Labor Day

It's Labor Day in America, the day we "celebrate labor." That, of course, isn't completely true. In the first place, Labor Day was originally instituted as a day we celebrate labor unions. That original intent was subverted to include all labor. But more to the point, do we really celebrate labor?

Most of us think of work as a bad thing. To the average person in America it's a necessary evil. I mean, if we could be rich and stop working entirely, we'd be living the dream, right? Even among Christians it's considered a curse. Literally. "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return" (Gen 3:19). Work was part of God's curse to mankind for Adam's sin. See? Work is not something to be celebrated.

That, of course, isn't completely true. And we should be careful about going there.

If you recall, work was part of God's original design. Adam was given a job long before he fell. "Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name" (Gen 2:19). Quite a task. He told Adam and Eve, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Gen 1:28). A long-term job. God intended from the beginning for work to be part of the human experience. And since God only does good, that leads us to conclude that work is good. Adam, then, wasn't cursed with work; he was (ironically) sentenced to hard labor. Work, itself, was not the curse.

"That was then," some might counter. "This is now. We no longer live in Old Testament times. We no longer fall under those conditions." But we know it's still the case today that work is our call. "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). Work continues to be the positive aim.

Most of what this world does today isn't for the sake of bringing glory to God. (Isn't that an understatement?) However, it might be possible for us to ... steal some of it for God's glory. Like Labor Day. If we have been commissioned to do work for the glory of God (Matt 5:16), then perhaps on a day like "Labor Day" we can celebrate the work that God has given us to do, the work that we are commanded and honored to do. His work. In our labor we have the glorious opportunity to participate with Him and through Him in His work. That is certainly something to celebrate, even while the rest of our people are barbequing and not working in order to celebrate what they consider a necessary evil.

Omnipotent

Is God omnipotent? Most of us would say, "Why, yes, of course He is" without blinking an eye. We know, for instance, that "The Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns" (Rev 19:6). "Almighty" is the term most of the time. "As for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?" (Isa 14:27). And what do we mean by that? Like Jesus said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matt 19:26).

"Omnipotent," then, to most of us, means "God can do anything at all." And that, dear readers, would be a mistake. We know there are things God cannot do. We know, for instance, that "it is impossible for God to lie" (Heb 6:18). We know that God's Word cannot be broken. Jesus said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). We know that God cannot change (Mal 3:6). We know that God cannot sin. In fact, He cannot even be tempted to sin (James 1:13). Well, in short, God cannot violate His own nature. But, look, that's not a big deal. No one can.

So what is omnipotence? It does not mean that God can do anything at all. It means that God possesses all power. No power exists that He does not possess. There is no realm over which He does not have power. Anything that God wills He can do (where "can" can be read "has the power to").

So what does that mean to me? How is that significant? I'm sure you can see it immediately. Whatever God wants to do He can do. If He wants to save you, He can. He cannot fail. If He wants to protect you, He can. If He wants to move mountains, He can. If He wants to heal, He can. Nothing exceeds His power. Because of His power "in Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). That's ultimate power, and that's the God we serve.

Some people have a "weaker god," a God who doesn't actually have all power. His hands are tied by humans. He is powerless against nature. The deists have Him wringing His hands over what's going on in our world. "I never meant that to happen." That's not omnipotence. For those whose God is actually omnipotent, there is no safer place to be than in His hands. Your only remaining question would be "Do you trust Him?"

News Weakly - 9/1/18

Illusions of Gender
A recent study explored the notion of transgender in the dating world. The question was, "Would you consider dating a transgender person?" You know. "I was born a guy, but I am truly a girl, so now I'm a girl." Would a heterosexual guy -- a guy attracted to females -- be interested in dating this "girl"? Turns out that a whopping 87.5% said they would not. Now that seems odd, since "What I feel inside" is the definition of truth, so female body that "feels like a guy" should be attractive to girls who are attracted to guys and vice versa. And they're not. How strange, given that a large portion of people are still claiming "They really are the gender they feel like they are" followed, apparently, with "but I wouldn't date them."

As I've long suspected ...
... Common courtesy may not be dead, but it's surely gravely ill. I was raised to call my elders "sir" and "ma'am" and didn't learn how not to do that until I was an adult. It was "common courtesy". You know, the unspoken but common rules of civility by which we all llived. Be kind. Be courteous. Open the door for ladies. Oh, no, not that. Not these days. So now this fifth grader raised to be respectful is punished for saying, "Yes, ma'am" to his teacher.

To be clear, this child was not disciplined for calling her "ma'am". He was disciplined for doing so after he had been told not to. Let's be fair. Now, having said that, when a teacher demands that her students no longer demonstrate that level of respect to the point of making it a rule, that is a death nell for common courtesy. The last time I was chewed out by an irate woman for opening the door for her (as I do for most people in my vicinity when I'm going through a door), I responded, "I'm sorry; no respect intended." And, no, that didn't help.

No News is Trump News
In July the Gallup organization reported that Trump had a 50% approval rating or higher in 17 states in the first half of 2017. I would say, "Astounding!" Rasmussen agreed. But the headline is Trump Misstates Approval Rating in Latest Poll.

Note: Trump did misstate his approval rating as 90% within the party and 52% overall. Note: The fact that he misstated it is bigger news than the reports of his actual approval rating. Note: This suggests strong media anti-Trump bias. Final note: Me? I'm shocked that he would have anywhere near that kind of approval rating at all, misstated or real. The early August reports were around 50%. The "approved" poll was 44%. All of that seems too high to me. But the headline simply wishes to discredit the man. As if that is the real news.

Meatless
Missouri has become the first state to regulate the word, "meat." That's right. Lots of words to be concerned about, but their primary concern is "meat." "The state's new law forbids 'misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.'" Vegetarian Food Company Tofurkey is suing.

I don't think they realize that "meat" can reference the internal parts of a nut, but, hey, I don't really think they're getting to the real meat of the matter.

Hard to Believe
You will not believe this report. The CDC is reporting that sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are at an all-time high. How can that possibly be, given our "if it feels good, do it," "you have nothing to say about me and my sex life," "only God will judge me," "whatever you want to do with whomever you want to do it is worth celebrating" society? Hmm. Just can't figure that out.

Just ... Pitiful, Really
For the Trump supporters out there, especially among the conservative Christians, this is just pitiful. President Trump is warning Evangelicals that if they don't vote for his people there will be violence. If the GOP loses in the upcoming elections, "They will overturn everything that we've done and they'll do it quickly and violently." You guys aren't falling for that, right? Right? Look, the level of cooperation between the GOP in Congress and the GOP in the White House is poor at best. The level of competence and the ability of Congress, GOP or Democrat, to do anything is not particularly high, either. If Congress is able to "overturn everything that we've done" quickly (and violently?), it would be because "we" haven't done it very firmly or well (like executive orders and the like). It seems like a crude and unnecessary scare tactic on the president's part. I wonder. Is he afraid the evangelical Christians might be waking up?

Cultural Appropriation

Recently celebrity chef Jamie Oliver got in trouble for a new product called "Punchy Jerk Rice." Now, Jamaican jerk is the name of a particular recipe for a marinade for meat and apparently not the kind of recipe that Oliver used, but the real complaint is "cultural appropriation" and he's in real trouble now, the jerk.

What is "cultural appropriation?" When a white chef tells you how to eat Vietnamese food, that's cultural appropriation. When Katy Perry wore a geisha outfit or Miley Cyrus did some "twerking", that was cultural appropriation. When a white girl wears henna (a dye applied to the skin as a temporary "tattoo" type thing, primarily from Middle East and North Africa areas) to a party, that's cultural appropriation. When a college fraternity throws a Cinco de Mayo costume party, that's cultural appropriation. Oh, and many of those Halloween costumes ... yeah, just ... don't.

Cultural appropriation is currently a hot item in a bad way. That is, don't do it. As illustrated by the evil chef who appropriated it for his meal offering. Just don't do it.

Unless, of course, you're a guy who thinks he's a girl. So you appropriate all those feminine things like make-up, eye lashes, dresses, bras, all that stuff. That kind of cultural appropriation is fine, nay, laudable. It's imitation, not appropriation, and it's a good thing ... because our culture has declared it so in this particular case. Back off, haters.

Underwhelmed

Some of you probably don't know the term "whelm." That's okay. It's not a modern word -- not used today. It means "to engulf or submerge." It was originally to be overcome by water. Of course, our more common version is "overwhelm." And we know that one is simply to be completely overcome by something, but you get the idea from "whelm," right? You can be "whelmed" in a ship where the water sinks the ship or you can be "overwhelmed" by emotion where the emotions engulf you. Same kind of thing. "Underwhelmed," then, would simply mean to not get too wet, so to speak. The water did not go over your head. The emotions did not cause much of an effect.

All well and good. Now what?

I want to talk about baptism. "What??" Bear with me a moment.

In the church there has long been discussions about "immersion" ("whelm," you see?), "dipping," or "sprinkling." That kind of thing. What is necessary? What is valid? Lots of churches vary on this question. The Baptists tend to insist on "full immersion" while others edge farther and farther until you practically only need to acknowledge the existence of water to be baptized. (I exaggerate, but you get what I'm saying.) Is there a correct mode?

I would argue that, no, there is not. And now I plan to tell you what the correct mode is.

The word in the Greek is βαπτίζω -- baptizō -- from which we get our word "baptize." (I know. "Thanks, Stan, that was truly enlightening." Yawn.) According to Strong's, the word means (get this), "to whelm." Oh, and there it is -- a connection to the first paragraph! Yeah! The word is used in Greek to reference dipping, as in dipping a cloth into a dye to color it. John the Baptist (which is a reference to what he did, not his denomination) baptized in the Jordan "because water was plentiful there" (John 3:23), not an issue if he was merely sprinkling people. Paul wrote that we were baptized into Christ's death. "We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). That is not "sprinkled" or even "poured." That is "immersion."

All the language, from the word used to the context to the content, argues that "baptism" was intended to be "immersion." As the image it is intended to convey, we aren't supposed to be sprinkled with Christ's death or wetted into Christ. We aren't supposed to be lightly rinsed for our sins. We're supposed to be in deep -- overwhelmed. The image just doesn't work any other way.

Having said that, it is an image, and the intent is a public display of an internal work. Even in the early church sprinkling or pouring was allowed in cases where immersion wasn't possible. Because the point is not "a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience" (1 Peter 3:21). I'm not the one who will tell someone, "Go try again; you didn't get wet enough the first time." I am suggesting that the imagery of being sprinkled into the body of Christ is a weak one and if you're considering baptism (as every obedient follower of Christ should), I'd highly recommend immersion. Otherwise, it's just kind of underwhelming.

Say No Evil

"If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." That's what we're told. Oh, that's not what we practice, but that's what we're told. And that's what we preach, especially when it comes to God. God must not say anything negative. He's a loving God, after all, and loving gods don't say negative things. Or ... so we're told.

As it turns out, it ain't necessarily so.

I recently read 2 Samuel. In the last chapter we see the interesting story of the "sin of David" in "numbering the people." Really?

Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah." (2 Sam 24:1)

Now, there are questions about that entire setup. Did the Lord incite David? Or did Satan (1 Chron 21:1)? Or both? Some translations say "it incited David ..." That is, the Lord's anger incited David to sin. And then there is the whole question (and indeed it is a question -- I found at least 6 different suggestions as to what exactly the nature of the sin was) of why numbering the people was a sin. After all, David did it back in chapter 18 and it wasn't a sin. I'm not offering answers here because the really intriguing question to me isn't found there. It is the first phrase that caught my eye. "Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel."

It doesn't tell us why. It does tell us that it wasn't new. "Again." It wasn't for David's sin; it was "against Israel." Again. What was this sin? I mean, if you read the story, it gets really amazing. God gives David his choice of punishments and David ends up with a 3-day-pestilence option (2 Sam 24:12-15). In that event "from morning until the appointed time" 70,000 men died. David's census found 1.3 million fighting men and God's judgment killed 1 in 16. That's some sin. But wait! The story says that "the angel of the LORD" was doing the killing (2 Sam 24:16). And it was so bad that the LORD cut it short. What was this sin?

We don't know. We're not told. What we do learn is that it was costly. What we do learn is that even in this God was merciful, cutting the death toll short. (What was also interesting is that God stopped the judgment at "the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite" which, as it turns out, became the Temple mount, also known as Mount Moriah, which is also the place that God sent Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. That is, God demonstrated mercy on the same spot that He tested Abraham's faith while demonstrating the Lamb to come and set up His temple to, you guessed it, demonstrated the Lamb to come. Mercy indeed.)

We are told to say nice things. Don't talk about bad things. By no means should you point out sin. Just keep that to yourself. Now, mind you, Jesus is portrayed in Revelation as riding a white horse and "is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war" (Rev 19:11). It goes on to say, "From His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty" (Rev 19:15). Say what you will -- that does not sound like "only nice things."

So how do we correlate "only nice things" with a loving God who does not "say only nice things"? A couple of thoughts. First, He's God. Always right; always just. He's the judge of all the earth, not us. Having said that, it is a mistake to think that loving is "saying only nice things." A parent that only says "nice things" to their child walking out into the street is not a good, loving parent. There are times that good, loving people need to say harsh things because they love someone. That shouldn't be mistaken for "not love." And if we are to follow Christ, we should expect not to always only say "nice things." We should always say loving things, but that's not always pleasant to the hearer. That's the difference.

Said No One Ever

I live in a very hot place. I was walking downtown the other day and came across a set of "graffiti" -- technically, actual printed signs stuck to the sidewalk -- ridiculing the heat of the place. Like the picture of an oven and the caption, "But it's a dry heat." Then there was the one a little farther on with a dried skull of a steer in the desert and the caption, "'I love running in this heat,' said no one ever." It's a popular meme these days. "'I really wanna marry the guy who whistled at me from his car,' said no one ever." "'No, thanks! I have enough clothes,' said no woman ever." "'If you want to find out about it, just Bing it,' said no one ever." "'I have to say my driver's license picture is the best one I've got,' said no one ever." You get the idea.

I'm wondering if there shouldn't be a Christian version. "'When the Bible talks about forbidding sex between same-sex people, it's only referring to religious rites,' said no one ever." "'Same-sex couples can be married just like opposite sex couples,' said no one ever." "'The Bible is full of myths, legends, and errors,' said no one ever." You know, in regard to the history of Christianity. I mean, sure, lots of people are saying these things now, but on what basis? Prior to the recent assault on God's Word even by people who claim to love God's Word, no believers said these things.

Why are these things so? Why do people claim to love the Bible while denying what it says? Why do self-identified Christians come up with brand new interpretations of certain passages -- interpretations that deny the historical, longstanding, and rational understanding of the texts? I'm not talking about the hard-to-grasp, the questionable, the hard-to-be-100%-certain passages. I'm talking about the absolutely clear ones, like Jesus's "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:4-6). "Oh, no," they'll tell me, "that doesn't mean that Jesus defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman." Only in today's world can anyone conclude that. No one ever thought other than that prior to this "new interpretation." Like Paul's abundantly clear, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10). "See, you're misunderstanding that. It's referring to religious rites" or "abusive relationships, not committed ones" ... said no one ever prior to the 21st century. So they deny the Master who bought them.

You can read for yourself, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12). The meaning is not unclear. But you will hear folk who "love the Bible" tell you, "That's just hyperbole" by which they mean "Everyone has some righteousness, no one is worthless, and everyone does good." Now, if the text says "No one does good; not even one" and they understand that to mean "Everyone does good," that's not hyperbole (an exaggeration for effect); it's a lie. "Good is everywhere, so I'll say, 'No one does good' so you'll understand." Simple, absolute contradiction. And that is simply one example

When "enlightened believers" understand "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22) to mean "No, wives should not submit to their husbands as to the Lord or anyone else," it's not enlightenment; it's contradiction. When "careful lovers of the Word" understand "The head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3) to mean "There is no biblical hierarchy," it 's not enlightenment; it's contradiction. In this way, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:12) can be understood as "Women are certainly permitted to teach and exercise authority over men" without batting an eye. Faithful believers can read that God "works all things according to the counsel of His will" and understand it to mean that lots of things happen outside of the counsel of His will. Easy as pie. And we do it all while claiming, "I love God and His Word."

I read an account of a man who claimed he loved his wife so much that he had to kill her. I thought, "I hope no one ever loves me that much." I see what people who "love the Word" do to the Word and think, "That is a strange definition of 'love the Word'" when they take it and mangle it and twist it in new and innovative ways that no one ever did so that it now means the exact opposite of what it ever did before or could mean in any normal use and call it "loving God's Word." It's all very strange to me. But I'm told I'm the crazy one because I prefer to see what it says and try to conform myself to it. Go figure.

Theology and Doctrine

I know. For some I just wrote two naughty words in that title. I mean, seriously, who needs them, right? Let's just love Jesus. We don't need mind games and wooden rules to follow Christ, right?

Turns out it's just not so. And not because the Bible says so. It's because the statements above are theology and doctrine.

When we hear "theology," we tend to think "some high-sounding school-driven description of God." It just isn't so. Theology is simply the study of the nature of God. Every one of us is a theologian; even the atheist. Their study (such as it is) leads them to believe that there is no such being. Everyone else comes to their own conclusions on the nature of God, but everyone has some. As such, everyone is a theologian.

Doctrine is defined most loosely as "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated." Simple. You can have a doctrine about how to play football or how to make coffee or how to do government. Anything. In religious terms, then, doctrine is simply the principles, positions, or policies you hold regarding religion. If your particular position is "It doesn't exist and it doesn't matter," that is your doctrine on the subject. Everyone has religious doctrines. Some are generic or even unconscious, but everyone has them.

What's my point, then? The point is not whether or not theology and doctrines are of any value. Since they are everywhere and everyone has them, my point is are they right? Why do you hold them? What makes you think they're the truth? Dismissing theology and doctrine as irrelevant is simply your theology and doctrine and doesn't answer the real question: What is truth? Because if biblical theology and Christian doctrines are true, they become extremely important. Finding that out is critical.

The Body of Christ

Scripture says that believers are the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:27; Col 1:18, 24). It means several things -- mutual support, bearing one anothers burdens, working together, that sort of thing. One popular notion is that we are His arms and legs. We are the physical presence that does His work. We're supposed to be doing here what He would do here. Maybe. But the question seems to never be asked, "What would Jesus be doing here?" Well, sort of. You know -- WWJD. "What would Jesus do?" But we don't have to guess at that. Jesus told us. I bet you're not as clear on that as you might have thought. What did Jesus say His purpose was? I would think it would make sense to find out and do that.

Here's one I bet you didn't expect. "I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matt 10:35). I can hear it now. "Wait! That can't be right!" But I didn't say it; He did. Oh, no, that wasn't His aim. It's just that if we follow Him as He intends, it will produce conflict with those who don't, including family. And following Him as He intends is, well, what He intends.

This one should be patently obvious. "I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38). Jesus came to do whatever His Father wanted. Not what He wanted. Not what we want. Now that's an interesting perspective, isn't it? Because often when we are told we need to be His arms and feet, they're saying we should do what we or they think is nice or kind when Jesus aimed for what His Father intended.

How about this one? "Now is My soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify Your name'" (John 12:27-28). Jesus said that He came for a particular purpose. That was to die. Not just die; it was to die for God's glory. I wonder if any of those urging you to be Jesus's hands and feet are thinking of having you and I die. I doubt it. But that was a primary purpose of Christ on earth.

A couple of very clear statements give us some more insight. At one point He said, "I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in Me may not remain in darkness" (John 12:46). Another time He said, "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly" (John 10:10). Jesus came to spread light and to give abundant life. Now, in all honesty, we don't actually have that capability. But we can share the light and we can encourage others to live the abundant life.

Jesus shared with Pilate one other purpose. "For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world — to bear witness to the truth" (John 18:37). The truth was Jesus's primary purpose -- the truth about His Father and His Father's glory, the truth about Him, the truth about us and our sin and our need for Him, and more. Bearing witness to the truth is something we can do, except usually when we hear, "We need to be Jesus's arms and feet" they are talking about doing nice things and often intentionally aim to remove the truth in favor of kindness (as if kindness without truth is actually kind). "They don't need a judge; they need a friend." Jesus came to bear witness to the truth. We should, too.

The concept of the Body of Christ is multifaceted. We are to care for each other. We all have our own functions to perform. We are to do what Christ intends here. Knowing what He intends, then, would be important. Don't let Social Justice Warriors or well-meaning Christians tell you something different than what Jesus did. He has a better idea of His purposes than they do and we should follow Him.

News Weakly - 8/25/18

What Do You See?
I am trying to figure this out. A Houston middle school has had a saying on the wall above the lockers for five years: "The more you act like a lady, the more he'll act like a gentleman." A woman's got the "sexist, mysogonistic (sic), and discriminatory" quote taken down within 10 hours of her tweeting the photo.

So, help me out. She said it was "perpetuating horrible gender stereotypes." I guess her message is that no one (male or female) has any impact on how people treat them and shouldn't concern themselves with that? I hear her complaining that girls should not act like a lady? I am assuming she did not read the implied, "And you guys -- the more you act like gentlemen, the more she'll act like a lady"? I'm missing it ... entirely. Further, I'm missing why it is that one person has such power that they can force a school to remove a (helpful) quote in record time. By all means, let's not have any of those "horrible gender stereotypes" that are "sexist, misogynistic, and discriminatory" by encouraging people to be responsible for their own behavior and consider the effects of their own behavior on others. We'll have none of that! (And, lady, if you're going to complain that quickly, loudly, and destructively, at least learn how to spell the thing you're complaining about.) I am reminded (once again) that "To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled" (Titus 1:15).

Internal Racism
Disney was beaten up on Twitter over the Wreck-It Ralph 2 trailer because Princess Tiana (of The Princess and the Frog) wasn't black enough. "Whitewash" is what they're calling it. Now, from what I can see the cartoon character is still that of a black girl, but they're angry about the fact that she looks more like Zendaya than the previous cartoon version. Apparently there is a template -- shape of the nose, depth of black skin, curl of the hair, that sort of thing -- for acceptable black cartoon characters and this one doesn't make it. Not African-American enough, I guess. Are the two versions different? Sure. They're cartoon characters, drawn by different cartoonists in different media at different times. Seriously, that's a big problem? It's sad when a fictional black character's lack of "black enough" causes outrage.

Doubled Standards
I've often complained about double standards in our society. This story seems like it would quadruple the standard, just in terms of magnitude. "Actress Asia Argento, one of the first prominent women to accuse disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault, agreed to pay $380,000 to an actor who accused her of sexually assaulting him when he was 17 years old." Oh, look ... sexual assault and statutory rape. But don't worry. Sexual assault on males isn't an issue these days. This will go away.

Note: 1) The authorities are looking into the alleged statutory rape, and 2) Asia denies it ... you know, like nearly every other person accused. I wish to point out that my standard has always been "Innocent until proven guilty" and, as such, make no pronouncement of Asia's guilt. That doesn't negate the double standards. (For instance, Asia says her boyfriend paid the guy as hush money and Michael Cohen says he paid money to accusers for Trump. The public now concludes that Trump is clearly guilty but Asia is clearly not.)

Trump's Twitter Protests - Is that news?
The headline was about Trump comparing the Mueller investigation to McCarthyism. That the president is tweeting up a storm is not news. That he is tweeting up a foolish-looking storm is not news. That he is upset about the Mueller investigation is not news. Me? I can't help but think, "Methinks he doth protest too much."

Another PETA Victory
Thank goodness for PETA. They've scored a victory for wild animals everywhere. Well, maybe not everywhere, but certainly in a lot of places. Well, maybe not actual wild animals. If we're being precise, it would be animal crackers. For 116 years Nabisco has produced animal crackers in a box that looked like an old style circus wagon. Finally PETA has forced them to remove the cage-look of the box. Free at last, free at last. One quick question. Are we supposed to take this seriously?

Good News
Finally some good news from the Internet for the Internet. "Studies show it's now just a few bans away from finally only having good opinions on it. Much of social media had become dominated by racism, conspiracy theories, and people who are just plain wrong about things, but by simply kicking off people who pretty much everyone agrees is bad, studies show soon only good discussion will dominate the internet."

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Pray for Fire

When Jesus dictated His letter to the church at Laodicea, He warned them that they had found themselves to be rich and "have need of nothing" -- that they did not know how wretched and miserable they were. "I advise you," He went on to say, "to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich" (Rev 3:17-18). You see, "gold refined by fire" is something special. It is pure. It is valuable. It is top quality.

In Zechariah God says, "I will bring the third part through the fire, refine them as silver is refined, and test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are My people,' and they will say, 'The LORD is my God'" (Zech 13:9) There it is again -- rich metals refined by fire. Malachi 3:2 describes God as "like a refiner's fire." A refiner is the one that uses fire to remove dross -- impurities and alloys -- from precious metals. Solomon wrote, "Take away the dross from the silver, and the smith has material for a vessel; take away the wicked from the presence of the king, and his throne will be established in righteousness" (Prov 25:4-5). So ... dross -- bad ... silver -- good. Pure gold or silver -- best.

Then we read, "For You, O God, have tested us; You have tried us as silver is tried" (Psa 66:10) Okay, we've got this. We can put this together. The psalmist here says that we have been "tried as silver." What do we know, now, about how silver is tried? Well, it is placed in the furnace. The only thing that remains is silver; everything else is removed or burned up. Easy.

Except now we're not talking about rocks; we're talking about us. James says, "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance" (James 1:2-3). "Consider your testing as worthy of joy, brethren." Maybe that makes a little more sense now. The fires that we go through are not mindless, random, without purpose. They are intended to purify, to improve, to make more valuable. They are intended to complete us (James 1:4). And, look, we're in good company there. Hebrews says, "Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered" (Heb 5:8). He learned how to be obedient by suffering? No, of course not. He was always obedient. He learned the full comprehension of obedience through experiencing trials. Jesus Himself was tried through fire, so to speak.

Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin. (1 Peter 4:1)

We are really keen on praying for relief. Turns out that in order to be the most valuable, we need the fire. Pray for rain, sure, but it might not be a bad idea to pray for fire, too.

The Problem with Theodicy

I've talked about theodicy before. We live in a fallen world where bad things happen. Why? Is God not capable? Or does He just not care enough? Theodicy is the effort to defend God against these accusations.

Now, I have no problem engaging the questions. I think there are good and viable answers. There are, however, a some issues to consider.

First, why do we think that God needs defending? Does God think He needs defending? I don't think so. In Psalms, God says, "If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is Mine, and all it contains" (Psa 50:12). That is, "I have everything I need; I don't need your help." In fact, it borders on (borders on?) arrogance on our part to think that He needs us to defend Him.

Second, in our efforts to ward off assaults on God's character, we run the risk of misrepresenting Him. You see, if you read the Scriptures, God isn't helping much. We like to say, for instance, that God does good and the bad things that happen just happen or, at best, He "allows." Sure, we would still have a little farther to go in defending that, but, hey, God's not the cause, so it's okay, right? Then God opens His mouth and says things like, "I am the LORD, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these" (Isa 45:6-7). If we were God's lawyers, we'd be advising Him to take on the 5th. He's incriminating Himself while we're defending Him. But He seems to have no difficulty saying boldly that He causes calamity. So if our defense of God includes the denial of that fact, we're misrepresenting Him to others. It's an easy and erroneous thing to do.

Third, our purpose is vague. Defending God to unbelievers is pointless. By nature they hate Him (Rom 8:7). It doesn't matter how good and true your argument is; they hate Him. God might use our efforts to regenerate someone, but that's His work, not our fine efforts. And the ultimate answer to the question is not one that most will buy into ... including too many Christians. David used it. "As for God, His way is blameless" (Psa 18:30). That is, "Whatever God does is good and right. Period."

Which points to the final problem. When we try to defend God against these accusations, we hold God up against our standards and try to show that He meets them. Surely you can see immediately that this is a fool's errand. We don't get to try God by our rules. We only get to abide by His standards. Our job, then, is not to defend Him, but to figure out what His standards are and submit to them.

Now, to be fair, it isn't really God who needs defending. He's fine. If we are doing this right, theodicy is not to defend God as much as it is to bolster believers. We need the support, not God. Doing this task to encourage believers who have questions can be helpful. And, to be fair, God might use these kinds of efforts to open someone's heart to Him, so, as long as we realize that it isn't our skillful, coherent arguments or our good heart to defend God that are important here, I have no problem with theodicy. I'm just hoping that people don't get confused about the issues here. God doesn't need defending. We need to agree with what He says about Himself. Our best arguments won't win converts -- only God can do that. And God is not subject to our human standards. If we can keep all this in mind, then perhaps we can be useful to God in the endeavor.

How Can I Know? The Test

I've already written about various ways we can know if we have eternal life, if we are among the saved. It's interesting that they are mostly behavioral. They are almost entirely rooted in what we do (Matt 7:17-20; Luke 8:15; John 15:8). Mind you, what we do doesn't save, but faith without works is dead faith (James 2:17) and the notion that you can be born again, indwelt by the Spirit, empowered by God, and have a new heart and not change is, frankly, nonsense.

Biblically, however, there appears to be one test repeated above all others. We've already looked at it, but it is repeated so often that it deserves another look. This test was offered by Christ Himself and repeated in other passages.

This statement is made in John 14. "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). Love is the command. Now, it does not say, "You love Me by obeying Me." That's not there at all. It says that the natural result of loving Christ is obeying Him. And that makes perfect sense. You pursue hardest that which you love the most. Simple. If you love Him, your greatest joy is doing that which pleases Him. Not hard to figure at all. Beyond this, then, Jesus considered it a test of sorts.

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34-35)

The idea is that there is a defining mark, a clear proof, whereby people can look and say, "Yep! They have the mark of a disciple of Christ." What is that mark? "Love for one another." Without it, you have reason to question your relationship with Christ. On two counts, in fact, because we've already seen "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." If loving Christ is the primary connection to salvation and we refuse to obey, there is a logical disconnect if we don't obey and especially if we don't obey in this primary command to love one another.

So important was this test that Jesus reworded it in His High Priestly Prayer as a critical demonstration of His relationship with His Father.

"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, that they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me." (John 17:20-21)

Loving one another -- being one -- is the primary test "so that the world may believe that You have sent Me." Our unity in our love for one another tells the world that Christ is God's Son sent to save them. Say that another way. Our unity in love for one another is the proof of the Gospel.

John really keyed in on this in his epistle written "so you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). He wrote, "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7). Love here is the absolutely essential ingredient. "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love" (1 John 4:8). John believes God's love for us makes the clear demand that we love one another (1 John 4:11). Then he goes on to say, "If we love one another, God abides in us and His love is perfected in us" (1 John 4:12). He concludes, "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him: whoever loves God must also love his brother" (1 John 4:20-21). Helpfully, he gives an example of "love his brother." "By this we know love, that He laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" (1 John 3:16-17).

Jesus said it. John expanded on it. Paul was clear on it (Gal 5:14). Love is the critical test. Love produces behaviors which include obedience to God and genuine concern for the welfare of others with special attention to loving the brethren. You can't love in word only; it must include action. "We ought to lay down our lives for the brothers." It is the best test available.

So, how about it? How are you doing? Do you love the brethren? Or do you find that a good number of those brethren irritate you enough that you refuse to love them? Could your refusal be sufficient to be classified as hate? How does your interaction with online believers look -- love or hate? (Note that "disagree" or even "confront sin" are not, by definition, "hate." The heart attitude and intent define that.) Scripture considers love for the brethren the best possible test. Each of us needs to examine ourselves to see if we're in the faith.

New Things

Paul is, at times, a difficult read. Take, for instance, 2 Corinthians. Chapter 5 begins, "For we know ..." (2 Cor 5:1). Whatever it is we know, it is a product of what went before (chapter 4) because of the "for" at the beginning. But scan down the verses in chapter 5 and you'll find "for," "for," "inasmuch," "for," "now," "therefore," and "for" as the first words of verses of 2 Cor 5:1-7. The only reason it breaks at 7 is because verse 8 is the end of the sentence that fed it in verse 7 (which is only part of the entire sentence). In other words, Paul is writing very detailed, very logical "if-then" kind of stuff. So when we get down to the famous, "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come" (2 Cor 5:17), you can be quite sure (because of the "therefore" at the beginning as well as the entire structure of the chapter) that it is linked to a whole string of "ifs" and "thens" before it.

Still ... what exactly does that mean? "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." Other translations say, "All things have become new." But, look, we know that isn't true, right? I mean, just because you're in Christ doesn't mean you get a new body, new face, new identity, new name. Aren't there really a lot of things that are not new? What does Paul mean here? Let's see if we can make some sense of verse 17 by the links the text has for it.

So, first, verse 18. "Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor 5:18). The origin, then, of these "new things" is God. We don't do it; He does. Good to know. But just what things are new?

Verse 16 gives us an indication on that question. "Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer" (2 Cor 5:16). Okay, that should help a little. Paul is distinguishing here between the fleshly and the spiritual, between old man and new man. The "new things" of which he speaks are the spiritual things. When he says "new things have come" (or "all things have become new"), he is speaking about a brand new spiritual condition. Spiritually, when we come to Christ we change from death to life, so spiritually all things become new. That is an absolute. That helps. That's making more sense.

But Paul doesn't leave it in that general sense. He is more explicit. Just prior to that he says, "He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf" (2 Cor 5:15). One more clarification. This new spiritual condition has a result that is intended to be universal for those with this new spiritual condition: "That they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose on their behalf." Clearer still. The "new things" that have come would be a new spiritual condition in the new believer that includes an inclination and goal of setting aside self and serving Christ. No, not serving -- living for Christ. This "new thing" edges out all other considerations, all other aims, all other plans. It is a new life direction predicated on a new spiritual condition that begins with faith in Christ and death to self.

I think that helps clear up the question regarding what is new in 2 Cor. 5:17. But I also think that there's a little more to it. I think it should be patently obvious that to a genuine believer -- one who has repented and placed their faith in Christ, identified with His death and resurrection, is indwelt by His Spirit, and living for Christ -- now sees everything differently. For one alive in Christ, the entire world is changed to their view. Their worldview is changed. Their values are changed. Their goals and aspirations are changed. What was good is not the same and what was bad is not the same and why for all of it has changed. Their trusted sources have changed and their life directions have changed. In a very real sense, then, everything has changed. Maybe not those things in themselves, but certainly to the believer. To the believer new things abound and the old has passed away ... just like the text says. Much bigger than I originally thought.

Pharaohsees

I was thinking about Pharaoh the other day, and it struck me how much like some so-called Christians he was ... or how much like him they are. Think about it.

The first part of Exodus -- Exodus 1-14 -- is the story of the battle of wills between Moses and Pharaoh. Okay, not quite. It is the battle of wills between God and Pharaoh. Spoiler alert: God wins. But Pharaoh's approach is classic.

In Exodus 5 Moses and Aaron walk into Pharaoh's office and tell him, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Let My people go that they may celebrate a feast to Me in the wilderness'" (Exo 5:1). There's the command. There's the point. There's the issue. Either obey God or don't. But it is couched in religious terms. "... that they may celebrate a feast to Me ..." Still, it is God vs Pharaoh; nothing less. So Pharaoh turns them down cold. "Get back to your labors" (Exo 5:4). He even made their work harder by making them meet the same quotas while getting their own supplies (Exo 5:7-8). The upshot was that God's people complained ... about God's messengers (Exo 5:21). So the showdown began in earnest.

God had Moses and Aaron turn the water to blood (Exo 7:17-18). Then it was frogs (Exo 8:5-6). So Pharaoh repented (Exo 8:8) and told Moses they could go (Exo 8:8), but when Moses rescinded the frogs, Pharaoh rescinded his permission (Exo 8:15). Then came the gnats (Exo 8:16-18) and the flies (Exo 8:20-24), and Pharaoh repented. Almost. "Go, sacrifice to your God within the land" (Exo 8:25). You see, the instruction was that he had to let them go. Pharaoh would allow them to sacrifice -- because, hey, Pharaoh was in favor of a good religion -- but on his terms. Not away from Egypt. Moses turned him down. And Pharaoh repented. Sort of. "I will let you go, that you may sacrifice to the LORD your God in the wilderness; only you shall not go very far away" (Exo 8:28). Again, not what God commanded. Religious enough. Giving in a bit. Just not what God commanded. So when Moses removed the flies -- when things became comfortable again -- Pharaoh removed his permission (Exo 8:31-32). So God delivered dead livestock (Exo 9:1-7), boils (Exo 9:8-12), and massively destructive hail (Exo 9:13-26).

Listen, then, to Pharaoh's repentance. It's good. "I have sinned this time; the LORD is the righteous one, and I and my people are the wicked ones. Make supplication to the LORD, for there has been enough of God's thunder and hail; and I will let you go, and you shall stay no longer"  (Exo 9:27-28). Sounds good. Sounds right. Complete. And Moses stopped the storm. And Pharaoh rescinded his permission (Exo 9:29-35). So Moses promised a locust plague that would destroy every crop they had. And Pharaoh repented. Kind of. "Go, serve the LORD your God! Who are the ones that are going?" (Exo 10:8). Moses required everything -- families, livestock, the works. And Pharaoh balked. The men could go, but they would leave their children and women (Exo 10:10-11). So the locust came (Exo 10:13-15). And Pharaoh repented (Exo 10:16-17). Until it got comfortable again. Then he didn't (Exo 10:18-20). (There is a pattern, isn't there?) Next up was darkness (Exo 10:21) ("a darkness that could be felt" -- yikes!) and Pharaoh told them they could go be religious, but to leave their livestock (Exo 10:24). Moses turned him down.

The last one we all know. An angel of death came through, killing all the firstborn. Pharaoh finally repented fully ... right? Well, it seemed that way. He let them go with everything. The people even made donations to get them to leave. But it wasn't a full repentance because after they left, Pharaoh gathered his army and pursued them. And, of course, in the end he pursued them to his own death, drowning in the Red Sea.

How is that like so many of the so-called Christians around? There are a couple of items. How many times did Pharaoh repent? Quite a few. Sounds real. The right words and all. But when it came down to "Do exactly what God said," it was a no-go. That's not repentance. When things were pointed and painful, there was repentance, but when the pain subsided, it was gone in a flash. That's not repentance. It looks like it and it sounds like it, but in the final analysis Pharaoh only made a show of surrendering command to God. Then there was the religious aspect. Pharaoh didn't give any indication that he didn't want them to be religious. "Go and sacrifice to your God," he told them. Religious, see? It's just that every time he told them that, he did so without full surrender. "Go, but not very far." "Go, but stay in the land." "Go, but leave your families." "Go, but leave your livestock." Always religious, but always on his terms. Always under his control. This was a contest between Pharaoh's authority and God's authority, and Pharaoh made every attempt to appear as if he was giving into God's authority without ever really doing so.

And the so-called Christians of today? They give every indication of repentance. They use the right words, say the right things, really seem sincere. Well, of course, they're not going to go so far as to agree fully with God's commands. "No women in church leadership? That's not right." "Wives, submit to husbands? No way." Pick your pet slight of God's instructions. They will sound agreeable and still hold out. When things are uncomfortable they pray and weep and repent. When things are comfortable, it's all gone. And aren't they religious? Sure! Except it is always on their own terms. "Yes, we believe the Bible." See? Very religious. But then, "Well, mostly. Well, okay, somewhat. Well, to be honest, we believe it as we interpret it, and we interpret it as we feel comfortable." You know, these two -- Pharaoh and so many self-identified Christians of the day -- look a lot alike.

But, think about it for a moment. Isn't that what the Pharisees looked like? They liked repentance ... when it served their purposes. They loved to be seen as religious ... when it served their purposes. They would believe, but on their own terms. They would do what was right as long as people were looking. A lot like Pharaoh and today's nominal Christians. Hey, Pharaohsees, right? Okay, I made that word up. But the principles are from Scripture and the practices are from the religious all around us. And the result is the same. Pharaoh died at God's hand. It's what we can expect in eternal form for all who feign repentance and religion without actually possessing either.

Church is Boring

One of the top complaints you will hear about church is just that: "Church is boring." It is my suspicion that if you think that's so, you are missing something absolutely critical about church. I think you're missing the magnitude of the church.

We tend to think of "the church" as the building on the corner. "We have lots of churches where I live." That's not what's in mind when the Bible talks about the church. The term refers to the "called out ones" and the gathering thereof. There will be, in those gatherings, what Jesus referred to as "tares", weeds among the wheat (Matt 13:24-30), but the church is the gathering of the wheat, not the weeds. As such, it is much bigger than any building or group gathering, small or large.

You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Heb 12:22-24)

The text is huge. And it isn't a reference to "someday" -- it is now. When we gather, we gather in a huge spiritual company. It includes "innumerable angels" and "the assembly of the firstborn" and "the spirits of the righteous made perfect." Sure, you knew God was there, but did you know it wasn't that meager gathering of those in the room? Did you know that it was so very big? It includes all the saints that are in attendance and so much more.

Brothers and sisters, when we gather to worship God, we do it in the presence of all this. That we could consider worshiping in the presence of God and Christ and the Spirit as boring is bad enough. That we could consider it boring to be in this place with this crowd is unconscionable. There are a few possible explanations: 1) "I didn't believe it." 2) "I don't care." 3) "I didn't know." The first is simply a denial of the plain Word of God. The problem here, then, is something a lot more than worship; it is a serious question of relationship. The second is a similar problem. If this is true and someone doesn't care, there is a genuine question that should be pursued regarding the reality of their relationship with Christ. The third is something that you can address right now. Right now -- now that you see it there in Scripture -- you can correct your ignorance and recognize the sheer magnitude of the "church" -- its size, its purpose, its glory. You can get a sense of "the communion of the saints," the union with saints everywhere and the angels and the entire Godhead all at once. If that is boring to you, then you're doing something wrong. If joining with all believers everywhere and everywhen to glorify God is boring to you, there is another problem ... and it's not the church.

News Weakly - 8/18/18

You're Not Welcome Here
As has been done for decades, Greg Laurie's Harvest Crusade was advertised for this week in a variety of malls and billboards in southern California. This year, however, it was deemed unacceptable. They first said it was because of the nondescript book he was holding. You and I would know it was a Bible -- there were no overt references to Christ or Christianity -- but the picture isn't clear. And when they changed it to just a picture of Greg Laurie, it was still not sufficient. There was "at least one 'serious threat'" along with "multiple complaints," so the company Harvest had hired took them all down. John Collins, the executive director of Harvest, said, "It's sad that our culture is at this degree of intolerance."

The story speaks for itself.

Insane Politics
The opening paragraph says it all. "A former utility executive from Vermont has become the first transgender candidate to win a major political party’s nomination for governor." Because a person who ignores science and can't figure out "male" or "female" is the one you certainly want to run your state. A related story was more omnious than it intended to be, I'm sure. "Transgender rights advocates touted Christine Hallquist’s victory in Vermont’s Democratic gubernatorial race as a 'defining moment' for the United States." Indeed, proving the biblical, "As they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind ..." (Rom 1:28).

Modern society says, "We don't subscribe to a binary gender perspective nor limit genders to biology." Scripture says, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27). It's amazing how much modern society has improved on God's original design, diminishing His "in God's image" aspect and expanding His "binary gender" idea.

Can Someone Tell Me ...
... how this works? We have this mad rush to #MeToo and "no more sexual harassment" ... and France offers outdoor, open air urinals along the Seine. I mean, seriously. What could go wrong? Let me count the ways.

Never Thought I'd See the Day
Turns out a black person might be called on the carpet for making a racial slur after all. I thought it was solely the purview of caucasians, but a black Detroit legislator has apologized for making a racial slur against an Asian opponent. Bad for her, but at least someone noticed that "this person" (regardless of skin color) demeaning "that person" (who is of a different skin color) simply on the basis of being a different skin color is racism regardless of who "this person" is.

Watch out, people. You might be seeing a hole in the "double standard" standard. Or not.

Insecurity Clearance
As we all know, former CIA director John Brennan's security clearance was revoked this week. Now retired Admiral William McRaven has "requested" that his be revoked as well in a show of solidarity with Brennan. Touching, I'm sure. I'm just wondering ... why should either of these people have security clearances? They needed them for their jobs, but they're not doing those jobs anymore. Security clearances are not for life. What is at issue here? I had a top secret security clearance when I was in the Air Force and I don't have one anymore. Why aren't they complaining on my behalf? Okay, President Trump revoked Brennan's clearance more than a year after he was out of his CIA position and he said it was because the guy was unreliable. Shouldn't we be talking about that rather than security clearances? Admiral McRaven retired in 2014 and has been Chancellor for the University of Texas System since 2015. Why does he still have a clearance at all? Or should I be offended that they removed mine?

Look, we knew a long time ago that Trump was petty and wouldn't tolerate those who disagreed with him. As far as he goes, we're only getting what we voted for. Seems like the American voter is to blame on this count. But finding presidents (or CEOs or people in general) that don't prefer people who agree with them to people who do not is nearly impossible.

The Upside of Killing Children
This week Chelsea Clinton happily informed a "Rise Up for Roe" event -- a gathering in opposition to Brett Kavanaugh and in favor of abortion -- that Roe v Wade added $3.5 trillion to our economy. See? And you thought there was no benefit to murdering children. Now we have it in cold hard cash figures. So, what is the value of a human life? Chelsea appears to something around $58,000, calculating from the $3.5 trillion and the 60 million Roe v Wade murders since 1973. Good to know, since "made in the image of the Creator" carries no value anymore.

Besides, giving women the right to murder their babies is a Christian virtue, don't you know? I mean, if the woman doesn't want the baby and Jesus came to give us the abundant life, aren't you robbing her of what Jesus came to give her? So, economically and as Christians it's beneficial to kill children. Right?

Those Sinners in Your Church

My wife and I go to a nice church. We have good teachers, good preachers, good fellowship, good friends, good stuff. I'm not writing about our church; I'm writing about yours. You have sinners in your church. You know it. That well-known guy who was seen coming out of a bar late one night. The wife of one who had an affair with the husband of another. The high school girl who is pregnant out of wedlock. You know. Sinners. What are you going to do?

Of course, I'm not being completely up front here. We have sinners in our church, too. And I'm still being a little vague, because if you are part of a church, it has sinners ... by definition. Why? Because the only way to become part of the church (the called-out ones) is to begin with the admission that you're a sinner without the means to solve that problem. Step One. So everyone in church is either a self-proclaimed sinner saved by grace through faith or a sinner who is pretending to be saved. The Christian life is one of increasing love for God that produces an increasing desire for obedience. That's the direction. But perfection is out of our reach in this life (Phil 3:12). So, what are you going to do? Righteous indignation? Moral outrage? Holier-than-thou shunning. Or maybe nothing, since we're all sinners.

They might be what you could expect, but that's not what Scripture says. God's Word says we have all sinned (Rom 3:23) and we will all continue to sin (1 John 1:8-9; 1 John 2:1). That's not the end of the story. Paul wrote, "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted" (Gal 6:1). We have an assignment ... from God -- restore brothers who sin. This process was detailed by no less than Christ Himself (Matt 18:15-20). We don't ignore sin in the Body (1 Cor 5:6-7); we address it. But the goal is not retribution or vengeance or punishment or justice. All of that is God's job. The goal is restoration. In Jesus's approach, the first step was "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother" (Matt 18:15). Winning your brother is the aim.

So what do we do? The very first step is easy. John wrote, "If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life" (1 John 5:16). Pray. Pray for repentance. Pray for life. Pray for your own approach -- "in a spirit of gentleness" (Gal 6:1). Then we need to address sin personally (Matt 18:15) and pursue it further if necessary (Matt 18:16-17). God's Word does give some harsh measures that may be required. If after addressing the sin personally, then with a couple of other people, and then with the church, it might be necessary to "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" (Matt 18:17). Paul said "not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one" (1 Cor 5:11). The worst case appears to be "to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh" (1 Cor 5:5), but even that is "so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (In fact, it looks like that was the result of the event in 1 Cor 5:5; see 2 Cor 2:6-8.) Some harsh measures, but always with gentleness and always with an aim to restore them to fellowship.

These days the tendency is to ignore sin in the church. Brothers and sisters, we do not well. It isn't pretty and it isn't pleasant, but if we are to obey Christ and love the brethren, we need to bear one another's burdens, to urge repentance and restoration, to love each other enough to do the hard thing in their best interest. I'm not talking about self-righteous moral outrage. I'm talking about restoration for the sake of your spiritual family members. Or you. Or me. Sometimes it might be us, too. But in no case is, "That's okay; you go ahead and defy God and we'll just keep quiet over here" a loving thing to do. And we are commanded to love, especially believers (John 13:35; John 15:17; 1 John 3:17-18; 1 John 4:7; et.al.).

How Can I Know? 1 John

John tells us his purpose in writing his first epistle.

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:13)

The whole purpose was that you may know that you have eternal life. Note that it was written to specific people. It's not for everyone. It is written "to you who believe in the name of the Son of God." But the intent is clear. You can know that you have eternal life.

It is interesting, then, to read through John's repeated use of the phrase, "By this we know." Since "knowing" was his reason for writing it, "by this we know" is a helpful concept. In fact, John uses this kind of wording eight times in his little epistle. Beyond that, there's a whole lot of "knowing" going on in 1st John.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. Whoever says "I know Him" but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps His word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in Him: whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1 John 2:1-6)

I had to give you that whole text because it contains several essential elements in the question of assurance. First, note that the primary question is relationship. The primary question is "Have I come to know Him?" It is the failure of those in Matt 7:21-23 where Jesus declares, "I never knew you." You are saved if you have a genuine relationship with Christ -- with the Christ of the Bible. Second, the test is obedience. We know we have a relationship with Him if we keep His commandments. This isn't news. Jesus said the same thing (John 14:15, 23-24). The test of relationship is in what we do. Makes sense. "I love God but have no interest in pleasing Him" makes no sense. At this point the third element in this text becomes vital. "Does this mean that if I don't obey perfectly I can't be assured of salvation?" Not at all. John said "If anyone does sin, we have an advocate." That is, we all sin (1 John 1:8). The obedience in view here, then, is not "sinless perfection," but a direction. If you aim toward less sin and more obedience, you can be confident that you have a relationship with Christ. If you figure you're doing fine where you are or just don't really concern yourself over it, you might need to ask the question. If "What does the Lord require of me?" isn't one of your primary questions, you might need to see if you're even in the faith.

We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. (1 John 3:14)

John offers certain knowledge here. We can know that we have been saved -- that we have already passed from death to life. What is the test? "We love the brothers." Simple. Do you consider fellow believers of some importance? Do you seek their company, enjoy their fellowship, care about their well-being? Do you actively love believers (1 John 3:17-18)? It was Jesus's idea that this would demonstrate to the world that you are His disciple (John 13:35). For you, not so much? You might need to examine your relationship with Christ.

These two ideas -- obedience and love of the brethren -- are repeated in John's epistle.

By this we know love, that He laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before Him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and He knows everything. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do what pleases Him. And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as He has commanded us. Whoever keeps His commandments abides in God, and God in Him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. (1 John 3:16-24)

This one sounds a lot like Paul's idea in Romans. "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God" (Rom 8:16). But remember, that isn't just a warm feeling, a secret conversation between your heart and the Spirit. It is predicated on a changed person who is putting to death the deeds of the flesh, who is walking by the Spirit, who is no longer that same person that pursued sin. If you have had a change of heart, a new direction, a new motivation to pursue God rather than self, that is clear evidence. No one can be born of God and powered by the Spirit without a change. If you think you're a Christian and don't really change much ...

You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:4-6)

How do we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error? The spirit of error is "from the world." If "the world listens to them," it is error. We can know this. Who are you listening to? What is your source? If your source is the world's wisdom and you are evaluating God and His Word by the world's standards, you might have something to be concerned about.

How about this one?

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. (1 John 5:2-3)

Now, perhaps you already see the connection. Remember that we already learned that one way we know that we have passed out of death into life is if we love God's people. So how do we know if we love God's people? "When we love God and observe His commandments." Nice packaging, isn't it? Loving God and obeying Him is evidence that we are saved. Loving God and obeying Him is how we love the children of God. It's all tied up neatly. That is, if you are loving God, obeying Him, and loving His people. If not, there might be a need for reconsidering your spiritual condition.

Now, remember, this isn't a "pass-fail" kind of thing. The command, for instance, is to love God with all our hearts, mind, souls, and strength. Not one of us does that. So the point is not absolute obedience or else. The point is direction. You see, if it is true that the mind set on the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:7-8), then anyone whose aim is to please God by loving Him and obeying Him is demonstrating a changed heart. If these things are yours and increasing, you can have confidence before God. Not perfection; direction. None of this is unattainable (Phil 2:13). Either you're headed one direction -- loving God, His commands, and His people -- or you're not. Away from self or toward self. Pursuing God's Word and God's will over against (rather than in accordance with) the world's views and values. Ask yourself. You're the one who has to answer.

How Can I Know? A Surprise Answer

Assurance of salvation is a good thing. At least, it's a good thing if it's true. We know there are people with assurance of salvation that shouldn't be so sure (Matt 7:21-23). But we also know that Scripture assures us we can know (1 John 5:13). So we look through the pages of God's Word and we find different hints, different clues, different tests that can help us to know -- rightly know -- that we belong to God. The one I mentioned yesterday was the testimony of the Holy Spirit, but that had to be rightly understood. It wasn't "I feel or sense that the Holy Spirit agrees with me that I'm saved." It was actually living by the Spirit -- "putting to death the deeds of the flesh." Paul says that the deeds of the flesh are evident (Gal 5:16-21) and the fruit of the Spirit are evident (Gal 5:22-25) and we can see which is us and which is not. (And remember, like Peter said, "If these qualities are yours and are increasing ..." meaning that it isn't that you've arrived at perfection, but the presence at all and the direction you're heading.)

Today I want to offer a perhaps surprising biblical test.

And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives." It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. (Heb 12:5-8)

I suspect you didn't see that coming, did you?

The author of Hebrews is abundantly clear here. First, God disciplines His own. Not maybe -- definitely. Second, it is not pleasant discipline. We know that it includes but is not limited to teaching because the text actually says that He "chastises" every son. The word references the use of a whip -- "scourges." The context speaks of unpleasant discipline (Heb 12:4, 11). The idea is that our loving Father applies directed and painful teaching techniques and corrections for our benefit. No one escapes it because we all need correction and we all need painful correction at times.

I've pointed this out to people in conversations on occasion and I've been told, "No, God doesn't do that" and, worse, "He never has done that to me." If that is your response, then you have a problem. "If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons." Not my opinion. Not my judgment. That's what it says. That is the test offered by God in His Word.

Have you ever been corrected by God? Have you ever been turned from sin, pushed away from where you wanted to go by trial and difficulty? God disciplines His own. His discipline is intentional, corrective, purposeful, and useful. It isn't punishment as much as it is redirection. The purpose of this kind of discipline and chastisement is restoration, not retribution. Paul describes Scripture as "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16). God uses discipline for reproof -- "Here is an error" -- and correction -- "Here's how you get back to the path." It isn't a matter of justice -- payback, making things balanced -- but of restoration and training in righteousness. And, in fact, that correlation of the use of Scripture and God's discipline is important. How do I know if what I am currently suffering is God's correction? Scripture. Read God's Word.

One other point I found interesting in the text. He wrote, "It is for discipline that you have to endure." Interesting, because Jesus said, "The one who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt 10:22; Matt 24:13). Endurance and discipline are interlinked, and endurance and assurance of salvation are interlinked. Interesting, isn't it? Because, you see, as it turns out your salvation and your enduring in it are a product of God's work, not your own. Thus, we endure because He disciplines, and if we endure (because He disciplines), we will be saved. A sure thing.

If you have been corrected by God, especially painfully, this text suggests you are a son who has been disciplined by a loving Father. As such, that pain is profitable, the product of love. If you have not, this passage warns you that you might need to reevaluate your relationship with the Father. Something to think about.