We have a new pastor. Just started (full time) in January. Followed immediately by COVID. Like a big, "Welcome to the church, pastor. Now, go home." Must be tough. Recently he instituted a digital Lord's Supper. "For you folks here, the elements are under your seats. For you folks watching from home, you should have prepared your elements in advance. Let's begin together ..." Now that is something new. But in the midst of it he laid down some rules. "If you are a baptized member in good standing, you may participate." Mind you, this is a baptist church. So, on one hand, I don't suspect the "baptized" caveat would be a surprise. On the other hand, baptist churches don't generally hold to a "closed communion." Generally they do a "self-check" kind of thing. "You need to be right with God to do this. Take a few moments to confess your sin and clear the air with God. If you can't, please don't participate." In the "closed communion" it is normal to hand that mechanism over to the leadership of the church and let them decide if you're right with God -- a "member in good standing."
Now, I wanted to ask, "Pastor, don't you have to be baptized to be a member here? Pastor, do we have members not in good standing? Are either of these an actual issue?" But I didn't. Well, I was remote, so I couldn't. But I was more concerned with this concept of making rules.
In this case, the "rule" comes from Paul's teaching on the Lord's Supper. Specifically, "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly." (1 Cor 11:27-29) It's important, that's for sure. But where is the "baptized member in good standing" in that text? Where do we go in Scripture to substitute "a man must examine himself" with "his church will examine him"? I see the reasoning for this rule -- it's important not to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord -- but I don't see the basis. It seems to be a made-up rule.
We do this a lot. Historically a segment of Christendom assured us that drinking alcohol and dancing were works of the devil even though Jesus turned water to wine and David danced before the Lord as a function of worship. Made-up rules. Most are pretty sure that smoking is a violation of Scripture although 1) finding that Scripture is unlikely and 2) if you do, I don't think you can use it to support your contention. If you understand it to mean what you're claiming it means, then it has all sorts of implications you're not willing to embrace. We do this a lot. Like Eve. "God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" (Gen 3:3) No He didn't, Eve. He said nothing about touching it. You made that up. And we love to follow her in that ... like Adam did in eating the fruit (Gen 3:6). That didn't end well.
How careful are we with our "rules"? Are they biblical or man-made. Man-made isn't always bad, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of "Thus says the Lord." How many of our demands are manufactured and how many come from God? More importantly, do we know the difference? Should we really be in the business of making stuff up when we seem to have enough instructions from God that we're happily ignoring? I'm just wondering out loud here.
Friday, August 07, 2020
Thursday, August 06, 2020
I Believe; You Must, Too
I'm exploring an idea here. Among Christians (let's keep it at legitimate, genuine believers) there are different views on different issues. There are, of course, some central things on which we all agree. They are what we call "essentials." They define "Christian" in such a way that dismissing these essentials dismisses Christianity. So, for instance, if we dismiss "Saved by grace through faith apart from works" (Eph 2:8-9), we end up with a works-based salvation that ultimately nullifies Christ's work on the cross. That's a belief, of course, but it's not Christianity. If we say, "All people are basically good" and deny that all have sinned (Rom 3:23), we are denying Christianity. If we deny that Jesus is God Incarnate, we deny Jesus's very words and we cannot be said to be "Christian" while denying who Christ is. Those are just a few examples of "essentials" and we can debate what is and is not essential, but I think we can all agree that there are some essentials on which we all agree.
My musing here is not about those essentials. My thoughts are on the rest. Awhile back I heard a pastor I generally regard as biblically sound teaching on the Rapture. He gave the ever-popular "Pre-Trib Rapture" position as his own and then declared, "It's absolutely clear and those who disagree are simply willfully ignorant, ignoring God's Word and intentionally teaching falsehoods." I was, frankly, taken aback. I happened to know that this particular preacher worked alongside with some of those who disagreed with him and he respected them for their strong adherence to Scripture. Here he was calling them out as false teachers -- intentional false teachers. Now, I'll be honest. Most matters of eschatology are not as straightforward and "set in concrete" as much of the rest of Scripture. There is a lot of metaphor and imagery and such that makes it less certain. To be completely up front, this "Pre-Trib Rapture" thing is, in actuality, fairly new on the theological market, offered in the mid-19th century. That in itself makes me ... uncomfortable. But this preacher didn't only believe in it; he believed that those who did not were in sin.
I see that a lot among us believers. I remember a website that touted itself as a "biblical discernment" site (I don't think it's around anymore). It arranged itself around various preachers and teachers. Look up the name and you'll find all their false teaching and why you should avoid them. Some was genuine false teaching, but some was stuff like "They believe in psychology" or the like. I don't think, once they were done, there was a Christian preacher or teacher left on the planet that you could trust. Why? Because everyone believed something that this site disagreed with and, therefore, were in sin, possibly even going to hell, certainly to be avoided. It's own "cancel culture."
This is not the same as "I believe ..." This is not the same as "I read this text to say X and here's why I say that." It's not even the same as, "You teach Y and I don't find that consistent with Scripture." Disagreeing on points and readings and interpretations are one thing. Damning the ones who disagree for their disagreement is another.
So, when is it appropriate and when is it not? I would say that those who deny the essentials deny the faith and need to be pointed out. Not damned, for sure. That's not our call. But pointed out clearly and even prayed for. The next question, right after we determine what the essentials are, is on the non-essentials. Is it right to "cancel" those who disagree on our particular understanding of this non-essential passage? By "cancel" I don't mean "I'm not listening to you anymore." I mean "You're in sin, possibly not even saved, likely going to hell and you have no place in Christian circles anymore" kind of canceling. Is it right or wrong for us to say, "I believe X and you must, too, if you are going to go to heaven" when X is not one of those essentials? Of course, all this begs that earlier question, doesn't it? Can we agree on essentials?
My musing here is not about those essentials. My thoughts are on the rest. Awhile back I heard a pastor I generally regard as biblically sound teaching on the Rapture. He gave the ever-popular "Pre-Trib Rapture" position as his own and then declared, "It's absolutely clear and those who disagree are simply willfully ignorant, ignoring God's Word and intentionally teaching falsehoods." I was, frankly, taken aback. I happened to know that this particular preacher worked alongside with some of those who disagreed with him and he respected them for their strong adherence to Scripture. Here he was calling them out as false teachers -- intentional false teachers. Now, I'll be honest. Most matters of eschatology are not as straightforward and "set in concrete" as much of the rest of Scripture. There is a lot of metaphor and imagery and such that makes it less certain. To be completely up front, this "Pre-Trib Rapture" thing is, in actuality, fairly new on the theological market, offered in the mid-19th century. That in itself makes me ... uncomfortable. But this preacher didn't only believe in it; he believed that those who did not were in sin.
I see that a lot among us believers. I remember a website that touted itself as a "biblical discernment" site (I don't think it's around anymore). It arranged itself around various preachers and teachers. Look up the name and you'll find all their false teaching and why you should avoid them. Some was genuine false teaching, but some was stuff like "They believe in psychology" or the like. I don't think, once they were done, there was a Christian preacher or teacher left on the planet that you could trust. Why? Because everyone believed something that this site disagreed with and, therefore, were in sin, possibly even going to hell, certainly to be avoided. It's own "cancel culture."
This is not the same as "I believe ..." This is not the same as "I read this text to say X and here's why I say that." It's not even the same as, "You teach Y and I don't find that consistent with Scripture." Disagreeing on points and readings and interpretations are one thing. Damning the ones who disagree for their disagreement is another.
So, when is it appropriate and when is it not? I would say that those who deny the essentials deny the faith and need to be pointed out. Not damned, for sure. That's not our call. But pointed out clearly and even prayed for. The next question, right after we determine what the essentials are, is on the non-essentials. Is it right to "cancel" those who disagree on our particular understanding of this non-essential passage? By "cancel" I don't mean "I'm not listening to you anymore." I mean "You're in sin, possibly not even saved, likely going to hell and you have no place in Christian circles anymore" kind of canceling. Is it right or wrong for us to say, "I believe X and you must, too, if you are going to go to heaven" when X is not one of those essentials? Of course, all this begs that earlier question, doesn't it? Can we agree on essentials?
Wednesday, August 05, 2020
A God You Can Live With
We humans are a curious lot. We are creatures, created by God. Yet, almost without exception, we believe that it is our right, our responsibility, perhaps even our duty to evaluate God and decide whether or not He meets our standards. Imagine that! We judge God. It is, of course, not rational or sane. The creatures don't have the ability let alone the right to properly evaluate the Creator. But most of us do it. "If God is like that," I've heard, "I am going to have a problem with Him." Really? Yes, that's how we think. That's typically the source of atheists, where God has let them down or made them mad, so they reject Him entirely. More of us may even be believers, perhaps even devout, but we're still thinking, "If God is like that, He's not a God I can live with." So we carefully make sure our theology excludes "that" and go on our happy way.
I'm a little bit different on this. On one hand, I try to draw my version of God from the pages of my Bible and I try to let it speak to me rather than have my preconceptions shape my view of who He is. Still, I have found a version of God about whom I would say, "That's a God I can't live with." I think, however, I mean it in a different way. Let me explain.
In a recent conversation with a friend, we were rambling through big subjects -- God's Sovereignty, God's Omniscience, God's Omnipotence ... those kinds of things. My friend was certain. God has sovereignly configured our world so that Man's free will can actually contravene God's plans. God is certainly omniscient, but He can make choices that He regrets and repents of. God is omnipotent and can do anything at all, but He will not violate Man's free will. (I capitalized "Man" simply to indicate "humans" as opposed to "males" and not to deify Man.) Those are the facts that my friend held to. No amount of Scripture would sway him. And, quite clearly, I disagree with him.
Now, logically, there are only a very few possibilities here. Perhaps neither of us is right. Maybe I'm right and he's wrong. It might be that he's right and I'm wrong. The last option -- we're both right -- is not a possibility because our views aren't divergent; they're contradictory. I know it doesn't look like it here in my blog, but I tend to be the kind of person that says, "If there's something or someone wrong, it's likely me." And I'll look to see where I made my mistake. You have the benefit of years of this approach; I've corrected an embarrassingly lot of mistaken thinking in my life, so I appear more confident, but I still prefer to approach a disagreement assuming I'm wrong before I simply discard a differing opinion from my own.
So, let's say I'm wrong here. God is not the Sovereign God I believe Him to be. If God sovereignly surrendered some of His sovereignty to human free will, He's not Sovereign. Maybe lowercase sovereign, but not absolute. The same would be true for omniscience and omnipotence. If God can know all things, past, present, and future, and regret or repent of something He's done, then His omniscience is clearly limited. He didn't see that it would be a bad choice. Omnipotence is the same. Omnipotence says that God has the power to do anything He wants. But if human free will is capable of preventing Him from doing what He wants, whether or not it's self-imposed, it is not omnipotence. It's only mostly omnipotence ... at best.
Where does that leave me? This particular God is not a God I can live with. He is sovereign, not Sovereign. Like Westley in The Princess Bride who was only "mostly dead," God is only mostly sovereign. In the end, it is Man who is finally sovereign. God plans to do this for me and, oh, look at that, that person chose not to do what God required to do this for me and, sorry, it just can't happen now. God's omniscience is faulty. He knew everything in advance and opted to do things He knew He would regret and repent from? Either He's not very bright or He just didn't actually know. And if God cannot do things that Man's free will doesn't allow Him to do, then God cannot have Omnipotence. Someone once told me in a difficult set of circumstances, "You know, the Father never intended any of that to happen." In this view of God, he would probably be right.
The implications here are staggering. I can no longer trust that "No one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" because the truth would be that I can. (My friend agreed with that.) And if I can, I have. And if I have, I cannot regain salvation (Heb 6:4-6). I can no longer have confidence that God works all things together for good (Rom 8:28) since God is limited by Man's free will and if the good He intended is denied by Man's choices, God is stuck. I cannot count on "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me" (John 14:1) because this God I'm supposed to trust to relieve my fears turns out to be too limited to trust to relieve my fears. I can only conclude that the God I was trusting to sustain me through all of life's twists and turns isn't as trustworthy as I had thought. In this case, I don't mean I reject this God. I mean that life with this God is not possible. If this is God, I am a man without hope, without joy, without peace. In a world gone crazy like ours, I need a solid Rock to stand on, and this God is not it. This is not a God I can live with, quite literally.
I admit it. Part of the reason I defend God's Sovereignty and Omniscience and Omnipotence -- all absolutes -- is because that's the only God that gives me any hope. The truth is, however, that I have not always believed in this God. I did think I could have a self-limiting God and still be okay. Then I was faced with too much Scripture to refute and too much logic to untangle to make any sense of that God. So it's a good thing that the God I need to survive is also the God I find in the pages of my Bible. I've been convinced, at times against my will, forced by clear Scripture and obvious logic and forced to conclude that God is that Sovereign, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Holy, Good God that I've come to know. Now that is a God that I can live with.
I'm a little bit different on this. On one hand, I try to draw my version of God from the pages of my Bible and I try to let it speak to me rather than have my preconceptions shape my view of who He is. Still, I have found a version of God about whom I would say, "That's a God I can't live with." I think, however, I mean it in a different way. Let me explain.
In a recent conversation with a friend, we were rambling through big subjects -- God's Sovereignty, God's Omniscience, God's Omnipotence ... those kinds of things. My friend was certain. God has sovereignly configured our world so that Man's free will can actually contravene God's plans. God is certainly omniscient, but He can make choices that He regrets and repents of. God is omnipotent and can do anything at all, but He will not violate Man's free will. (I capitalized "Man" simply to indicate "humans" as opposed to "males" and not to deify Man.) Those are the facts that my friend held to. No amount of Scripture would sway him. And, quite clearly, I disagree with him.
Now, logically, there are only a very few possibilities here. Perhaps neither of us is right. Maybe I'm right and he's wrong. It might be that he's right and I'm wrong. The last option -- we're both right -- is not a possibility because our views aren't divergent; they're contradictory. I know it doesn't look like it here in my blog, but I tend to be the kind of person that says, "If there's something or someone wrong, it's likely me." And I'll look to see where I made my mistake. You have the benefit of years of this approach; I've corrected an embarrassingly lot of mistaken thinking in my life, so I appear more confident, but I still prefer to approach a disagreement assuming I'm wrong before I simply discard a differing opinion from my own.
So, let's say I'm wrong here. God is not the Sovereign God I believe Him to be. If God sovereignly surrendered some of His sovereignty to human free will, He's not Sovereign. Maybe lowercase sovereign, but not absolute. The same would be true for omniscience and omnipotence. If God can know all things, past, present, and future, and regret or repent of something He's done, then His omniscience is clearly limited. He didn't see that it would be a bad choice. Omnipotence is the same. Omnipotence says that God has the power to do anything He wants. But if human free will is capable of preventing Him from doing what He wants, whether or not it's self-imposed, it is not omnipotence. It's only mostly omnipotence ... at best.
Where does that leave me? This particular God is not a God I can live with. He is sovereign, not Sovereign. Like Westley in The Princess Bride who was only "mostly dead," God is only mostly sovereign. In the end, it is Man who is finally sovereign. God plans to do this for me and, oh, look at that, that person chose not to do what God required to do this for me and, sorry, it just can't happen now. God's omniscience is faulty. He knew everything in advance and opted to do things He knew He would regret and repent from? Either He's not very bright or He just didn't actually know. And if God cannot do things that Man's free will doesn't allow Him to do, then God cannot have Omnipotence. Someone once told me in a difficult set of circumstances, "You know, the Father never intended any of that to happen." In this view of God, he would probably be right.
The implications here are staggering. I can no longer trust that "No one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" because the truth would be that I can. (My friend agreed with that.) And if I can, I have. And if I have, I cannot regain salvation (Heb 6:4-6). I can no longer have confidence that God works all things together for good (Rom 8:28) since God is limited by Man's free will and if the good He intended is denied by Man's choices, God is stuck. I cannot count on "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me" (John 14:1) because this God I'm supposed to trust to relieve my fears turns out to be too limited to trust to relieve my fears. I can only conclude that the God I was trusting to sustain me through all of life's twists and turns isn't as trustworthy as I had thought. In this case, I don't mean I reject this God. I mean that life with this God is not possible. If this is God, I am a man without hope, without joy, without peace. In a world gone crazy like ours, I need a solid Rock to stand on, and this God is not it. This is not a God I can live with, quite literally.
I admit it. Part of the reason I defend God's Sovereignty and Omniscience and Omnipotence -- all absolutes -- is because that's the only God that gives me any hope. The truth is, however, that I have not always believed in this God. I did think I could have a self-limiting God and still be okay. Then I was faced with too much Scripture to refute and too much logic to untangle to make any sense of that God. So it's a good thing that the God I need to survive is also the God I find in the pages of my Bible. I've been convinced, at times against my will, forced by clear Scripture and obvious logic and forced to conclude that God is that Sovereign, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Holy, Good God that I've come to know. Now that is a God that I can live with.
Tuesday, August 04, 2020
Not Ashamed
Paul boldly said, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.'" (Rom 1:16-17) We like that "I am not ashamed" thing. Bold. Brash. Good stuff. Why is Paul not ashamed of the gospel? Well, because it's the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. Good reason not to be ashamed. But how is it the power of God for salvation? Did we read that far? "In it the righteousness of God is revealed." So, Paul isn't ashamed of the gospel because it reveals God's righteousness which includes God's power to give salvation to those who believe. I think that gets the idea across.
Does it bother anyone, then, that Paul goes on to the next verse beginning with "for"? Does it disturb anyone that Paul's first sense in which the gospel reveals God's righteousness is explained in verse 18?
How? Well, in this first section of Romans Paul first reveals God's righteousness by contrasting it with our unrighteousness. "You think you're righteous (Rom 2:1)? You're not. Every one of us is completely unrighteous (Rom 3:10)." God is perfect (Rom 1:19-20) and we are ... not. Absolutely not. The gap between our "righteousness" and His is so big as to be immeasurable and, basically, outside our comprehension. (You know this is true by the way that so many try to rework Romans 3:10-18 so we don't look so bad.)
It doesn't end there (thankfully). Given this vast gap between our "righteousness" (read "none") and His (which, if you recall, is what the gospel reveals), Paul points to that gap and says, "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law ..." (Rom 3:21ff) Big. Really big. We are without any righteousness. (Rom 3:10-12) The law won't help us (Rom 3:20). "But." God's righteousness is revealed here in our justification by faith, "through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe." (Rom 3:22) The righteousness of God is revealed "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith." (Rom 3:24-25) "It was to show His righteousness at the present time, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Rom 3:26)
The good news -- the gospel -- is good news because it reveals God's righteousness. God's righteousness is best revealed first in contrast to our unrighteousness and then in the work that He has done to bridge that gap, to be both just and justifier, to make righteous the unrighteous and to save the unsavable and to apply it to all who believe -- not just Jews -- "For there is no distinction." (Rom 3:22) The good news -- the gospel -- reveals a magnitude of righteousness from God that we couldn't even imagine on our own. That's why Paul was not ashamed of it. Nor should we.
Does it bother anyone, then, that Paul goes on to the next verse beginning with "for"? Does it disturb anyone that Paul's first sense in which the gospel reveals God's righteousness is explained in verse 18?
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Rom 1:18)"Okay, hang on a minute, Paul. You're saying that the righteousness of God is revealed, first, in the wrath of God?" Yes, that's what Paul is saying. In fact, from 1:18 through 3:20 he says that. Paul uses all that space talking about "the gospel" (the good news) in terms of the absolutely worst possible news. "There is none good; no, not one." (Rom 3:12) And "By works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight." (Rom 3:20) All are under sin. No one is even remotely good. There is no hope for us to fix it. There! God's righteousness is revealed! Yeah!
How? Well, in this first section of Romans Paul first reveals God's righteousness by contrasting it with our unrighteousness. "You think you're righteous (Rom 2:1)? You're not. Every one of us is completely unrighteous (Rom 3:10)." God is perfect (Rom 1:19-20) and we are ... not. Absolutely not. The gap between our "righteousness" and His is so big as to be immeasurable and, basically, outside our comprehension. (You know this is true by the way that so many try to rework Romans 3:10-18 so we don't look so bad.)
It doesn't end there (thankfully). Given this vast gap between our "righteousness" (read "none") and His (which, if you recall, is what the gospel reveals), Paul points to that gap and says, "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law ..." (Rom 3:21ff) Big. Really big. We are without any righteousness. (Rom 3:10-12) The law won't help us (Rom 3:20). "But." God's righteousness is revealed here in our justification by faith, "through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe." (Rom 3:22) The righteousness of God is revealed "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith." (Rom 3:24-25) "It was to show His righteousness at the present time, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Rom 3:26)
The good news -- the gospel -- is good news because it reveals God's righteousness. God's righteousness is best revealed first in contrast to our unrighteousness and then in the work that He has done to bridge that gap, to be both just and justifier, to make righteous the unrighteous and to save the unsavable and to apply it to all who believe -- not just Jews -- "For there is no distinction." (Rom 3:22) The good news -- the gospel -- reveals a magnitude of righteousness from God that we couldn't even imagine on our own. That's why Paul was not ashamed of it. Nor should we.
Monday, August 03, 2020
Foolish Christians
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith — just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? (Gal 3:1-6)I know ... a lengthy quote, but we needed the entire context.
Paul, here, is a bit testy, isn't he? I mean, "O foolish Galatians" Paul? That's not very nice. So let's assume that Paul considered the concept more important than "being nice." What was the concept that pushed Paul to be more pushy? "Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" Here's the question at hand. Are we perfected as believers by a process of doing good or are we perfected as believers by the Spirit? Paul answers that by hearkening back to "How did you begin this process?" Answer: Not by works. So, he concludes, why would you think that we are sanctified by works?
Now, we're all pretty confident (and should be) that we're not saved by works. It is, after all, explicit (Eph 2:8-9). And, although works are a part of Christian living (e.g., Eph 2:10), we know that our salvation is not sustained by works ... or that would mean that we are saved by works. So far, so good.
I think, however, that we fall short on the concept in our actual day-to-day practice. While we verbalize "saved apart from works," we believe that it's up to us to work, work, work. Well, perhaps that's not fair. It is true (Php 2:12). But not for salvation. Not even for sanctification. You see, works, for a Christian, are a giant "thank you," or, as Jesus described it, an "I love you" (John 14:15). For Christians works are a product (Eph 2:10), not a procedure. How, then, are we sanctified? How are we perfected? How are we maintained in a saved state?
Jesus said, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. (John 10:27-29) In His High Priestly prayer, Jesus said, "While I was with them, I kept them in Your name." (John 17:12) He went on to ask, "I do not ask that You take them out of the world, but that You keep them from the evil one." Then, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:17)
We are, then, saved by grace through faith apart from works. While we do need to work as a response to His grace and love, we do not work to maintain His favor or our salvation or to sanctify ourselves. That was begun by the Spirit and will continue by the Spirit. We aren't protected by our hard work; we are guarded by Christ and sanctified by the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13). It's not up to us. It's not a product of our hard work, our obedience, our wisdom or learning, our church-going or relative "goodness." It is all Him and Him alone. I think that's just hard for us to accept. After all, aren't we doing okay? (Hint: No. Which is why Paul calls it foolishness.)
Sunday, August 02, 2020
Point of Reference
From Hillsong United comes a popular worship tune, So Will I. The basic idea is "If nature follows Your will, God, so will I." Creative enough. But that first verse really gets me upset.
The phrase simply suggests human perception as the critical one, because I would contend that God did have a point of reference -- Himself. He was it. He was the center. He was the point of reference from which all creation sprang. But we like to think that "point of reference" is something in the created universe, so God couldn't have one. Right?
When we make something, we (if we have any intelligence) will lay it out first. We'll plan. "This will go here and that will go there" and "here" and "there" are relative to a starting point -- a point of reference. We have to know where we're measuring from before we can determine how far away something is. We figure God had no such possibility in creation. I say He did -- Himself.
I suppose it just goes back to a critical issue in my mind. Where is the center? What is the point of reference for creation? We always tend to think it's us and in reality it is always God. Everything God does is with Himself as the point of reference.
Now, that may sound self-centered. No, in fact, it is. But the difference between our self-centered thinking and His is that ours is inaccurate and His is truth. God is the center of all things, so if He was not self-centered, He'd be lying, while if we are self-centered, it's false. Further, as God is good, all that He does is good. So even in His self-centered truth, what He does, with Himself as the point of reference, benefits us. Well, let's say that a different way. "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Rom 8:28)
We fool ourselves -- on a daily basis, I suspect -- when we think of ourselves and our perceptions as God's point of reference. We seek to be like the Most High. And we ascribe to Him our own majesty, meager as that is. God is His own point of reference. It is a perfect point of reference and orients all things, as they should be, to Him. The trick for us is getting ourselves oriented that way, too.
God of creationYes, God was at the start before the beginning of time (which, by the way, seems contradictory, since "before" suggests "time", but, hey, it's all confusing, so I won't push it). Yes, He spoke to the nothing and light came into existence. It's this one phrase that frosts me: "With no point of reference."
There at the start
Before the beginning of time
With no point of reference
You spoke to the dark
And fleshed out the wonder of light
The phrase simply suggests human perception as the critical one, because I would contend that God did have a point of reference -- Himself. He was it. He was the center. He was the point of reference from which all creation sprang. But we like to think that "point of reference" is something in the created universe, so God couldn't have one. Right?
When we make something, we (if we have any intelligence) will lay it out first. We'll plan. "This will go here and that will go there" and "here" and "there" are relative to a starting point -- a point of reference. We have to know where we're measuring from before we can determine how far away something is. We figure God had no such possibility in creation. I say He did -- Himself.
I suppose it just goes back to a critical issue in my mind. Where is the center? What is the point of reference for creation? We always tend to think it's us and in reality it is always God. Everything God does is with Himself as the point of reference.
Now, that may sound self-centered. No, in fact, it is. But the difference between our self-centered thinking and His is that ours is inaccurate and His is truth. God is the center of all things, so if He was not self-centered, He'd be lying, while if we are self-centered, it's false. Further, as God is good, all that He does is good. So even in His self-centered truth, what He does, with Himself as the point of reference, benefits us. Well, let's say that a different way. "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Rom 8:28)
We fool ourselves -- on a daily basis, I suspect -- when we think of ourselves and our perceptions as God's point of reference. We seek to be like the Most High. And we ascribe to Him our own majesty, meager as that is. God is His own point of reference. It is a perfect point of reference and orients all things, as they should be, to Him. The trick for us is getting ourselves oriented that way, too.
Saturday, August 01, 2020
News Weakly - 8/1/20
SCOTUS v 1st Amendment?
It looks like the Supreme Court of the U.S. has opted to vote down the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. In Nevada, a casino or a restaurant is allowed to operate at 50% capacity, but churches can only allow 50 people. It looks a lot like inconsistent ruling against the church. Oh, and in case you were wondering, "Wonder Conservative Judge" John Roberts voted with the liberal judges to impose limits on religious groups over entertainment venues. In case you were thinking, "We need more conservative judges!!"
Welcome to D.C. Now go home.
Washington D.C. has imposed an additional restriction on travelers from "high-risk" areas. If you are from one of those and you intend to visit Washington, you will need to plan an additional 2 weeks for quarantine. Of course, if you're a lawmaker you're exempt because, after all, what self-respecting virus would want to be in that container? It is nonsense like that exception that makes you realize that "Science" is not the god they like to think it is. "Whatever we say is true" is.
Learning Disability
Time and again we've seen this concept repeated. Give people money, and they will not work. Over and over. If people are going to receive "free money" -- money they don't actually earn -- then getting them to go to work is nearly impossible. We're seeing it now with this "economic stimulus" package we've been under. People who suddenly got pay raises by getting laid off in this crisis are saying, "Me? Go back to work?? No way." Now the White House wants to cut the payment to "70% of prior wages" and Pelosi is outraged. In the Democrat mind, the way you stimulate the economy is you stop as many workers from desiring to work at all. That way they'll be completely on the government dole for life and you get all the power in government. That's not a good thing; that's a learning disability -- failing to learn from history.
Relief from COVID Worries
We're all worried that COVID-19 will be the end of America as we know it. Putin is saying not to worry. "Ending America as we know it is our job." They're arming first-strike naval vessels with unstoppable hypersonic nuclear weapons. For peaceful purposes, of course! Don't worry about viruses. Don't worry about election tampering. Putin clearly looks like he's planning for war.
Not News
It took a government study to figure out that if we wear masks, it ruins facial recognition algorithms. I wonder how much time and money was spent on a study that a moment's consideration could have figured out.
What's Fair is Fair
New York Police are on the defensive because of an "indefensible" and "abusive" act of arresting a woman wanted for damaging police cameras (5 times) and putting her in an unmarked vehicle and getting pelted with rocks and bottles for doing their job. Now, the arrest was made by uniformed officers and the van was surrounded by "NYPD bicycle cops in bright yellow and blue uniform shirts," but police should never be allowed to be unmarked. We need to insure that all police and police vehicles have bright lights and colorful markings -- preferably with clown noses -- because how else will criminals know they're coming? Sheesh! Simple logic.
Not News; Just Sharing
This is not a news item. I just wanted to share an article here that I wanted to say and he did it first: How to Respond to Social Media Enemies. Well done.
Maybe Just a Full-Head Plastic Bag?
Dr. Fauci now recommends wearing goggles or eye shields along with the masks to protect yourself from the virus. There is, oddly enough, not one single picture anywhere I could find of Dr. Fauci wearing goggles or eye shields. There are precious few of him even wearing a mask. I don't suppose this is because Dr. Fauci doesn't practice what he preaches, is it? When people don't act on what they say they believe, I question what they actually believe.
Bad Ol' President
Trump was at it again. He wanted to screen green card applicants to eliminate those who might become dependent on public benefits during the current emergency. The courts blocked him. You can't have a "wealth test" for entry. Of course, if you ever travel into Canada from the U.S. you will find they routinely ask at the border if you have enough money to get through your trip because they don't want you to come in if you might become dependent on public benefits in Canada, but that's okay for them, not us. Mind you, I don't think it's okay for us. I'm only pointing out the double standard. We complain about Trump; Canada is okay.
Jesus and MacArthur
You may have heard about John MacArthur and his declaration that he and his church plan to defy the California ban on meeting and singing in church. Turns out, he's not alone. Apparently, Jesus is still planning to assemble a great multitude from every tribe, tongue, and nation despite the ban on large gatherings.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet. (Oh, and in this case, the Bible.)
It looks like the Supreme Court of the U.S. has opted to vote down the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. In Nevada, a casino or a restaurant is allowed to operate at 50% capacity, but churches can only allow 50 people. It looks a lot like inconsistent ruling against the church. Oh, and in case you were wondering, "Wonder Conservative Judge" John Roberts voted with the liberal judges to impose limits on religious groups over entertainment venues. In case you were thinking, "We need more conservative judges!!"
Welcome to D.C. Now go home.
Washington D.C. has imposed an additional restriction on travelers from "high-risk" areas. If you are from one of those and you intend to visit Washington, you will need to plan an additional 2 weeks for quarantine. Of course, if you're a lawmaker you're exempt because, after all, what self-respecting virus would want to be in that container? It is nonsense like that exception that makes you realize that "Science" is not the god they like to think it is. "Whatever we say is true" is.
Learning Disability
Time and again we've seen this concept repeated. Give people money, and they will not work. Over and over. If people are going to receive "free money" -- money they don't actually earn -- then getting them to go to work is nearly impossible. We're seeing it now with this "economic stimulus" package we've been under. People who suddenly got pay raises by getting laid off in this crisis are saying, "Me? Go back to work?? No way." Now the White House wants to cut the payment to "70% of prior wages" and Pelosi is outraged. In the Democrat mind, the way you stimulate the economy is you stop as many workers from desiring to work at all. That way they'll be completely on the government dole for life and you get all the power in government. That's not a good thing; that's a learning disability -- failing to learn from history.
Relief from COVID Worries
We're all worried that COVID-19 will be the end of America as we know it. Putin is saying not to worry. "Ending America as we know it is our job." They're arming first-strike naval vessels with unstoppable hypersonic nuclear weapons. For peaceful purposes, of course! Don't worry about viruses. Don't worry about election tampering. Putin clearly looks like he's planning for war.
Not News
It took a government study to figure out that if we wear masks, it ruins facial recognition algorithms. I wonder how much time and money was spent on a study that a moment's consideration could have figured out.
What's Fair is Fair
New York Police are on the defensive because of an "indefensible" and "abusive" act of arresting a woman wanted for damaging police cameras (5 times) and putting her in an unmarked vehicle and getting pelted with rocks and bottles for doing their job. Now, the arrest was made by uniformed officers and the van was surrounded by "NYPD bicycle cops in bright yellow and blue uniform shirts," but police should never be allowed to be unmarked. We need to insure that all police and police vehicles have bright lights and colorful markings -- preferably with clown noses -- because how else will criminals know they're coming? Sheesh! Simple logic.
Not News; Just Sharing
This is not a news item. I just wanted to share an article here that I wanted to say and he did it first: How to Respond to Social Media Enemies. Well done.
Maybe Just a Full-Head Plastic Bag?
Dr. Fauci now recommends wearing goggles or eye shields along with the masks to protect yourself from the virus. There is, oddly enough, not one single picture anywhere I could find of Dr. Fauci wearing goggles or eye shields. There are precious few of him even wearing a mask. I don't suppose this is because Dr. Fauci doesn't practice what he preaches, is it? When people don't act on what they say they believe, I question what they actually believe.
Bad Ol' President
Trump was at it again. He wanted to screen green card applicants to eliminate those who might become dependent on public benefits during the current emergency. The courts blocked him. You can't have a "wealth test" for entry. Of course, if you ever travel into Canada from the U.S. you will find they routinely ask at the border if you have enough money to get through your trip because they don't want you to come in if you might become dependent on public benefits in Canada, but that's okay for them, not us. Mind you, I don't think it's okay for us. I'm only pointing out the double standard. We complain about Trump; Canada is okay.
Jesus and MacArthur
You may have heard about John MacArthur and his declaration that he and his church plan to defy the California ban on meeting and singing in church. Turns out, he's not alone. Apparently, Jesus is still planning to assemble a great multitude from every tribe, tongue, and nation despite the ban on large gatherings.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet. (Oh, and in this case, the Bible.)
Friday, July 31, 2020
An Open Letter to Evangelicals
Dear Self-proclaimed "Evangelicals,"
Stop it!
The term, "Evangelical," has a meaning. Evangelicalism was started in response to fundamentalism which was started in response to liberalism. Fundamentalism was okay at the start but veered off into some far out directions. So the Evangelical concept kicked in. Evangelicals stressed conversion -- that people need to be transformed by being born again -- and biblicism -- a high regard for and obedience to the Bible -- and activism, especially in missionary endeavors, but also social reform, and, finally, "crucicentrism" -- the centrality of the cross of Christ. "Evangelical" has become a meaningless word. Like liberalism and fundamentalism and even catholicism before it, evangelicalism has drifted off into pointlessness. "We are definitely confident that you must be born again, but we won't stand on that and we won't be judgmental about it and, look, you can probably get to heaven in a number of ways." "We affirm the Bible! Except, of course, where we disagree with it. Then we're right and it's wrong." "Oh, activism? Yes, definitely! Well, maybe not over missionary work and maybe only in the current liberal agenda of social reform." "As for keeping the cross central, we do, but surely that's too narrow-minded and exclusive." And "evangelicalism" vanishes in a puff of smoke.
Now we have so-called "Evangelicals" campaigning for Trump. First, what does "Evangelical" and "campaigning for" any candidate have to do with each other? Standing for Christ and lobbying for politicians don't go together. An Evangelical could, perhaps, lobby for a politician, but not on the basis of being an Evangelical. Nothing in that original definition includes politics. Worse, you claim, "I'm getting out the vote for Trump in the name of Jesus." Have you heard the man? Do you not recall his own claims to sexual immorality, or his nonsensical (at best) tweets? Have you not seen him willingly dismantle attempts to make the planet better (something God commissioned humans to do) in favor of big business? In what world is Donald Trump a "good, moral guy" that should receive the commendation and support of anyone worth bearing the name "Evangelical"?
So, please, Evangelicals, stop. Do you want to campaign for Donald? By all means, do so. Just don't bring Christ into this. Just leave the "Evangelical" name at home when you do. Stop. Stop ditching the basics of evangelicalism and calling it "Evangelical." Ditch the basics if you want, but stop calling it that. Our world has decided to hijack so much of what we believe and value to mean something we don't. So "love" and "marriage" and "moral" and (most recently) "sex," for instance, have been stolen, twisted to mean something new, then reapplied to our foreheads as if we believed them in their new sense. Stop doing that, Evangelicals. You're not helping. The name of God is blasphemed among the unbelievers because of you. Please, just stop.
Stop it!
The term, "Evangelical," has a meaning. Evangelicalism was started in response to fundamentalism which was started in response to liberalism. Fundamentalism was okay at the start but veered off into some far out directions. So the Evangelical concept kicked in. Evangelicals stressed conversion -- that people need to be transformed by being born again -- and biblicism -- a high regard for and obedience to the Bible -- and activism, especially in missionary endeavors, but also social reform, and, finally, "crucicentrism" -- the centrality of the cross of Christ. "Evangelical" has become a meaningless word. Like liberalism and fundamentalism and even catholicism before it, evangelicalism has drifted off into pointlessness. "We are definitely confident that you must be born again, but we won't stand on that and we won't be judgmental about it and, look, you can probably get to heaven in a number of ways." "We affirm the Bible! Except, of course, where we disagree with it. Then we're right and it's wrong." "Oh, activism? Yes, definitely! Well, maybe not over missionary work and maybe only in the current liberal agenda of social reform." "As for keeping the cross central, we do, but surely that's too narrow-minded and exclusive." And "evangelicalism" vanishes in a puff of smoke.
Now we have so-called "Evangelicals" campaigning for Trump. First, what does "Evangelical" and "campaigning for" any candidate have to do with each other? Standing for Christ and lobbying for politicians don't go together. An Evangelical could, perhaps, lobby for a politician, but not on the basis of being an Evangelical. Nothing in that original definition includes politics. Worse, you claim, "I'm getting out the vote for Trump in the name of Jesus." Have you heard the man? Do you not recall his own claims to sexual immorality, or his nonsensical (at best) tweets? Have you not seen him willingly dismantle attempts to make the planet better (something God commissioned humans to do) in favor of big business? In what world is Donald Trump a "good, moral guy" that should receive the commendation and support of anyone worth bearing the name "Evangelical"?
So, please, Evangelicals, stop. Do you want to campaign for Donald? By all means, do so. Just don't bring Christ into this. Just leave the "Evangelical" name at home when you do. Stop. Stop ditching the basics of evangelicalism and calling it "Evangelical." Ditch the basics if you want, but stop calling it that. Our world has decided to hijack so much of what we believe and value to mean something we don't. So "love" and "marriage" and "moral" and (most recently) "sex," for instance, have been stolen, twisted to mean something new, then reapplied to our foreheads as if we believed them in their new sense. Stop doing that, Evangelicals. You're not helping. The name of God is blasphemed among the unbelievers because of you. Please, just stop.
Thursday, July 30, 2020
Motivated
Scripture is not silent on the subject of corporal punishment. Despite all that modern "science" tells us, the Bible is in favor of corporal punishment (Prov 10:13; Prov 13:24; Prov 22:15; Prov 23:13-14; Prov 26:3; Isa 30:31; Lam 3:1; etc.). In fact, Scripture says that God practices it (Heb 12:3-11). So where is the discrepancy? Why does "science" (I put this one in quotes because the "science" we're considering is psychology, and most scientists will tell you that's not science.) disagree with God? I believe the problem is what's behind the punishment. Most parents punish their kids at any given moment out of anger or embarrassment or irritation rather than out of love. They want the child to stop doing what they are doing. Bill Cosby used to joke (back when we were allowed to think he was funny) that parents don't want justice; they want peace.
So how would corporal punishment look if it was administered with the motivation of love rather than retribution or our typical, self-serving motives? It would look a lot more measured, a lot more restrained, a lot more principled, a lot more forgiving, a lot more caring. But the simple fact that so few today can even envision the concept of pain and love commingled tells us that love -- the biblical kind, at least -- is not in vogue. It is, in fact, a largely foreign concept to us.
That's what makes Peter's statement so hard to follow.
"Above all." There is no higher command, no higher calling, no higher motivation. Love. We are told to do lots of things, but love is the highest. It ought to be the motivation for everything we do rather than an unknown entity or a fuzzy affection.
"Keep loving one another earnestly." Continuous present tense, an ongoing action. Keep doing it all the time. Doing what? Not just loving one another; loving in earnest. Literally, loving with intent, earnestly, eagerly, with resolve, with purpose, with determination.
Why? "Love covers a multitude of sins." Now that one should give us pause. "Love overlooks sins"? No. "Love covers sins up"? No. Love "does not take into account a wrong suffered." (1 Cor 13:5) Love, in short, forgives. Now, that's not, "Don't worry about it." That's "That was wrong, but I'll pay the price myself." Like Christ did. Love, then, sees the things done against me, acknowledges them, and sets them aside so as not to get in the way of me loving them. It doesn't demand settlement. It pushes past injury. It seeks the best for the loved one.
Like that. Love like that. Choose to love like that -- continuously and with intent, setting aside wrongs done to love more. Whether it's in raising children or loving a spouse or loving fellow believers or pursuing unbelievers with the Gospel or ... wherever you are placed to love others. Always for their best. Never about you. Make love your primary and preferably your sole motivation -- love for God and love for those around you. At least, that's the plan. Now, if only we can figure out that "love" isn't just that warm-but-fleeting affection we're so enamored with.
So how would corporal punishment look if it was administered with the motivation of love rather than retribution or our typical, self-serving motives? It would look a lot more measured, a lot more restrained, a lot more principled, a lot more forgiving, a lot more caring. But the simple fact that so few today can even envision the concept of pain and love commingled tells us that love -- the biblical kind, at least -- is not in vogue. It is, in fact, a largely foreign concept to us.
That's what makes Peter's statement so hard to follow.
Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8)On the surface it seems easy, but dig in, and you'll see it's not.
"Above all." There is no higher command, no higher calling, no higher motivation. Love. We are told to do lots of things, but love is the highest. It ought to be the motivation for everything we do rather than an unknown entity or a fuzzy affection.
"Keep loving one another earnestly." Continuous present tense, an ongoing action. Keep doing it all the time. Doing what? Not just loving one another; loving in earnest. Literally, loving with intent, earnestly, eagerly, with resolve, with purpose, with determination.
Why? "Love covers a multitude of sins." Now that one should give us pause. "Love overlooks sins"? No. "Love covers sins up"? No. Love "does not take into account a wrong suffered." (1 Cor 13:5) Love, in short, forgives. Now, that's not, "Don't worry about it." That's "That was wrong, but I'll pay the price myself." Like Christ did. Love, then, sees the things done against me, acknowledges them, and sets them aside so as not to get in the way of me loving them. It doesn't demand settlement. It pushes past injury. It seeks the best for the loved one.
Like that. Love like that. Choose to love like that -- continuously and with intent, setting aside wrongs done to love more. Whether it's in raising children or loving a spouse or loving fellow believers or pursuing unbelievers with the Gospel or ... wherever you are placed to love others. Always for their best. Never about you. Make love your primary and preferably your sole motivation -- love for God and love for those around you. At least, that's the plan. Now, if only we can figure out that "love" isn't just that warm-but-fleeting affection we're so enamored with.
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
It's Just Not That Bad
Sure, sure, we know. People do bad things. You know, "To err is human." Our own saying. But as almost every religion on the planet will tell you, it's just not that bad. As long as your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds in the end, you'll be okay. We find this concept denied on one hand and supported on the other when it comes to Christianity. Sure, we know that "All have sinned" and "The wages of sin is death," but, look, how bad can it be if God can just forgive it all? What's the big deal?
We have a problem with definitions here. First, we think of "sin" as a faux pas, a boo-boo, an embarrassing blunder, perhaps. Scripture considers it a transgression of the Most High and to violate the glory of the Most High deserves the ultimate penalty -- eternal death. Then we think that "forgive" means "to make little of." That's what we do, right? "Please, forgive me." "Oh, don't even think about it. It was nothing. No harm, no foul." Except that's not what we find in Scripture.
In Isaiah 6 we see God's prophet of the day, Isaiah, encountering God. Get that? God's designated mouthpiece meets God. This should be good, right? Isaiah describes the scene with the robe and the smoke and the seraphim crying, "Holy, holy, holy." (Isa 6:1-4) And Isaiah is terrified. Scholars tell us the language of his response is the unraveling of a person. "Woe is me! For I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" (Isa 6:5) Isaiah was coming apart in terror from being in the presence of the Holy One and not being holy himself. And God came down and patted his head and said, "Don't worry, little man. It was nothing. No harm, no foul." No, wait, rewind that. He did no such thing. No, God came down to the groveling prophet and thundered, "Grovel, you worm! Be afraid; be very afraid!" Okay, no, not that either. He neither minimized nor expanded the sin. Instead, "One of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: 'Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.'" (Isa 6:6-7)
God did not minimize Isaiah's sin. God did not squash him on the spot. God recognized that it was sin and atoned for it. He dealt with it.
Sin is no small deal. It exceeds our capacity to correct. It puts us under God's just wrath. It's a big deal, just as Isaiah rightly recognized. Forgiveness is not a dismissal of sin. It's taking it on yourself, assuming the payment, relieving the transgressor of guilt. It is exactly what Christ did for us on the cross. That is certainly not minimalism. We should have a more robust understanding of sin, its cost, and its remedy. Because he who is forgiven much loves much (Luke 7:47).
We have a problem with definitions here. First, we think of "sin" as a faux pas, a boo-boo, an embarrassing blunder, perhaps. Scripture considers it a transgression of the Most High and to violate the glory of the Most High deserves the ultimate penalty -- eternal death. Then we think that "forgive" means "to make little of." That's what we do, right? "Please, forgive me." "Oh, don't even think about it. It was nothing. No harm, no foul." Except that's not what we find in Scripture.
In Isaiah 6 we see God's prophet of the day, Isaiah, encountering God. Get that? God's designated mouthpiece meets God. This should be good, right? Isaiah describes the scene with the robe and the smoke and the seraphim crying, "Holy, holy, holy." (Isa 6:1-4) And Isaiah is terrified. Scholars tell us the language of his response is the unraveling of a person. "Woe is me! For I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" (Isa 6:5) Isaiah was coming apart in terror from being in the presence of the Holy One and not being holy himself. And God came down and patted his head and said, "Don't worry, little man. It was nothing. No harm, no foul." No, wait, rewind that. He did no such thing. No, God came down to the groveling prophet and thundered, "Grovel, you worm! Be afraid; be very afraid!" Okay, no, not that either. He neither minimized nor expanded the sin. Instead, "One of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: 'Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.'" (Isa 6:6-7)
God did not minimize Isaiah's sin. God did not squash him on the spot. God recognized that it was sin and atoned for it. He dealt with it.
Sin is no small deal. It exceeds our capacity to correct. It puts us under God's just wrath. It's a big deal, just as Isaiah rightly recognized. Forgiveness is not a dismissal of sin. It's taking it on yourself, assuming the payment, relieving the transgressor of guilt. It is exactly what Christ did for us on the cross. That is certainly not minimalism. We should have a more robust understanding of sin, its cost, and its remedy. Because he who is forgiven much loves much (Luke 7:47).
Tuesday, July 28, 2020
Think Bigger
I have worked with real engineers, smart folk who design complex things to do complex things all by themselves. So it always amuses me when they focus so much attention on building "this" without the slightest consideration of how it will work with "that" ... which it needs to work at all. It's called "linear thinking." They don't "look around." They don't consider all of the environment, all of the system. They do their task. And they do it well. But, of course, it doesn't work because they didn't consider it all.
We think too small. Most of the time our "think radius" is not much wider than our outspread arms ... almost literally. You see it in drivers who cut you off on the freeway because they weren't even taking you into account. You see it in people that block grocery aisles to find that one thing they desire while everyone else backs up behind them. You see it with people with smartphones ... well, almost all the time. So engrossed in that small rectangle that nothing else matters.
We need to think bigger. We need to look around us. We need to consider the ramifications of our choices. We need to think about how this option will affect that person and that option will affect all those others and not just me (Php 2:3-4). We need to take into account customers and friends and family and fellow church members and ... people everywhere, it seems. Not just ourselves.
We need to think even bigger. This world is not our home. Jesus said, "You are not of the world." (John 15:19) So why are we thinking about nothing but this world? Why are we worrying about what others will think when we obey Christ or stand for the Truth (with a capital "T")? Why are we working hard for that next latte when there are eternal things to tend to? Why are we evaluating ourselves and others by the world's standards when we have so much more?
Oh, we need to think bigger. Not just the left turn we need to make without cutting off other drivers. We need to have an eternal view in a crowd of earth-bound people who can't see past their own noses. Think bigger.
We think too small. Most of the time our "think radius" is not much wider than our outspread arms ... almost literally. You see it in drivers who cut you off on the freeway because they weren't even taking you into account. You see it in people that block grocery aisles to find that one thing they desire while everyone else backs up behind them. You see it with people with smartphones ... well, almost all the time. So engrossed in that small rectangle that nothing else matters.
We need to think bigger. We need to look around us. We need to consider the ramifications of our choices. We need to think about how this option will affect that person and that option will affect all those others and not just me (Php 2:3-4). We need to take into account customers and friends and family and fellow church members and ... people everywhere, it seems. Not just ourselves.
We need to think even bigger. This world is not our home. Jesus said, "You are not of the world." (John 15:19) So why are we thinking about nothing but this world? Why are we worrying about what others will think when we obey Christ or stand for the Truth (with a capital "T")? Why are we working hard for that next latte when there are eternal things to tend to? Why are we evaluating ourselves and others by the world's standards when we have so much more?
Oh, we need to think bigger. Not just the left turn we need to make without cutting off other drivers. We need to have an eternal view in a crowd of earth-bound people who can't see past their own noses. Think bigger.
Monday, July 27, 2020
Unclear on the Concept
It seems like every day we have a new record for COVID-19. A new daily high. A new demographic. New deaths. The numbers just keep going up. I had to use the Walmart bathroom the other day. You have to wait in line to get into the store because of COVID precautions. They have markers everywhere -- "Stay 6' apart." You have to wear a mask. In the bathroom they logically removed the paper towels to avoid contact transfer ... and left the air dryers so you could blow that stuff all over the room. Unclear on the concept.
We're all running around careful and cautious and completely confused. Take gloves. What are they for? Gloves provide a barrier between your hands and the outside world. They do not prevent the outside of your gloves from picking up any viruses laying about. Nor do they keep you from touching your face with said viruses. Nor do they keep fast food workers from spreading said viruses to the food packaging they just prepared for you ... meticulously with gloves to keep you safe. Only they don't. And we have a false sense of security because "She wore gloves when she served us."
Take the COVID prevention measure, "Don't touch your face." Do you have any idea how many times a day you touch your face? Of course you don't. Because we do it unconsciously. By reflex. Scratch an itch. Brush away a hair or a bug. Adjust our glasses. One study said the average person touches their face 3,000 times a day. A recent report in March said that medical professionals touched their faces an average of 19 times in a 2 hour period. I mean, sure, it's a no-brainer. Don't touch your face. But just try to comply.
Take masks. Seriously. I mean, take masks seriously. The primary purpose of wearing masks is not to keep you from inhaling someone else's viruses. They're not that good. And you have too many gaps to prevent them from coming around. They might filter some, but that's not the primary point. The primary point is that your nose and mouth are covered so that any particles leaving your nose and mouth will be stopped at your mask. Yes, close to your face. That's okay; it's coming from you anyway. Your microdroplets of spittle infested (theoretically) with coronavirus will be caught in the face covering before it departs and others will be safe. It doesn't work in reverse very well because, as it turns out, the virus itself is smaller than almost all mask holes on the market. Only the N95 or better is small enough. But for those to be effective in protecting you, they would have to be fitted to eliminate gaps, and they're begging us not to buy those, but to leave them for medical people. Fair enough. So if you want to keep yourself from being infected, all you have to do is wear one of those hazmat-type body suits where you're completely enclosed with your own oxygen supply and all that. Oh, you have one of those? Good! Except when you go to get out of it, be careful. The outside is possibly infested. Oh, you don't have one of those? Too bad. That cloth face mask isn't going to protect you. It was never intended to.
Understand what I'm saying. They're not pointless. They're fairly effective for others around you. They are helpful especially because so many COVID carriers are asymptomatic and never even become symptomatic. Because, as it turns out, this virus is much more benign to the everyday everyman who is generally healthy than we've been led to believe. But that's because we are unclear on the concept. Unclear on the reporting methods. Unclear on the reports' purposes. Unclear on the danger or lack thereof. Unclear on the impact of being unclear. Do nothing? No! Wear your mask for the sake of others. Wash your hands often for your own sake. Do what you can to avoid touching your face. But you have to know that quarantining yourself with other people and doing all these masks and gloves and such -- all good things to do -- still don't put you out of harm's way. That's not in your purview. You'll have to find Help elsewhere.
We're all running around careful and cautious and completely confused. Take gloves. What are they for? Gloves provide a barrier between your hands and the outside world. They do not prevent the outside of your gloves from picking up any viruses laying about. Nor do they keep you from touching your face with said viruses. Nor do they keep fast food workers from spreading said viruses to the food packaging they just prepared for you ... meticulously with gloves to keep you safe. Only they don't. And we have a false sense of security because "She wore gloves when she served us."
Take the COVID prevention measure, "Don't touch your face." Do you have any idea how many times a day you touch your face? Of course you don't. Because we do it unconsciously. By reflex. Scratch an itch. Brush away a hair or a bug. Adjust our glasses. One study said the average person touches their face 3,000 times a day. A recent report in March said that medical professionals touched their faces an average of 19 times in a 2 hour period. I mean, sure, it's a no-brainer. Don't touch your face. But just try to comply.
Take masks. Seriously. I mean, take masks seriously. The primary purpose of wearing masks is not to keep you from inhaling someone else's viruses. They're not that good. And you have too many gaps to prevent them from coming around. They might filter some, but that's not the primary point. The primary point is that your nose and mouth are covered so that any particles leaving your nose and mouth will be stopped at your mask. Yes, close to your face. That's okay; it's coming from you anyway. Your microdroplets of spittle infested (theoretically) with coronavirus will be caught in the face covering before it departs and others will be safe. It doesn't work in reverse very well because, as it turns out, the virus itself is smaller than almost all mask holes on the market. Only the N95 or better is small enough. But for those to be effective in protecting you, they would have to be fitted to eliminate gaps, and they're begging us not to buy those, but to leave them for medical people. Fair enough. So if you want to keep yourself from being infected, all you have to do is wear one of those hazmat-type body suits where you're completely enclosed with your own oxygen supply and all that. Oh, you have one of those? Good! Except when you go to get out of it, be careful. The outside is possibly infested. Oh, you don't have one of those? Too bad. That cloth face mask isn't going to protect you. It was never intended to.
Understand what I'm saying. They're not pointless. They're fairly effective for others around you. They are helpful especially because so many COVID carriers are asymptomatic and never even become symptomatic. Because, as it turns out, this virus is much more benign to the everyday everyman who is generally healthy than we've been led to believe. But that's because we are unclear on the concept. Unclear on the reporting methods. Unclear on the reports' purposes. Unclear on the danger or lack thereof. Unclear on the impact of being unclear. Do nothing? No! Wear your mask for the sake of others. Wash your hands often for your own sake. Do what you can to avoid touching your face. But you have to know that quarantining yourself with other people and doing all these masks and gloves and such -- all good things to do -- still don't put you out of harm's way. That's not in your purview. You'll have to find Help elsewhere.
Sunday, July 26, 2020
God Wins Every Time
We had a dear friend from church. She was an elderly lady and many of these elderly ladies have a lifetime of tales to tell about their walk with the Lord. You know the kind. There is something more precious, more real, more gripping about their love for Jesus because they've lived it so long, cemented it with more experience, sealed it with more practice. And it is reflected in their love for others.
Well, one day quite recently she -- let's call her Ellie -- tried to log into the Zoom Life Group gathering. Ellie was about to ask for prayer when she made some strange remarks and dropped out. Not long thereafter we found out that she had had a potential stroke. Days later she came home from the hospital without a stroke. Instead, the doctor found a brain tumor. Not only that, a terminal brain tumor. Only months to live.
Well, Ellie was really something to see. She perked right up. Aches and pains and worries about her weight or her sore joints were gone. She saw clearly that she had nothing to lose but the chance to glorify God by sharing Christ with anyone who would listen. "Let me tell you about my Jesus." She was slowed physically by the rascally tumor (which she named), but she wasn't deterred emotionally or spiritually. She was on a mission to share her love for Christ with anyone and everyone, believers and unbelievers alike.
It has been a few months now and a day after we had dinner with her we received word that Ellie was in distress. The tumor was affecting her motor skills and her memory and was confusing her. It was painful to watch. It was kind of like watching one of those TV series named for your favorite doctor or cop character or whatever. He finds himself in dire straits. Even at risk of death. Oh, no, the bad stuff is happening! And you feel tense about it. Oh, it's foolish, of course. If the character were to die, the show would be over. That won't happen. So you take the scary ride even though you know how it comes out.
We knew how this would come out. Ellie would go home to be with her precious Savior. She did just that Saturday morning. It would have been fun if she were to have had that tumor healed. But it didn't matter. God wins. Every time. No matter what. So we took the scary ride and we held our breath. We wept with her as she wept and we prayed for her in her difficult moments. And we waited to see what God would do. We walked with her through the valley of death fearing no evil. Because God wins every time. He won, again, yesterday morning, when He called Ellie to her eternal reward. We will miss you, dear sister.
Well, one day quite recently she -- let's call her Ellie -- tried to log into the Zoom Life Group gathering. Ellie was about to ask for prayer when she made some strange remarks and dropped out. Not long thereafter we found out that she had had a potential stroke. Days later she came home from the hospital without a stroke. Instead, the doctor found a brain tumor. Not only that, a terminal brain tumor. Only months to live.
Well, Ellie was really something to see. She perked right up. Aches and pains and worries about her weight or her sore joints were gone. She saw clearly that she had nothing to lose but the chance to glorify God by sharing Christ with anyone who would listen. "Let me tell you about my Jesus." She was slowed physically by the rascally tumor (which she named), but she wasn't deterred emotionally or spiritually. She was on a mission to share her love for Christ with anyone and everyone, believers and unbelievers alike.
It has been a few months now and a day after we had dinner with her we received word that Ellie was in distress. The tumor was affecting her motor skills and her memory and was confusing her. It was painful to watch. It was kind of like watching one of those TV series named for your favorite doctor or cop character or whatever. He finds himself in dire straits. Even at risk of death. Oh, no, the bad stuff is happening! And you feel tense about it. Oh, it's foolish, of course. If the character were to die, the show would be over. That won't happen. So you take the scary ride even though you know how it comes out.
We knew how this would come out. Ellie would go home to be with her precious Savior. She did just that Saturday morning. It would have been fun if she were to have had that tumor healed. But it didn't matter. God wins. Every time. No matter what. So we took the scary ride and we held our breath. We wept with her as she wept and we prayed for her in her difficult moments. And we waited to see what God would do. We walked with her through the valley of death fearing no evil. Because God wins every time. He won, again, yesterday morning, when He called Ellie to her eternal reward. We will miss you, dear sister.
Saturday, July 25, 2020
News Weakly - 7/25/20
How to Win Friends and Influence Voters
According to Business Insider, "Joe Biden has said four Black women are among those being vetted to be his vice president." I would think that would be a no-brainer after his mind-numbing, "You ain't black if you don't vote for me" comment. On the other hand, the Democratic party has been the anti-black party since the 19th century and that hasn't stopped black people from being on board, so ...
Mean Ol' Israelis
Israel reportedly launched a missile strike at Syria and killed 5 "Iran-backed fighters." Mean ol' Israel. Killing people for no good reason. Just because Syria and Iran favor the total annihilation of Israel is no reason to be shooting at ... what was the term ... oh, yeah, "Iran-backed fighters." Why is mean ol' Israel shooting at peace-loving Syria and their "Iran-backed" pals? (And it's interesting that while the reports say Damascus was targeted, there were no reports of civilian injuries.)
Because We Say So
Whole Foods has been sued by workers who wanted to wear BLM face masks at work and were told they couldn't. Silly store managers pointed to some useless "company dress code" that doesn't allow "any visible slogans, messages, logos or advertising that are not company-related, on any article of clothing." The company is clearly led by narrow-minded racists. Even if some of them are black. Now, if they had tried a pro-Trump face mask and been disciplined, no one would take the case because that would be the right thing to do. In fact, some of the same folk might have sued Whole Foods for allowing a MAGA mask. But we only follow the rules we approve and the only rules we approve are the ones that let us do what we want and not the ones that benefit our opponents. "Because we say so."
Fight Fire with ...?
I don't know the facts. All I know is what is reported by the media. So I won't make a judgment call here. According to the news, the St. Louis couple who waved their guns at trespassers will be charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon. As I said, I don't know all the circumstances. What I find odd in this story is St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's words. "It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner -- that is unlawful in the city of St. Louis." Really? So if, say, Bob over there is having his home invaded and pulls out a shotgun and waves it in a threatening manner, he has a felony weapons charge coming? I kind of thought that waving a weapon for, say, home defense was hopefully the point -- to stop people from harming you. Apparently not. You can own a weapon, but you better not threaten to use it.
Trump is a Jerk -- Neener-Neener
I am not a Trump fan, but even I can see the level of hate-Trump syndrome the media has. For awhile now they've been telling how stupid he is for not wearing masks. Of course, when the CDC told us masks weren't of much use, the White House put out a recommendation to wear them and the CDC reluctantly went along. Now Trump tweets that wearing a mask is patriotic and they're upset with him again. Do you suppose if he tweeted "I love CNN" they'd go out of business ... voluntarily?
Truth in Advertising
We have rules in this country. Like "truth in advertising." It's the law. If a company presents false information in an advertisement, they can be in trouble for "false advertising." On the other hand, the law specifically does not apply to political ads. So I don't know what all the furor is about over a Trump ad on Facebook. Apparently there is an ad showing Trump in a peaceful America contrasted with a photo of riots ... which actually came from a pro-democracy protest in the Ukraine in 2014. Worse, it references "Evangelicals" who are ready to help re-elect this guy. To be clear, I don't like Trump ads. Can't stand them. To be fair, I don't like any political ads. Primarily for the simple reason that they have no need to be truthful. And, they're not. Given the status quo of false advertising among politicians and the biblical reference to one called "the father of lies," what do you suppose I should conclude about most politicians?
Irony?
The report says that the mayor of Portland was tear-gassed by federal law enforcement during a protest Wednesday. Remember, this mayor has sued the government to get federal law enforcement out of his city. Mind you, the story says it was "a chaotic display of violence and mayhem" that included protesters throwing flaming bags of garbage at the federal courthouse -- precisely the kind of event where you might need some law enforcement not using lethal force. But the protesters believe that they need no enforcement. Get rid of the police. To which I ask, "Who you gonna call?" when rioters show up at your house?
A Silver Lining
We've been watching the "cancel culture" at work for months now, tearing down history, heroes, and anything else they can get their hands on. It's crazy. But now we get a silver lining. Planned Parenthood of Greater New York is removing the founder's name because of Margaret Sanger's "racist legacy" -- her well-known connection to eugenics and her aim of eliminating the black race. At least they've admitted it. So ... do you think anyone is listening? Naw. Facts haven't bothered that crowd in the past.
Is It Wrong That I Laughed?
I am in the habit of putting up something here at the end for comic relief from the Babylon Bee. Was it wrong that I laughed at this headline?
According to Business Insider, "Joe Biden has said four Black women are among those being vetted to be his vice president." I would think that would be a no-brainer after his mind-numbing, "You ain't black if you don't vote for me" comment. On the other hand, the Democratic party has been the anti-black party since the 19th century and that hasn't stopped black people from being on board, so ...
Mean Ol' Israelis
Israel reportedly launched a missile strike at Syria and killed 5 "Iran-backed fighters." Mean ol' Israel. Killing people for no good reason. Just because Syria and Iran favor the total annihilation of Israel is no reason to be shooting at ... what was the term ... oh, yeah, "Iran-backed fighters." Why is mean ol' Israel shooting at peace-loving Syria and their "Iran-backed" pals? (And it's interesting that while the reports say Damascus was targeted, there were no reports of civilian injuries.)
Because We Say So
Whole Foods has been sued by workers who wanted to wear BLM face masks at work and were told they couldn't. Silly store managers pointed to some useless "company dress code" that doesn't allow "any visible slogans, messages, logos or advertising that are not company-related, on any article of clothing." The company is clearly led by narrow-minded racists. Even if some of them are black. Now, if they had tried a pro-Trump face mask and been disciplined, no one would take the case because that would be the right thing to do. In fact, some of the same folk might have sued Whole Foods for allowing a MAGA mask. But we only follow the rules we approve and the only rules we approve are the ones that let us do what we want and not the ones that benefit our opponents. "Because we say so."
Fight Fire with ...?
I don't know the facts. All I know is what is reported by the media. So I won't make a judgment call here. According to the news, the St. Louis couple who waved their guns at trespassers will be charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon. As I said, I don't know all the circumstances. What I find odd in this story is St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's words. "It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner -- that is unlawful in the city of St. Louis." Really? So if, say, Bob over there is having his home invaded and pulls out a shotgun and waves it in a threatening manner, he has a felony weapons charge coming? I kind of thought that waving a weapon for, say, home defense was hopefully the point -- to stop people from harming you. Apparently not. You can own a weapon, but you better not threaten to use it.
Trump is a Jerk -- Neener-Neener
I am not a Trump fan, but even I can see the level of hate-Trump syndrome the media has. For awhile now they've been telling how stupid he is for not wearing masks. Of course, when the CDC told us masks weren't of much use, the White House put out a recommendation to wear them and the CDC reluctantly went along. Now Trump tweets that wearing a mask is patriotic and they're upset with him again. Do you suppose if he tweeted "I love CNN" they'd go out of business ... voluntarily?
Truth in Advertising
We have rules in this country. Like "truth in advertising." It's the law. If a company presents false information in an advertisement, they can be in trouble for "false advertising." On the other hand, the law specifically does not apply to political ads. So I don't know what all the furor is about over a Trump ad on Facebook. Apparently there is an ad showing Trump in a peaceful America contrasted with a photo of riots ... which actually came from a pro-democracy protest in the Ukraine in 2014. Worse, it references "Evangelicals" who are ready to help re-elect this guy. To be clear, I don't like Trump ads. Can't stand them. To be fair, I don't like any political ads. Primarily for the simple reason that they have no need to be truthful. And, they're not. Given the status quo of false advertising among politicians and the biblical reference to one called "the father of lies," what do you suppose I should conclude about most politicians?
Irony?
The report says that the mayor of Portland was tear-gassed by federal law enforcement during a protest Wednesday. Remember, this mayor has sued the government to get federal law enforcement out of his city. Mind you, the story says it was "a chaotic display of violence and mayhem" that included protesters throwing flaming bags of garbage at the federal courthouse -- precisely the kind of event where you might need some law enforcement not using lethal force. But the protesters believe that they need no enforcement. Get rid of the police. To which I ask, "Who you gonna call?" when rioters show up at your house?
A Silver Lining
We've been watching the "cancel culture" at work for months now, tearing down history, heroes, and anything else they can get their hands on. It's crazy. But now we get a silver lining. Planned Parenthood of Greater New York is removing the founder's name because of Margaret Sanger's "racist legacy" -- her well-known connection to eugenics and her aim of eliminating the black race. At least they've admitted it. So ... do you think anyone is listening? Naw. Facts haven't bothered that crowd in the past.
Is It Wrong That I Laughed?
I am in the habit of putting up something here at the end for comic relief from the Babylon Bee. Was it wrong that I laughed at this headline?
Froot Loops Finally Changes Offensive Name To LGBTQ Loops
Friday, July 24, 2020
"Gender" Confusion
We are still debating gender in our society these days. One side says, "You are the gender you feel you are regardless of what you're born with" and the other says, "That's nonsense; you are the gender you're born with and to feel differently is confusion." Please note: "confusion" is not an insult. They used to call it "gender confusion" themselves, but it sounded insulting so they switched to "dysphoria" -- "a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction." I think, however, that we all have "gender" confusion. I don't mean the kind we're arguing about. I mean with terminology. We are imprecise with our words (How can we be precise when they are constantly shifting?), so we are imprecise without understanding -- confusion. So let's see if we can ease this end of the discussion a bit.
We have two words we often use interchangeably: "sex" and "gender." They are not technically interchangeable; we just do it. "Sex" refers to essentially chromosomes -- XX or XY. "Sex" refers to anatomy, specifically of the reproductive system. In the science world XX is female and XY is male and never the twain shall meet. (We will set aside "intersex" for the moment because that has nothing to do with this part of the conversation. "Intersex" and "transgender" are apples and oranges.) "Gender," on the other hand, is a reference to what we refer to as "masculine" and "feminine." It is the expression of male and female sex as we understand it. This is obvious in our current "no binary gender" world when "he" feels like he's a "she" and then assumes feminine characteristics and appearance (or vice versa). We all know what "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics and appearance look like ... and that's "gender." In those terms, "gender confusion" per se has always been around. We've always had girls (sex) who were "tom boys" (gender) and guys (sex) who were "effeminate" (gender). But even then we all understood "sex" and "gender" and what was what. Like the old song said, even a child "knows one sex from the other; all he has to do is look" ("Doin' What Comes Natur'lly," 1946).
So while we debate this stuff with each other, it turns out we've been in perfect agreement and still shouting past each other. We will use a phrase like "biological sex" to describe what they were born with and then "gender identity" to describe how they feel about their gender ... and both are accurate. Then we'll be offended when they say, "This one identifies as a female" (gender) and argue, "But, he was born a male" (sex). Again, both are accurate. The problem arises when "how I feel about my gender" becomes the definition of "my sex." In one of my favorite Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck/Elmer Fudd cartoons, Bugs tricks Daffy into making Elmer shoot Daffy. When he gets his beak back in place, he discovers the reason: "pronoun trouble."
Daffy had no idea how much trouble pronouns would become. Now they're reasons for lawsuits, lost jobs, and criminal accusations.
I have not solved the question for a single person at this point. Not my aim at this point. I just hope that we can take one step back to start to take steps forward. One's sex refers to the body and that is a birth condition, not something assigned by a doctor or a parent. Gender is the expression of maleness or femaleness and everyone has options in that area. Always has. Regardless of whether or not it matches your sex, we all still know what masculinity and femininity look like. No reason to keep arguing over that. All that's left is the definition of reality. Is it how I feel or what is actually real? That's the discussion we should be having. Oh, no, we won't. Because we, as a society, have generally rejected Truth (John 14:6) and operate blindly (2 Cor 4:4) as children of the father of lies (Jer 17:9). But I can dream, can't I?
We have two words we often use interchangeably: "sex" and "gender." They are not technically interchangeable; we just do it. "Sex" refers to essentially chromosomes -- XX or XY. "Sex" refers to anatomy, specifically of the reproductive system. In the science world XX is female and XY is male and never the twain shall meet. (We will set aside "intersex" for the moment because that has nothing to do with this part of the conversation. "Intersex" and "transgender" are apples and oranges.) "Gender," on the other hand, is a reference to what we refer to as "masculine" and "feminine." It is the expression of male and female sex as we understand it. This is obvious in our current "no binary gender" world when "he" feels like he's a "she" and then assumes feminine characteristics and appearance (or vice versa). We all know what "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics and appearance look like ... and that's "gender." In those terms, "gender confusion" per se has always been around. We've always had girls (sex) who were "tom boys" (gender) and guys (sex) who were "effeminate" (gender). But even then we all understood "sex" and "gender" and what was what. Like the old song said, even a child "knows one sex from the other; all he has to do is look" ("Doin' What Comes Natur'lly," 1946).
So while we debate this stuff with each other, it turns out we've been in perfect agreement and still shouting past each other. We will use a phrase like "biological sex" to describe what they were born with and then "gender identity" to describe how they feel about their gender ... and both are accurate. Then we'll be offended when they say, "This one identifies as a female" (gender) and argue, "But, he was born a male" (sex). Again, both are accurate. The problem arises when "how I feel about my gender" becomes the definition of "my sex." In one of my favorite Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck/Elmer Fudd cartoons, Bugs tricks Daffy into making Elmer shoot Daffy. When he gets his beak back in place, he discovers the reason: "pronoun trouble."
Daffy had no idea how much trouble pronouns would become. Now they're reasons for lawsuits, lost jobs, and criminal accusations.
I have not solved the question for a single person at this point. Not my aim at this point. I just hope that we can take one step back to start to take steps forward. One's sex refers to the body and that is a birth condition, not something assigned by a doctor or a parent. Gender is the expression of maleness or femaleness and everyone has options in that area. Always has. Regardless of whether or not it matches your sex, we all still know what masculinity and femininity look like. No reason to keep arguing over that. All that's left is the definition of reality. Is it how I feel or what is actually real? That's the discussion we should be having. Oh, no, we won't. Because we, as a society, have generally rejected Truth (John 14:6) and operate blindly (2 Cor 4:4) as children of the father of lies (Jer 17:9). But I can dream, can't I?
Thursday, July 23, 2020
Forgive Us our Debts
Forgiveness. It is in very short supply in our society today. Ours is the "cancel culture." Violate one of our cardinal rules and you are not only in violation -- you are out ... as permanently as we can make it. (That is, as long as your not one of the insiders.)
Forgiveness, however, is critical. When the disciples asked their Teacher to teach them to pray, one of the fundamental components of prayer offered by Christ was "forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Matt 6:12). What can we learn from this?
Since this is a fundamental component of prayer, it must be true that forgiveness is critical. And that leads us to conclude that we all need it. None of us are without sin. Still. All of us need to confess (1 John 1:9). Our sin is paid for, once and for all, but in order to remain in close relationship we need to confess sin. To "confess" is literally to "say with." Confession, then, is agreeing with God about what He calls "sin" in our lives. To deny sin is a lie (1 John 1:8, 10). While we often like to see ourselves on the "moral high ground," if we don't see ourselves as sinners, we're lying to ourselves.
Another thing we can learn is that sin incurs debt. Some use the word "trespasses. The Greek there is ὀφείλημα -- opheilēma. It is a pecuniary term meaning "to owe." So, while we certainly owe God obedience -- "no trespassing" so to speak -- the idea in the Greek is a debt. So in Paul's letter to the saints at Colossae, he said that Christ had "canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us." (Col 2:14) Sin, then, incurs debt between us and God. It isn't minor. We owe perfect obedience (Matt 5:48) and anything less requires "payback." Except once perfect obedience is lost, how do you pay that back? How do you proceed with better than perfect obedience to pay back that missing part? Can't be done. So it is a debt we incur and a debt we cannot pay. Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!
One more important lesson here. In giving us that necessary component of prayer -- requesting forgiveness -- He followed up with some critical explanations. (Interestingly He didn't follow up on any other explanations of other components; just this one.)
Port these into today's environment. We are a "cancel culture" that is unwilling to show grace, unwilling to show mercy, unwilling to forgive. The mere idea of restoring the fallen is offensive to us as a society. I beg of you, dear Christian, that this doesn't describe you. I urge you not to fall for that line of thinking, that attitude. Because it will not go well for us if we refuse to forgive. "If you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions." Don't be that person.
Forgiveness, however, is critical. When the disciples asked their Teacher to teach them to pray, one of the fundamental components of prayer offered by Christ was "forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Matt 6:12). What can we learn from this?
Since this is a fundamental component of prayer, it must be true that forgiveness is critical. And that leads us to conclude that we all need it. None of us are without sin. Still. All of us need to confess (1 John 1:9). Our sin is paid for, once and for all, but in order to remain in close relationship we need to confess sin. To "confess" is literally to "say with." Confession, then, is agreeing with God about what He calls "sin" in our lives. To deny sin is a lie (1 John 1:8, 10). While we often like to see ourselves on the "moral high ground," if we don't see ourselves as sinners, we're lying to ourselves.
Another thing we can learn is that sin incurs debt. Some use the word "trespasses. The Greek there is ὀφείλημα -- opheilēma. It is a pecuniary term meaning "to owe." So, while we certainly owe God obedience -- "no trespassing" so to speak -- the idea in the Greek is a debt. So in Paul's letter to the saints at Colossae, he said that Christ had "canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us." (Col 2:14) Sin, then, incurs debt between us and God. It isn't minor. We owe perfect obedience (Matt 5:48) and anything less requires "payback." Except once perfect obedience is lost, how do you pay that back? How do you proceed with better than perfect obedience to pay back that missing part? Can't be done. So it is a debt we incur and a debt we cannot pay. Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!
One more important lesson here. In giving us that necessary component of prayer -- requesting forgiveness -- He followed up with some critical explanations. (Interestingly He didn't follow up on any other explanations of other components; just this one.)
For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. (Matt 6:14-15)Yikes! Jesus declared our own forgiveness as contingent on the forgiveness we give others! Paul told the church at Ephesus, "Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." (Eph 4:32) So we are to forgive (it is a command) as God has forgiven us in Christ. God didn't forgive on the basis of our restitution, but on the basis of Christ having paid the price. Mercy and grace. So, too, are we to forgive. And if we don't forgive, we shouldn't expect mercy and grace from God.
Port these into today's environment. We are a "cancel culture" that is unwilling to show grace, unwilling to show mercy, unwilling to forgive. The mere idea of restoring the fallen is offensive to us as a society. I beg of you, dear Christian, that this doesn't describe you. I urge you not to fall for that line of thinking, that attitude. Because it will not go well for us if we refuse to forgive. "If you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions." Don't be that person.
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
No Justice
That has been the chant, right? "No justice, no peace." The complaint is that they didn't think justice is being served and they demanded that it is. That doesn't seem like an excessive desire. We do expect justice to be served. Well, mostly.
Scripture talks about God's mercy. Now, mercy is not justice. It is, in fact, justice contravened. Justice is getting what you deserve and mercy is not getting what you deserve. For everyone else we demand justice, but for our own sake we do like mercy over justice.
Odd thing. I argued in the past that Christ paid for our sins on the cross. Well, I didn't argue it. I pointed it out in Scripture. Paul says that we have "been justified by His blood." (Rom 5:9) "You who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." (Eph 2:13) "It was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." (Col 1:19-20) And more. The term that Scripture likes to use is "redeemed" -- to buy up or pay the price. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law." (Gal 3:13) "You were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ." (1 Peter 1:18-19) And more. Jesus "gave Himself as a ransom." (1 Tim 2:6) A ransom -- the redemption price. I'm not making this stuff up. But they protested. "Not true!" They were sure that we are saved just because God is merciful -- contravening justice.
You understand, I hope, what they're saying. "We demand justice! Well, no, not for us. And certainly not from God. No, we want mercy for us." But God is so clever. He figured out how to do both. No, they don't accept that, but it's all over the New Testament. Christ died to pay for our sins (justice) in order that we can be shown mercy. It demonstrates God as both "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Rom 3:26)
Me? I don't want justice. I can't afford justice. I don't want "fair." I could not stand to receive from God what I deserve. Nor do I want to nullify God as just. So I think I'll leave Him as He is, both just and justifier, a truly marvelous God. The Judge of all the earth that does what is just and shows mercy. One of a kind. My Savior.
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
Broken
The human is an odd creature. I use "creature" here intentionally. We are not a cosmic accident, the product of chance, some highly evolved, superior animal. We are creatures -- creations of the Creator. We are perhaps His highest creation, but we are nonetheless creations. Which makes us odd.
We live our lives here on Earth for a limited time. Everyone is worried about the percentages of people dying of COVID, but in the end the death rate from being born is 100%. We are all here for a limited time. Yet we live like we'll live forever. We take unnecessary risks and do things that will neither serve our time on this planet well nor, especially, our time in eternity.
We are creatures put here by God for God's purposes, but we live as if it is "all about me." It's about my pleasure, my comfort, my best interests, my personal preferences.
We are offered eternity by an eternal God with all the wonders and delights that God's eternity will provide, but we're disdainful of that and prefer the immediate, the here and now, the short-lived for people who are short-lived. So instead of an eternal view on, say, sexual relations, we prefer the immediate, short term satisfaction and ignore God. God offers us involvement in His infinite and essential work and we prefer to pursue the finite and unimportant work of making money, gathering fame and power, and the rest of the world's sandcastles. God offers us love, joy, and peace which we say we really want, but substitute lust, momentary happiness, and a few minutes of quiet instead.
At the core, we are not the center of the universe. We are creations of the Center of the universe. It is not about us; it's about Him. We are not the protagonists in this story; we're the fillers. We're the characters that populate the story around the main players -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amazingly, God loves the fillers. In fact, He offers to adopt the fillers. But we miss the point even after being adopted and still think it's all about us.
We're not merely odd because we are so shortsighted that we can't see the truth about ourselves. We're odd because we miss so very much that stands in front of us, offered by the hand of God, right there for the taking. All we have to do is give up our self-righteous, self-aggrandizing position and accept His gifts of grace, mercy, love, adoption, relationship, eternal life, and so much more. It's not like we're clamoring in this life for the good stuff. We're finding pleasures in the trash heap while we're offered treasures in His presence. We are ... broken, out of order, malfunctioning. He can fix that.
We live our lives here on Earth for a limited time. Everyone is worried about the percentages of people dying of COVID, but in the end the death rate from being born is 100%. We are all here for a limited time. Yet we live like we'll live forever. We take unnecessary risks and do things that will neither serve our time on this planet well nor, especially, our time in eternity.
We are creatures put here by God for God's purposes, but we live as if it is "all about me." It's about my pleasure, my comfort, my best interests, my personal preferences.
We are offered eternity by an eternal God with all the wonders and delights that God's eternity will provide, but we're disdainful of that and prefer the immediate, the here and now, the short-lived for people who are short-lived. So instead of an eternal view on, say, sexual relations, we prefer the immediate, short term satisfaction and ignore God. God offers us involvement in His infinite and essential work and we prefer to pursue the finite and unimportant work of making money, gathering fame and power, and the rest of the world's sandcastles. God offers us love, joy, and peace which we say we really want, but substitute lust, momentary happiness, and a few minutes of quiet instead.
At the core, we are not the center of the universe. We are creations of the Center of the universe. It is not about us; it's about Him. We are not the protagonists in this story; we're the fillers. We're the characters that populate the story around the main players -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amazingly, God loves the fillers. In fact, He offers to adopt the fillers. But we miss the point even after being adopted and still think it's all about us.
We're not merely odd because we are so shortsighted that we can't see the truth about ourselves. We're odd because we miss so very much that stands in front of us, offered by the hand of God, right there for the taking. All we have to do is give up our self-righteous, self-aggrandizing position and accept His gifts of grace, mercy, love, adoption, relationship, eternal life, and so much more. It's not like we're clamoring in this life for the good stuff. We're finding pleasures in the trash heap while we're offered treasures in His presence. We are ... broken, out of order, malfunctioning. He can fix that.
Monday, July 20, 2020
Programming Note
Given the choice of me continuing to do battle with a particularly hateful troll at my new blog, returning to this site and learning how to blog with the new process, or stopping altogether, the majority of responders told me to try it here again. So, I'm trying it here again. For a short time I'll use both locations and post the same thing in both places. We'll see what happens. Thank you for your advice and attention.
Be Ready to Give a Defense
I watched a movie a few months back titled The Reliant. The story was set in a fictional time of rioting and unrest in America. A small town family gets caught up in it. The father (Kevin Sorbo) is killed and the kids (from young adult to maybe 8) flee to the forest to hide. The movie is about faith. "The Reliant" refers to the question, "Can we rely on God?" And the characters ask some really meaningful questions with some really meaningful answers. For example, after a death, the oldest son is angry at God and dueling with his sister over it. "Would Dad have let her die?" "No, of course not." "Why?" "Because he loved her." "So, Dad loved her better than God did?!" Those kinds of tough questions. Watching the movie, I was testing my own responses to the questions. What would I answer? How could I say? And I wondered, "What responses would others give?"
We are commanded to always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you." (1 Peter 3:15) We understand that to mean to be ready to defend the faith. And, sure, that's in there. That's actually what Jude says. We are "to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) But Peter's version goes a little broader. It's not just about "the faith." It's about the hope we have. And, surely, the faith is a major portion of our hope. But the people asking the hard questions in that movie were believers, not skeptics. How are we at having answers for them?
Skeptics are everywhere. No surprise. Not even a complaint. And while we are supposed to contend for the faith and be ready to make a defense for the hope we have, my concern is for the people that should have the answers. Believers. Those with the Spirit and with God's Word. How do we answer life's tough questions? Hopefully not with platitudes and misguided false claims. We need to be ready to make a defense for unbelievers and for believers. Are you ready?
We are commanded to always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you." (1 Peter 3:15) We understand that to mean to be ready to defend the faith. And, sure, that's in there. That's actually what Jude says. We are "to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) But Peter's version goes a little broader. It's not just about "the faith." It's about the hope we have. And, surely, the faith is a major portion of our hope. But the people asking the hard questions in that movie were believers, not skeptics. How are we at having answers for them?
Skeptics are everywhere. No surprise. Not even a complaint. And while we are supposed to contend for the faith and be ready to make a defense for the hope we have, my concern is for the people that should have the answers. Believers. Those with the Spirit and with God's Word. How do we answer life's tough questions? Hopefully not with platitudes and misguided false claims. We need to be ready to make a defense for unbelievers and for believers. Are you ready?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)