God is Sovereign

It's one of my favorite themes and one of my most controversial. I say that Scripture teaches that God is Sovereign. Absolutely. Christians will raise their objections. They will agree that God is sovereign, but He sovereignly gave up His Sovereignty (pay attention to my capitalization) to allow for Human Free Will. It's a bizarre idea in my mind because you can't claim God is sovereign in giving up His Sovereignty, but I also can't figure out what to do with ... you know ... Scripture on the subject. We know, for instance, that it is clear that God is Sovereign.

"I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:4).

Well, okay, but what about Human Free Will?

The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord" (Prov 16:1).

The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps (Prov 16:9).

Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand (Prov 19:21).

A man's steps are from the Lord; how then can man understand his way? (Prov 20:24).

The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He will (Prov 21:1).

Well, what about "random" stuff?

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord (Prov 16:33).

Okay, how about natural events?

"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father" (Matt 10:29).

What about life and death?

Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit"— yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that" (James 4:13-15)

It seems to me that God's Sovereignty includes ... everything. We have "been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11).

But, hey, that's just me. You'll have to figure out what to do with God's Word on your own.

The Jeremiah Error

There are few verses we love to claim more than Jeremiah 29:11:

"I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope"

Mmmm, we love that. We put it on Bible covers and posters and artwork. We put it up at home and remind ourselves at work. The simple, straightforward notion that God has plans for my welfare that gives a future and a hope? Wonderful.

Of course, there are no small numbers of genuine, Bible-believing Christians who will tell you, "That's not for you." Why? Well, in every instance it is important to examine context for the proper understanding of any text. The context of this one?

For thus says the LORD: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you My promise and bring you back to this place" (Jer 29:10).

Oh, now that's interesting. It is God speaking. He gives the context for the next verse. The context is "when 70 years are completed for Babylon." Ummm, that's not now. That's not here. That's not us. It is absolutely clear that the context of this statement from God is a promise to the Jews in captivity in Babylon and the "welfare" in view is specifically to bring them back to their homeland. And He did. Promise fulfilled. End of sentence.

That is clear, but I think it is short-sighted, even dangerous to understand Scripture that woodenly. With that kind of reasoning the Great Commission, for instance, doesn't matter to us. It was spoken to a specific group of men at a specific time under specific conditions and it could even be argued that it was accomplished. Paul told the Romans "Your faith is proclaimed in all the world" (Rom 1:8) which suggests that the gospel had already reached "all nations" (Matt 28:19). Mission accomplished. End of sentence. Of course, I don't believe that and neither does anyone I know. I would argue, then, that although the Jeremiah verse is said in context to a specific people at a specific time with a specific fulfillment, the principle is still applicable today to God's people.

So we have this promise that God has plans for good for us. That's actually not found just here. It's found in another favorite: Romans 8:28. We have this certainty that God works all things together for good to those who love God, who are called according to His purpose. Same promise as the Jeremiah promise to the exiles in Babylon ... only better. It's better because their promise was just to get back home but ours is "all things."

The mistake we make, then, occurs in our interpretation of the Jeremiah passage. We read it and we see "plans for welfare and not for evil" and "to give you a future and a hope" and we interpret this through our earthly lenses. We read "welfare" as "things I like" and "evil" as "things I don't like" and "a future and a hope" as "pleasant," perhaps even "health and wealth." (It's a popular verse for the "name it and claim it" folks.) This, dear reader, is a lie from Satan. We are interpreting God's Word from a 21st century American perspective rather than ... God's perspective.

First, the word for "welfare" there is shalom. Do I need to tell you what that word means? It is "peace" -- not "lots of money." It isn't like our "welfare" as in the free handouts from the government. God's plan is for our peace, not our comfort. The word for "evil" there is the same word used by God when He claims, "I make well-being and create calamity" (Isa 45:7). It is, in fact, the very same two terms -- well-being (shalom) and calamity (evil). God claims both. He is not promising that bad things won't happen because He makes bad things happen. He is promising that His plan is for our best, even if that is going through bad things. It is the idea of Joseph's words to his brothers: "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). God allows the unpleasant, the uncomfortable, the trials for our benefit (James 1:2-4). That's the idea from God's Word. That's the idea from the Jeremiah passage.

Note, in fact, the outcome that God is promising to the exiles in Babylon. After He tells them that He plans good things for them, He tells them the good that He plans:

"Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will hear you" (Jer 29:12).

After Paul tells us that God works all things together for our good, he tells us the good that He plans. He works all things together for good according to His purpose. What purpose?

For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers (Rom 8:29).

That's God's purpose. That we would be conformed to the image of His Son. That we would call upon Him and pray. That we would be connected to Him as His children, His adopted.

Plug that back into God's promise to the Jews. "I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD. What plans? For their best. What best? That they would turn to Him, talk to Him, have a living relationship with Him. His plan for them; His plan for us. It kind of makes "health and wealth" pale in comparison. "In Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation" (2 Cor 5:19). God's plan is reconciliation with Him. There is no better "welfare," no better promise for a future and a hope. I think the Jeremiah promise remains for us. We just need to avoid expecting a pitiful human notion of a pay off instead of the rich one God intends.

Free Speech

What is "free speech"? The dictionary defines it as "the freedom of speech." Thanks, dictionary. That's not helpful. So we dig further. "Freedom of speech" is defined as "the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc." Okay, that's better. But ... what does it mean?

In the First Amendment we have several freedoms "guaranteed." Well, to be more careful, we have several restrictions on Congress. They can't establish a religion. They can't prohibit anyone from the free exercise of their religion. They can't "abridge" our freedom of speech or the press. They can't remove the right of the people to peaceably assemble. They can't prevent the people from petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Whew! That's actually quite a few. But I'm looking at this moment at that one in the middle. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..." Okay, so what is "abridging"? It means to shorten, to reduce or lessen, to deprive or cut off. Right. Okay. But ... don't we already do that? I mean, in that definition above we already include "subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc." So already free speech is subject to other laws -- abridged.

It only gets foggier from here. The courts have already indicated that freedom of speech includes the right not to speak, the right to wear black armbands, the right to use offensive words, the right to contribute money, the right to advertise, and the right to engage in symbolic speech (like burning the flag). Freedom of speech, then, does not simply mean the freedom to say what you want. It exceeds "speech." Perhaps "freedom of expression" would be better. On the other hand, they've also said our freedom of speech does not include inciting actions that would harm others, distributing obscene materials, burning draft cards, or advocating illegal drug use. One interesting thing not allowed by the court was, in 1988, a case that denied students the right to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. That sounds like an abridging of both the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Strange. But already a done deal. So clearly "speech" is more than speech and "freedom" is less than freedom. The question, then, becomes "What is the freedom and what is the speech?"

Coupled to that, it should be noted that the First Amendment restricts Congress from making a law here. The protected and banned components of "free speech" I detailed in the previous paragraph were not a product of Congress, so they didn't violate the First Amendment. Nor does the First Amendment have anything to say about private entities who wish to "violate the First Amendment," so to speak. That is, if a Leftist university refuses to allow a rightwing speaker from speaking there, it can't be said they violated the First Amendment because the amendment simply addresses what Congress can (or, more accurately, can't) do. We get this. The government can't prevent free speech (with exceptions, of course), but a blogger doesn't have to allow it on their blog. And we routinely don't, whether we're right or left or in the middle.

I'm still here wondering, just what is free speech? I have no clear understanding of how free it is. I have no clear understanding of how restricted it is -- how free it is not. I have no clear understanding of what constitutes "speech." I've heard people say, "You're allowed to express yourself freely in this country, but that doesn't mean you can do so without consequences." I can tell you without equivocation that is not "free speech." If the freedom of speech is the freedom to express opinions without "cost" ("free"), then consequences for speech is not "freedom."

I would argue, then, that this nation is not a nation of free speech. We try to say we are. We pride ourselves on it. It's not true. Free speech is limited at the outset by law, preventing harm, distribution of obscene material, etc. Beyond that, universities and other organizations routinely prevent opposing views from being allowed a platform to speak. Churches certainly don't include an open forum for anti-church speech. Private entities like blogs or other such things aren't required to allow free speech. It turns out, in fact, that apparently the only entity that must allow free speech is the government, and even they don't have to allow all of it. So the next time you want to complain that your right to free speech is being infringed, think again. It is only a vague, undefined, mostly undefended right. Certainly not one endowed by the Creator (Prov 12:22; Matt 12:36).

Confirmation Bias

That was a new term to me. According to Wikipedia it is "the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses." Welcome to most human thinking. You see it in our day when Trump does ... anything. Trump supporters will argue that it was great and Trump opponents will hold that it is an affront to the nation whether it was the way he combed his hair or a national policy he espoused. Or didn't. You see it in white supremacist thinking where every fact points to the superiority of the white race even when it does not and you see it in progressive liberal thinking when every liberal progressive idea is a good one regardless of the truth (a la AOC). If I've touched on one of your favorites, don't get defensive. My point is not you; my point is that it is all of us.

Christians are not immune. Even genuine Christians. We learn something at our parent's feet or from a favorite pastor or youth leader and the merest suggestion that it might be wrong is met with outrage. "Can't be. I know it's true. Look at what the Bible says!" And we can point out verses in the Bible that appear to support our idea. And if the Bible actually says something different, well, we can explain that away easily enough. Typically we do that by ignoring the contradiction, but sometimes we can get creative. "Oh, sure, your version says the Word was God, but mine says he was a god; not the same thing." Okay, fine, but every other reference to Christ on the topic lists Him as God, not "god". Well, we'll ignore those because they don't align with our confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias often determines who you will believe. In that last example I offered, a Jehovah's Witness would likely believe the "god is different than God" person while a non-Jehovah's Witness would immediately dismiss it. That's the kind of thing you see when liberals side with Huffington Post or conservatives side with Fox News. "They are confirming my belief, so they're right." Rarely is the question of "which is true" actually broached.

And that is the issue. We really ought to be in pursuit of the truth rather than in defense of bias. That requires, first of all, a valid source of truth, doesn't it? Jesus said, "I am the Truth" (John 14:6), so that's a valid source of truth, but beyond that we have the God-breathed Word, a valid and invaluable source of truth. With it we can hold up what others believe and what we believe to the light of truth and verify. In cases that are not covered in God's Word, we need to investigate rather than merely confirm our own bias. What did they say or do? What did they mean? Is the story I'm being presented a valid representation of reality, or is it a biased representation?

Oh, here, let's see if I can put it another way. "Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger." (James 1:19). Now, I know -- that doesn't really go with today's society. Everything is real-time, here and now, let's get on it and run. "There's someone wrong on the Internet." We're watching Fox or reading HuffPo and we're expected to agree. We're seeing that Internet stuff where those people are really, really wrong. "Slow to speak"??? Don't be ridiculous! Except that's what the Word of God says. Instead, be quick to hear and slow to speak and slow to anger. Investigate. Examine. Test. Because "the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God" (James 1:20). And we want to do that. Even if it means we are wrong in our bias.

"Christian Nation"

Gallup recently told us that church membership is down by some 20% over the last two decades. That, of course, is all churches of all stripes and all religions, so we should keep that in mind. Still, I would suggest that it is obvious that America is no longer a Christian nation. Since only 50% of Americans claim to be church members and that includes all religions, it seems obvious that genuine Christians are in a minority. But I think we should be clear on what "Christian nation" cannot and can mean.

When I say I am a Christian, I mean that I have a saving relationship with Christ and believe what His Word says is true. I haven't "arrived;" I'm not perfect. But I'm learning to be obedient and actually have a relationship with the Savior. At no time in any sense has America or any other nation been that kind of "Christian." No nation can have a saving relationship with Christ. Obviously. So that is not the idea behind "Christian nation."

What is it? The term refers to the values that Christianity brings to a nation. A nation that embraces Christian values would be called (no matter how incorrectly) a "Christian nation." Our nation was founded on Christian principles with Christian values largely by sincere Christians. As such, the United States at some point could have been called a "Christian nation" by that definition.

We've been told, however, (and evidence bears it out) that we are no longer a Christian nation. No, we haven't lost our salvation; we've lost our Christian values. What kinds of Christian values are we talking about? At the outset of the American nation, a fundamental Christian value was "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Why? Well, those Christians who had fled Europe to obtain freedom to worship God as they believed their Bibles told them to wanted to insure that they could continue to ... well ... do that (Rom 14:4). Written into our Bill of Rights, it is clearly a Christian value that is no longer valued in America.

Fundamental to our Declaration of Independence and, therefore, our "Christian nation" is the concept of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Fundamental. Well, the first thing to go is the fundamental belief that there is a Creator. Not only is there a growing doubt that such a being exists; we are now requiring by force of law (and by a queer twist on that other right I mentioned) that any such being if He does exist must have no part in this country. (Thus, by "enforcing the First Amendment" by removing God from government entirely, they violate the First Amendment by making atheism the established religion of the government.) Since the relationship of creature -- humans -- to Creator is the basis for the Christian notion of the value of humans (Gen 9:6), the wholesale rejection of the Creator principle today does not bode well. The suggestion would be that it is not wrong to kill humans ... which, of course, the courts legalized in 1973 and continue to push with euthanasia laws and postpartum abortion permissions. Where will that stop? Without a basis of writes outside of the creature, we can't say.

We originally had laws premised on Christian morality. There were laws against adultery and laws against homosexual behavior and laws defending private property and all sorts of laws premised on Christian values. Today we've pushed Christ out of the legislature, so laws predicated on Christian values are, in fact, deemed illegal. And we've been dismantling those prior laws since. It is legal to cheat on your spouse and engage in what Scripture refers to as unnatural relations (Rom 1:26-27). Private property laws only extend as far as the government allows them to and can be abrogated as deemed necessary. Indeed, the entire concept of morality predicated on God's Word is out today. "You may hold it for yourself if you wish (to the extent that we let you), but don't expect anyone else to." The concept of Objective Morality -- a Christian concept predicated on a Sovereign Lawgiver -- is mostly out. Right and wrong are determined by individuals and by consensus, not by any reality involved. Theoretically in this type of moral system if the group decides that, say, slavery is good, it will be considered good and reinstated as a practice.

And so it goes. In the "values vacuum" we've created by removing Christian values, anything can happen. We can eliminate the longstanding, traditional version of marriage. We can make it mandatory that parents have no say if their 8-year-old son wants to be a girl and have the permanent surgical changes to accomplish it. (Oh, the parents will pay for it; they'll just have no say in it.) We can make the people finance the murder of babies. What else? Legalize pedophiles? Mandate state-sponsored theft? Make religion illegal? "No!" some will say. But on what basis? We are no longer a Christian nation -- no longer burdened with Christian values. Whose will we take? That's up for grabs ... and without any foundation.

Not by Compulsion

I was reading Philemon. Not one of my favorite epistles. It's short, sure, but it's mostly personal. Philemon was a fellow believer and a slave owner. One of his slaves, Onesimus, had run away. He had ended up in Paul's life. Paul refers to him as "my child" and himself as his father (Phm 1:10), so Onesimus came to Christ through Paul while Paul was imprisoned. And after a time, Paul was sending him back. He hoped Philemon would be kind to him, to treat him as a beloved brother (Phm 1:16). Paul said that he had the right to command it (Phm 1:8), but he wouldn't "in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord" (Phm 1:14).

Well, now, that's interesting, isn't it? Paul indicates that he had the right to command "goodness." Of course, it would still be Philemon who did it, but if Paul commanded it Philemon's "goodness" would be because he had to and that would not be as beneficial as the alternative. What is truly beneficial is when goodness comes of your own accord rather than by compulsion.

Think of the child that cleans her room because you insisted versus the one that cleans her own room because she thought it would be a good thing to do. Which is better? How does that play out when, for instance, the government decides to raise your taxes in order to give help to the poor? Surely giving help to the poor is good, but wouldn't it be better if we did it of our own accord rather than by compulsion? I've had people conclude that I think homosexual behavior and so-called "gay marriage" should be outlawed. They're wrong. I think that goodness should be of your own accord rather than by compulsion. How many other things do we push by way of coercion rather than allowing them to choose to do the right thing?

Paul told Philemon, "Yes, brother, I want some benefit from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in Christ" (Phm 1:20). That's what you get when people do good of their own accord rather than by compulsion. Mind you, doing good is good, even if it is by compulsion. Good laws and good instructions are good things. It's just that it is so much more beneficial -- beneficial to the person, to the recipients, to the observers, and even to the Lord -- when we do good because we want to and not just because we're supposed to. But that, of course, requires a changed heart. So my prayer is always, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me" (Psa 51:10).

News Weakly - 5/4/19

Because of You (Rom 2:24)
Last Saturday a gunman walked into a synagogue in Poway, California, and opened fire. It was the second synagogue shooting in six months. It was the day before Holocaust Remembrance Day. Lori Gilbert Kaye was killed when she threw herself between the gunman and his intended victim, Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein. Lori had attended synagogue services two days before to mourn the death of her mother. The 19-year-old perpetrator was raised in a Christian home and attended an Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). All sorts of bad news.

You can guess the conversations that are being spawned. "We need better gun control!" "You can't trust Christians!" "This was done in the name of Jesus!" Even, "Thank you, Lord, that I'm not like that guy." We need to remember that sin is a problem -- theirs and ours -- that there are tares among the wheat, that everyone both in and out of the church needs the gospel. We need to remember to pray for the Jews ... and the government and the people of God and the people who are opposed to God and our neighbors of any stripe. And not get distracted.

Symbols Have Meaning
I've always argued that words are symbols of things that mean something. As symbols, they have meaning. Now there is a dispute between New Jersey and Mississippi over symbols. The "progressive" first term governor of New Jersey has ordered the removal of Mississippi's state flag from a public display of the 50 state flags because it is not inclusive and the display is about being inclusive. The problem? The flag includes the confederate emblem. "That kind of hate will never do. We'll exclude that state from our inclusive 50-state display because we hate it. Our idea is that Mississippi must change their flag. Because we're all about love and inclusiveness." Sometimes the self contradiction is glaring.

All aTwitter
According to the Pew Research Center, Twitter is not the thing most of us think it is. If you read the news you'll discover that more news than not is using Twitter as a part of their story. There used to be interviews, opinions about stories, that sort of thing. Now they simply point out what Twitter is saying. That might be okay ... if Twitter was sizable. It's not.

Twitter users are younger and more likely to be Democrats than the general public. Apparently 10% of the users produce 80% of the tweets. Pew's analysis said that 22% of the users were representative of the broader population. Read that again. That would mean that more than 3 out of 4 Twitter users do not represent typical Americans. According to one statistic, only 38% of millennials in the U.S. have a Twitter account. (That is, it is not the majority most of us feel like it is.) On the same site they indicate that the percentage of the global population that uses Twitter is 3.9%. In the U.S., 16% use Twitter. By no stretch of the imagination is Twitter a viable finger on the pulse of American opinion. And we're still using them for that purpose. Not very bright.

Because of You (the sequel)
During the presidential campaign season of 2016 I earned more than a few dislikes from fellow Republicans and even Christians because I was opposed to Donald Trump for president. I warned that he was dangerous. I warned that he could damage the party, damage the church, damage the nation. The best response was, "But Hillary would be worse." I just wasn't sure that was true. This story makes my point. The National Review points out that folks like Franklin Graham who opposed Clinton in the 90's for his lack of morals but now endorse Trump despite his lack of morals are diminishing the witness of Evanglicals. When Graham complains about presidential candidate Buttigieg calling himself a "gay Christian," the National Review points out Trumps string of sexual sin that still engenders Graham's support. Back in the Bill Clinton scandal the Southern Baptist Convention released a Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials which stated, among other things, "Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment." This was my concern in 2016; this is the reality of 2019. I fear it is a case of "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

So Confused
Kamala Harris said last week that she would use her "bully pulpit" to fight "right-to-work" laws because they are "an attack on workers' rights." Now, she was talking to the Service Employees International Union, so she was clearly playing to her audience, but if she's serious, the idea is this. "You don't know what's best for you. The government does. The unions do. My plan is to remove your right to work because it's bad for you." Thanks, Kamala. (To be fair, Bernie agrees.) So removing your right to work is what's best for workers' rights. I am so confused. (Please note, Harris, et.al. -- you'll have to do it over the Supreme Court's dead body.)

Sour Apes
A biological male who identifies as a female shattered four women's powerlifting world records this last week. Olympian Sharron Davies decried the competition. "To protect women's sport those with a male sex advantage should not be able 2 compete in women’s sport," she tweeted. "No surgery required today... no hormones... no medical diagnosis.. just self ID & reduced testosterone to a level x5 the highest average (98%) of XX females." Sounds like sour apes to me.

The Way the Game is Played
The Supreme Court is going to hear cases that will redefine "sex" to change it from "male or female" to "the gender with whom you'd like to have sex" and "whatever gender you feel like you are." It's a mind trick, a bait-and-switch. "You said not to discriminate on the basis of sex. We will change what that word means and get what we want." In Houston the voters rose up and demanded that firefighters receive equal pay to police officers of corresponding rank and experience. Seems fair. Seems right. Except the City Council, in accordance with the mandate, opted to pay for this change in pay by laying off 220 firefighters. Now, there is some gamesmanship going on here and it may not come to that, but if everything remains the same, expect the firefighters of Houston to have equal pay ... but with much fewer doing the job. Think about that as we demand radical leaps in wages to other workers. "Yeah, sure, if you mandate $15/hr minimum wage to our lowest workers (which, by the way, will require an equivalent increase in pay to those above that), we can do it. You know who's going to pay for that, right? That's just the way the game is played." Stand on something "good," then change the definition. "That's what you wanted, right?"

Say Goodnight, Grace
Well, it's out in the open. It's in the media, so it's true. According to USA Today's Oliver Thomas, "American churches must reject literalism and admit we got it wrong on gay people." He assures us that we will continue to decline until we understand that "Being a faithful Christian does not mean accepting everything the Bible teaches." It's not that Thomas believes we're interpreting it wrong. He believes it is wrong. "The Hebrew and Christian Scriptures did not float down from heaven perfect and without error." (True enough. They didn't "float down from heaven." They were "God-breathed" ... making them perfect and without error.) Thomas betrays his standard for truth and goodness when he says, "The most difficult challenges arise when the teachings of Scripture are contradicted by reason and experience." Because "reason and experience" trump the clear reading of Scripture every time. The media, then, encourages us to jettison the Bible as authoritative, nay, even correct. The Bible clearly teaches, for instance, women shouldn't lead in church, but modern realities say that's wrong, so throw it out. The Bible isn't unclear that homosexual behavior is wrong (even according to Mr. Thomas), but we know it's okay so we need to reject the Bible on that. And more.

Mr. Thomas is a retired American Baptist minister, so he should know. Not all Scripture is God-breathed and is not profitable to fully equip the man of God for every good work (2 Tim 3:16-17). That will take "reason and experience" and helpful voices that are willing to defend Christ by removing any solid support for Christ. Grace? Who needs it? We're not that bad if we get to define what good is. "Liberate yourself from the authority of the Word ... and trust me to tell you what's better."

Some can tell 'em and some can't
Back in the presidential run of 2016, Trump made the mistake of joking about suggesting that the Russians hack Hillary's email. It was outrageous, stupid, uncalled for, unwise ... and no one was amused. Least of all Mrs. Clinton. She is amused, apparently, to return the stupidity by suggesting, "China, if you're listening, why don't you get Trump's tax returns?" It's funny if a Dem says it; it's crude of Trump says it. Double standard? Again?

Fair Play
Perhaps you heard about the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue that boldly included a Muslim model in a burkini. Did you hear about the first-ever edition that featured the Baptist model in a floor-length denim skirt? I thought not.

Trick Question

I saw an online test that was supposed to help you figure out where you are on the political spectrum. Okay. Fine. I'm curious. So I took it. (Imagine my surprise when it said I was largely a centrist.) One question (as you might expect) wanted to know where you stand on banning gay marriage. And I was stuck.

It's a trick question, a false dichotomy. "Look, you're either in favor of gay marriage or against it. What's the problem?" The problem is you're asking me about something that doesn't exist -- "gay mirage."

Someone asked once, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" The answer is "4" because legs have a particular function and merely redesignating a tail to be a leg won't let that dog walk on it. Too obtuse? How about if I rename a hammer as a screwdriver? How will that work? It doesn't, of course. And that's the point. "Marriage" isn't merely a word that we pull out and apply as necessary. It has a purpose, a use. It does something, accomplishes something, produces something. Factor in "gay" and it does not. It may accomplish something else, but not the original purpose. It may give you the rights to visit people in the hospital that marriage gives or it might give you the rights to own and inherit property that marriage gives, but it doesn't do what marriage does. It isn't, then, "marriage" in principle.

"So, you'd like to ban gay marriage." No, I'd like to properly differentiate between "marriage" as it has always been used and "marriage" as it is now applied. When the homosexual community "went to war" in California to get this "gay marriage" thing pushed through (against the will of the people and, ultimately, the state constitution), they already had in California a status called "civil union" that gave them all the same rights that marriage gave to married couples. So why did they do it? Why did they push further into marriage -- into destroying the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage and substituting their own? I would imagine for a variety of reasons, but the most glaring one, I think, is legitimacy. Calling a disabled person disabled differentiates them from the ... abled person. It stings. Calling a mentally deficient person a moron differentiates them from the non-mentally deficient person. So we changed the word. It became "retarded" (which simply means "a little slower"). After awhile that became offensive, so we've changed it again. Why did it become offensive? Because it differentiated. What those "outside" -- be it "gay" or "disabled" or "mentally challenged" or any other "other" category -- want is to be in. Unconsciously, perhaps, "differentiated" is bad. It is true. It is factual. It is real. There are differences. In some circles they even encourage vive la différence! But no one really wants to celebrate it; they want to eliminate it. In the gay community as in any other, the desire to be on the inside rather than on the outside is sufficient to require by force of law that marriage no longer exist as it once did and everyone is required to change their definition to suit them.

I don't want to ban gay marriage. I want to eliminate it as a concept. That, of course, can't be done by force of law. I want people to remember (or even learn for the first time) what "marriage" really is. Feel free to pick another word if you wish. If you want, you can assign another word to what I'm talking about. But when "marriage" has the capacity to apply "gay" as a modifier, the concept I'm talking about has vanished so completely that most people these days don't seem to know what it was. In a sense, when "gay marriage" became a thing, marriage was outlawed. I want marriage back (Gen 2:20, 22-24; Matt 19:4-6; Prov 5:18-19; Eph 5:22-33; 1 Cor 7:1-5; Heb 13:4-7; Gen 1:27-28; 9:7).

Protecting Human Life

I would have put this in my News Weakly report, but it's too big.

The opening paragraph of this story says, "Alabama's House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a near-total abortion ban, a piece of legislation that the bill's sponsor called a "direct attack" on Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that protects a woman's right to an abortion. Politicians in the statehouse voted against adding an amendment that would have added an exception for victims of rape and incest." Note the language. "Near-total abortion ban." "'Direct attack' on Roe v. Wade." ""A woman's right to an abortion." And the part where the house voted against the rape and incest exception. There is no doubt what this news outlet thinks. House Bill 314, the "Human Life Protection Act," is an assault on a woman's right to kill. It is a pro-life thrust (especially seen in the remooval of the rape-and-incest provision). Allow me to rewrite that paragraph with the facts rather than the bias.

Alabama's House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a piece of legislation that will save countless children's lives by countering the landmark Supreme Court decision that gave women the right to kill their children. Politicians in the statehouse demonstrated their support of life by voting against adding an amendment that would have added an exception for victims of rape and incest.

The media outlets (not just this one -- all of them that I found) tell this story as an affront to the freedom to murder and as the product of "anti-abortion activists." So ensconced is this kind of thinking in our current media and, therefore, public perception that the mere notion of protecting human life is deemed an assault on women's rights. In a press conference designed to express outrage from House Democrats about the rape-and-incest exception being left out, House Minority leader Anthony Daniels said, "What does that say to the women in the state and the mothers in the state and the grandmothers in the state?" I'll tell you, Mr. Daniels. It says that executing the victim of a crime like rape or incest is not justice. It says that all life has value. It says that the unborn are created in the image of the Creator.

Jewish advocates were offended that the bill said that the number of children murdered by abortion exceeded the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust. (That's something like 60 million children vs 6 million Jews.) They found it "outrageously offensive" that a bill would use this kind of comparison to restrict the murder of babies. (That's not what they said; that's the outcome of what they said.) Nice to know that these Jews are only offended by their own losses and not by the losses of 10 times as many babies. "It's not right for people to kill Jews, but if mom's want to murder their babies, we're good with that."

We live in a sin-sick world that suffers from a depraved mind (Rom 1:28), futile thinking (Rom 1:21), deceitful and desperately sick hearts (Jer 17:9), blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). It's clear in the media. It's obvious when the courts legalize murder and victims of horrible crimes cheer the perpetration of horrible crimes carried out against babies. I doubt that this Alabama law will survive, given our current condition in this nation. If the rest of the lawmakers in the state, including the governor, don't end this, the courts will. But I hope it is absolutely clear that what is needed is not better laws; it is a new heart. The kind of thing only God can give. The kind of thing we can tell them about ... and must share.

Assumptions

I read an interesting article entitled Love Hopes All Things - And Tosses the Worst Assumptions. The article started with a wife who complained that her husband had left a dish on the table. She was miffed. What's wrong with him? She complained, and he apologized. "I'm sorry. The baby was crying and I thought I'd try to play with him to get him out of your way so you could have some time to yourself." And she was ashamed. She had assumed a motive (laziness) that wasn't the case. She was wrong.

Love, you see, "believes all things" (1 Cor 13:7). Love believes the best of the beloved. C.S. Lewis added, "... even against the evidence -- yea, against much evidence." That's part of love. Perhaps not our favorite part. Perhaps not the best known. But it's there.

Have you been falsely accused? Especially in terms of false assumptions? Someone assumes the motives for your actions are less than honorable when, as it turns out, you were genuinely seeking the best for others? Our society is embracing this false assumption wholesale. "If you're white, you're racist." "If you're a male, you're sexist." "If you opposed Obama, it was because you were a racist." "If you were against Hillary becoming president, it was because you were a sexist." Just some quick examples. Feel free to fill in your own. Oh, I know one. "The Left hates America." Oh, sorry, did that one get too close? Because I've heard that one from a lot of conservatives (alongside "Trump hates America" for today). It's not necessarily true, you know. That the Left thinks that what's good for America is different than what the Right thinks is obvious, but you can't assume from the outset that they hate America. That's perhaps a false assumption, false accusation.

Slander is defined as "the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation." When we make accusations against someone by assigning them a motivation they don't actually have, it is slander. It is a false charge that wrongly damages their reputation. When you accuse a Christian of hate because she holds to a biblical perspective of the sin of homosexual behavior, you'd better be sure it is hate and not simply believing the Bible and being concerned for their fellow human beings. When you accuse a white person of being a racist because they disagree with you on a subject with a racial component, you'd better be sure their argument is predicated on that racial component or it will be slander. If you make these kinds of false assumptions of motive, be careful. It is a violation of love -- believing the best of the other. Perhaps "swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath" (James 1:19) would be a better approach. Of course, if you say, "I don't care about any of that; I'm going to accuse them as I see fit," then perhaps it isn't a violation of love that should be your highest concern. Perhaps it's a question of whether or not you know Jesus.

The Missed Message

Our society can rant and rave all it wants. It can stand up and assure us that patriarchy is not only dead, but that it's a good thing it's dead. They can assure us that if you claim there is a difference between the sexes you're sexist and evil and hateful. They can even smuggle it into our churches and our pulpits and our dogma. None of this changes the fact that Scripture argues differently. God's Word says that Adam was created first (Gen 2:7, 18; 1 Tim 2:13). God's Word says that Adam, not Eve, was responsible for Man's sinful condition (1 Tim 2:13-14; Rom 5:12). God's Word says "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). Not popular or acceptable today, perhaps, even among believers, but it's in there, and if we're going to submit to God and His revealed truth, we will have to submit to this.

The problem, of course, is the gut response that arises every time (I don't think I exaggerate that) this comes up. "You're demeaning women!" "You're sexist!" "The genders are of equal value!!" So we spend more time defending God and His Word than examining what it looks like in practice. For instance, no matter how many times it is addressed, "We agree without reservation that both genders are of equal value" doesn't seem to be heard. So we struggle with the basics instead of moving on to the application.

And the message is missed.

What message? The message is not about us; it's about God. It starts with "I'm in charge ... not you." ("The head of Christ is God.") This should be a sublime relief. "Oh, good! We are not alone here. We are not merely on our own." We delight in "I will never leave you nor forsake you." (Heb 13:5), but balk when He says, "I'm in charge." That is, "Sure, fine, we're happy to have You here to assist us; just don't get in our way." An ugly thing to say to God. To men He says, "Christ is over you." ("The head of every man is Christ.") Again, we're fine with the help, just not the authority. To women He says, "I've arranged for you to be protected, supported, and cared for by your husband." ("The head of a wife is her husband.") Nowadays, often even among Christians, the response is "Oh, no ... no thanks. We can do this on our own and we don't need any demeaning man around to help, let alone to lead." In these cases, again, we tell God, "No thanks."

The message is not about us; it's about God. But it's also a call to us. The minute we read, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22), a storm begins. It gets dark and cloudy and you can expect a blow. The message, however, is for men to step up. The requirement is for husbands to sacrifice themselves completely to the needs and support of their wives (Eph 5:25-27). When God tells women to "keep silent in the churches" (1 Cor 14:34), He does it with the requirement that husbands be ready to step up to any question she might have (1 Cor 14:35). When He tells wives to be subject to husbands who aren't even obedient to the Word (1 Peter 3:1), He does it with the command for husbands to treat their wives with understanding and deep respect (1 Peter 3:7). These are not commands to women as much as to men. Women are commanded to rest in God's provision; men are commanded to work.

But we don't get it. We're fighting over submission. We're fighting over the meaning of the words. We're trying to avoid "wives, submit" at any level. And guys get off scot-free. No one is noticing that men are called to lay it all on the line for God and for their wives. They can just sit back and listen to the squabbling over "wives, submit." It's not a call to lord it over anyone; it's a call to serve for Christ. Message missed.

Hardest to Reach

We know that we're supposed to go into all the world and preach the gospel (Mark 16:15). We're supposed to go and make disciples (Matt 28:19-20). And, if we're obedient, we do. So to whom do we go? We're supposed to go to everyone. That would be family and friends, neighbors and strangers, foreigners and natives, people of all station, belief, position. Everyone. That means that you and I will be taking the gospel to atheists and agnostics and "Nones" and religious people and all. (Note: By and the "religious people" might be those who consider themselves "Christian" even though every indication is that they're not.)

The atheist is dead set against God. Often they are actually anti-theist. They aren't merely "I don't believe there is a God" types, but on to "There is no God and I'm going to change your mind to agree with me." Agnostics are technically "I don't know if there's a God," but for reasons that elude me they generally conclude, "So I will live as if there is not." Practical atheists. "Nones" are that growing class that says, "I'm religious, but I'm not affiliated with any religion." They're not opposed to the idea of God; they're just opposed to yours. The religious are 70% out of the 75% of Americans that claim to believe in God ... but it makes no difference in their lives. They are the "I'm a Christian!" types who, if you watch them for very long, make you think, "Why would you think that?" They're the ones who affirm Christianity while denying major, essential doctrines and truths.

So, which is the biggest challenge?

The atheist would, of course, seem to be the worst. Especially the anti-theist. It would look, in fact, like the farther you go along that spectrum I drew, the easier it would get. I would argue that's not true. I think the hardest group is the last. The ignorant and the unbelieving have plenty of space in which to learn of Christ. The religious are pretty sure they're okay. "You need Jesus," you will be tempted to say to which they will respond, "I already have Him." Where do you go with that? Offering them something they believe they already have won't get you anywhere. And since they've "embraced God's Word" while actually rejecting it, you can't use God's Word because ... they've rejected it. You're left without tools. For atheists you can use reason and evidence and for the "religious-but-just-not-your-religion" Nones you can use clarification and direction. You have no "hooks" for the religious because they sense no need.

If you bought all that, I have good news. It was a trick question. I think all that was true, but it's not complete. Those who are not born of God are dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3), hostile to God (Rom 8:7), unable to understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14), blinded by Satan (2 Cor 4:4), and more. "You need Jesus" isn't going to do it. A fine defense of the gospel and explanation with reason and evidence of the truth of Christ isn't going to convince them. Not the atheist nor the religious. They suffer from a range of maladies, but they all suffer the same fundamental human condition we call sin. A good Bible sermon isn't the trick that will turn them. What they need is divine. All non-believers need the same thing. We just participate.

Who is the biggest challenge? If we're talking about our efforts, I'd say they're all the same -- impossible. If we're talking about God's work, I'd say they're all the same -- susceptible to His work within. Only He can open hearts (Acts 16:14). Our job on the face of it is impossible on our own but absolutely certain with God. That's not a bad place to be.

Job 37:5

The license plate read "JOB37 5." I, obviously, decided it was a Bible reference.

God thunders wondrously with His voice; He does great things that we cannot comprehend. (Job 37:5)

How appropriate! "He does great things that we cannot comprehend."

It stands to reason, of course. He is God; we are not. He does as He pleases; we don't. His ways are not our ways; His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isa 55:8-9). If God is infinite and we are finite, it is obvious that we cannot fully grasp God. By definition. So it is only reasonable that God would be doing great things that we cannot comprehend.

Do we actually believe that? I ask because it seems like we often think that if we don't comprehend it He's not doing it. Something unpleasant happens and we tend to cry, "Why, God?" Well, didn't we just agree that "He does great things that we cannot comprehend"? Something painful, something confusing, something strange, something outside our comfort zone comes around and we're not happy about this. Something is wrong! Or ... "He does great things that we cannot comprehend." When Joseph encountered those kinds of things -- evil things, in fact -- his conclusion was, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). Remember, Joseph was attacked by his brothers, stuck in a well, sold into slavery, falsely accused by his master's wife, jailed for a crime he didn't commit, forgotten in prison ... "unpleasant" doesn't seem to cover it. When do you think it occurred to Joseph what God was doing? Scripture doesn't say, but the point of the Job verse is it doesn't matter. If Joseph didn't figure it out until his brothers asked for forgiveness, God was still doing great things. And we cannot comprehend.

A good question we like to ask is, "What is God doing in your life?" Good question. And sometimes we have answers. Good stuff. But rest assured there will be times that we don't know. We don't grasp. We don't comprehend. We may not even be aware. So know this: God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, who are called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28). That purpose is sometimes individual and personal, but there is an overarching purpose of which you can be confident. "Those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers" (Rom 8:29). That's really good. The verse says, "He does great things that we cannot comprehend." Trust that. Trust Him. It might be a bumpy ride at times, but it will always be for good things, even when we don't understand.

News Weakly - 4/27/19

Better Think Twice
Elizabeth Warren has decided it's time for Trump to go. Impeach the guy. Other voices concur.

In an unrelated-but-totally-connected story, Vice President Mike Pence was invited by Taylor University to do the graduation speech. And the crowd goes wild. A petition to block him has been signed by over 6,000 people at the writing of this piece. (I'm pretty sure that Taylor University doesn't have 6,000 students.) The irony, of course, is that Taylor University is a "Christian" university. "For more than 170 years, Taylor University has stayed true to its heritage, challenging each generation of students to integrate faith with learning and follow Christ’s calling." It is " a discipleship community, where 'iron sharpens iron' (Proverbs 27:17) and Christians can learn and grow together," and "100% of TU students, faculty, and staff make a profession of faith before entering the University." But they are horrified, appalled, devastated that someone who espouses biblical principles would be allowed to speak there.

The connection? My dad told me I should vote for Trump. I told him I couldn't. He said, "Yeah, but Pence is a dedicated Christian." "So, Dad," I said, "you want me to vote for Trump in the hopes that someone eliminates him?" The Dems might want to be careful. They may not like the replacement if they succeed in their hatred for Trump.

Persecuted
On Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka over 300 people were killed and more than 500 injured in 6 nearly simultaneous blasts that rocked churches and luxury hotels where tourists might likely be. Other explosions followed. Sri Lanka's government believes adherents of the Religion of Peace are the perpetrators. While hundreds of Christians die around the world on an ongoing basis without notice from the media, this kind of story can't be ignored, apparently.

Judge Not?
Many people don't know this, but the best known Bible verse these days is not John 3:16. It is Matthew 7:1. It is a verse many delight in flinging back in the faces of Christians when they try to point out "God says this is sin and you need Jesus." What is the verse? "Judge not, that you be not judged." And, yet, it is what they love to do when it suits them. The Philadellphia Flyers had a statue of Kate Smith removed after a controversy was sparked over racist songs of the 1930's, this immediately following the Yankees yanking her rendition of God Bless America for their traditional 7th inning stretch for the same reason. Now, no one really believes that because Dean Martin or Barbra Streisand put out a Christmas album they actually believe in Christ. And Kate Smith died in 1986, so we can't ask, "Hey, Kate, were you a racist? Or were you just singing songs? How do you feel about it now?" She can't defend herself. But it doesn't matter. She's out. "Judge not" can only be aimed at Christians, I guess.

Zero Emissions?
While voices get louder for zero emission vehicles -- electric cars -- a report out of Germany is telling us that electric vehicles account for more CO2 emissions than diesel vehicles. Emissions include those produced by battery production and power production to charge them. The Tesla Model 3 battery, for instance, "represents between 11 and 15 tonnes of CO2." That's not "zero emissions" no matter what you call it. Researchers are recommending switching to methane engines with emissions one-third less than those of diesel motors (which are roughly half the emissions of electric cars). As usual, you can expect the standard "Don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right" response from the rest of the "green" folk.

Why Science Should Not Be God
Last week the report was out that people who deeply believe in religion are brain damaged and they might be able to find a cure. This week a study said that "spiritual experiences confer lasting mental health benefits." The news item notes that this is in direct conflict with modern western medicine, but appears to be true. Science can't decide what is and is not reality. Science makes a lousy god.

Sex in the Courts
You have to understand. This is the vindication of what I've been warning about all along. This week the Supreme Court agreed to hear three cases involving discrimination at work on the basis of homosexual and transgender persons. The question? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that it is illegal to "discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The argument is that "sex" includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Read that again. The question is whether or not we will redefine "sex" to mean something new. (Note, also, that the "sex" that we are redefining includes gender, linking, without intending to, the two concepts.) Now, it is inconceivable that the government that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 intended "sex" to include either sexual orientation (who you like to have sex with) or gender identity (what gender you think you are), but the courts will decide for us whether or not it's okay to redefine what the framers of the law intended in the light of today's thinking. Because, after all, words only mean what we want them to mean at this moment. They do not represent anything actually objectively true. And reality is how those in charge define it. (Note the dangerous precedent. Government will decide what words mean and then alter your life to align with it.)

I Told You it was a Religion
The Satanic Temple is an organization aimed at non-religion. That is, they are in place to oppose religion. They chose the name to be offensive to religions, not to have Satan as their religion. On their webpage they indicate that they do not believe in Satan, they fight for secularism, and are primarily concerned about civil liberties and litigation to push religion out of the public square. They are mostly an anti-religion, political entity. So it is telling that the IRS has designated them as a church and, therefore, tax exempt. Mind you, I'm not complaining. I don't know why churches do it -- putting restrictions on what they can say in return for government money. I'm just pointing out that the IRS recognizes that atheism, anti-religion, and secularism are religions ... even though "religion" is defined as a belief in supernatural power. In their self-declared lack of faith, thanks to the IRS, they will now be able to compete with churches for faith-based government grants. If there are any churches out there reading this, may I say, "Let them." God doesn't need the government's money, especially with the strings they attach.

Wordsmith

Some who know me have called me a wordsmith, partly because it's a play on my name (Smith) and partly because I appear to have a larger vocabulary than some. Big deal. Some say it simply because I'm so wordy, at least on this blog. Okay. But I've read recently in Scripture to beware of people who wrangle with words. Paul wrote to Timothy to remind his congregation of the truth an to "charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers" (2 Tim 2:14). In parallel to this, Paul tells Timothy about "anyone [who] teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness" (1 Tim 6:3). Paul says, "He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain" (1 Tim 6:4-5). Being one who wants to conform myself to the Word (rather than the more common approach of making the Word conform to me), I wanted to discover if that was me. I don't want to do that.

I do spend a lot of time in this blog dealing with the changing of the language. Many common words have evolved in our language. We know that. There are "dead languages" -- languages from civilizations that no longer exist -- that don't evolve because they're dead. But if humans use words or any other tools, those things will change over time. It's the way it works. So am I quarreling about words?

At first blush it looks like it. But I don't think I am. I concur that words change and I'm generally okay with it. It's the function of the words that concern me. Words are not ... real. They are not substantive. Words are the tool we use to take a concept from my brain and transmit it to yours. You pull out the word "bleevil" and tell me I need to be careful of it and if I don't have a clue what "bleevil" is I cannot heed your warning. Lewis Carroll wrote, "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe." Well, now, look at that ... words. Huh? It was, of course, nothing but nonsense. And "non-sense" is what I'm talking about. You may read Carroll's sentence and even get a sense of what he said, but it's a mistake because none of those words actually convey any common meaning. And my big concern is meaning.

I'm concerned about the principle of the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of making a family, for mutual support, for procreation, for union. We used to call that "marriage," but the word has been hijacked. Okay, fine. But some of us still use the word to mean that and others use the word to mean the new thing (whatever that is) and when we talk we are not communicating because we've lost the idea, and that is what concerns me. And it's not just those evil gays like some might think I think. It's everyone, me included. We used to have a word intended to refer to those who follow Christ, who reflect Christ, who are followers of "the Way" (Acts 24:24-15). It is "Christian." Now I have no word with which to convey that concept. It's not the loss of the word that disheartens me; it's the loss of the concept. Just two examples there.

As I read my Bible or listen to teachers, I often fall under conviction of sin and error. "What you're doing (or not doing) is wrong" or "What you thinking (or not thinking) is wrong." I don't want to do that. So I seek to correct my own errors of word, deed, and thought. I want to follow Christ without reserve, without protecting my own actions and ideas as sacrosanct. So maybe I need to be more careful here when I appear to quarrel over words. It's not the words. I don't want to be a wordsmith that argues over words; I want to be one who defends the truth. It's the concepts, the principles, the ideas. Because even though words can and do change, these things remain. And words don't need my defense; God's principles do.

Reparations

You know what I'm talking about. It has been asked and seconded that America pay African Americans back for the evil perpetrated by earlier Americans in the form of slavery. Elle magazine published an article on where the Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential election stand. Kamala Harris thinks we need to "give people a lift," which certainly included poorer black families but also anyone who was making less than $100,000 a year. Elizabeth Warren came down in favor but backed off to a "it's time to have a conversation" position. She favors a congressional panel to talk about it. She also wants to include Native Americans in that consideration. Julian Castro favors it. Marianne Williamson supports it and has her own plan. Pete Buttigieg likes the idea but has never seen a workable plan. Cory Booker, of course, has already submitted his own bill to the Senate to have a study on reparations. Sanders balks at the idea. Beto thinks it's a good idea. Kirsten Gillibrand supports the House bill (which is a bill to begin a study on it). Amy Klobuchar thinks we need to "invest in those communities." So, they're all wavering to some degree, from "I don't think writing a check is the best idea" to "I like the idea -- let's study it," but they mostly lean into it.

I do not have a problem agreeing that the slavery of early America was a horrendous evil. Nor do I deny that some of it was perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians and suggesting that they had biblical merit for doing so. It's all wrong. Predicated as it is on the evil of racism, it just stinks and continues to stink. That being said, I have a few difficulties with the idea of reparations.

The idea is that we Americans should pay some sort of repayment for the evil that was slavery to those who are the descendants of those who endured it. Seems straightforward, doesn't it? To me it's not. By "we Americans" do we mean "all Americans"? Because that would entail taking money from those who are the descendants of slaves to pay for reparations to ... those who are descendants of slaves. That doesn't seem fair. There should be a "trap" for that, some sort of "You don't have to pay because you don't owe; you are owed." But how would that come about? It doesn't get easier. Do we assume that all African Americans are descendants of slaves and are owed reparations? That doesn't seem right because they're not. And paying reparations to those who are not owed it seems counter productive. (It's a "Hey, how come he got money? He wasn't part of this problem" kind of problem.) Then there's the question of payment of reparations for slavery by people who have no connection to slavery. Their families weren't here at the time or they weren't slave owners or, worse, they were fighting to free slaves ... and will now need to pay for it. You can see, then, that the mere bookkeeping of this thing would become huge. You'd have to determine if your family was on the "slave owner" side or the "once a slave" side. It's complicated further by the fact that some blacks in the 18th and 19th centuries actually owned black slaves and then further by the fact that some of those blacks that owned slaves were freed slaves. Wow, what a mess that would be! Then, as Elizabeth Warren voiced, what about others? We were definitely unfair to Native Americans in that same time frame. Shouldn't they get equally compensated? But, then, you'd need to determine the culpability of each person/family there, too, wouldn't you? At some point the debt owed by the "actually culpable by family association" to the "actually wronged" would be so huge that the "actually culpable by family association" side couldn't pay it. Never mind the "guilty by association" fallacy. So we're looking for everyone to pitch in to pay off a debt no one today owes to an unclear number of people for something they never did and, perhaps, suffered from. That, dear reader, is what is being deemed "fair and reasonable."

There is the question of expected outcome. The idea is to right a wrong, to move away from what they did wrong to making things right. Do we actually expect that to happen? Setting aside all those problems I just mentioned above, let's say we came up with a suitable amount to pay out. Someone has suggested $100 billion with $10 billion paid out each year for 10 years. Fine, if that's acceptable. (With approximately 50 million African Americans in the U.S., that would work out to about $200 each per year.) Whatever. So we pay out the "right amount" and those who are descendants of slaves get compensated. Do we expect that this solves the problems? Do they stop feeling harshly toward white people? Do we expect that, having paid so much, racists will stop being racist? Will this eliminate the income disparity between those who paid and those who received? What do we hope to gain here? I don't think that's clear at all.

There is a theological aspect to the question. I've heard many people object to the notion that Christ paid for our sin. "It's not right," they say. "You can't make someone else pay for what you did wrong." (And, of course, that's not the argument. Christ volunteered.) So they deny basic Christianity because it would be unfair of God to accept on our behalf payment by Christ. On the other hand, it is right and just to accept on behalf of people who lived a century and a half ago payment by modern Americans? Seems inconsistent.

In fact, my primary objection is a theological one. We, as sinners, violated God's glory. We made ourselves debtors to Him. He has every right to collect. That would be just. If Someone else comes along and says, "I'll pay it!" that would be grace and mercy, but it would not be justice. That is, the One to whom the debt is owed is not obligated to accept payment from One who owes no such debt. So God's acceptance of Christ's payment on my behalf is huge. He didn't have to do it. There was no requirement of justice to accept it. He did. God reconciled us to Him. What reparations would say is the exact opposite. Those who were wronged are obliged to accept as payment in full from those who did no wrong. And those who did no wrong but pay it will do so without choosing to. It will be required by law. It states in exact opposition what I see to be a primary component of the gospel.

I find the current notion of slavery to be inexcusable (save by the blood of Christ, of course). We have no version that works in any sense of morality. But I also am dismayed at the notion of charging people who committed no crime with a crime of such magnitude and making them pay for it. Worse, forcing people who suffered from the effects of the crime to pay for the crime is unconscionable to me. Finally, making "I wasn't even there, Officer" pay for the crimes of the ones that were there does not sound like justice to me. Now, if they want to do so voluntarily, I won't object. Making it a law would negate the good will of those who think they should contribute and call guilty those who did nothing and require payment from the victims they wish to compensate. That, somehow, seems completely wrong to me.

Postscript
I need to address this. I've said (with others in the comments) that the concern is justice. I've been assured that the reason I am saying I'm concerned about justice is because I'm actually a white racist who is just concerned about my pocketbook (and maybe keeping the black man down). That's a blatant lie.

The story (I got from another blog) goes like this: If a Jewish family had art in Nazi Germany that was stolen by Nazis and that direct family was killed off by Nazis, but descendants of that Jewish family had escaped and a great grandchild was to find out today that a great grandchild of the Nazi that stole their family's art still had that art, then it would be reasonable to expect that the art would be returned to the family from which it had been stolen. That wasn't to cast any blame on the descendant of the original Nazi thief ... to say that they were to blame for the Holocaust or anything ... only that to be just to the aggrieved family, it is reasonable that this debt should be paid.

This idea is, of course, reasonable. This idea, of course, is not what reparations is about. The direct relations of the Jewish family who were wronged should get reparations from the direct relations of those who wronged them. In this perfectly suitable example, the wronged family gets back precisely what was taken from the relatives of those who took it. In reparations EVERYONE, whether or not they are in the line of those who did it, is required to pay back ALL of a group of people, whether or not they are descendants of the wronged. Going with the Nazi parallel, if a Jewish family survived the Holocaust and returned to Germany and Germany decided to pay reparations to Jews, the descendants of this Jewish family would pay into the fund that would pay them reparations. Justice? In the Nazi story above, they were paid back exactly what was taken. In the reparation story this is, in fact, impossible. One pro-reparation type has suggested $100 billion. Is that it? Each of the entire group (wronged or not) gets $200/year for 10 years and that is just? That's payback? That's what was taken?

The reason I say justice is not in view here is because the call is not that the ones who were in the line of those who were wronged would get paid back what they lost from the line of those who did the wrong.

Another thing. I'm not opposed to justice. If you could come up with a way that the families of those who perpetrated the wrongs could pay back at least some of what was taken to the families of those who were wronged, I'd be for it. (Paying it all back is, frankly, impossible.) No one is offering that.

One last thing. It's not because I'm white, and only a racist assumes that it is from the beginning. I'm actually amazed that white people can be so hateful of whites merely because of the color of their skin.

Postscript II, the sequel
There is a biblical principle here.

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezek 18:20)

I'm really disappointed that people that call themselves Christians think that the son should suffer for the father's iniquity. In essence, they argue that God would be unjust to make this true in the case of reparations.

Diminishing Returns

Let's face it; hymns are old. Hey, what can I say? It's a fact. That does not make them bad. But we can run into problems with hymns. AS an obvious example, when the language changes (as English is constantly doing), you can run into difficulty. The original lyrics of Hark, the Herald Angels Sing included "Hark how all the Welkin rings" as the first line. "Welkin? Really?" So we changed it to "Hark, the herald angels sing." We get it. Robert Robinson in Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing wrote, "Here I raise mine Ebenezer." What's an "Ebenezer?" (It occurs in 1 Samuel 7 where Samuel took a stone to remind them "Thus far the LORD has helped us." Robinson's "Ebenezer" was a reminder of God's help.) Isaac Watts, one of the most prolific hymn writers of all time, wrote How Sweet and Awful back when "awful" meant "full of awe," not "very bad." Gotta change that.

Other changes are not for such reasonable reasons.

We love grace. Why? Because we love to get good things we don't deserve. It's a wonderful thing. It really is. Oh, mercy, too. Not getting the bad things we do deserve is good, too, but grace is right up at the top of things we love about our Savior. So we sing "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a ..." wait, what is that word? The original word -- perhaps the very word that comes to your mind right now -- is "wretch." It is not a nice word. We need to fix that. So we gin up something new. Not "such a wretch," but "such a one as I." Much better.

Isaac Watts wrote Alas, and Did My Savior Bleed. This is his first verse.

Alas! and did my Savior bleed,
and did my Sovereign die!
Would he devote that sacred head
for such a worm as I?

Oh! Oh no! That will never fly. "Such a worm as I?" No, no, we have to change it. Today's most common version says, "Would he devote that sacred head for sinners such as I?" Yes, we can live with that. No worm, please.

Beneath the Cross of Jesus was an Elizabeth Clephane piece. In one verse she looks at the cross and confesses two wonders: "the wonders of redeeming love and my own worthlessness." That version is really hard to find these days. Nearly every version I found changed it so "my unworthiness." Why? Because "worthlessness" feels too harsh.

Sometimes it is necessary to change words in hymns. We call them "sacred hymns," but they aren't God's Word -- they aren't actually sacred. Correcting errors in hymns isn't a problem. Some popular hymns are downright wrong in places. Making them more understandable as the tide of language changes isn't really an issue. We all have to deal with that ourselves these days. But when the changes occur because we don't like the term, we should be more careful. John Newton referred to himself as a "wretch" because he understood the magnitude of his sin problem. Isaac Watts' reference to himself as a "worm" was biblical (Job 25:5-6; Psa 22:6). Objections to "my own worthlessness" come not from a demand for accuracy, but from a demand for self-esteem, something we're warned about (Rom 12:3). And here's the real problem. When we diminish our sin problem we do more than make ourselves feel better about ourselves. We diminish grace. We demean the Savior's work on the cross. We decrease our debt. Until we're not that bad. Jesus said, "He who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47). That's the wrong effect we should be seeking -- diminishing God, His grace, and our love -- by improving our self-image.

Literally?

This is just another word rant.

According to the dictionary, the word "literal" means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical." Thus, "literally" would be the adverb form meaning "in the literal sense" or "in the sense that is in the primary or strict meaning of the word or words." So how is it that we've gotten to the place that "literally" can now mean "Used for emphasis while not being literally true." How did we get from "literally" meaning "literally" to now meaning "not literally"? But literally every day I hear someone say that something is literally true by which they mean it is only virtually true ... which means that it is not literally true ... like I just did here.

We have several English words with "gamy" as a suffix like "monogamy," "bigamy," or "polygamy." The suffix comes from Greek -- gamia -- and means "married." So "mono-gamy" would be "married to one" and "bi-gamy" would be "married to two" and "poly-gamy" would be "married to many." Not hard; you get the idea. Except somewhere along the way "monogamy" shifted to where it now means "The practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner." Now, that's strange, since "married sex" and "extramarital sex" has always been distinct in our historical mindset. Indeed, in our day we recognize "serial monogamy" where you have sex with lots of people ... one at a time. How did we get from "monogamy" meaning "married to only one person" to "sex with a lot of people"? Is that a product of our culture's work at redefining marriage and sexual morality? I think so.

We have in modern English a gender problem. I'm not referring to sexism or even transgender issues. I'm referring to the word. There is, technically, a distinction between "gender" and "sex" in the language. "Sex" refers to the biology of it and "gender" refers to the maleness or femaleness of a person. "Sex" refers to the genitalia and other physical differences and "gender" is about roles and appearance and such. In the language. Our problem? We haven't got a clue. We understand that almost everyone is born with one or the other sexes. Binary sex. Undeniable. You can speak of the baby's sex, for instance, as a boy or a girl at birth. In a literal sense, it's there for all to see. Gender, on the other hand, isn't as clear to us. On one hand we rant and rave that there is no difference between the genders, that gender is a social construct, that maleness and femaleness is a largely arbitrary thing. But if a biological male decides he is actually of female gender, he will always switch over to the appearance and mannerisms of a female gender ... which we just determined wasn't real. We call it "gender dysphoria" and, yet, he/she is quite clear what gender he/she really is and what roles, appearance, and mannerisms that gender should display. That, dear reader, is real confusion.

Well, look, I'm going to go with it. Sure, I could afford to lose some weight, but I've decided I'm translender. I may weigh too much, but I identify as a slender person. I have slender dysphoria, and I'll thank the doctors not to refer to me as "overweight." Right? No? Why not??! Because ... words have literal meaning and how I feel about it doesn't matter.

Deserve's Got Nothing to Do With It

(The names and people in this story are fictitious to protect the ... guilty.)

A group of friends were sharing prayer requests. One said, "Pray for my granddaughter. She feels like she doesn't deserve God's love and is very depressed." So they did. And I thought, "But ... she doesn't deserve God's love." And I became concerned that no one in the group seemed to notice. I became concerned for the group.

I get it. "Depressed" is indeed a real problem. That's one of those "demons" that doesn't come out without much prayer. I get it. I'll pray about that. On the other hand, I thought "don't deserve" was at the heart of the Gospel. I thought -- correct me if I'm wrong ... I'm just winging it here -- that "by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8-9). I thought "if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Rom 11:6). I thought "don't deserve" was at the core of grace.

To me, understanding the depths of my sin has enlarged the grace of God. He didn't have to stoop a little to save me. He didn't have to make a couple of minor corrections, a couple of adjustments, forgive a few faux pas. He needed to send His Son (Eph 2:4-5) to live a perfect life and take on Himself my sin and exchange it for His righteousness (2 Cor 5:21). For a righteous and holy God to save someone who is "deserving" or even "mostly okay" is not such a large thing. To save a wretch like me? That's huge.

I didn't pray with them that day. I prayed that God would open her eyes to the fact that she was undeserving and help her to see the vast grace that God gives to the completely undeserving of such a great love and such forgiveness and such mercy. I prayed that He would magnify Himself in her heart to give her maximum gratitude and Him maximum glory. And I prayed that the group would see it, too. Amen.

Celebrating Resurrection

I read this recently. Paul was writing to the church at Thessalonica. He wanted to reassure them about those who had died. He wanted them to know that because Jesus died and rose again, "even so, through Jesus, God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep" (1 Thess 4:14). What Paul is saying here is significant. We know that Christ died for our sins. His death demonstrated God's justice (Rom 3:23-25). That's good. We can be declared forgiven on the basis of His death on our behalf. But what about the Resurrection? Why is that important?

Paul gives an answer here. We know we're forgiven because Christ died on our behalf. What then? We know on the basis of His Resurrection that we will be with Him. We will be with Him.

It's Resurrection Sunday and we're celebrating far more than Easter bunnies and candy eggs. Sometimes, I think, we're not entirely clear on what that "far more" is. His death was important -- absolutely vital. His Resurrection is no less. To me, it is critical. Salvation is wonderful. Forgiveness is grand. His righteousness applied to my life is amazing. But to know that one day I will be with Him is my supreme delight. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it.

We celebrate our Lord's Resurrection every Sunday with special attention once a year. It's not enough. The huge significance of this event gets lost on us sometimes. I, for one, cannot wait for the day that I will be with Him -- to be like Him because we see Him as He is (1 John 3:2) -- on the basis of His Resurrection.