he was released. Sure, problematic, but no one was charged and no one was booked. Now, of course, the pastor is suing the officers and the town. Because that's what good Christians do; they sue for every last dime they can get. Just like Jesus. Oh ... wait.

What's Good for the Gander ...
Hillary Clinton appeared on CNN to explain why the DOJ should certainly pursue Donald Trump over improper handling of government documents. "He's not president." True, but she never was and didn't face the DOJ over her email scandal. Hunter Biden was never president and gets a pass on his apparently illegal activities abroad. Will they be willing to apply the same standard to DOJ investigations of their actions?

Domestic Threat
Kamala Harris warned about "very dangerous" domestic threats in the U.S. such as those who think the 2020 election was stolen as well as the activist court. Mind you. The Supreme Court doing their job is a fundamental component in the Constitution -- at the core of this nation. Why isn't demeaning and attacking the Supreme Court just as much an assault on this nation as any protest at the Capitol building?

Welcome to Our Lobby
The president is giving more of your tax dollars to biomanufacturing to make our lives better with bioscience. He's not doing it by congressional means as the Constitution provides. He's doing it by divine mandate executive order. I wonder how much the lobbyist(s) paid.

More What?
Eric Trump said, "There's no one who's done more for Christianity than Donald Trump. No one." I, of course, am confused. I'm thinking ... oh, I don't know ... like Jesus Christ for starters, followed immediately by John, Peter, Paul, and the rest of the Apostles. I'm thinking of the Church Fathers and the greats throughout church history. I'm thinking of all those who actually undergird and live it in public, those who have not brought shame to the name of Christ. I'm thinking ... the boy is confused.

Light in Darkness
Perhaps not my usual "News Weakly" fare, but I think you would be encouraged to read about the funeral (and life) of Eliza Fletcher, the young teacher kidnapped and murdered in Memphis.

Dream Big
The Washington Examiner is reporting that Lindsey Graham intends to propose a national abortion ban. Graham is from South Carolina which just failed to pass a "near-total abortion ban" along with other states who are blocked by vote or court from doing the same. I would argue that America is too far down the hole to recover by democratic vote. The American public will no longer tolerate protecting innocent human beings; that's too much to ask. And there is no point to a "Everyone must come to Christ in faith" law.

Believe the Science
In what appears to be an ongoing category of News Weakly, COVID cases, they tell me, are way down. So are monkeypox cases. So in the case of a pandemic, the best thing to do is to prevent the circumstances in which someone might contract the virus ... or don't. Let's look at it another way. They didn't want to stigmatize men who had sex with men, so they did nothing for prevention of monkeypox. Apparently they didn't mind at all stigmatizing work and social interaction for COVID. Let's look at it another way. Where's the science? Because I think you and I have been bamboozled here.

Crazy Politician
That Mike Pence ... what a guy. He suggested that safeguarding innocent children "is profoundly more important than any short-term politics." That's no way to get elected. It's true, but it isn't "politically correct" (in the most literal use of the phrase). Either we believe in the sanctity of human life or we do not. Politics is not the question.

With Friends Like This ...
Thanks to the Fed raising the interest rates, mortgage rates have exceeded 6% this week for the first time since the market busting turn of 2008. Or, to put it another way, it will be much harder for lower to middle-class people to buy a house. Another fine effort on the part of our government to lighten our money woes. Please ... stop helping. We can't afford your help.

The Father of Lies
The vote on the falsely named Respect for Marriage Act has been delayed in the Senate because they can't find 10 Republicans to obliterate the meaning of marriage like that. I'd argue that real "marriage equality legislation" would say "same-sex marriage is not equal to marriage," but no one is asking me.

News You Can Beelieve
In politics, a report is out that Biden has seen the outpouring of love for the Queen Elizabeth II and is considering dying to boost his approval ratings. On the immigration debacle, a Martha's Vineyard resident called police to report an hispanic in the area not operating a leaf blower. Meanwhile, the Obamas are taking it in stride, building new cages to hold arriving migrants.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Which Are You?

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gave what we call "the Beatitudes." "Beatitude" refers to that which is "beatific" -- that which is blissfully happy. "Beatitude" refers to supreme blessedness. So Jesus laid out those who are supremely blessed -- the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the gentle, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, peacemakers, the persecuted ... wait ... go back ... peacemakers?

"Blessed are the peacemakers," Jesus said, "for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt 5:9). That's interesting. Being called "sons of God" is a supreme blessing. And not everyone gets it. If you are not a peacemaker, don't count on it. Not everyone gets called a son of God. So it would be important to know just what is this thing called "peacemaker"?

In classical Greek it referred to an ambassador sent on a mission to make peace. The text in Matthew suggests someone who is a "peace-worker" -- someone who works at making peace. In Jesus's terms, it would include both working at peace between people who are in conflict with each other -- either two other people or the peacemaker and someone else who is conflict with them -- as well as people who are in conflict with God -- making peace person to person and peace between a person and God.

So, it begs the question. Peacemakers are those who actively pursue peace; peace between people and peace with God. A ministry of reconciliation, if you will. Would you classify yourself as someone who does that, or are you more of the type that likes to stir the pot, poke the bear, ruffle feathers, disturb the waters? (We sure have a lot of metaphors for making trouble, don't we?) Are you one aiming to be included in being called "sons of God" or not? Are you a troublemaker or a peacemaker? I guess that would all depend on whether or not you want to be one of those who are supremely blessed.

Two Unbelievable Things

Romans 1-3 is an explanation about why God is angry at all humans for "ungodliness" -- broken relationship with God -- and "unrighteousness" -- broken relationships with people. For most of three chapters he lays out the case against us, and it is not good. At the last part of the third chapter he turns to the solution -- justified by faith apart from works -- and explains in the 4th chapter how it has always been so, all the way back to Abraham and beyond. We are declared righteous by redemption in Christ (Rom 3:24). It's the only way. So in chapter 5 he explains some of the benefits.

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (Rom 5:1-5)

"Therefore," meaning, because we are saved by faith apart from works. Therefore, what? Those who have been justified by faith have peace with God. Now, that may not sound very big to you, but I suspect that's because you, like most of us, tend to think that we're pretty deserving. We're pretty special. God ought to be at peace with us. If so, you missed the point. God is not at peace with humans; He is angry. Justifiably so. If we understood how far gone we were -- how much of an enemy of God (Rom 5:10) we were -- "peace with God" would come across as astounding. Beyond that, unless you're one of those rare (read "nonexistent") folks who has arrived at sinless perfection, "peace with God" given our constant, ongoing sin problem, should be even more amazing. Not small. Not "nice." More like "unbelievable!!" But true. We have, he says, peace with God. We have, he says, access to His "unmerited favor" -- His grace. We "exult in the hope of His glory." We, who were enemies of God.

Most people think of the next thing as more unbelievable. "Not only this," Paul writes and explains that not only can we exult in the hope of the glory of God, we can exult in tribulation! "Yes! Yippee!! Oh, wait. What?" He explains why. Suffering produces the ability to keep going -- perseverance. Perseverance produces a character that has been tested, proven, honed. And tribulation-honed, enduring, proven character produces hope. It is a sure hope, not a wish, because of the love God has poured out -- dumped on us -- through the Holy Spirit. Sure, it seems weird, but it is not only true, it is practical. He isn't saying merely "God will get you through tough times." No. He is saying that and "God will use them for your benefit, your perfecting." Suffering for your benefit. That's what he says.

If you understand our original standing with God -- a death sentence -- then this justification by faith has utterly amazing ramifications -- two unbelievable outcomes. Without having earned it, you have peace with God. Without having earned it, you have God's favor. In fact, even though you will continue to violate godliness and righteousness in this life, you retain both peace and grace with God. And in this life, as you face absolutely certain troubles, none of them are sufficient to harm you. Instead, they are used by God to improve you, to shape you, to give you character and hope. A sure hope. Two utterly unbelievable things that we can believe and count on and enjoy. Who said doctrine wasn't practical?

Come, Let Us Reason Together

In Christendom there have always been voices that argued, "Everyone gets saved in the end." It's called "Universalism" and, as it turns out, it is not not biblical. That is, while a lot of people have pet doctrines devised primarily from personal preferences, this one can be traced to the Bible. But ... is it true?

One of the most puzzling texts that we find on this is in Paul's first letter to Timothy.

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. (1 Tim 4:10)

Now, remember, we want to be true to the text, not simply our traditions. So what do we make of the phrase that says that God "is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe"? Well, the obvious first choice is "If He is the Savior of all people, then all people are saved. End of story." But most believers will balk at that, primarily from the rest of Scripture that includes a lot about eternal torment. Jesus spoke more about that than He did about heaven. It is throughout the New Testament, literally from Matthew through Revelation. If all of that is wrong, then we have a real problem. But what about the text? Isn't that what it says? I would argue, "Not quite." If Paul intended to convey that God is the Savior of all men, then what does the next phrase mean? In what sense is it "especially of those who believe"? If we're all saved, how is "those who believe" in any sense special? That doesn't make sense.

So, those who hold to the whole of Scripture will argue, "No, it can't mean Universalism because the rest of Scripture is quite clear that not all are saved. Jesus was exceptionally clear on that (Matt 7:13-14)." These, then, most commonly add a word to the text (or, rather, to the intent) -- "potentially." Paul is saying here that God is the potential Savior of all men, but the actual Savior of those who believe. You see, then, how they incorporated that "especially of those who believe" into their argument. It is special for those who believe because they are actually saved. I'd say a solid majority see it this way. My only problem is, if Paul intended to say that God was the potential Savior of all men but didn't actually save all men, then the first phrase is meaningless ... at best. To the majority (those who do not believe), He isn't the Savior at all. Like the ponzi schemer who tells you, "Invest with me and I will make you rich" and, in the end, makes no one rich because he meant "potentially." I have a problem with that. Maybe that is the explanation, but I have a problem with it.

There is another possibility. Consider. Just two chapters before Paul used the same word. "Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control" (1 Tim 2:15). Now, clearly, Paul is not talking about a different means of salvation for women and men. "Men are saved by faith, but women become right with God by means of having babies." Nonsense. That's why the NASB translates it "women will be preserved through the bearing of children." "Saved" doesn't always mean "saved from sin," "saved from God's wrath," that kind of "saved." It can mean "saved" in any sense. So what if Paul is saying, "God is the Savior of all men" in the sense that God saves all men in a general sense? God gives all of us life, all of us breath, allows all of us to live. "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). That kind of "save." Preserved. Continue to live. In this case, that "especially" takes on a different meaning. God preserves the life of all mankind, but saves eternally believers. He saves all in the physical, temporal sense, but saves believers both in the physical and eternal, spiritual sense.

I think that makes the most sense. I think that takes the text itself -- both phrases -- and makes sense. I think that takes all the Scriptures into account and comes to a coherent conclusion. It doesn't nullify Jesus's warnings about eternal torment, for instance, but it still makes this "saved" special for believers. But, hey, that's just me. You may come to a different conclusion. Just make sure it is coherent.

Uncommon Ground

Dan managed to get a word in edgewise recently because he didn't come in as "Dan" or identify himself as Dan. So I allowed the comment, responded, and realized, in his response, who it was. Rather than delete the discussion, I left it and moved on. The question Dan was addressing was whether or not it is possible for people of good faith to disagree. The "disagree" in view here, was, of course, Scripture. His position is that he disagrees with my interpretation. My position is that he disagrees with my position. Oh, not my position on the Scripture at hand; my position on Scripture itself.

I take the outrageous view that all Scripture is breathed out by God. Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and always right, I would then hold that Scripture is always right, even up to this day. I take the stupendous leap of concluding that Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. You can quote me on that. Okay, you can quote Scripture on that (2 Tim 3:16-17). So I make this huge jump to conclude that Scripture is useful for telling us what is true, telling us where we are wrong, telling us how to correct that, and telling us how to continue in the right way. Further, I conclude that Scripture is adequate, complete, enough; it is good enough to equip those who wish to follow God for every good work.

Now, clearly, I'm making this stuff out of thin air. Okay, no, that's silly. My mistake isn't fantasy. My mistake is taking it as it is written. My mistake isn't in my understanding of what it says. My mistake is in believing it. Because, you see, the enlightened person (and that isn't a jab at Dan -- that's a jab at all who are the sons of the so-called "Enlightenment" when they tossed Scripture out on its ear and substituted Man's thinking as God) will tell you that Scripture is sort of God's Word. "Sort of" at best. Maybe it contains God's Word. It certainly is not God's Word in a definitive or authoritative sense. It is absolutely not possible that it is God's Word without error. Oh, no. You can't read, for instance, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and conclude that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That's just sheer nonsense. Science tells us otherwise. Men like Darwin made it clear. All of history was wrong -- from Moses to Christ to today -- because the universe made the universe and that "God created" stuff was mere myth, a story to illustrate the truth without actually being true. Clear as day. (I wonder why all those people prior to the 19th century didn't see it? Clearly a colossal failure on the part of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13).)

Dan objects to my interpretation of Scripture not simply because I get the meaning wrong. He objects because of this fundamental premise that the Bible is Scripture and all Scripture is breathed out by God and is, therefore, truth (John 17:17). Scripture says it. Jesus said it. Paul said it. The church has held it as true for its entire history. The text of Scripture and the context of Scripture, both internally and externally, holds this to be true. And those who cannot allow God to speak for Himself in the pages of His Word will not tolerate those who do.

Is it possible for people of good faith to disagree? Sure ... as long as we are starting on the same page, beginning with the same basis. Because "good faith" means you're operating with honest intent, but debating the meaning of Scripture without a common agreement of what Scripture is does not allow honest intent. I'm seeking to explain God's Word, and those with a different basic position on Scripture as not God's Word do not have an honest intention. They intend to take down that notion of God's Word as true, authoritative, and sufficient. The notion that we can read and understand and hear God in the pages of the Bible. It is not a "good faith" argument when we come from uncommon ground.
________
In case it is not clear, this post is NOT about Dan Trabue. Dan was the trigger, but not the point. I mean no ill will toward the person and am only talking about the idea that we cannot wholly trust the Bible as God's Word. In this entry, Dan's name was simply a face to give to an entire set of thinking that denies Scripture as God's Word while claiming to believe the Bible. Don't come away thinking Dan is a bad guy. Practice 1 Timothy 2:1.

God Does Not Exist

I was sorry to hear about Britney Spears. Her choices in life have given her a hard life. Lots of unfairness, too. So she declared, "God would not [have allowed] that to happen to me if God existed. I don't believe in God anymore because of the way my children and my family have treated me." I'm saddened but not surprised that another voice has been added to the clamor that claims that the only way God can exist is if He conforms to my perspectives and preferences. Or, to put it more correctly, once again "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom 1:25) ... to their own detriment.

The truth is God does not exist. Well, let's be clear ... not that God. There is no God who bends to the will of His creation, who subordinates His omnipotence to their willingness, who rejects His omniscience and embraces their ignorance, who submits His sovereignty to their rebellion, who replaces His genuine love with their self-serving version. The God who fails or makes mistakes does not exist. Britney (et al.) is right; that God does not exist.

If the biblical God exists, He knows better than His creation does. His creation is not holy, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, even good. His creation does not define love. His creation does not hold all things together. All things are not by, through, and for His creation. He does not need His creation. Instead, He is always right, always good, always just, always perfect. No sins. No errors. No failures. Even when we intend evil, He intends good (Gen 50:20). So I have to ask (of myself as well as anyone else), "Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?" (Rom 9:20).

Christ came to resolve a serious problem. As sinners -- each and every one of us -- we were under the righteous wrath of God without any means of solving that problem. So, "while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom 5:6). At the right time. Not too soon; not too late. "While we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (Rom 5:10). It is only here, at His feet, bowing to our Lord, that we can find hope and salvation. And we do. It is not obtained by demanding that God meet our specifications. That's simply idolatry ... and all of us are prone to that error to some degree or another. Simply repentance and faith will do.

Yes, We Forgot

Twenty-one years ago on this day a group of dedicated, evil men flew multiple airplanes into multiple buildings killing thousands of Americans. Nineteen terrorists and some 3,000 other people lost their lives. Anyone who was watching it happen back then will never forget those scenes -- never forget the shock, the horror, the tragedy. Most of us also remember the aftermath, the setting down of all sorts of trivial pursuits to pull together and recover. Like so many soldiers in foxholes, there was a push for many to revisit God. We were joined together by a calamity. And that's all behind us now.

On that terrible day, 19 men hijacked 4 airliners to fly them into 4 targets. Two hit the Twin Towers in New York, one hit the Pentagon, and courageous passengers took down the 4th. I remember the talking heads warning that some 50,000 people might be at work in the World Trade Center at that hour. I knew that each one of those airliners could carry over 120 people each. Who knew how many could have been killed at the Pentagon? Who knew how many more could have died if that 4th plane hadn't gone down? The numbers were staggering. And then ... they weren't. In the North Tower, 1400 people died, and more than 600 died in the South Tower. Many escaped running down stairs, but, for "reasons unknown," there just weren't nearly as many at work that morning than could have been. On the aircraft with potentially more than 500 deaths, only 265 were killed. There were some 125 people killed at the Pentagon. Others -- bystanders, emergency workers, etc. -- died, but as horrible as those numbers were, they were not nearly as bad as the potential numbers.

No, we haven't forgotten the day. There are still tributes, reminders, etc. Of course, no one under the age of 21 remembers it ... because they didn't see it, but a good part of us still do. It's not the day we've forgotten. We've forgotten the unity we experienced with shared tragedy. We've forgotten that we are one people underneath it all. We've forgotten the mercy that God showed by providentially keeping so many from traveling or working that day. Mostly we've forgotten -- us believers -- that God is the God who causes well-being and brings calamity (Isa 45:7). We've forgotten that the Lord gives and the Lord takes away and, in all cases, deserves our worship (Job 1:21). We've forgotten to pray ceaselessly and give thanks in everything (1 Thess 5:17-18). Let the world forget; let us not forget that God is in control.

News Weakly - 9/10/22

Excluded
Jason Aldean is a country music singer. His wife commented on Instagram that she was grateful that her parents didn't change her gender when she was going through her tomboy phase. That's it. The end of Jason's world. Because of his wife's "transphobic" remark his PR firm dropped him. Mind you, she gave no indication she was opposed to adults transitioning (like I would), but that's what we've come to. If you aren't wholly on board so to speak, you're nothing but a hater.

It begs the question. Why is it that all modern calls for "diversity, equity, and inclusion" seem to include the principles of uniformity of thought, unequal treatment for those who don't conform, and exclusion of those who disagree?

Behind the Times
Okay, I may be a little behind the times, but I'm guessing that if I am, some of you may be, too, so I'm sharing this now that I've found it. Apparently the National Archives has added "harmful language alerts" to America's founding documents. The documents with "harmful language" include the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The "harmful language alert" is intended to warn readers on one hand and to stand as proof on the other that America has always been racist. "But we love America ..." Yeah, right. You keep using that word; I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Relentless Pursuit
Okay, let's look at the truth. The story is from Ireland, not here. The teacher who refused to use preferred pronouns was not arrested for refusing to use preferred pronouns. He was arrested for contempt of court because he went on the school grounds when he was suspended. Okay? Let's keep the facts straight. Not for his Christian beliefs, but for his violating court orders. Clear? Court orders that were made because he refused to violate his Christian beliefs. That such an order was made is a violation of the First Amendment is irrelevant because this is Ireland, and they don't have a First Amendment. He was suspended for holding to his beliefs, but not arrested for them. Still, don't be so sure it can't happen in this country. That "preferred pronouns" precipitated legal action tells you it's not a small thing and is not outside of the realm of possibility here, too.

Believe the Science?
I read about this a long time ago, early on in the COVID fiasco. Now the media is picking it up. Our bodies learn to fight off diseases by producing antigens. Then they remember what they did. If that disease mutates, the body is slow to respond to the new one because it thinks it already knows how to fight it. It's called in medicine "the original antigenic sin." So here's the question. If COVID is mutating and we keep giving people boosters to fight the original COVID, does that end up harming people because their bodies won't learn to fight off the mutations? Lots of data is looking that way. Meanwhile, the UK is reporting that COVID prevention may be causing more deaths than COVID did. As has been the case since the original pandemic of 2020, our response is, "Let's not think about it."

Counting the Cost
The governor of California signed the bill that would raise fast-food minimum wage to $22/hr by 2023. Fast-food restaurants are trying to stop it. Greedy? Not really. Something like 82% of McDonald's stores are owned by small business types -- franchisees. (McD's is aiming for 95%.) The other big fast-food chains have similar numbers. California is not sticking it to the corporations; they're sticking it to the small business owners. Factor in the additional cost of additional raises (How many shift managers will continue to work when their workers now make the same as they do, for instance?) and the cost of doing business goes up. Someone has to pay for it. Some will come out of the small business owners' pockets -- perhaps enough to drive them out -- and the rest will come out of the consumers' pockets, driving up prices everywhere and making $22/hr no longer a living wage ... in a state with perhaps he highest cost of living. Californians thank California.

Because They Care
As of this last Friday, teachers in Seattle have kept students out of classrooms for 3 days while they continue their strike. "We won't allow your children an education until we can coerce the government to give us what we want." Because they care ... oh, about what they want, not about your kids' education.

In Memoriam
Queen Elizabeth II died this week. She was 96. She was a grand woman who, they tell me, was a believer. After all these years as queen, she's now with the King.

Beeware, All Who Enter
With California's new "electric-only vehicles" rule coming and their power grid failing, Newsom is assuring his people that they'll have enough power ... if enough of them move to Florida. Switching to the Trump headlines, did you hear that the FBI is dropping the investigation into his nuclear documents? Turns out all he had was printouts of Hillary's emails. And in shocking ... simply shocking news, Stacey Abrams is claiming that the 2022 midterm elections have already been stolen. Dirty, rotten, anti-democracy Republicans.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Why We Pray

Yes, I know. "Hey, didn't you just write this one?" The title, yes. The content, sort of. The message, no. In 1 Timothy Paul tells Timothy to "fight the good fight" (1 Tim 1:18). How? Step One: Pray (1 Tim 2:1-2). Paul said to pray "on behalf of all men," but, specifically, "for kings and all who are in authority." Why are we to pray that way? "So that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity" (1 Tim 2:2). We live in troubling times that demand we do this now. But we need to keep the ultimate aim in view.

"Ultimate aim?" you ask. Yes. Paul goes on to say,

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:3-4)

Now, let's keep this straight. We are to pray "on behalf of all men" and especially for "all who are in authority" so we may "lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity." Why? Why is that important? What's the aim? Here's why we should pray and why we should pray to obtain tranquil and quiet lives. So that all men may be saved. The Gospel. Evangelism. Salvation for many.

Perhaps when that sinks in you begin to see the message and magnitude. We aren't praying for our own self-interests. We aren't praying so that those in authority will make good decisions. We aren't praying to make our world a better place. We pray so that souls may be saved. That is the ultimate aim. Because, you see, good laws and good decisions don't make good people. Good voting and good elections don't make a good nation. The only thing that makes a nation great or people good is changed hearts and changed lives. That is accomplished by coming to the knowledge of the truth. That is accomplished by being saved. And all of that is predicated on "one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:5-6).

We are commanded to pray for all people. We are commanded especially to pray for those in charge. (Note it doesn't say, "If they lean Left, because those who lean Right are okay.") We are commanded to pray this way so we can lead tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity so that people will be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. People are much more influenced by our godliness and dignity than our moral outrage and political activism. This kind of praying -- fighting the good fight -- has a much bigger purpose than "comfortable living." It is, however, the only viable solution to troubled times.

Just Thinking Out Loud

There is no lack of voices that keep telling us that we need to change our beliefs to correspond to modern views. You know, all that "wrong side of history" stuff. "We've progressed," they tell us. "All that 'bible' stuff is outdated and you probably don't understand it anyway." So there are calls to revise our theology and get in line.

The word, "theology," is literally "the study of God," where "theos" refers to God and "logos" refers to "study." We're told to change ours. So here's my question, my musing. If we're supposed to change our theology to align with our societal views, who is the "theos" in that term? Isn't it "societal views" and not ... you know ... God? Or, more precisely, aren't they telling us to replace God with their ideas as god?

Makes sense (Rom 1:21-23, 25; Rom 8:7; Eph 2:1-3; 1 Cor 2:14; 2 Cor 4:4).

How Real is the Threat?

According to President Biden (who is just being the voice of others), there is a threat to this nation today from the inside. What threat? Conservatives. Oh, not all conservatives, to be sure. Any that lean left far enough are fine. No it's those conservatives that, you know, actually believe in conserving principles. Why are they a threat? They "are determined to take this country backwards. Backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy. No right to contraception, no right to marry who you love." Well, now, loss of free choice, of privacy, of access to contraception, of the right to marry whom you love ... that's all bad stuff. So I look around at the conservatives I know or know of and ... huh ... I don't find anyone looking to do that. In fact, I don't find any of those to be principles that used to exist, are now in danger, and ought to be preserved. Strange. (I note that Biden clarified his comments from the speech by saying that those who fail to condemn violence are the problem. Like the folks that called the riots of 2020 "mostly peaceful"?)

Of course, you and I understand that that was all "shorthand." Biden wasn't saying that conservatives actually want that. He was actually being pointed. What is the real threat of genuine conservatives? Well, it apparently actually boils down to two key points. Conservatives are a threat to abortion and same-sex marriage. See? Now we're talking. Yes, conservatives will gladly declare that saving the lives of innocent human beings and defending the traditional, longstanding definition of marriage are indeed two principles worth conserving. At least, to conservatives. For the rest, the thing we need is the right to choose to kill if it gives us what we want and the right to do it privately. No one minds if the means of preventing pregnancy doesn't kill anyone, but if it does, we need the right to do so. And, look, currently no one has the "right to marry who you love." On one hand, you still can't marry two people (or more), marry a relative, marry your pet. We rightly have limits on who people can marry. On the other hand, if marriage actually is the union of a man and a woman for purposes of reproduction and mutual support for life as it always has, then "marry who you love" has always been limited to "man and woman." If the definition carried throughout the ages is actually the correct definition, no one has been prevented from marrying because they are the same sex. That's not marriage. Ultimately, of course, the effect of this "marry the one you love" theme has, as it turns out, devalued marriage. According to government figures in 1931 marriage rates hit their lowest at 8.6 per 1,000 people. There were some high points in the 70's and 80's, but rates started dropping in the 90's and have dropped ever since. In 2018 (the last available record in this report), it hit the lowest -- 6.5. And later reports continue the trend. Among the LGBT crowd, less than 35% have taken advantage of the "marry who you love" option, but the major impact has been that more heterosexual marriages (especially among those of the generation that have grown up with "LGBT" theory) have become what has been termed "monogamish" (a term coined by homosexual couples) -- be faithful as long as they are around; don't bother if they're not. "What difference is it to you if we change your definition?" was always the question they threw at us. Not to me, but to a good part of society, they have managed to redefine marriage into oblivion. And conservatives think marriage -- real marriage -- is worth defending.

Clearly the president (and those who agree) misrepresented the threat. If genuine conservatives have their way, one choice -- killing innocent human beings -- is at risk. One privacy -- the right to kill in private -- is threatened. One contraception -- the contraception that prevents birth by killing an innocent human being -- is in question. And "the right to marry who you love" would not be threatened at all as long as we understand what the phrase means. But none of this matters. In the current societal climate, truth is not at issue. They can't handle the truth. No, "what I want" is their guide. Given the fact that the president of the United States and all who agree with him consider those who disagree on abortion and same-sex mirage a threat, how long will it be before this attitude becomes a very real threat to those who disagree with them? Some who hold such a view have already lost jobs, status, etc. In some countries it is already a hate crime. For Christians, especially, I don't think it's a foolish question (1 Tim 3:12).

Last Days Madness

In Paul's second letter to Timothy, he warns about the "last days" (2 Tim 3:1) when ... well ... let's just say that things are going to go very bad. He lists it as "times of difficulty" (2 Tim 3:1) and gives 6 verses (in our Bibles) of description about what these times of difficulty will look like. Paul warns Timothy, "All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Tim 3:12) by evil people and impostors. "But as for you," Paul then says,

continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim 3:14-15)

Catch that, then. "Times are going to go bad," he warned. "People will be evil. You will be persecuted by evil people. But you ... continue in what you have learned and believed." What was that? "The sacred writings." These "sacred writings" are "able to make you wise."

We generally quote the next two verses completely out of context. We leave them standing on their own. I think this context adds support. You know the next two.

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)

I harp on that all the time. Many self-professed Christians disagree. Paul said it was essential and sufficient, but I'm warned not to rely too heavily on those Scriptures. Peter said that Paul's writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:14-16), but I'm told not to rely too heavily on those Scriptures. Jesus said God's Word is truth (John 17:17), but I'm told not to rely too heavily on those Scriptures.

They tell me it's a matter of interpretation and theirs is right and mine is not. They tell me our Scriptures are not "God's Word," but some man-made thing that may contain "God's Word." Clearly Paul disagreed. Seems obvious to me that Jesus disagreed. And Paul here suggests that the way we believers are going to survive the "last days" that Paul is warning about (which, by the way, sounds like something out of today's news media) is to continue in ... the sacred writings. So, who am I going to believe? Those who are emulating what Paul is warning about in the last days or the Scriptures that we are told are sufficient?

Labor Day, 2022

It's Labor Day, the day we celebrate ... labor. Well, in principle. The truth is we aren't particularly fond of labor in many cases. I know a lot of people -- especially men -- who really don't like to have to work. And for reasons I don't quite understand, we don't celebrate "Leisure Day." Go figure.

Americans, they tell me, work an average of 34.4 hours per week. On the other hand, the U.S. leads in the least number of annual vacations. And we lead with the highest Gross Domestic Product. We may have slacked off a bit, but we're still a nation of hard-working people.

So there is this odd collision of facts. We don't like work ... but we work hard. Why? Theories, I'm sure, abound, but I think it's simply design. When God made Adam, His first act was to assign him ... work (Gen 2:15, 19). Now, one of the consequences of sin was that work became "hard labor" (Gen 3:17), but work is still beneficial. It gives us a sense of purpose, a sense of fulfillment, a sense of accomplishment. It's not all bad. For the Puritans, it was more. They understood hard work to be morally valuable. They even had the concept of "vocation." Notice the prefix to that word. They understood their jobs to be their "calling." They believed they were called to work (Eph 2:10) and that their work was designed to bless others. Whether one was a minister or a shoemaker, work was a ministry to those around.

"Work, work, work" was Governor Lepetoman's (Blazing Saddles) joke, but it was intended as a blessing from God as a means for us to bless others. A younger generation appears to see it as a curse, but God intended it for good. As such, labor ought to be celebrated. To the extent that we agree with God, perhaps we will celebrate workers while we enjoy our leisure today.

Fearless

We live in troubling times. We have a media machine that likes to feed us with constant fear and we have a government that likes to feed us with constant fear and we are consumers, so we tend to have constant fear to some level or another. There are the lower ends who acknowledge it but press on and the upper ends who wear masks while driving alone in a car or hiking a mountain trail. There are threats on all sides, from school shootings and kidnappings of women and children to hate ... from all sides. Political, sexual, religious, economic, racial ... I don't think I have room to complete that list. Too many in our society don't even have a sense of right or wrong. They would as likely shoot you over a cold order of french fries as give you a dime (which won't help much these days with inflation anyway). The reasons to be afraid are many and everywhere -- manifold and manifest.

We all develop coping methods. Some use drugs or alcohol. Some acquire blinders. Some focus on one particular line of things to fear and indulge it fully; even participate. Me? I use a scarcely-used method. It is explained in a pithy little refrigerator-magnet statement my wife put up. It says, simply, "Fearless because He is faithful." David wrote the famous 23rd Psalm. Most of us know it in King James. "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me" (Psa 23:4). Now, "rod" and "staff" are not generally thought of as "pleasant." They tell me that one ("staff") is used to pull a sheep to safety and one ("rod") is used for disciplining sheep. One is used in external danger and the other for dangers the sheep causes. So it is not necessarily the tools that comfort David, the sheep. It is the Presence that uses them. Even in the valley of the shadow of death -- even in evil times -- we have no reason to fear our circumstances. At least, not as long as we are sheep of the Shepherd.

We live in evil times. I suspect humans have always lived in evil times to some degree or other. Ours just looks bad these days because we've become immunized to it and then labeled it "normal." But we don't have to fear. We can be fearless, not because times aren't that bad or we are that good or capable, but because He is faithful.