Hollow Man -- Reprise

I wrote this years ago. I liked it. (Truth be told, I can't say that about most of what I write.) It was, in fact, the first actual post I put on this blog ... more than 10 years ago. I think it still works today. I thought maybe my newer readers might enjoy it.
________

Hi. My name is Hollow Man. I am not gender-specific; you’ll find me in men and women alike. The specifics may vary, but the underlying characteristics will remain the same. Let me tell you about myself. Who knows? You may know me better than you think.

My primary concern is for the individual. Of course, the individual I primarily have in mind is me. I determine right and wrong, good and bad, worthwhile or a waste of time by what best pleases me. I may take drugs because it makes me feel better or I may refuse to take drugs because it’s bad for me. I may even be altruistic if it makes me feel good about myself, but, bottom line, my evaluations are based on me. America loves individualism, and I am the personification of individualism. My goals, values, and interests are all oriented to what suits me best.

Older generations had this sense of "selflessness". They were willing to sacrifice personal gain and pleasure for the good of others – family, work, God, and country. I am not plagued with that malady. I know what is important. How I look is important. What I own is important. My comfort level is important. I may realize that what I have isn’t quite enough, so I will continue to strive for more. I am a lover of pleasure. I disdain the notion of delayed gratification and believe that we should seek pleasure wherever we may find it. The old "if it feels good, do it" is a reasonable motto for me. The reverse is also true: if it doesn’t feel good, it’s probably not worth doing.

Some have described me as narcissistic. I may be preoccupied with my own needs and desires, but isn’t self-esteem the number one priority? Some say that truth is important; I ask, "What is truth?" I subscribe to the notion that truth is relative – that there is no such thing as absolute truth – not recognizing that this is a statement of absolute truth. I disdain those who are intolerant and judgmental, not realizing that I am being intolerant and judgmental in this view. I will do all I have to do to obtain what I deserve. I will manipulate my friends, family, even God to get what I think I should have. There is, after all, no one who is more important than I am.

Entertainment is important to me. It comes in many forms. However, I don’t think I need to really do a lot to obtain it. I think that I should be entertained. If the show I’m watching isn’t entertaining, I’ll switch to another. If the game I’m playing isn’t entertaining, I’ll go to another. If baseball isn’t exciting enough, I’ll watch football or basketball. When I get tired of this music group, there’s surely another around the corner that will bring new excitement. If the church I'm at doesn't amuse me, I'll find one that does. I don’t realize, of course, that excitement doesn’t last, and, unfortunately, the things that entertain me today are boring tomorrow. But it isn’t my job to amuse me. It is the job of the entertainers – the media and the musicians and the actors and the sports stars and the amusement parks and . . . well, our society is clearly built on this concept, so it must be true.

Some have tried to push us beyond the here and now, but I understand better than that. The clearest presentation of the world we live in is the senses. Religion may try to impress God on us, and that’s fine as far as it goes, but there’s nothing like science for the truth. Science tests things and proves things and demonstrates things. Pictures are worth a thousand words, so why read if I have the TV? I live in a world tuned to the senses – I should indulge them. What I feel is all that’s ultimately real. To go beyond the senses is to venture into the unknown and unprovable . . . and therefore the irrelevant. The deep thinkers, philosophers, theologians and the like are really unimportant to real life. Fortunately these days there are few of that type.

School may be of some importance to me, but only so far as it gives me a better life. If I can make more money, I might pursue an education, but why do some schools require all that History and English and the like? I might even go so far as a Masters degree if it means a larger income, but you’ll rarely find people like me with more than that because, frankly, it serves no purpose. Reading is not a priority with me, either. If I do read, it will undoubtedly be fiction, since that can provide some form of distraction. Frankly, reading is not entertaining enough, when I can get the images fed to me on the TV or movies screen.

I have been accused of having no heroes, but that’s simply not true. My heroes are the rock stars or the movie stars or the sports stars or the fashion stars of the day. I admire their looks or their abilities or whatever currently strikes my fancy. I am not the least bit concerned about their virtue. Character is not an issue. Good is defined not as that which is virtuous or right, but as that which gives me the most pleasure.

It’s a funny thing with me, but I hate quiet and solitude. I will always have a radio or TV going or be surrounded by friends. I may, for instance, keep myself in good shape (because looking good is important to me), but even while I exercise I’ll have the headset on with music going. A vacation is a good thing not because I can think more, but because I can think less when I vacate. Anything I can do to avoid real contemplation is a good thing. Noise is better than quiet, activity better than rest, and anonymous crowds better than solitude. It is much better to do than to simply be.

I am Hollow Man. Perhaps you know me. Perhaps you are me. I certainly believe my shallow beliefs and pursuits are important, and I will never, never ask "Why?" or "Could I be wrong?" or "Is there more to life than me?" I wonder if you don’t identify with me.

Sunday, November 6

It's Sunday.

We're all headed to church to be with fellow believers in God's house.

There's an upcoming election that doesn't look pleasant whoever you are.

So ...

I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior. ... Therefore I want men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. (1 Tim 2:1-3,8)

You know ... while you're in church today ...

News Weakly - 11/5/2016

A Huma Being
I assume that by now you've heard of Huma Abedin. She's the real focus of the latest Clinton email probe. Ostensibly it's about improper use of email and whether or not there was classified stuff there, but this Huma, the estranged wife of Anthony Weiner, is the real question. You see, apparently she is one of the very top Hillary Clinton campaign aides and apparently she has connections to all sorts of questionable, even frightening Muslim issues. Reports say that Abedin has family ties with the radical Muslim Brotherhood which has been linked to Hamas and other anti-Israel groups as well as Muslim terrorists. She worked for a Saudi journal, publishing articles blamed the U.S. for 9/11 and dismantling Hillary's positions on women's rights and empowerment.

On one hand, I find it disturbing that she has risen to such a position of power while writing and publishing articles that decry the empowerment of women. I'm not saying anything for or against the empowerment of women. I'm wondering about the cognitive dissonance required to hold in one hand the idea that "empowerment of women does more harm than benefit the cause of women or their relations with men," and be in such a position of power in the other hand. And then to realize she appears to be Hillary's closest advisor is disturbing on its own.

Why is it ...
... that when a couple of guys last year beat up a homeless man and invoked the name of Trump, every major media outlet carries the story, but when some anti-Trump folk take on a homeless black woman defending Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, you can't find it in a single one? (A couple of notes. FIrst, the language on the You Tube video is not clean. Watch at your own risk. Second, why is there a news vehicle at the scene, but it is still not reported?)

I find both events deplorable, but the inequity of the "equality" supporters seems really blatant here.

Military Pay and the LGBT
There are two things that don't go together, eh? As it turns out, while some in Congress are working to get our military members a pay raise, Democratic opponents are holding up the bill because they want to strip religious liberties from it. The amendment they're protesting says that federal defense contractors can, on religious grounds, opt not to do business with gays or lesbians. Now, clearly the concept is "religious liberty", not "anti-LGBT". I mean, no one has the religious freedom to go out and kill or injure gays, for instance. So the position is not "We should have the right to harm them", but "We should have the right to the free exercise of our religious beliefs." But it won't be depicted as "religious freedom" and it won't be allowed and they're holding a pitiful 2.1% raise for the troops as hostage until they get their way.

To punctuate the point, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant is fighting in court to defend their "religious freedom" law that was supposed to go into effect last July. It is opposed, however, not as "religious freedom", but as "anti-LGBT". Oddly, while the Constitution supposedly explicitly affirms the right to free exercise of religion and does not affirm some supposed rights for choosing what gender you will have sex with, it is the defense of the Constitution that is losing out over the rights of sexual preference.

The claim is that if you favor religious freedom, you oppose "LGBT rights". This is simply not the case. To make the point, do you suppose they will admit that they oppose religious freedom when they demand their rights in opposition to the right to the free exercise of religion? Do you suppose that a media outlet -- any media outlet at all -- will make the claim that pro-LGBT forces oppose the freedom of religion? Not a chance. But they freely do it in reverse.

Just a heads-up here. You think there is a religious freedom clause in the Bill of Rights, but it is fast fading from the minds of Congress, of the courts, and of the American people. Don't expect it to last.

The Hatmaker Controversy
I don't know if you've heard of Jen Hatmaker. She is an extremely popular writer of Christian books, making the New York Times bestseller list and netting her an HGTV series. Well, last week, she jettisoned her evangelical base and said she supports same-sex marriage and believes LGBT relationships can be holy.

Of course, her denial of biblical truth is not the story. The story is about how LifeWay Christian Stores have opted to discontinue selling her stuff. And "that's not fair!" So her husband, Brandon, took to Facebook to defend his wife and explain, "We both believe a same-sex marriage, as a life-long monogamous commitment, can be holy before God." He claimed, "Every verse in the Bible that is used to condemn a 'homosexual' act is written in the context of rape, prostitution, idolatry, pederasty, military dominance, an affair, or adultery." He and his wife claim that there has never been clarity or consensus on what the Bible claims on the subject.

Exceptional voices like Kevin DeYoung, and Rosaria Butterfield have some outstanding responses to consider. As for me, I'm reminded of Paul's words to Timothy.

The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. (1 Tim 1:5-7)

We should always be cautious when folks who call themselves Christians depart from clear, biblical, historical orthodoxy in order to tickle itching ears to suit their listeners' passions (2 Tim 4:3).

I Was Just Thinking

Now here's an interesting question.

We all know that the claim is that people who are "homosexual" and suffer from gender dysphoria are born that way. I mean, the very word "homosexual" these days does not mean "same-sex sexual relations", but an actual nature, an inborn condition. It's not a choice; it's a state of being. Further, this idea is the primary basis for the whole "marriage equality" campaign wrought by the LGBT and their minions. "If we're born this way, you must give us our rights!" So the idea is if people are "born this way", whatever way that is, then we can draw a few conclusions. One is if it's not their choice; it's their nature. Another is that, as it's their nature, "God made me this way." And from that, "If God made me this way, it must be good." From all this, then, it isn't merely wrong to disagree and tolerate. We must embrace all this same-sex and trans-sex stuff as good, from God, part of their natures. "And God said it was good."

All that to get to my question. If "born this way" means "everyone must embrace those who are born a particular way", what about the rest of us? What about the kid that seems to be born mean? His brothers and sisters aren't doing it. His parents aren't doing it. He just appears to be born with this inate enjoyment of torturing small animals. And that grows. Shouldn't we embrace that? No, of course not. So what about the typical male? If we're born this way, why does our society spend so much time decrying our testosterone and our rough play and our maleness? I've seen boys, lacking toy guns because their parents were opposed to violence, pick up sticks to mimic guns to play with. They were being taught to be more feminine, more girlish, more "user friendly". They acted like little boys ... apparently from their nature. Why does our society not have to embrace that? Why is it that we need to embrace the aberrations, the outliers, the oddities, but we are hard at work at changing the normal? We never urge girls to "get in touch with your masculine side". Why do we urge boys to do the opposite? Why is it that men, "born this way", are the "enemy"?

Is this not a serious inconsistency in our society with its "born this way" line of thinking?

Problem and Solution

There is a problem. It is a human problem. That is, we all have it. It's not just "you" or "them", but all of us. Nor is it just our society, our culture. It's everywhere. The problem is what Scripture calls "the indulgence of the flesh" (Col 2:23). It is the urge to satisfy our desires by whatever means necessary. One might be tempted to think that it's a current problem, that it didn't used to be so much. This isn't true. In our day we've jumped into it more openly. In earlier days we were just as indulgent of our desires, but with more deception and shame. No, our times of defining morality by "whatever floats your boat" are simply times of openly indulging the flesh when in past times we did so more in secret. That is, in all times it has always been the case, from the day that Eve "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise" and ate from it (Gen 3:6).

That's the problem. What is the solution? Well, we've had ideas about that as well from time immemorial. The obvious choice is force, right? I mean, if someone is a criminal (overindulging their passions), we lock them up so they cannot. If a child is "indulging the flesh", we discipline them. It's fairly common and fairly acceptable. Maybe the force is as little as making rules. "Don't do that; do this." Rules always work better with enforcement, of course, but, there again, I've just included force ("enforcement"). So that's the norm. There are other means, to be sure. There is inducement, enticement, encouragement. We might bribe, lure, or urge people to control their urges. You know, more of a carrot than a stick. But our primary method, in the end, is the same. Either we push them away from or draw them away from the indulgence of the flesh. And, of course, the "them" of which we are speaking may be "myself" and the "we" that draws or pushes may also be "myself", where each of us struggles with our own fleshly passions.

The Bible, while surely including some of this, has an interesting position on the topic.

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—"Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. (Col 2:20-23)

There's that phrase -- "the indulgence of the flesh". But the text says something, I think, that is remarkable. The text says that submitting to regulations of "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" ... are of no value in solving this problem. Now, wait! Didn't we just say that making rules and enforcing them is our primary solution to this problem? And the Bible just disagreed! Worse, it says that these have "an appearance of wisdom" but are instead promoting mere self-made religion and asceticism.

Now, hold on! Doesn't the Bible itself include such rules? Yes, that is undeniable. So it isn't that the rules are bad. Well, they're bad if they are "according to human precepts and teachings" (Col 2:22), but it's not that rules are bad. It's that rules are not sufficient to stop the indulgence of the flesh. (Note: this is generally what is meant when people say, "You cannot legislate morality.") No amount of self-discipline -- of following the rules -- is sufficient to solve this problem. Here, let me put this another way that we might all see as true: we are not saved by being good.

So, if we wish to follow Christ and if we wish to follow Him by stopping this indulging of the flesh, what is a successful method?

It's sometimes unfortunate the way our Bibles are chopped up into chapters and verses that don't actually exist in the text. I mean, sure, these are helpful distinctions for discussing things and all that, but it can be very detrimental to our comprehension. In this case, the answer to the question of a biblical way to address the indulging of the flesh isn't found in this chapter at the "end of this thought" ... because this chapter is not the end of the thought. The answer is found in the next chapter.

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. (Col 3:1-2)

I stop that quote there because I think we can see the basis there, but don't you stop there. The entire answer is Colossians 3:1-4:6. But we get the gist of it here.

Here's the premise. It is not found in avoiding; it is found in a new direction. We don't avoid indulging the flesh by looking at those indulgences and turning away. We find victory by seeking the things that are above. We find success here by setting our minds on things above. It isn't a turning from, but a turning to. It isn't self-disciplined restraint from sin, but godly unrestraint toward Him. It isn't an avoidance of an old direction, but a full gallop toward a new one.

We often think of our Christianity as therapeutic. If you work at it, you can become a good person. Paul isn't very supportive of that view. "You have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God," he says (Col 3:3), so "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you." (Col 3:5) "Put to death," not "massage and exercise". For your "sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness" (Col 3:5), the prescription is to stake them out in the desert, shoot them in the head, bury them deep in a pit. It isn't "work through your problems." What once was a way of life for us (Col 3:7) needs to be killed, put away (Col 3:8-9), and replaced with "the new self which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its Creator." (Col 3:10)

We have a problem. It is human nature to want to indulge our passions, our desires, our lusts, our private pleasures, our personal comforts. The problem is, rather than being solved, made worse by our remedy of rules -- "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch." The solution, as it turns out, is not in regulation, but in replacement -- the heavenly for the earthly. It isn't avoidance, but execution -- death for life. We don't find a fix in "being good" or in Christian therapy, but in capital punishment of the fleshly indulgence and a passionate pursuit of Christ -- a new self in constant renewal with new thinking built by God. Anything else is stop-gap and doomed to fail. But I suspect you've probably experienced that fact. I know I have.

American Idol

Are you watching American Idol? I'm not. (Is it even on?) So this isn't about that show.

John Calvin called the human heart an idol factory. We just produce idols -- God-replacements -- right and left. We almost do it out of nothing, like our own little miracle. But not out of nothing actually. Generally out of our imaginations and ourselves. Different times and places have enjoyed different idols. Ours today are much more "friendly" and less "spiritual". You know, money, power, fame, pleasure, comfort, "stuff" ... that kind of thing. Science is a big one for many. "If Science says it, that settles it!" Never mind that Science is never actually settled. We have lots of them today. But I think, perhaps, America in particular has one leader competing with all others. That one American idol is freedom.

We take this freedom to an extreme here. Free to do what? Just about anything at all. Many put "except to harm others" on there, but, if the truth were told, harming others is also acceptable if it is consensual. "Self-determination" is our god. You can believe what you want, but never interfere with self-determination. Even if you believe that unfettered self-determination is harmful. (We end up in a Catch-22 there, you see, where "except harm" runs into "it does harm" but gets set aside for "self-determination".)

You'll hear it all over the place. "No one his forcing you to marry someone of the same sex." What's the point? "We don't want to force you to violate your self-determination; don't try to violate ours." "No one is making you have an abortion." Again, "We don't want to force you to violate your self-determination; don't try to violate ours." That is the bottom line in all these types of positions. No one asks, "What is marriage?" or "What about violating the right-to-live of that baby you're killing?" Not at all. In these examples, marriage and the aborted baby are sacrifices to the god, "freedom". "And don't you dare consider interfering or even commenting. What ... do you hate liberty?" The fact that our deep concern for marriage, the lives of the unborn, the spiritual welfare of others, and the answer of a Savior are to be shut down in favor of freedom doesn't seem to come into play anywhere. That is, yes, they do want to violate our self-determination if it infringes on theirs. (So I guess the other exception to absolute self-determination is "don't violate mine -- yours can be violated".)

You see, the questions at stake here are not about liberty. They are much bigger. But nearly no one asks so no one sees it and they sound so sanctimonious, so holy, so righteous by defending freedom. It is, indeed, the American religion. Unfortunately, large numbers of Christians buy into it as well, blithely sacrificing God's self-determination in favor of our own. Humans really are idol factories.

The New Pacifism

Over the centuries of Christianity there has been an internal debate about whether or not Christians are required to be pacifists. Some have said, for instance, that it's wrong to be a Christian in the military. This was put forth in the early church. Others argue that Jesus said, "All who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matt 26:52), so we must not bear arms. On the other side, they point out that the early church opposed Christians being in the military because being in the military in their day meant mandated idolatry, and Christians are certainly not to be idolaters. And when Jesus said that those who take up the sword will perish by the sword, He wasn't warning about the sword, but simply reiterating God's command that "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image." (Gen 9:6) If God's standard was pacifism, then He wouldn't commend the authorities having swords (Rom 13:4) or tell Christ's followers to carry them (Luke 22:36). Well, I have good news. I'm not going to solve that argument for you. I'm writing here about the new pacifism.

"I think it's a shame," a dear Christian sister told me, "that Christians harm others with their words." Now, of course, I could agree with that. Harming others is not a good thing to do. I could agree until she clarified. "It's wrong to say that their particular behavior is a sin because it hurts their feelings." Welcome to the new Christian Pacifism. We are being told and we are taking in, drinking up, and converting to this argument that Christians should not take a stand, should not hold ground, should not fight. But it's not physical fighting in view; it's ideological.

We were told this was coming. Paul told Timothy, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." (2 Tim 4:3-4) So today we're supposed to accomodate sin silently. Don't recognize it as sin. Don't think of it as sin. Don't even mention it. We are to think and act as if there is no error. We are to be moral and religious relativists. "Whatever you think is good." And this is touted as not merely right by unbelievers, but morally superior by Christians. The new Christian Pacifism. Don't stand for what is right.

Over against this we have the teachings of Scripture. We are warned not to be people-pleasers, but to fear the Lord (Col 3:22). We are warned not to be conformed to this world (Rom 12:2). We are told not to love the world, that is, the ways of this sinful world. "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15) We are commanded to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) We are told to always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15) The command is to "exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you." (Titus 2:15) Further, if it is true that those who make a practice of sin will have no part of the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10), how could we not say something? How could that be considered loving? If believers are straying down the wrong path, in what sense is it kind and considerate to hug them, pat them on the back, and encourage them to go? Why would we think that the world, in its sin, deceitfulness, brokenness, and its wish to drag all -- even believers -- along with it would be better off if we are happy about it?

There are those in the realm of Christendom that argue that we must be silent. "Jesus never said ..." is one of their favorite lines. Others are just naïve, taking as true what the world is saying. "It's hate!" they are told, and without analyzing it they nod and agree that Christians mustn't hate. And they mustn't. But they also mustn't allow the world, hostile to God (Rom 8:7), to define hate. We have the Word. It is "living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Heb 4:12) It is capable of completing and equipping God's people for every good work (2 Tim 3:17). It is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (2 Tim 3:16) Why, if we trust God, do we then discard His Word, redefine love, discard His instructions, and cry "Peace!" when there is no peace? This is the new Christian Pacifism, but it is not biblically supportable. It is, biblically, sin. Sin does damage. And there is a solution.

History

We have been scorned for taking a biblical position on the question of sexual immorality either in those of opposite sexes or the same sex. We have been laughed at for standing for marriage in the sense that it has always been understood and in the way that the Bible portrays it -- the union of a man and a woman. We are, they tell us, on the "wrong side of history."

As it turns out, I think their view of history is mistaken. If, by "history", they simply mean "the flow of human events over time", there is no right or wrong side. There is just ... history. But I think that this, too, is a mistaken view of history. You see, the primary error of sinful humans is "It's all about us." And I don't think that's what God had in mind at all.

History, from God's perspective, is all about Him. It's all about Him and His glory and His acts and His grace and His mercy and His justice and ... well, you get the idea. History, in a very real sense, is His Story.

Considering it, then, from this alternative view -- God's view -- if history is His Story and His Story is about Him and His ideas and actions and He has said, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10) (for instance), tell me again who is on the "wrong side of history".

Dominion

There are a lot of nice things in this world, but, let's face it, there are a lot of not so nice things. There is the economy and the election and, oh, let's not forget, Halloween. What to do ... what to do? There are child molesters and rapists, thieving politicians and liars, selfish drivers and selfish friends. A current concern in our world is the rising anti-Christian bias. Presently it is limited to mockery, reviling, and an occasional loss of livelihood if you happen to be a Christian who chooses not to go along with the LGBTLMNOP stuff, but it's moving from there. In other parts of the world it is far beyond that. Christians are kidnapped, arrested, beaten, imprisoned, even killed for their faith.

It's possible to be discouraged, even fearful. But it's not new. Remember, Paul got his start persecuting Christians in a world ruled by the godless government of Rome. Peter wrote his first epistle largely on the premise of "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you." (1 Peter 4:12) He talks a lot about how to think about this problem and how to respond to it.

Peter ends that epistle with the final and ultimate means of handling the certainty of persecution for believers.

After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you. To Him be dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 5:10-11)

Therein is our ultimate comfort. Right there is our winning ticket. We have Christ, and we know that suffering produces good things, and we can rejoice in all of that, but in the final analysis, God wins. And He includes us in that victory. God will "Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you." Suffering, whether it's a mere insult or a loss of a job or the loss of your life, is temporary. God's victory is eternal. To Him be dominion forever and ever. Amen.

News Weakly - 10/29/2016

Over In Ireland ...
Okay, so this is not the United States, but we've seen it here, too. A Christian baker was asked to bake a cake in support of "gay marriage". Mind you, this was not simply a cake for such a thing -- a wedding cake -- but a cake for a pro-redefine-marriage event. The baker, this week, lost in the Court of Appeals in Northern Ireland. The really confusing statement came from Michael Wardlow from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. He said that this "will give people the confidence to not worry if the views they hold will conflict with an organization." I suppose he meant those with views "we approve". I suppose he wasn't saying that "Christian views" were safe and wouldn't conflict with his organization. I think the ruling made it quite clear that only approved views can have confidence and that Christians need to have no confidence that their views will not be recognized when they conflict with others. How glad I am that our confidence is not in the courts or culture.

Make Up Your Minds
I can't seem to keep up. "It's made by God," they all used to be sure. Then, "Oh, no, it's made by Evolution." Then, "Well, now, hang on ... sure, it's made by Evolution, but we don't really know how to work out the kinks, which are massive." The eminent Stephen Hawking assured us that it couldn't have been made by God because it's too complicated. (Sorry, the logic eludes me.) So university professors have assured their students, "Just because it looks like it has been designed doesn't mean it has been." By which they mean to say, "It has not been designed." And now we have this from Scientific American, a story about the "Qubit", apparently the smallest possible amount of information, which, apparently, science says makes up the entire universe. "The idea suggests the universe is built up from some underlying code, and that by cracking this code, physicists will finally have a way to understand the quantum nature of large-scale events in the cosmos."

Now, come on, Science! Which is it? If we're talking a code -- information (like DNA that contains the code that makes up all living things, for instance) -- then, there must be intelligence. "Code" requires intelligence above and beyond the code. You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "All the evidence points to intelligent design ... but we're going to deny intelligent design because we only follow the evidence." Make up your minds!

Merely Curious
I'm just wondering, here. A few years ago when someone in New Jersey purposely caused a traffic jam by closing a lane on the George Washington Bridge (AKA, Bridgegate), there was outrage, federal investigation, criminal charges, all that good stuff. So when an immigration protest shuts down the entire upper deck at rush hour, do you suppose there is going to be outrage, federal prosecution, and the like? Or will we tend to pat the culprits on the back and encourage them to continue?

Follow Up
Recently I gave you the story about the professor in Canada who refused to use the wrong gender pronouns for transgendered people. I asked, "I wonder how long that will last?" The same guy has written this piece in The Hill warning Americans that it's likely coming our way. The bill in Canada makes it a legal requirement that you refer to people using the pronoun of their choice, whether it is "him" for a "her" or "her" for a "him" or "they" for either one, or even "zie" or some other newly constructed obfuscation. Don't like it? Doesn't matter. It will be law in Canada. Mind you, Dr. Peterson isn't as much concerned about the insanity of "transgender" as he is the loss of the freedom of speech, but he is concerned. And why is it a threat for America? Because it has already been passed in New York City. Coming soon to a neighborhood (or nation) near you. Oh, and in answer to my question, there have been protests, violence, and calls for his removal over it.

Salty Speech

Given the current idea of "salty speech"¹ (that is, filled with expletives), we have to be careful when we read a biblical command to season our speech with salt.

Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person. (Col 4:6)

No, that is not a command to "spice up" your language with some swearing. The type of "salt" is specified: "grace". But just what does that mean? Are we to "say grace" before a meal? Clearly that doesn't make sense (except, perhaps, since we're talking about "salt", it is mealtime in view ... no, that can't be it.) Some think it means "saved by grace" grace. That is, "We should always be speaking the Gospel." That hardly seems right, either. So we are to always speak with grace. What does that mean?

I think Paul helps us elsewhere.

Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. (Eph 4:29)

He speaks of giving "grace to those who hear." I think that's what he had in mind in the Colossians verse, too. And he's more descriptive here. No "unwholesome word". Words "good for edification", paying attention to "the need of the moment". This kind of speech is other-centered. It eliminates the "unwholesome", which can be translated "corrupt", "rotten", or even "worthless". It substitutes only speech that edifies.

So that is "salty" speech. We only say nice things!

That would be a misunderstanding. Sometimes to edify you need to remove rubble. Sometimes, like salt in an open wound, words may hurt. It isn't always "nice things" -- pleasant to hear -- but it should always be beneficial, whether or not it is pleasant.

Now, we can complain about the way "those guys" talk about us. They can be mean-spirited, cruel, bullying words. I don't know why believers would expect something else from unbelievers. This command, on the other hand, is to believers. It is our requirement to speak with grace, to edify, to build up. It is our command to know what is required for each person ("the need of the moment"). It is our instruction to season our speech rather than tear down. So, how are we doing there? Do we return verbal slap for verbal slap? Or do we turn our verbal cheek and speak with grace to edify? Jesus was known for His gracious words (Luke 4:22). Shouldn't we, His followers, be known for the same?
________

¹ The term comes from the way that sailors ("salt" is slang for a sailor) speak, as in "swears like a sailor".

Vows That Age

This is a question post. I don't have a solid answer. Maybe you do. I'd be much obliged.

Do vows expire?

Well, of course they do. Marriage vows expire when the spouse dies. I get that, despite our society's tendency to completely ignore "Till death do us part." Certainly death does part married couples and the vow ends then (Rom 7:2). But what about others?

I'm thinking, in particular, a vow that I and every other person who served in the military was required to take.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

That's it, the standard Oath of Enlistment for joining the military. Everyone that joins takes such an oath (or affirmation). Now, as I look at the text of it, I don't see an end date. I don't see a delineation of the circumstances under which the promise is null and void. I don't see where it is terminated.

Is this an oath that all who joined the military are required to keep even after leaving the military? I mean, obviously they wouldn't defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic in the same way or in the same capacity, but what about in whatever capacity they can? They might not go into battle or bear arms to do it, but they certainly could vote, for instance, in support and defense of the Constitution. They could support and encourage defense of the First Amendment, as an example.

Well, you see what I mean. Is this a vow that dies out with the end of one's service, or is there no end-of-life clause on it? I'm not sure. What do you think?

Ambivalent

If you are one that might use "ambivalent" in a sentence, you will most likely use it as a synonym for "apathetic". As it turns out, ambivalence is much closer to the opposite of apathy. Apathy is the lack of feeling. Ambivalence is not. "Ambi" refers to "both", and "valence" is, at its root, "power" -- power to either draw or repel. Thus, to be apathetic is to have no feeling about something and ambivalence is to be drawn in two directions.

Leaving that for a moment, if Paul had written, "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith" (2 Cor 13:5) on the Internet, I wouldn't be surprised if he had included a link to John's first epistle, because that missive seems to be a large "test of faith", filled with "if" and "if not" and picking up in sharp and glaring terms those who are and who are not in the faith. However, with this weight of "are or are not in the faith", it seems like 1st John is ambivalent. (See? I got back to that.) He seems to write with fervor over testing yourself and with confidence that those who are in the faith will be. Here, take a look.

In the first chapter John asks if we walk in darkness or in the light as tests of whether we have fellowship with Christ (1 John 1:6-7) and whether or not we confess our sin (1 John 1:8-10). Notice, however, that John bounces back and forth on that latter point -- "If we say that we have no sin" followed by "If we confess our sins" followed by "If we say that we have not sinned." And doesn't end there. He goes on to say, "If anyone sins ..." (1 John 2:1). So, which is it? Is sin continuously in need of confession, repentance, and forgiveness, or do we have an Advocate? Ambivalent.

There are lots of other "tests".

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. (1 John 2:3)

The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. (1 John 2:9-10)

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (1 John 2:15)

Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:23)

And that's just the second chapter. It goes on and on. Lots and lots of warnings, contrasts of genuine verses false believers, that sort of thing. It's full of it.

The epistle is littered with these "ifs", like a test to see if you're a genuine Christian or not. Yet John, speaking of false teachers who "go out from us" (not outside), writes, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19) There isn't much ambiguity there. John appears to hold that those who are "really of us" will remain -- no question. In a letter dotted with test questions for your faith, John appears to be quite confident that those who are really in the faith must remain in the faith. Ambivalent.

In the third chapter we see something that, on one hand, appears to be quite daunting and, on the other, quite assuring. I've commented on this before.

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)

On one hand you have to ask yourself, "Do I practice sin?" and that might be a scary examination. On the other hand, to the one who is born of God, one of the most troubling questions of all is clearly answered. "Can I lose my salvation?" No! If practicing sin is the means of losing salvation, those born of God cannot do it. It isn't that it's not likely. It is impossible. Those born of God lack the capacity.

First John is full of these two poles. "Are you in Christ?" and "The outcome of those who are once in Christ is certain and settled." It looks ambivalent -- pulled in two directions. It isn't. It actually settles things. You might be wise to go through this and ask yourself the questions. It's good to know, one way or the other.

The Feminization of the Church

One of the subjects I have always wanted to approach is the subject of feminism, especially feminism and the church. I think it is abundantly clear that feminism as a mindset has so thoroughly washed over the church that we don't even recognize anymore how feminized the church has become. My problem is this. I don't think I recognize how feminized the church has become nor do I have a clear picture of what a non-feminized church would look like.

Look around. It's in most churches. (I'd say all, but I don't know all.) It's in the pews, given the large absence of males. It's in the music, aimed almost solely at emotions. There is even a segment of church songs that are today referred to as "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs. It's in the decor, with quilts on the wall, plants as decoration, even in the common artistic representations of the effeminate Jesus we see around. It's in the "care groups" and the drive to be "intimate with Jesus" (where "intimate" is so misunderstood today). It is explained in books like David Morrow's Why Men Hate Going to Church. In her book, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, Nancy Pearcey says it's a product of the Industrial Revolution, when men stopped working around home and bifurcated "work" and "home", "secular" and "sacred". This may be, but studies suggest this is primarily a Christian distinctive, not bleeding over to other religious gatherings. Whatever the reason, since women have outnumbered men in churches, pastors began to tailor their message to their primary demographic -- women. There are "ladies clubs" like women's Bible studies and book studies and social gatherings, but not much for men to do "men things". While women are typically relational and nurturing -- characteristics we think of as "Christian" -- men are more goal-driven and competitive, largely characteristics ignored in churches. So they aim at the sharing of feelings and comforting one another without addressing male needs, nature, or issues. If they have a men's ministry it is typically poorly attended often because it is ... well ... feminized. Then, of course, the new Christian ethic that says that women ought to be doing all the same roles that men do even if Scripture seems to think otherwise. To even reference some of these Scriptures (Gen 2:18; 1 Cor 11:3-17; 1 Cor 14:34-35; Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; 1 Tim 2:9-14; 1 Peter 3:1-6; etc.) is considered sexist.

I think it's a problem. Worse, I think it's a specific attack by Satan. Is it a product of feminism? Perhaps in part, but I don't think so. I think it's a product of Satan. I think it's an attack on males and I think it is an orchestrated attack. We know, for instance, that school teachers are predominantly female. Why? Watch TV for very long (I'd guess 3-4 minutes ought to do it) and you'll see a common message: men are stupid, useless beings outranked first by women and, ultimately, by children. Real men, we're told, are bad things. What a "good man" would look like would be one "in touch with his feminine side". Otherwise, our entire culture is telling us, "men are jerks." It's not just in the church; it's everywhere.

But beyond the satanic attack, I think a major problem is that we've become inoculated to it. Like the proverbial frog in the pot, we've become so used to it that we don't even recognize it. Not seeing the problem, we will likely do little to address it. But it is a problem. Did you know, for instance, that statistically something like 90% of boys raised in church will abandon it by their 20th birthday? That's a startling number.

What we need, then, is for men to be men and for churches to embrace (See? Another feminist concept.) male needs and male lives. The problem, though, is as I've already said. We don't really know what that looks like. It's obviously not the "male jerk" concept, the chauvinist posturing like a peacock, the hypermasculine guy looking for a fight and demeaning women. Clearly not that. But what is it? What does the godly male look like and how does the church include that influence again? Do we even know how to do it anymore?

I have always wanted to address this because I really do believe it's a major problem, but I don't know that I know what the alternative is. That alone speaks volumes.

Logic Test

Something like this logical argument (a term for the form of the argument, not a value judgment) has been used to prove that those evil Calvinists are clearly wrong. I think it proves something else. Here are the logic statements.

1. God truly loves all persons.
2. To truly love someone is to desire their best.
3. The best for all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey Him.
4. Therefore, all persons will be saved.

Now, the anti-Calvinist argues that God can save everyone by giving everyone "irresistible grace". Since He doesn't, the Calvinists are wrong. I have to say that "proving" that Calvinists are wrong here doesn't help the rest. There is a necessary breakdown someplace. We know that #4 doesn't happen, so what went wrong? Does God not "truly love" all persons? Or perhaps His hands are tied and He is incapable of saving everyone? In short, does He lack the desire or the ability to accomplish what this logical sequence suggests must be accomplished?

Luckily for me it is not my assignment to straighten everyone out on this, so you're on your own here. But be careful about going places like "God is incapable" or "God doesn't love" with impunity. You'd better have good, logically consistent, biblically consistent reasons for one of those. I'm not offering answers here. I'm just asking you -- you the Calvinist or you the non-Calvinist (obviously excepting the Universalist) -- to see that you (yes, all of you) have a dilemma to resolve here. There are answers, and we are commanded to "be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in you." (1 Peter 3:15)

Update:
It is clear to me from comments and responses that this post was largely baffling. More than one thought it was a "Calvinist versus everyone else" argument. Some thought I was trying to prove Universalism. One said that this argument appears sound and nearly does prove Universalism. (How "nearly" works into this I can't tell.) It appears to be poorly considered on my part to engage my readers with a question of logic when it contains in it a component commonly producing much emotion. My mistake. Most people cannot both think and feel at the same time, and if feelings are first engaged, thinking is typically subverted.

The argument does not prove that Calvinists are wrong. If allowed to stand, it proves that Christianity is wrong. That is, Christ, with all His references to eternal flames and torment, was mistaken. Sinfully mistaken. The argument does not favor Arminians. They, like Calvinists believe that not all are saved, as does anyone else who is a Christian of any biblical nature. It doesn't even favor "Leftist Christians" who like to be more generous with their "salvation" because if the argument stands and all are not saved, God fails for them, too.

A few of you engaged the argument itself, and I appreciate that. The argument, as it turns out, is not sound. Its premises are vague and, in the end, faulty. Therefore, its conclusion is false. There, now we can all go home and forget about those nasty Calvinists ... or Arminians ... or whatever stripe you care to dislike. As for me, I've learned a valuable lesson.

Plan B

Welcome to Plan A. Let me introduce you to the outset of this plan -- Adam. On the sixth day, God made Adam. Adam was without sin. He was made in perfect harmony with God. He had a "walk in the garden" relationship with God. Soon thereafter was the second part of Plan A, Eve. Both made in the image of God, both without sin, both without even a sin nature, they constituted Plan A -- a world predicated on beings made in the image of God reflecting the nature of God to all creation. And it was very good.

Enter the serpent.

"More crafty than any other beast" (Gen 3:1), we get Satan (Rev 20:2) tempting Eve with "Did God say ...?" And Eve, seeing that "the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate." (Gen 3:6) Say goodbye to Plan A.

Most people believe that what follows (effectively all of human history) is God's Plan B. His Plan A was an eternal harmonious relationship between Man and God, but we messed that up, so He had to come up with a Plan B which included the dreadful death of His Son, His resurrection, and the ultimate defeat of Satan. Good plan, as far as alternate plans go.

There's a problem with this line of thinking. The Bible disagrees. In Titus, for instance, we read of the "hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began." (Titus 1:1-3) Wait, promised before the ages began? So that was the plan from the beginning. In Revelation we read of "everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." (Rev 13:8) Now, wait a minute. This says that those who are saved had their name written in the book of life before the foundation of the world. That means that 1) all who would be saved were already documented, so to speak, and 2) those who would not be saved were not.

This paints a different picture, then. This argues that the idyllic garden existence was the beginning, to be sure, but was not a Plan A to a Plan B. This argues that it was simply the beginning to Plan A which, in God's good time and for God's good purposes would then take a turn into sin according to His own prior knowledge, and that this was Plan A from the beginning -- our sin, the need for a Savior, the death and resurrection of Christ, perfect redemption.

I know. There are some who will balk at this. It seems to suggest that God knew in advance that Adam would sin and bring sin into the world and that this was His plan. If that's what you think, then I'll go along with you there. If God is Omniscient, it is the only thing we could conclude. He knew it would happen, could have prevented it, and didn't. Instead, He intended to show His power and wrath and grace and mercy (Rom 9:22-23) for His glory. Without authoring -- causing or putting into place -- sin, He allowed it into His Plan A along with the remedy, "promised before the ages began." The alternative to this is that God is not Omniscient -- didn't know it was coming -- or not Omnipotent -- knew it but was incapable of stopping it.

As for me, I take a great deal of comfort knowing that we are not on Plan B, God's back up plan for when Plan A failed. Instead, He continues to cause all things to work together for good. It would be comforting to know that He could remedy any misstep, I suppose, but knowing that it hasn't been necessary gives me greater confidence in His Omniscience, His Omnipotence, and His Sovereignty. I don't have a "Plan B" God. I trust a God who always had it under control and will continue to have it under control. It works for me. You can decide for yourself.

News Weakly - 10/22/2016

The Beauty of Spin
So, the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties -- the union for Pennsylvania's university faculties -- has gone on strike for more money and better benefits. More than 100,000 students are on hold for classes as some 5,500 faculty members from 14 state universities hit the picket lines. The union president said, "We are headed to the picket lines, but even on the picket lines, our phones will be on, should the State System decide it doesn't want to abandon its students."

Wait ... the State System is abandoning its students? How does that work? They're still there. They're still ready and willing to educate the students. It's the union members that have walked out ... on the students. Ah, the beauty of spin! "We are walking out because we aren't getting the goods we want and wish to extort the universities at the expense of the students to remedy that, but we'll say it is the State System that is abandoning the students and everyone will agree with us there." As long as it makes the unions look good and feel good, it must be true.

Postscript: Reuters is reporting that the strike ended on Friday because they achieved a tentative agreement. Doesn't change my point.

Did You Know?
Planned Parenthood is celebrating their 100th anniversary. In 1916 Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic. Did you know that she was put in jail for it? Turns out it was against the law to provide literature describing contraception. Talk about changing times! I mean, sure, we Christians aren't happy about Planned Parenthood's involvement in killing the unborn, but most of us aren't too concerned about contraception. That is, merely a hundred years ago it was illegal and now Christians consider the concept of preventing contraception as barbaric. Most people back then thought the artificial prevention of pregnancy as immoral. No longer.

You also may not know this. Interestingly, turns out that Sanger was an opponent of abortion. That's why she favored contraception to help the advancement of women. She considered abortion as a horror and classified it as a disgrace to civilization. Now, she was in favor of eugenics -- the process of eliminating "undesirables" genetically -- and thought that "morons, mental defectives, epileptics, illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope fiends" should be sterilized, but she wasn't too keen on abortion. And since Planned Parenthood has continued to be one of the biggest sources of decreasing offspring in minority races in America -- one of the goals of eugenics and Sanger alike -- I'm sure she'd have come around to it and would be happy with what they're doing now.

I Learned Something New
You think you know stuff, and then a news item like this comes along and you find you knew nothing at all. The story is about US rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) hitting an all-time high. The story says it's worst among the young (15-24) and men who have sex with men (bisexual or homosexual). Then it says this:

The CDC blamed the historic levels on budget cuts to STD prevention programs as well as clinic closures across the country.

See? I did not see that coming. I always thought that the reason for STDs was ... well ... sex. Specifically sex outside of God's instructions on sex. And if I had not heard about STD rates and wanted to make a prediction about them based on today's rising sexual immorality in America, I would have guessed that we were likely getting to the highest rates ever. But I'd be wrong, you see. Sexually transmitted diseases are caused by budget cuts and the lack of clinics. Who would have thought?

Tolerance Test

Instructions: Yesterday I gave you the definition of tolerance. Let's begin with that just for clarity.

Tolerant: showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

Keep in mind that tolerance requires something with which you disagree and the willingness to let it be. Your job, then, is, given the definition of tolerance, rate the following statements as "tolerant" or "intolerant". Good luck.

1. I'm a Christian.

2. I'm opposed to Christianity and think those who follow it ought to be removed.

3. I'm a Christian calligrapher. My business is making fancy wedding invitations. I do not want to be required to make invitations for weddings that contradict my beliefs, but I will recommend other vendors for those people who come to me with such a request.

4. I think that people who refuse service to the LGBT folk on the basis of personal values ought to be fined, jailed, lose their business or some other serious consequence to prevent it from happening again.

5. I oppose abortion and would urge women seeking an abortion to seek alternative help.

6. Deeply held religious values need to be changed in order to keep abortion free.

7. I believe the Bible. I hope that others will, too. You're free to have an opposing opinion.

8. I believe the Bible is misleading, misunderstood, and potentially dangerous. It should not be allowed in public.

9. I think that homosexual behavior is a sin and people who practice it need a Savior.

10. I think that those who oppose homosexual behavior are bigots and haters and deserve whatever bad things come their way.

The End.

(I don't think I need to grade your answers. I'm hoping you can figure it out. Because the irony of those who clamor for "tolerance" while doing so without tolerance as opposed to those who stand for what they believe while being accused of being intolerant is a serious problem.)

Word Play

Allow me to illustrate the problem of language using some extremely common terms we see thrown around these days.

Bigotry: Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

We all know what bigotry is. Like the dictionary says here, it is intolerance towards those who differ with our own view. But wait! I think we need to examine "intolerance".

Tolerant: showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. From a Latin term meaning "to endure pain"

So, "intolerance" is not-tolerance. But tolerance is the willingness to allow the existence of views with which one does not agree. It is not the willingness to allow views that one agrees with. That's just normal operation, not tolerance. Tolerance is not embracing a view with which you disagree or it is not tolerance by definition. So a bigot is someone who does not allow to exist views other than his own. Someone who disagrees with them but allows them to exist -- the definition of tolerance -- cannot be called a bigot. Do you see the problem?

Let's try another.

Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason; any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

As all of us know, prejudice is bad. We must not be prejudiced. The error of prejudice, according to the definition, is "opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason." That is, our opinions ought to be informed by fact, not by pre-judging without the facts or without cause. So I ask, what if I have an unfavorable opinion of something or someone based on knowledge, thought, and/or reason? Can I then be termed "prejudiced"? Not according to the definition.

Here's a popular one.

Judgmental: involving the use or exercise of judgment; tending to make moral judgments.

We're not supposed to be judgmental. Of course, the definition of "judgmental" is located in its root, "judgment".

Judgment: the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion

Do you see the problem here? If "judgment" is the ability to judge objectively, authoritatively, and wisely -- having good sense -- then why would we not want to be judgmental? How is "judgmental" bad? Why are we being told, "Don't be wise in your decisions"? "Don't have good sense," doesn't make sense.

In my youth, when I wasn't allowed to use swear words, I amused myself by listening to how other people used them and laughing to myself about what they actually said. It turns out that paying attention to what people say can be funny when they don't have a clue what they're saying. Today our society is pinning its primary assaults on us as intolerant bigots, prejudiced and judgmental. They keep using those words. I don't think those words mean what they think they mean. If only they weren't so intolerant (not allowing a different view to exist) and non-judgmental (not making wise decisions), concluding what words mean without knowledge, thought, or reason (prejudiced).

Turn Indicator

Recently I wrote about how times have changed for Christianity. Some of it was positive. Some of it was tongue-in-cheek sarcastic. We've figured out, for instance, that the Church is not the arbiter of truth or salvation, but that God and His Word is. That's good. We understand now that those in the South who defended slavery as biblical were wrong, and that's good. On the negative side, however, we've reinterpreted Scripture to include women as pastors, for instance, and that's not good. Some have embraced a redefinition of marriage and the murder of babies as perfectly suitable and that's not good. We've largely forgotten about the Sovereignty of God, and that's ... well ... really bad.

What's the difference? Why are certain changes good and others not? How do we decide what is a good and right change and what is a deviation from orthodoxy (right thinking)?

As I've said before, predicated on Jesus's promise to send the Holy Spirit to lead His followers into all truth (John 16:13), I have to believe that the truth has been told to believers from the outset, requiring that the truth can be traced from then until now. So, with a God-breathed Bible, the leading of the Holy Spirit today, and a "fact check" from church history, we should be able to have a fairly constant set of orthodoxy that is truth. This, in fact, was the position of the Reformation when they sought to push Christianity not to newer and better (like some reform school kid), but to re-form it to what it was supposed to be at the start.

So, when the changes we've seen are 1) aligned with Scripture and 2) harken back to church history, we can be fairly confident that we haven't found a new and better path, but that we've simply corrected back to the original. Originally, for instance, we were told that we are not saved by works (a la Roman Catholicism), but by grace through faith apart from works. Correcting then to that was a good thing. Christians didn't argue, prior to the 18th century, that white people could enslave black people because they were offspring of Canaan under God's curse, so a return to the position that this is wrong was both biblical and historical. All good.

When we come, instead, to the point that marriage is no longer the union of a man and a woman as Scripture and history have always held, but some vague relationship between two people for whatever duration for whatever purpose, and you can see that we've departed from both Scripture and history. "Oh, no," some will try to tell you, "we've just finally figured out that they were wrong all along." And that's the problem, isn't it? We, some 2000 years after the fact, have figured out what the Spirit has failed to get across for all of history, that the Church was always wrong and our grasp of the truth was mistaken. This is a problem. It is a problem for the shift to a metaphorical view of Genesis, for the discarding of the value of human life in abortion, and for introducing women as pastors when Scripture and history are abundantly clear that it has never been the case.

There are times that the current church needs a corrective. No doubt. That correction must come from Scripture. And it should align with "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) These are valid and good, changes we should embrace not because we're "improving", but because we're returning to the truth. Something "new and improved" is problematic. The "New Perspective on Paul", a willing shift from "the intrinsic value of humans made in the image of God" to "women's choice and reproductive rights", redefining fundamental things like "marriage", "family", and the like are all set over against Scripture and history. This makes them problematic. It reflects badly on the Church, on the Body of Christ, on Scripture, and on the work of the Holy Spirit who just couldn't seem to get His act together up until these wonderfully enlightened folk came along to figure it out.

Note this. Generally the latter -- positive corrections that return us to the original design -- are not pleasant. They aren't comfortable. We pursue them not because it makes us feel better, but because we love God and His truth. On the other hand, the negative corrections (as I'm calling them) that are "new and improved" Christianity are certainly more pleasing than the corrected Christianity. They allow us to embrace things we like -- sexual immorality, a "more inclusive" pulpit that includes women, and things like that. We are told in Scripture, "The time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." (2 Tim 4:3-4) When a change is presented, you might want to ask yourself. Does this push you in a direction you aren't initially comfortable with but aligns with Scripture and history, or does it "suit your own passions"? I think there's an indicator there that might be helpful.