In 2016 Colin Kaepernick knelt during the national anthem in a show of protest against the nation that gave him the privilege to be a rich, black, American football player. And the crowd went wild. Some excoriated him and others applauded. Eventually most players knelt because to fail to do so went against the "Black Lives Matter" movement and that was certainly not safe. The outliers then became those few players who refused to kneel. Protest, you see, is a fickle mistress.
Today, of course, it's a different sort of beast. When professional hockey player Ivan Provorov refused to wear a Pride rainbow during warmups because he was Russian Orthodox and chose to stay true to his religion, the outrage was palpable. He said, "I respect everybody and I respect everybody’s choices," but he was labeled homophobic because if you respect everyone, you will thoroughly agree with everyone, apparently. The crowd called for his removal from the game or even from the team. Refusing to wear a Pride logo, they said, was a slur against homosexuals. Because dissent these days against the LGBT+ crowd is punishable ... by death, at least of a certain kind. Apparently "inclusivity" excludes those who don't firmly embrace the current sexual revolution.
They try to tell us that they're born that way. Science disagrees. They try to tell us that gender is just a social construct. Science disagrees. They try to tell us that it's "natural" and "normal." Science (and statistics) disagrees. And then they try to tell us that we must not only "live and let live," but surrender our own convictions and embrace theirs. That's the only fair and right thing to do. And our culture nods and obeys. "We determine what is normal and moral. You agree ... or else." Filed under "exclusive inclusivity."
Back in the day when "same-sex marriage" was in the balance -- a matter of question rather than certainty -- one of the most common things they said was, "What difference does it make to you if we do this?" They have their answer. It will cost livelihoods and reputation, even actual money (ask Jack Phillips, et. al.). It will cost reasonable thinking, tolerance, and inclusion. For those who do not knuckle under to the current sexual revolution, it could be very costly. And that's just because the current sexual revolution is so tolerant, nonjudgmental, and inclusive ... enough to "burn your house down" so to speak if you don't go along with them. (We all hope that "burn your house down" is metaphorical and not actual.)
Tuesday, January 31, 2023
Monday, January 30, 2023
Trust Issues
Jack Phillips lost again. No surprise. He's that cake maker in Colorado who was first charged with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Since the Supreme Court threw out that one, not because Phillips was protected, but because Colorado didn't treat him fairly compared to all the other cake makers, Phillips would, of course, be the target of more attempts to throw out the right to the free exercise of religion in America ... or, at least, Colorado. So the court ruled that making a pink cake with blue frosting for a transgender was not a form of speech and being forced to show support for something that violated his religious beliefs was not a violation of his right to the free exercise of religious beliefs. In other words, the court, as expected, is mad. Crazy. Loony. Because Jack did not refuse to make the cake on the basis of their sexual orientation or, in this case, transgender status; he refused on the basis of his religious beliefs ... which is protected by the 1st Amendment. If it was on the basis of their orientation, he would have refused to make any cakes for them. That just wasn't the case.
It is ironic that the "American Civil Liberties Union" brought the case against Phillips' civil liberties. It's ironic that the court nullified his religious liberties in defense of the transgender's rights ... which are not protected by the 1st Amendment. That is, the court affirmed discrimination on the basis of religion is not discrimination on the basis of religion. It is absolutely irrational that, for instance, the LGBT crowd (which isn't listed anywhere in the Bill of Rights) would have rights denied religious people (which are clearly confirmed in the Bill of Rights). Phillips did not demand that those gay people stop being gay or that transgender stop being transgender. On the other hand, the demand of both the gay and the transgender as well as the court is that Jack stop believing what he believes. So who is discriminating against whom?
Jack Phillips is not my hero. He plans to appeal on the basis of free speech. Phillips apparently didn't read 1 John 3:13 or 1 Peter 4:12. He thinks he can get justice in a court that is mostly operated by God-haters (Rom 8:7) and is putting his hope in princes. Jack, you would be better served taking refuge in the Lord than to trust in government (Psa 118:9). Now that would be impressive to watch. No, Christians, it's not fair. It's not justice. But it is what we were told to expect, so why get your knickers in a twist? Try this. Remind yourself that "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21).
It is ironic that the "American Civil Liberties Union" brought the case against Phillips' civil liberties. It's ironic that the court nullified his religious liberties in defense of the transgender's rights ... which are not protected by the 1st Amendment. That is, the court affirmed discrimination on the basis of religion is not discrimination on the basis of religion. It is absolutely irrational that, for instance, the LGBT crowd (which isn't listed anywhere in the Bill of Rights) would have rights denied religious people (which are clearly confirmed in the Bill of Rights). Phillips did not demand that those gay people stop being gay or that transgender stop being transgender. On the other hand, the demand of both the gay and the transgender as well as the court is that Jack stop believing what he believes. So who is discriminating against whom?
Jack Phillips is not my hero. He plans to appeal on the basis of free speech. Phillips apparently didn't read 1 John 3:13 or 1 Peter 4:12. He thinks he can get justice in a court that is mostly operated by God-haters (Rom 8:7) and is putting his hope in princes. Jack, you would be better served taking refuge in the Lord than to trust in government (Psa 118:9). Now that would be impressive to watch. No, Christians, it's not fair. It's not justice. But it is what we were told to expect, so why get your knickers in a twist? Try this. Remind yourself that "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21).
Sunday, January 29, 2023
Reasons to Fear
We live in crazy times. I actually mean that somewhat literally. If the refusal to acknowledge God makes people futile in their thinking (Rom 1:18-21) and our current society makes it their policy not to acknowledge God, I'd say that it makes our current society somewhat crazy. And it shows in so many ways. Take, for instance, the double standard that seems to be the standard of the day. "Always believe the woman ... unless she's speaking against 'one of our boys'." "We do not tolerate judgmentalism and we will be judgmental of anyone who practices it." "We need to be inclusive and we will exclude all those who do not practice our version of inclusivity." "We oppose intolerance and refuse to tolerate those who practice it." The problem, you see, is that aiming to satisfy the standards of your community is pointless (literally -- there is no point at which to aim) if the standard is double. "When is it this and when is it that? Does this fall in this version or that? How can I know, in these swirling standards, if I'm meeting the right one?" Crazy.
This society is so crazy that they pass a law to "respect marriage" that eliminates the definition of marriage. And the people you counted on to conserve your version (you know ... conservatives) voted to eliminate it along with those who already intended to. Crazy. Science tells us that the primary function of sex between humans is reproduction of the species and that no male-male or female-female sex will produce a baby, but our society tells us that homosexual sex is "normal" and "natural." Not according to science. Science tells us that there are only two sexes -- male and female. Our society tells us that not only are there lots of them, but that those who are born as one (they call it "assigned at birth" as if doctors are pulling sexes out of a hat to give to each baby) can believe they are another and be regarded as heroic. Crazy. Not only that, but if you have the audacity to agree with science on these things, you're the crazy one. "Science says there is only male and female." "Hater." "Science says the baby in the womb is a human being." "Sexist." You get the idea. And I've only scratched the surface with these examples. For instance, if gender is just a "social construct" (which, by the way, science denies) and "male" and "female" are fluid and almost infinitely variable, then what exactly can we determine about the "L" or the "G" or the "B" or even the "T" of that acronym. If a person is born male, transitions to female, and is attracted to females, is that "L" or "G" or "B" or something else entirely? And why, if that "female" is a social construct, does he feel the need to change his body? It's a social construct. Crazy. Then there is yesterday's news. The Minnesota Senate passed a bill to ensure that "every individual has a fundamental right to make autonomous decisions about the individual's own reproductive health." Science says that the fetus in the woman's womb is an individual life, with distinct organs, DNA, brain, etc., but Minnesota is hellbent (take that as you will) on removing that decision from those individuals. Crazy. (That Planned Parenthood had a hand in it is really crazy since this is just making sure they maintain a steady revenue stream ... built on dead babies.)
We live in crazy times and that gives us lots of reasons to fear. So it is comforting to read repeatedly in Scripture, "Fear not." It is comforting to know that our God does all that He pleases (Psa 115:3) and all that He pleases to do is good (Rom 8:28). It is a relief to hear that "in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:37). It is even restful to learn that "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" if we take our concerns to Him (Php 4:6-7). There are lots of reasons to fear in our world today, and we have one reason not to -- "He has said, 'I will never leave you nor forsake you.'" (Heb 13:5) Lots of good reasons to fear, but we can "fear not" because "I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that He is able to guard until that day what has been entrusted to me" (2 Tim 1:12).
This society is so crazy that they pass a law to "respect marriage" that eliminates the definition of marriage. And the people you counted on to conserve your version (you know ... conservatives) voted to eliminate it along with those who already intended to. Crazy. Science tells us that the primary function of sex between humans is reproduction of the species and that no male-male or female-female sex will produce a baby, but our society tells us that homosexual sex is "normal" and "natural." Not according to science. Science tells us that there are only two sexes -- male and female. Our society tells us that not only are there lots of them, but that those who are born as one (they call it "assigned at birth" as if doctors are pulling sexes out of a hat to give to each baby) can believe they are another and be regarded as heroic. Crazy. Not only that, but if you have the audacity to agree with science on these things, you're the crazy one. "Science says there is only male and female." "Hater." "Science says the baby in the womb is a human being." "Sexist." You get the idea. And I've only scratched the surface with these examples. For instance, if gender is just a "social construct" (which, by the way, science denies) and "male" and "female" are fluid and almost infinitely variable, then what exactly can we determine about the "L" or the "G" or the "B" or even the "T" of that acronym. If a person is born male, transitions to female, and is attracted to females, is that "L" or "G" or "B" or something else entirely? And why, if that "female" is a social construct, does he feel the need to change his body? It's a social construct. Crazy. Then there is yesterday's news. The Minnesota Senate passed a bill to ensure that "every individual has a fundamental right to make autonomous decisions about the individual's own reproductive health." Science says that the fetus in the woman's womb is an individual life, with distinct organs, DNA, brain, etc., but Minnesota is hellbent (take that as you will) on removing that decision from those individuals. Crazy. (That Planned Parenthood had a hand in it is really crazy since this is just making sure they maintain a steady revenue stream ... built on dead babies.)
We live in crazy times and that gives us lots of reasons to fear. So it is comforting to read repeatedly in Scripture, "Fear not." It is comforting to know that our God does all that He pleases (Psa 115:3) and all that He pleases to do is good (Rom 8:28). It is a relief to hear that "in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:37). It is even restful to learn that "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" if we take our concerns to Him (Php 4:6-7). There are lots of reasons to fear in our world today, and we have one reason not to -- "He has said, 'I will never leave you nor forsake you.'" (Heb 13:5) Lots of good reasons to fear, but we can "fear not" because "I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that He is able to guard until that day what has been entrusted to me" (2 Tim 1:12).
Saturday, January 28, 2023
News Weakly - 1/28/2023
Unfit
George Santos was elected in the latest election to represent New York's 3rd congressional district. George Santos is unfit to do so. First there was the résumé scandal where he finally admitted he lied about his past. Now there is this "drag queen" story where he first denied and then admitted he performed as a drag queen. Finally Santos apparently used someone's signature without their permission for his campaign finance report. I say he is unfit not because of the drag queen thing. I say he is unfit because if your elected official is in the habit of lying -- cannot be trusted or believed -- then he is unfit to represent his constituents. But, of course, we won't apply that "Can they be trusted?" standard ... because who in our current government could stand? (Think, for instance, of the "more classified documents found" story.)
I Might Have to Disasgree to Agree
The story is about a young mother who is not allowed to volunteer at her kids' school because she is an OnlyFans model -- she makes her living by selling her body. "I'm not a bad person," she said. I suppose we'll have to disagree about whether charging people for being a pornographic model is "bad," but we won't agree, of course, because "bad" is no longer a common sense concept in our culture.
No-Fix Fix
At the memorial for the Monterey Park shooting victims, VP Harris called for gun control laws. This fix of "take away the tool" that ignores all the other tools available is based, I believe, on the simplistic idea that people are basically good and if you remove the tools they might use to do bad things, they'll stop bad things. It is nonsense, of course. The handgun is the most popular weapon for killing with guns. Not on the list. More people die from people using such things as hands and feet than assault rifles. Not on the list. And, of course, there is the problem of the 2nd Amendment. Delete that and you will make progress toward banning guns ... and the elimination of rights guaranteed from the beginning of this nation. Simply put, bad people do bad things. Fix that.
Speaking of Lost Rights
This isn't really news, is it? As expected, the Colorado appeals court has stripped off the 1st Amendment to ensure the right (not included in the Constitution) of the LGBTLMNOP crowd picking a fight with Christians to literally have their cake (and eat it, too, I suppose). Jack Phillips refused (again) to create a product that conflicted with his religious beliefs and they ruled it illegal. In Colorado, at least, government can make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But we all knew that was coming, didn't we?
Who Gets to Decide?
A judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of California's AB 2098 which went into effect this year. The law was intended to block misinformation by doctors regarding COVID-19. The primary standard for what constituted misinformation was "contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus." That's because, as we all know, the standard for "fact" in science is consensus. Like "the Challenger is perfectly safe" or "Thalidomide is the best treatement for nausea in pregnant women" or "Darwin was right."
What Did We Expect?
Death row inmates in Texas are suing the prison system because it is cruel and unusual punishment to leave them in solitary confinement prior to their execution. Of course, when getting someone wet against their wishes is classified as "brutal" and "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman" causes "trauma," then just about any discomfort will be considered "cruel and unusual" regardless of how just or common it is.
A Change of Pace
I know some people don't like the Babylon Bee, so I thought I'd give you some from Genesius Times.
Filed under Deep Thoughts by AOC, she asks "If global warming is a hoax, why is it 90° right now in Australia in the middle of winter??" Then they took on Davos, where billionaires flew private jets to lecture everyone on climate change. Finally, you heard that Biden visited El Paso to get a firsthand look at the border crisis. Having been there, he's promising to send another $20 billion to defend Ukraine's border.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
George Santos was elected in the latest election to represent New York's 3rd congressional district. George Santos is unfit to do so. First there was the résumé scandal where he finally admitted he lied about his past. Now there is this "drag queen" story where he first denied and then admitted he performed as a drag queen. Finally Santos apparently used someone's signature without their permission for his campaign finance report. I say he is unfit not because of the drag queen thing. I say he is unfit because if your elected official is in the habit of lying -- cannot be trusted or believed -- then he is unfit to represent his constituents. But, of course, we won't apply that "Can they be trusted?" standard ... because who in our current government could stand? (Think, for instance, of the "more classified documents found" story.)
I Might Have to Disasgree to Agree
The story is about a young mother who is not allowed to volunteer at her kids' school because she is an OnlyFans model -- she makes her living by selling her body. "I'm not a bad person," she said. I suppose we'll have to disagree about whether charging people for being a pornographic model is "bad," but we won't agree, of course, because "bad" is no longer a common sense concept in our culture.
No-Fix Fix
At the memorial for the Monterey Park shooting victims, VP Harris called for gun control laws. This fix of "take away the tool" that ignores all the other tools available is based, I believe, on the simplistic idea that people are basically good and if you remove the tools they might use to do bad things, they'll stop bad things. It is nonsense, of course. The handgun is the most popular weapon for killing with guns. Not on the list. More people die from people using such things as hands and feet than assault rifles. Not on the list. And, of course, there is the problem of the 2nd Amendment. Delete that and you will make progress toward banning guns ... and the elimination of rights guaranteed from the beginning of this nation. Simply put, bad people do bad things. Fix that.
Speaking of Lost Rights
This isn't really news, is it? As expected, the Colorado appeals court has stripped off the 1st Amendment to ensure the right (not included in the Constitution) of the LGBTLMNOP crowd picking a fight with Christians to literally have their cake (and eat it, too, I suppose). Jack Phillips refused (again) to create a product that conflicted with his religious beliefs and they ruled it illegal. In Colorado, at least, government can make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But we all knew that was coming, didn't we?
Who Gets to Decide?
A judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of California's AB 2098 which went into effect this year. The law was intended to block misinformation by doctors regarding COVID-19. The primary standard for what constituted misinformation was "contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus." That's because, as we all know, the standard for "fact" in science is consensus. Like "the Challenger is perfectly safe" or "Thalidomide is the best treatement for nausea in pregnant women" or "Darwin was right."
What Did We Expect?
Death row inmates in Texas are suing the prison system because it is cruel and unusual punishment to leave them in solitary confinement prior to their execution. Of course, when getting someone wet against their wishes is classified as "brutal" and "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman" causes "trauma," then just about any discomfort will be considered "cruel and unusual" regardless of how just or common it is.
A Change of Pace
I know some people don't like the Babylon Bee, so I thought I'd give you some from Genesius Times.
Filed under Deep Thoughts by AOC, she asks "If global warming is a hoax, why is it 90° right now in Australia in the middle of winter??" Then they took on Davos, where billionaires flew private jets to lecture everyone on climate change. Finally, you heard that Biden visited El Paso to get a firsthand look at the border crisis. Having been there, he's promising to send another $20 billion to defend Ukraine's border.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, January 27, 2023
Authority Issues
I wrote this week about how we don't get to pick our religion. What I mean is, if a particular faith is from God, then that particular faith needs to follow God and not popular opinion or prevailing wisdom. I warned that "a church body that reforms their beliefs by going against the sole authority on matters of faith and practice -- God's Word -- has nothing on which to stand but opinion and public sentiment." To which the obvious response is, "Well ... that's your opinion."
Is that where we stand? Is that all we've got? Those who oppose Scripture as the sole authority on matters of faith and practice have to affirm that it is. "No it isn't," they will likely claim, but without an authority over our opinions, there is nothing higher ... than "me." "No, no," they will tell you, "God tells us what to do and we do it." So how does that work? Because God tells this guy that homosexual behavior is a sin and they say, "No, that's not right," and God tells that guy that we're free to have sex at any time with anything and they say, "No, that's not right either," and then this other guy says that God told him to kill a congressman. Well, now, we're all pretty sure that that isn't God. Almost all. But without a higher authority than "my opinion," you have nothing but ... your opinion. And most of this category of people -- "Scripture is not the sole authority on matters of faith and practice" -- feel perfectly justified in taking their own version of "God told me" and pressing it onto everyone else. Well, those who disagree in particular.
The Bible claims to be "God breathed" (2 Tim 3:16-17). That is certainly a claim that, if true, gives it the authority of God. Jesus declared, "Your word is truth" and declared that truth as God's means of sanctifying His people (John 17:17). That gives Scripture the authority of God. Besides that, even the skeptics rely on Scripture to get their information, say, about Jesus all while they're denying the reliability of Scripture. Look, if Scripture is generally reliable and Scripture declares itself to be God's Word, then arguing against it is nonsense. But, of course, those hostile to God (Rom 8:7) have no problem with that obvious contradiction.
________
Postscript: I wrote this entry a few days ago and Thursday I came across this little piece which tells of how a pagan philosopher became convinced of the Scriptures' truthfulness by reading the Scriptures. Similar to what I said above.
Is that where we stand? Is that all we've got? Those who oppose Scripture as the sole authority on matters of faith and practice have to affirm that it is. "No it isn't," they will likely claim, but without an authority over our opinions, there is nothing higher ... than "me." "No, no," they will tell you, "God tells us what to do and we do it." So how does that work? Because God tells this guy that homosexual behavior is a sin and they say, "No, that's not right," and God tells that guy that we're free to have sex at any time with anything and they say, "No, that's not right either," and then this other guy says that God told him to kill a congressman. Well, now, we're all pretty sure that that isn't God. Almost all. But without a higher authority than "my opinion," you have nothing but ... your opinion. And most of this category of people -- "Scripture is not the sole authority on matters of faith and practice" -- feel perfectly justified in taking their own version of "God told me" and pressing it onto everyone else. Well, those who disagree in particular.
The Bible claims to be "God breathed" (2 Tim 3:16-17). That is certainly a claim that, if true, gives it the authority of God. Jesus declared, "Your word is truth" and declared that truth as God's means of sanctifying His people (John 17:17). That gives Scripture the authority of God. Besides that, even the skeptics rely on Scripture to get their information, say, about Jesus all while they're denying the reliability of Scripture. Look, if Scripture is generally reliable and Scripture declares itself to be God's Word, then arguing against it is nonsense. But, of course, those hostile to God (Rom 8:7) have no problem with that obvious contradiction.
________
Postscript: I wrote this entry a few days ago and Thursday I came across this little piece which tells of how a pagan philosopher became convinced of the Scriptures' truthfulness by reading the Scriptures. Similar to what I said above.
Thursday, January 26, 2023
Sedition as a Virtue?
Four more members of the Oath Keepers militia were found guilty of sedition this week. So, of course, I had to look the word up because "sedition" is not the usual word for Jan. 6; "insurrection" is. What is sedition? Merriam-Webster defines it as "incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority." Wikipedia says it is "overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order."
Now, that's interesting, because "rebellion against the established order" seems to be popular ... encouraged even. I mean, in 2008 when "the established order" in California said, "We define marriage as the union of a man and a woman," the court itself "incited rebellion" against that established order by specifically stating that they were overturning the "longstanding, traditional definition of marriage" when they ruled against the people of California. Twice. The "established order" said that there were males and females and loud voices protested, assuring us that gender is a social construct (which simpy and scientifically isn't true) and we can be whatever gender we want ... which means that people born as males can compete in sports with people born as females with impunity. They urged (continue to urge) rebellion agains the established order. Just two current examples.
Now, I know, that will get some knickers in a twist. Don't let it. Humans as a whole have been in the business of sedition from the outset. God was the established order and there has been, for all of human history, a push to rebel against the established order. Conversely, if the current authority is wrong, we all mostly agree that they should be rebelled against. Which leaves us in a quandry with those Oath Keepers. Without condoning or endorsing anything they stand for, shouldn't the real question be "Is the established order wrong?" Well, let's not go down that road, right?
Now, that's interesting, because "rebellion against the established order" seems to be popular ... encouraged even. I mean, in 2008 when "the established order" in California said, "We define marriage as the union of a man and a woman," the court itself "incited rebellion" against that established order by specifically stating that they were overturning the "longstanding, traditional definition of marriage" when they ruled against the people of California. Twice. The "established order" said that there were males and females and loud voices protested, assuring us that gender is a social construct (which simpy and scientifically isn't true) and we can be whatever gender we want ... which means that people born as males can compete in sports with people born as females with impunity. They urged (continue to urge) rebellion agains the established order. Just two current examples.
Now, I know, that will get some knickers in a twist. Don't let it. Humans as a whole have been in the business of sedition from the outset. God was the established order and there has been, for all of human history, a push to rebel against the established order. Conversely, if the current authority is wrong, we all mostly agree that they should be rebelled against. Which leaves us in a quandry with those Oath Keepers. Without condoning or endorsing anything they stand for, shouldn't the real question be "Is the established order wrong?" Well, let's not go down that road, right?
Wednesday, January 25, 2023
Unpopular
Christianity has some quite popular beliefs. We believe in love, joy, peace (Gal 5:22). We believe that we are supposed to take care of the needy (Matt 25:31-40). We believe we're supposed to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matt 22:39). These are really nice things.
Christianity has some extremely unpopular beliefs. Well, do I have to list some of them? You know ... stuff like "sex outside of marriage is sin" (Heb 13:4) and "there are only two sexes" (Matt 19:4) and "marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman" (Matt 19:5). Those kinds of things. There are, of course, more. Like "No man comes to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6) or "the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it" (Matt 7:13). The problems of exclusivity and the threat of eternal punishment are really unpopular ... bordering on hate speech in the minds of many.
The Church of England is the established church in England and, therefore, has political ties. So when the "Conservative MP" of the House of Commons writes a letter to the Church of England asking them to change their beliefs on same-sex marriage, it isn't a foregone conclusion. (I put that phrase in quotes because the MP in question cannot be classified "conservative" in any meaningful way.) They just might be willing to change their doctrines to match the public demands. But a church body that reforms their beliefs by going against the sole authority on matters of faith and practice -- God's Word -- has nothing on which to stand but opinion and public sentiment. And if it is true that "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so" (Rom 8:7), it must be assumed that a truly biblical Christianity will have components and doctrines that offend those minds set on the flesh. The church that seeks to remove them, then, would put that church in opposition to the God who put them there. And that is not a safe position to take. Which should serve as a fair warning to churches elsewhere as well.
Christianity has some extremely unpopular beliefs. Well, do I have to list some of them? You know ... stuff like "sex outside of marriage is sin" (Heb 13:4) and "there are only two sexes" (Matt 19:4) and "marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman" (Matt 19:5). Those kinds of things. There are, of course, more. Like "No man comes to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6) or "the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it" (Matt 7:13). The problems of exclusivity and the threat of eternal punishment are really unpopular ... bordering on hate speech in the minds of many.
The Church of England is the established church in England and, therefore, has political ties. So when the "Conservative MP" of the House of Commons writes a letter to the Church of England asking them to change their beliefs on same-sex marriage, it isn't a foregone conclusion. (I put that phrase in quotes because the MP in question cannot be classified "conservative" in any meaningful way.) They just might be willing to change their doctrines to match the public demands. But a church body that reforms their beliefs by going against the sole authority on matters of faith and practice -- God's Word -- has nothing on which to stand but opinion and public sentiment. And if it is true that "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so" (Rom 8:7), it must be assumed that a truly biblical Christianity will have components and doctrines that offend those minds set on the flesh. The church that seeks to remove them, then, would put that church in opposition to the God who put them there. And that is not a safe position to take. Which should serve as a fair warning to churches elsewhere as well.
Tuesday, January 24, 2023
A Dichotomy
Everyone knows that true Christians are "haters." By "true Christians" I mean those who believe and follow the Bible over against what society or culture might demand. Scripture is not vague, for instance, that humans are made in the image of God (Gen 9:6), so true Christians oppose killing innocent humans ... which gets them labeled as "haters" for opposing abortion as contraception. Scripture is quite clear that sexual immorality as a defining practice will keep people out of the kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-10), so true Christians are labeled as "haters" because they oppose "same-sex marriage," fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex. As everyone knows, Christians who follow the Bible are haters.
That's odd, if you think about it. The Christ whom Christians follow said, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). The defining characteristic of true Christians must be "love for one another." And here we are, labeled as "haters." How does that work? Some might argue that it's because we don't love. I'm sure in some -- too many, I'd say -- cases that's true. People who call themselves "Christians" fail to love. They fail to pursue the best for fellow believers first and, then, for their neighbors. So there is a valid concern there. On the other hand, the truth is that even those Christians who do clearly and consistently love others receive the same label of "hater" when they simply stand on the truth and point to sin as sin.
The truth is that sometimes Christians fail to love and sometimes haters of God and His people falsely accuse true Christians. Often, I'm sure, they don't see it as a false accusation. Often, I'm quite confident, they simply define "love" as "feeling warmly toward me and my pet concerns" without realizing that it is entirely possible that their own pet concerns might do them harm and love would demand a remedy. In the early days of Christianity, Christians were accused of being atheists because they refused to acknowledge the gods of the people among whom they lived. That's not atheism; that's a false accusation. So we, too, are required to love beyond that "warm and fuzzy" version that embraces people into their eternal graves and always seek, instead, their very best. So, yes, we will bear the false accusations of "haters" and "intolerant" and "judgmental" if we seek to love others as Christ loves us. It's a dichotomy. Let's just not be accused of hate because we do hate. Jesus said, "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me" (Matt 5:11). He anticipated false accusations. You need to be sure, in your own life, that they are false. You need to be sure that you represent Christ by loving one another.
That's odd, if you think about it. The Christ whom Christians follow said, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). The defining characteristic of true Christians must be "love for one another." And here we are, labeled as "haters." How does that work? Some might argue that it's because we don't love. I'm sure in some -- too many, I'd say -- cases that's true. People who call themselves "Christians" fail to love. They fail to pursue the best for fellow believers first and, then, for their neighbors. So there is a valid concern there. On the other hand, the truth is that even those Christians who do clearly and consistently love others receive the same label of "hater" when they simply stand on the truth and point to sin as sin.
The truth is that sometimes Christians fail to love and sometimes haters of God and His people falsely accuse true Christians. Often, I'm sure, they don't see it as a false accusation. Often, I'm quite confident, they simply define "love" as "feeling warmly toward me and my pet concerns" without realizing that it is entirely possible that their own pet concerns might do them harm and love would demand a remedy. In the early days of Christianity, Christians were accused of being atheists because they refused to acknowledge the gods of the people among whom they lived. That's not atheism; that's a false accusation. So we, too, are required to love beyond that "warm and fuzzy" version that embraces people into their eternal graves and always seek, instead, their very best. So, yes, we will bear the false accusations of "haters" and "intolerant" and "judgmental" if we seek to love others as Christ loves us. It's a dichotomy. Let's just not be accused of hate because we do hate. Jesus said, "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me" (Matt 5:11). He anticipated false accusations. You need to be sure, in your own life, that they are false. You need to be sure that you represent Christ by loving one another.
Monday, January 23, 2023
The Tale of Two Motivators
I was looking at the passage in Galatians where Paul talks about the fruit of the Spirit. He starts out with something against which to contrast the fruit of the Spirit -- "the deeds of the flesh." If you are "of the flesh," this is the "fruit" you will expect to see. And he has a long list of that "fruit" -- things like immorality, sensuality, idolatry, anger, and more (Gal 5:19-21). Then he says, "But the fruit of the Spirit is ..." and gives another list (Gal 5:22-23). Besides being a shorter list, it is also a qualitatively different list. The first list is a list of deeds and the second is a list of character traits. Now that's interesting.
Gun opponents tell us, "Guns are killing people!" Gun advocates counter with "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." And you would have to concede the point. No gun pulls its own trigger. The gun is the tool and the hand wielding the tool did the deed. Of course, that would be traced back further to the brain that was controlling that hand. And, further, we'd have to take into account what the influences were on that brain. I mean, someone who kills another for gain is a murderer, but someone who kills another to save lives is a hero. So it's not guns; it's the motivator that is the issue. That's what is expressed here in the fruit of the Spirit. The flesh produces sins. The Spirit produces character traits which, in turn, will produce ... not sin.
Guns don't kill; a failure to love does. In a similar way, the Spirit produces in the believer character traits that express themselves in good attitudes and actions. But we aren't better because we act differently. We are better because the Spirit is working. By the same token, people don't do bad things because they're worse. They do bad things because they are controlled by the flesh. Therefore, "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:25), because "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal 5:24).
Gun opponents tell us, "Guns are killing people!" Gun advocates counter with "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." And you would have to concede the point. No gun pulls its own trigger. The gun is the tool and the hand wielding the tool did the deed. Of course, that would be traced back further to the brain that was controlling that hand. And, further, we'd have to take into account what the influences were on that brain. I mean, someone who kills another for gain is a murderer, but someone who kills another to save lives is a hero. So it's not guns; it's the motivator that is the issue. That's what is expressed here in the fruit of the Spirit. The flesh produces sins. The Spirit produces character traits which, in turn, will produce ... not sin.
Guns don't kill; a failure to love does. In a similar way, the Spirit produces in the believer character traits that express themselves in good attitudes and actions. But we aren't better because we act differently. We are better because the Spirit is working. By the same token, people don't do bad things because they're worse. They do bad things because they are controlled by the flesh. Therefore, "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:25), because "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal 5:24).
Sunday, January 22, 2023
Futile and Darkened
California is known to be one of the most liberal states in the nation. This last November, in the wake of the Supreme Court nullification of the Roe v Wade ruling, 66% of the state voted to make abortion law in their state. Other states may not be so sure, but California is actually trying to be the "go-to" state for killing babies.
"That's just your take, Stan," some of you might be saying. "They don't believe they're killing babies. A fetus is not a human being." And you'd like to think that's true. It's not. Oh, don't take my word for it. Take California's. According to California law, homicide is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." Notice the explicit inclusion of "fetus" there. The state law includes the killing of a fetus in their definition of murder. Of course, given the other inconsistencies in their thinking, they have a work-around for their pro-abortion law. Down there in subsection (b)(3) they say it is not murder if it "was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus." Imagine that. "As long as the mother is aiding and abetting killing that baby, we think it's fine."
Don't worry. This isn't an attack on Californians. Turns out the same law is a federal law. Current federal law specifically includes "unborn children" in their definition of murder, and that same law includes the exception of abortion. State and federal law both classify a fetus as a human being -- a baby -- and many are fine with killing that baby if mom wants to. (Not dad, by the way. Just mom.) Because Americans are crazy. No, that's not accurate. People are crazy. Wait, let's try this a better way. This is just proof that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). Proof that when we refuse to recognize God, we become fools, futile in our thinking and darkened in our foolish hearts (Rom 1:21-23). And it does beg the question. If it's okay for mom to have her baby executed prior to birth, why not after? Is "I brought you into this world; I'll take you out" a bad thing given this position?
"That's just your take, Stan," some of you might be saying. "They don't believe they're killing babies. A fetus is not a human being." And you'd like to think that's true. It's not. Oh, don't take my word for it. Take California's. According to California law, homicide is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." Notice the explicit inclusion of "fetus" there. The state law includes the killing of a fetus in their definition of murder. Of course, given the other inconsistencies in their thinking, they have a work-around for their pro-abortion law. Down there in subsection (b)(3) they say it is not murder if it "was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus." Imagine that. "As long as the mother is aiding and abetting killing that baby, we think it's fine."
Don't worry. This isn't an attack on Californians. Turns out the same law is a federal law. Current federal law specifically includes "unborn children" in their definition of murder, and that same law includes the exception of abortion. State and federal law both classify a fetus as a human being -- a baby -- and many are fine with killing that baby if mom wants to. (Not dad, by the way. Just mom.) Because Americans are crazy. No, that's not accurate. People are crazy. Wait, let's try this a better way. This is just proof that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). Proof that when we refuse to recognize God, we become fools, futile in our thinking and darkened in our foolish hearts (Rom 1:21-23). And it does beg the question. If it's okay for mom to have her baby executed prior to birth, why not after? Is "I brought you into this world; I'll take you out" a bad thing given this position?
Saturday, January 21, 2023
News Weakly - 1/21/2023
Fake News
Clearly this can't be true. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is saying the U.S. hit its legal debt limit this week. Now, hang on. I mean, sure, Trump added $7 trillion in 4 years (due largely to COVID), but Obama only doubled the national debt (from $6.3 trillion to $14.4 trillion) during his tenure and in just 2 years Biden has increased debt almost $4 trillion, so how can we possibly be so close to the end of our debt limit when our leaders have been so fiscally responsible?
And God Said ... And It Was So
Okay, this is just weird. The Independent has a story about a trend among millennials. Lots of them are pushing celibacy. "Really??" Yeah, go figure. These young people are thinking that avoiding sex, at least for a while, might improve their relationships and clarify their goals and directions in those relationships. Kind of like God saying, "No sex outside of marriage." Go figure!
Unbelievable
You will not believe this story. Apparently Arizona (think "desert") is having a water crisis. No, seriously. Thousands of Californians have streamed into the state, new housing has been feverishly constructed in the part of Arizona that has very little water resources (the desert), and some communities are having their water cut off. Who would have thought?
String Him Up
A San Francisco art gallery owner is being arrested after a video of him spraying water on a homeless woman on the sidewalk outside of his gallery went viral. "Misdemeanor battery," the district attorney calls it. "Brutal" according to the NAACP. Apparently getting someone wet against their wishes is "brutal." I'm not condoning the man's action, but I didn't know this rose to the level of assault. Oh, great, so now waterguns will be assault weapons??
Hard to Follow
Christianity Today published an article about the 50 countries where it's hardest to follow Jesus in 2023. You may not be surprised that North Korea was #1. It might be surprising that Somalia was #2. I was actually quite surprised that Mexico was #38 on the list. I get the point; these are the places that the worst persecution of Christians is occurring. I might argue, however, that one of the hardest places to follow Jesus would be somewhere that "follow Jesus" gets a nod in theory but is thoroughly opposed in practice ... like the U.S., where we are told to go ahead and believe what we want as long as we don't bring it into the public square ... where our beliefs demand it be.
Mostly Harmless
In Chicago a special needs, nonverbal 21-year-old stood waiting with his father and brother for his bus for school when three gang members came around the corner and fired 39 rounds at the trio. The young man was hit in the head and is in critical condition. Clearly the problem is guns here, because without them this group of thugs would have been kind, respectful, and mostly harmless.
And You Were Skeptical
Biden got his "Inflation Reduction Act" through and the Fed has been raising rates for a year to knock down inflation and now we see that 2022 was the slowest year for US home sales in nearly a decade. See? Prices (on homes) are dropping and fewer are buying them thanks to our vigilant federal government. And you didn't believe they could reduce inflation (by eliminating purchasing).
People Will Be Beeple
Having reached the ceiling for government spending, Congress is being urged to raise the theft ceiling again. Of course! In other news, following Stanford's recommended use of words, Harvard, citing Harvard's racist history, is banning the use of the word "Harvard". Makes sense. From the Genesius Times, there was a breaking story about them finding Hillary Clinton's email server in Joe Biden's garage. Figures.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Clearly this can't be true. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is saying the U.S. hit its legal debt limit this week. Now, hang on. I mean, sure, Trump added $7 trillion in 4 years (due largely to COVID), but Obama only doubled the national debt (from $6.3 trillion to $14.4 trillion) during his tenure and in just 2 years Biden has increased debt almost $4 trillion, so how can we possibly be so close to the end of our debt limit when our leaders have been so fiscally responsible?
And God Said ... And It Was So
Okay, this is just weird. The Independent has a story about a trend among millennials. Lots of them are pushing celibacy. "Really??" Yeah, go figure. These young people are thinking that avoiding sex, at least for a while, might improve their relationships and clarify their goals and directions in those relationships. Kind of like God saying, "No sex outside of marriage." Go figure!
Unbelievable
You will not believe this story. Apparently Arizona (think "desert") is having a water crisis. No, seriously. Thousands of Californians have streamed into the state, new housing has been feverishly constructed in the part of Arizona that has very little water resources (the desert), and some communities are having their water cut off. Who would have thought?
String Him Up
A San Francisco art gallery owner is being arrested after a video of him spraying water on a homeless woman on the sidewalk outside of his gallery went viral. "Misdemeanor battery," the district attorney calls it. "Brutal" according to the NAACP. Apparently getting someone wet against their wishes is "brutal." I'm not condoning the man's action, but I didn't know this rose to the level of assault. Oh, great, so now waterguns will be assault weapons??
Hard to Follow
Christianity Today published an article about the 50 countries where it's hardest to follow Jesus in 2023. You may not be surprised that North Korea was #1. It might be surprising that Somalia was #2. I was actually quite surprised that Mexico was #38 on the list. I get the point; these are the places that the worst persecution of Christians is occurring. I might argue, however, that one of the hardest places to follow Jesus would be somewhere that "follow Jesus" gets a nod in theory but is thoroughly opposed in practice ... like the U.S., where we are told to go ahead and believe what we want as long as we don't bring it into the public square ... where our beliefs demand it be.
Mostly Harmless
In Chicago a special needs, nonverbal 21-year-old stood waiting with his father and brother for his bus for school when three gang members came around the corner and fired 39 rounds at the trio. The young man was hit in the head and is in critical condition. Clearly the problem is guns here, because without them this group of thugs would have been kind, respectful, and mostly harmless.
And You Were Skeptical
Biden got his "Inflation Reduction Act" through and the Fed has been raising rates for a year to knock down inflation and now we see that 2022 was the slowest year for US home sales in nearly a decade. See? Prices (on homes) are dropping and fewer are buying them thanks to our vigilant federal government. And you didn't believe they could reduce inflation (by eliminating purchasing).
People Will Be Beeple
Having reached the ceiling for government spending, Congress is being urged to raise the theft ceiling again. Of course! In other news, following Stanford's recommended use of words, Harvard, citing Harvard's racist history, is banning the use of the word "Harvard". Makes sense. From the Genesius Times, there was a breaking story about them finding Hillary Clinton's email server in Joe Biden's garage. Figures.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, January 20, 2023
Losers
Sometimes verb tenses can be very significant. Notice, for instance, Luke 9:24.
Jesus warned that dying to self was not an option; it was a mandate. Jesus warned that those who were unwilling to give up self had no place following Him (Luke 9:23-25; Matt 10:37-39). So the question here is 1) intent and 2) action. Jesus said that if your intent was to save your life, you would lose it. He didn't say, then, that if your intent was to lose it, you'd save it. He said that if you actually carry out losing your own life -- death to self -- you will save your life. How do we do that? It's actually simple in its application (although, obviously, difficult to carry out). It is simply "It's not about me." This life is not about me. This marriage, this job, this family, this house, this church, this hobby ... all of this is not about me. It's about Him. Death to self.
John the Baptist famously said, "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30). John understood that "He who comes from heaven is above all" (John 3:31) and, therefore owned all. So John set about ... decreasing self. Are you working for yourself -- your well-being, good standing, prosperity, comfort, fame, power, "stuff" -- or are you losing your life? Are you dying to self? The old hymn said, "I surrender all." Do we do that? Do we lose our lives for Him? The alternative isn't pretty.
Whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it.It's very easy to misread that text. We want to take the content of the first phrase -- "wishes to save his life" -- and feed it into the second -- "loses his life." It's not there. The first is about a "wish" -- your will -- and the second is about an actuality. So intent are we on making that substitution that the KJV actually does. But the "will" in the first phrase doesn't exist in the second.
Jesus warned that dying to self was not an option; it was a mandate. Jesus warned that those who were unwilling to give up self had no place following Him (Luke 9:23-25; Matt 10:37-39). So the question here is 1) intent and 2) action. Jesus said that if your intent was to save your life, you would lose it. He didn't say, then, that if your intent was to lose it, you'd save it. He said that if you actually carry out losing your own life -- death to self -- you will save your life. How do we do that? It's actually simple in its application (although, obviously, difficult to carry out). It is simply "It's not about me." This life is not about me. This marriage, this job, this family, this house, this church, this hobby ... all of this is not about me. It's about Him. Death to self.
John the Baptist famously said, "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30). John understood that "He who comes from heaven is above all" (John 3:31) and, therefore owned all. So John set about ... decreasing self. Are you working for yourself -- your well-being, good standing, prosperity, comfort, fame, power, "stuff" -- or are you losing your life? Are you dying to self? The old hymn said, "I surrender all." Do we do that? Do we lose our lives for Him? The alternative isn't pretty.
Thursday, January 19, 2023
Dead Man Walking
Paul made some earth-shaking claims that we seem to take lightly. In Romans 6 he says, "How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?" (Rom 6:2-3) We are dead to sin. He didn't say, "We are dying to sin." He didn't indicate a process. He simply stated it as an accomplished fact. So he says later, "Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:11). That "consider yourselves" is "recognize the fact that" rather than "start to feel this way." "Here's the fact," he says. "You are dead to sin. Now see yourself that way." Then he claims, "Sin shall not be master over you" (Rom 6:14). Not "should not." It is, again, a truth claim, a statement of accomplished fact. If you are in Christ, you are dead to sin and sin shall not be master over you.
Now, I suspect I'm not the only one that has trouble identifying that way. I suspect that all of us struggle with sin. I'm fairly confident that we all have sins that really seem to have mastery over us. Even Paul complained about it in his own life (Rom 7:12-24). He calls himself "a prisoner of the law of sin" (Rom 7:23). So, on one hand, we can be quite confident that we who are in Christ are already dead to sin and will not be mastered by it and we will continue for the rest of our lives on Earth to struggle with sin.
Which leads me to the next claim Paul makes that we often take lightly -- the reason we continue to sin and the solution. In answer to his "consider yourselves to be dead to sin," Paul makes an application. "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God" (Rom 6:12-13). Did you get that? The reason we struggle with sin is because we choose to. We "let sin reign." We present the members of our body to sin. The solution? Stop it! Stop believing the lie that we must sin. Stop believing the lie that we sin because we have to. Unbelievers fall in that category; we don't. We don't have to sin. Stop it! Go in a different direction. Present yourselves to God as instruments of righteousness. The most literal translation of that word "instruments" is "weapons." Turn from presenting yourself to sin and turn toward finding every opportunity you can to present yourself to God to be used as His instrument of war for righteousness. It's quite stunning when you think about it, but how many of us live that way? Why not? Because we don't recognize the truth and act on it. And that's called "insanity".
Now, I suspect I'm not the only one that has trouble identifying that way. I suspect that all of us struggle with sin. I'm fairly confident that we all have sins that really seem to have mastery over us. Even Paul complained about it in his own life (Rom 7:12-24). He calls himself "a prisoner of the law of sin" (Rom 7:23). So, on one hand, we can be quite confident that we who are in Christ are already dead to sin and will not be mastered by it and we will continue for the rest of our lives on Earth to struggle with sin.
Which leads me to the next claim Paul makes that we often take lightly -- the reason we continue to sin and the solution. In answer to his "consider yourselves to be dead to sin," Paul makes an application. "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God" (Rom 6:12-13). Did you get that? The reason we struggle with sin is because we choose to. We "let sin reign." We present the members of our body to sin. The solution? Stop it! Stop believing the lie that we must sin. Stop believing the lie that we sin because we have to. Unbelievers fall in that category; we don't. We don't have to sin. Stop it! Go in a different direction. Present yourselves to God as instruments of righteousness. The most literal translation of that word "instruments" is "weapons." Turn from presenting yourself to sin and turn toward finding every opportunity you can to present yourself to God to be used as His instrument of war for righteousness. It's quite stunning when you think about it, but how many of us live that way? Why not? Because we don't recognize the truth and act on it. And that's called "insanity".
Wednesday, January 18, 2023
When Art Becomes Life
In the most stringent Reformed circles, they interpret Exodus 20:4-5 as a prohibition of any images at all. Like those pictures you see of Jesus on the cross? Out! Or that series, The Chosen? Sin! I am not one of those, but I think there is something to consider on the matter.
We are a gullible race of people. Here, let's state that in biblical terms: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9) Jesus called Satan "the father of lies" (John 8:44) and deception is his best tool. Now, consider. If you read the account of Jesus's crucifixion and conjure a picture in your head of the event, what do you see? A skinny white guy in a pair of underwear (medieval style)? Probably something like that. Because we've seen so many paintings or other images of the Crucifixion, so that's what we picture. (A little hint: those pictures don't match the biblical account.) Then, what we picture becomes what was real in our minds. Then, when someone challenges that picture (as opposed to the actual event), we take offense. They're challenging the Crucifixion! It ain't necessarily so. Think about it this way. Have you ever read a book and seen the movie? How does seeing the movie change your perception of the book? If you see the movie and then read the book, do you feed those images into your reading? Notice how what we see influences our understanding and beliefs about what we read. It's a dangerous game when it comes to God.
The Second Commandment -- no images -- is not an art prohibition. It is a worship prohibition. God commanded Israel to make images. Remember? There were cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, for instance. No, it isn't about making images. It is about worshiping images. And, apparently, God understood our limitation there. It is not possible for human beings to make an image of God and not see that as "God." Images of God, even for good purposes, become idols by their nature. (Think "Golden Calf" -- Exo 32:4.) We have God's description -- God's revelation -- of Himself in His Word. We don't need to make images. In fact, it is our nature to allow art of all kinds to become idols of all kinds simply by making images of the Invisible God. Because the moment we visually represent a supernatural Being as natural, we immediately diminish Him and substitute that portrayal as the real God ... which is the definition of idolatry. When we impose on God what we think He should be or should not be, what He is or is not, we make our own idol. Let God be the God that God reveals. Meet Him where He is, not where we think He should be or how our artistic endeavors portray Him.
We are a gullible race of people. Here, let's state that in biblical terms: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9) Jesus called Satan "the father of lies" (John 8:44) and deception is his best tool. Now, consider. If you read the account of Jesus's crucifixion and conjure a picture in your head of the event, what do you see? A skinny white guy in a pair of underwear (medieval style)? Probably something like that. Because we've seen so many paintings or other images of the Crucifixion, so that's what we picture. (A little hint: those pictures don't match the biblical account.) Then, what we picture becomes what was real in our minds. Then, when someone challenges that picture (as opposed to the actual event), we take offense. They're challenging the Crucifixion! It ain't necessarily so. Think about it this way. Have you ever read a book and seen the movie? How does seeing the movie change your perception of the book? If you see the movie and then read the book, do you feed those images into your reading? Notice how what we see influences our understanding and beliefs about what we read. It's a dangerous game when it comes to God.
The Second Commandment -- no images -- is not an art prohibition. It is a worship prohibition. God commanded Israel to make images. Remember? There were cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, for instance. No, it isn't about making images. It is about worshiping images. And, apparently, God understood our limitation there. It is not possible for human beings to make an image of God and not see that as "God." Images of God, even for good purposes, become idols by their nature. (Think "Golden Calf" -- Exo 32:4.) We have God's description -- God's revelation -- of Himself in His Word. We don't need to make images. In fact, it is our nature to allow art of all kinds to become idols of all kinds simply by making images of the Invisible God. Because the moment we visually represent a supernatural Being as natural, we immediately diminish Him and substitute that portrayal as the real God ... which is the definition of idolatry. When we impose on God what we think He should be or should not be, what He is or is not, we make our own idol. Let God be the God that God reveals. Meet Him where He is, not where we think He should be or how our artistic endeavors portray Him.
Tuesday, January 17, 2023
Judgment
Recently I sat with some fellow believers discussing the state of the world. Billy Graham's wife once said, "If God doesn't punish America, He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah." I heard the same sort of thing around the room. I, of course, had to disagree.
In Romans Paul talks about the human problem of sin. "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). There's the problem. It's not "doing bad things" or "violating rules." It is suppressing the truth. It is, in fact, suppressing a specific truth -- "what can be known about God" (Rom 1:19). The primary sin problem is the failure to honor God or give thanks to Him (Rom 1:21). According to Paul, then, the rest of Romans 1 is a sequence of judgments. Notice the repeated phrase, "God gave them up" (Rom 1:24, 26, 28). From Paul's perspective the judgment of God for refusing to honor or thank God goes something like this. 1) We become stupid (Rom 1:21). 2) We indulge our lusts (Rom 1:24). 3) We descend into the world of unnatural sexual relations (Rom 1:26-27). 4) We surrender sanity and explore "all manner of unrighteousness" (Rom 1:28-32). Brothers and sisters, is this not a description of our current state of affairs? When you read this stuff, do you not feel like you're reading a newspaper? And as all these things get worse, do you not see that this is God judging America?
Don't be misled. America (and much of the "civilized world") is currently facing God's temporal judgment. Societies that were once governed by an underlying Christian morality have intentionally jettisoned that morality and are puzzled why values have declined. The things we all think are good -- kindness, virtue, caring for one another, etc. -- are harder to find and more outstanding when we do because, as a society, we have refused to acknowledge God, honor God, or thank God. It is at times like these that we need to be diligent to take the Gospel to the world, where "the world" in this context is in our backyards, our neighborhoods, our towns and cities. America may have once been a "Christian nation," but it is now a major mission field and we are the ones assigned the task. "Go, therefore, and make disciples ..." (Matt 28:18-20).
In Romans Paul talks about the human problem of sin. "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). There's the problem. It's not "doing bad things" or "violating rules." It is suppressing the truth. It is, in fact, suppressing a specific truth -- "what can be known about God" (Rom 1:19). The primary sin problem is the failure to honor God or give thanks to Him (Rom 1:21). According to Paul, then, the rest of Romans 1 is a sequence of judgments. Notice the repeated phrase, "God gave them up" (Rom 1:24, 26, 28). From Paul's perspective the judgment of God for refusing to honor or thank God goes something like this. 1) We become stupid (Rom 1:21). 2) We indulge our lusts (Rom 1:24). 3) We descend into the world of unnatural sexual relations (Rom 1:26-27). 4) We surrender sanity and explore "all manner of unrighteousness" (Rom 1:28-32). Brothers and sisters, is this not a description of our current state of affairs? When you read this stuff, do you not feel like you're reading a newspaper? And as all these things get worse, do you not see that this is God judging America?
Don't be misled. America (and much of the "civilized world") is currently facing God's temporal judgment. Societies that were once governed by an underlying Christian morality have intentionally jettisoned that morality and are puzzled why values have declined. The things we all think are good -- kindness, virtue, caring for one another, etc. -- are harder to find and more outstanding when we do because, as a society, we have refused to acknowledge God, honor God, or thank God. It is at times like these that we need to be diligent to take the Gospel to the world, where "the world" in this context is in our backyards, our neighborhoods, our towns and cities. America may have once been a "Christian nation," but it is now a major mission field and we are the ones assigned the task. "Go, therefore, and make disciples ..." (Matt 28:18-20).
Monday, January 16, 2023
All Manner of Evil
I know you'll think this is "fake news," but apparently a pop singer -- one of our ubiquitous entertainers known first and foremost for their moral virtue and deep and abiding concern for religion -- has had a poster for her latest album banned by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority. (Please note from the outset that it was not Christians.) Apparently, in order to promote her latest album (whose name I won't print here because my mother reads my blog), the poster showed the singer in a "bondage-style outfit" lying on a large, crucifix-shaped bed positioned like so many of the images you've seen of Christ on the cross. That, the authorities concluded, might offend religious people -- especially religious people with children who were looking at it. Go figure.
I think it's an offense. No, not an offense to Christians. An offense to 21st century civilization. For the younger generation, I'm going to offer an historical term you may not have heard. There used to be what we called "common decency," a sense that "this is okay there but not here." There was also something known as "common courtesy" where things didn't have to be legislated for us to be kind to one another. Well, no more. We have arrived at the place where not only do we not care about other people's feelings -- we are encouraged not to care about other people's feelings and, even, told that we should get paid for it at times. You should "be yourself" and "do what makes you happy" and, explicitly, do it with complete disregard for others. Of course, we're in this uniquely schizophrenic society these days that includes the proviso, "Except, of course, if you're offending a protected class." But since those "protected classes" are almost entirely in the minority (sometimes to the extreme), we mostly encourage being offensive to the majority if it suits your fancy.
I think it's an offense that people use "the arts" to attack the God who created beauty and call it "artwork" and I think it's offense that Christians take offense even though they were promised this would happen. Our Leader said, "If the world hates you, know that it has hated Me before it hated you" (John 15:18). Paul wrote, "All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Tim 3:12). (And it's painful calling this kind of thing "persecuted".) Peter wrote, "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you" (1 Peter 4:12). He also said that we were called to suffer for Christ (1 Peter 2:20-21). Instead of moral outrage, we are called, as James put it, to "Count it all joy" (James 1:2) or, as Paul said, to "rejoice in sufferings" (Rom 5:3-5). Brothers and sisters, don't be surprised that the world hates God and His followers. And don't think that your righteous indignation furthers the cause of Christ in this. If they hated Jesus, why would you expect them to react differently to His followers? Did you think that legislating their behavior you could save their souls? Did you think that your moral outrage would bring about their repentance? We weren't put here to make a better world; we were put here as ambassadors for Christ with the Gospel. Let's not lose focus here.
I think it's an offense. No, not an offense to Christians. An offense to 21st century civilization. For the younger generation, I'm going to offer an historical term you may not have heard. There used to be what we called "common decency," a sense that "this is okay there but not here." There was also something known as "common courtesy" where things didn't have to be legislated for us to be kind to one another. Well, no more. We have arrived at the place where not only do we not care about other people's feelings -- we are encouraged not to care about other people's feelings and, even, told that we should get paid for it at times. You should "be yourself" and "do what makes you happy" and, explicitly, do it with complete disregard for others. Of course, we're in this uniquely schizophrenic society these days that includes the proviso, "Except, of course, if you're offending a protected class." But since those "protected classes" are almost entirely in the minority (sometimes to the extreme), we mostly encourage being offensive to the majority if it suits your fancy.
I think it's an offense that people use "the arts" to attack the God who created beauty and call it "artwork" and I think it's offense that Christians take offense even though they were promised this would happen. Our Leader said, "If the world hates you, know that it has hated Me before it hated you" (John 15:18). Paul wrote, "All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Tim 3:12). (And it's painful calling this kind of thing "persecuted".) Peter wrote, "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you" (1 Peter 4:12). He also said that we were called to suffer for Christ (1 Peter 2:20-21). Instead of moral outrage, we are called, as James put it, to "Count it all joy" (James 1:2) or, as Paul said, to "rejoice in sufferings" (Rom 5:3-5). Brothers and sisters, don't be surprised that the world hates God and His followers. And don't think that your righteous indignation furthers the cause of Christ in this. If they hated Jesus, why would you expect them to react differently to His followers? Did you think that legislating their behavior you could save their souls? Did you think that your moral outrage would bring about their repentance? We weren't put here to make a better world; we were put here as ambassadors for Christ with the Gospel. Let's not lose focus here.
Sunday, January 15, 2023
In Remembrance
We partook in the Lord's Supper last Sunday. Sometimes that can get ... tedious. It's designed to remember Christ's sacrifice, but repetition can also breed ambivalence. This one was different for me.
It wasn't that they did anything different. It wasn't that they said anything different. It was simply the proximity of Christmas. Two weeks before, we had celebrated the Incarnation. "Incarnation" -- the "becoming flesh." That baby in the manger wasn't just another baby. He was God Incarnate, God made flesh, Emmanuel, God with us. With that truth still fresh in my mind, then, "This is My body, which is given for you" and "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" takes on a whole new weight. That baby in the manger was born for this. It didn't "just happen." It was the plan (Acts 4:26-28). That innocent baby, uniquely, remained innocent until His murder 33 years later and that blood that He shed for us remained innocent, too. For us. For a new covenant of forgiveness of sins.
As the media has demonstrated, repetition can breed credulity -- belief without substance. "Well, they told us it was an insurrection enough times. Must have been." "Well, they've told us often enough that a guy can be a girl, so it must be so." Repetition can breed familiarity, and sometimes familiarity can breed contempt. But Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me," so this repetition must have genuine value and remembrance of His sacrifice is worth the repetition. We should be careful that it breeds awe and not apathy.
It wasn't that they did anything different. It wasn't that they said anything different. It was simply the proximity of Christmas. Two weeks before, we had celebrated the Incarnation. "Incarnation" -- the "becoming flesh." That baby in the manger wasn't just another baby. He was God Incarnate, God made flesh, Emmanuel, God with us. With that truth still fresh in my mind, then, "This is My body, which is given for you" and "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" takes on a whole new weight. That baby in the manger was born for this. It didn't "just happen." It was the plan (Acts 4:26-28). That innocent baby, uniquely, remained innocent until His murder 33 years later and that blood that He shed for us remained innocent, too. For us. For a new covenant of forgiveness of sins.
As the media has demonstrated, repetition can breed credulity -- belief without substance. "Well, they told us it was an insurrection enough times. Must have been." "Well, they've told us often enough that a guy can be a girl, so it must be so." Repetition can breed familiarity, and sometimes familiarity can breed contempt. But Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me," so this repetition must have genuine value and remembrance of His sacrifice is worth the repetition. We should be careful that it breeds awe and not apathy.
Saturday, January 14, 2023
News Weakly - 1/14/2023
Trump's Fault
Apparently more than 300 people were arrested in Brazil after supporters of the losing candidate attempted to storm the palace. Unlike the American version 2 years ago, no unarmed rioters were shot and there were no reports of death or injuries. Unlike America's version this did appear to be an attempted insurrection. Still, clearly, it was Trump's fault and Brazil will surely sue Trump for damages.
Nothing To See Here
President Biden hasn't visited the southern border since he took office, but he was quite sure he had made an impact on the problem, so he visited El Paso this last weekend ... after El Paso authorities feverishly evicted 6 busloads of Venezuelans (for starters -- they said 200 total were sent to Mexico) to clean it up for the president. The Border Patrol Union tweeted "We suggest landing in Des Moines, Iowa and telling him it's El Paso. He'll never know the difference." I didn't even have to make that up.
Even Seattle Gets It
Seattle is an ultra-liberal city (think "defund the police" and such), but the school district there is suing Big Tech for poisoning youth with social media addiction. They say they can't do their jobs because of the problems caused by social media such as TikTok. Big Tech is saying, "We're not responsible for content," but it's not the content; it's the medium itself that is designed to captivate and addict people. If Seattle gets it, why don't parents?
A Feel-Good Fairy Tale
In response to the epidemic of gun violence, keenly felt in places like Chicago, Illinois lawmakers have passed a assault weapon ban for the state. Whew! What a relief! Except ... the facts say otherwise. Of all deaths in 2020, for instance, gun deaths constituted about 1.3%. Of those deaths, 54% were suicides. In 2020, there were 626 deaths from mass murders or mass killings (I'm not sure what the distinction is). That is about 1.4% of gun deaths. Doing the math, mass killings in 2020 constituted 0.02% of 2020 deaths. In comparison, 1.4% of the total deaths were by auto accident and 2.7% by drug overdose. So we will make people feel safer by eliminating (theoretically) 0.02% of deaths without touching the larger problems, and they will call that a "win." And they lived (blindly and) happily ever after.
Truth Claims Falsified
Are hard as this may be to believe, despite the multiple claims by the president that, thanks to him, we beat COVID, the White House has extended the COVID emergency ... again. Believe it or not.
Thank You, Mr. President
And now they tell us that egg prices have more than tripled. That can't be, can it? Didn't they pass that really cool "Inflation Reduction Act"? Broken government. Or, in biblical terms, "It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes" (Psa 118:9).
Another Thing Out of Bounds for Men
M&Ms is putting out a new candy pack with all female characters. Message received, M&Ms. Males are not welcome to buy your product. Will comply.
Double Standard for Offense
The U.S. Department of the Interior announced new names for five sites whose names previously included the word "squaw." "Squaw," you see, as a reference to an indigenous woman, is derogatory. "Harmful," was the term they used. Never mind that the term comes from the Algonquian languages as their term for "woman." Heaven forbid we call Algonquian women what Algonquian speakers call them. Is this like the "n" word where black people can use it about black people but white people can't?
Looking Out for the Big Guy
In their relentless pursuit of the rights of workers, Michigan Democrats are pushing for the removal of the "right-to-work" laws in Michigan. Yes, you can work there, as long as you pay the union dues and fees. No, you shouldn't have the right to just work in Michigan. You need to embrace your union overlords.
The ABeeCs of This Week's News
You heard, I'm sure, that they discovered classified documents in Biden's private quarters. It's not the same as the Trump version, of course. Biden says he is unaware of any classified documents ... or who he is or why he's in this oval-shaped office. And, as expected, the DOJ is adding an indictment of Trump for Biden's possession of classified documents. The Bee noted the all-female M&M product and suggested that the male M&Ms are finally enjoying some peace and quiet. Finally, mystery solved. The Bee discovered the cause of this week's air travel shutdown. Apparently Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg fell asleep on the "SHUT DOWN ALL AIR TRAVEL" button ... again. Mystery solved.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Apparently more than 300 people were arrested in Brazil after supporters of the losing candidate attempted to storm the palace. Unlike the American version 2 years ago, no unarmed rioters were shot and there were no reports of death or injuries. Unlike America's version this did appear to be an attempted insurrection. Still, clearly, it was Trump's fault and Brazil will surely sue Trump for damages.
Nothing To See Here
President Biden hasn't visited the southern border since he took office, but he was quite sure he had made an impact on the problem, so he visited El Paso this last weekend ... after El Paso authorities feverishly evicted 6 busloads of Venezuelans (for starters -- they said 200 total were sent to Mexico) to clean it up for the president. The Border Patrol Union tweeted "We suggest landing in Des Moines, Iowa and telling him it's El Paso. He'll never know the difference." I didn't even have to make that up.
Even Seattle Gets It
Seattle is an ultra-liberal city (think "defund the police" and such), but the school district there is suing Big Tech for poisoning youth with social media addiction. They say they can't do their jobs because of the problems caused by social media such as TikTok. Big Tech is saying, "We're not responsible for content," but it's not the content; it's the medium itself that is designed to captivate and addict people. If Seattle gets it, why don't parents?
A Feel-Good Fairy Tale
In response to the epidemic of gun violence, keenly felt in places like Chicago, Illinois lawmakers have passed a assault weapon ban for the state. Whew! What a relief! Except ... the facts say otherwise. Of all deaths in 2020, for instance, gun deaths constituted about 1.3%. Of those deaths, 54% were suicides. In 2020, there were 626 deaths from mass murders or mass killings (I'm not sure what the distinction is). That is about 1.4% of gun deaths. Doing the math, mass killings in 2020 constituted 0.02% of 2020 deaths. In comparison, 1.4% of the total deaths were by auto accident and 2.7% by drug overdose. So we will make people feel safer by eliminating (theoretically) 0.02% of deaths without touching the larger problems, and they will call that a "win." And they lived (blindly and) happily ever after.
Truth Claims Falsified
Are hard as this may be to believe, despite the multiple claims by the president that, thanks to him, we beat COVID, the White House has extended the COVID emergency ... again. Believe it or not.
Thank You, Mr. President
And now they tell us that egg prices have more than tripled. That can't be, can it? Didn't they pass that really cool "Inflation Reduction Act"? Broken government. Or, in biblical terms, "It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes" (Psa 118:9).
Another Thing Out of Bounds for Men
M&Ms is putting out a new candy pack with all female characters. Message received, M&Ms. Males are not welcome to buy your product. Will comply.
Double Standard for Offense
The U.S. Department of the Interior announced new names for five sites whose names previously included the word "squaw." "Squaw," you see, as a reference to an indigenous woman, is derogatory. "Harmful," was the term they used. Never mind that the term comes from the Algonquian languages as their term for "woman." Heaven forbid we call Algonquian women what Algonquian speakers call them. Is this like the "n" word where black people can use it about black people but white people can't?
Looking Out for the Big Guy
In their relentless pursuit of the rights of workers, Michigan Democrats are pushing for the removal of the "right-to-work" laws in Michigan. Yes, you can work there, as long as you pay the union dues and fees. No, you shouldn't have the right to just work in Michigan. You need to embrace your union overlords.
The ABeeCs of This Week's News
You heard, I'm sure, that they discovered classified documents in Biden's private quarters. It's not the same as the Trump version, of course. Biden says he is unaware of any classified documents ... or who he is or why he's in this oval-shaped office. And, as expected, the DOJ is adding an indictment of Trump for Biden's possession of classified documents. The Bee noted the all-female M&M product and suggested that the male M&Ms are finally enjoying some peace and quiet. Finally, mystery solved. The Bee discovered the cause of this week's air travel shutdown. Apparently Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg fell asleep on the "SHUT DOWN ALL AIR TRAVEL" button ... again. Mystery solved.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, January 13, 2023
If You Do Not Forgive
Jesus gave a dire warning in His Sermon on the Mount. "If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt 6:14-15). I don't know about you, but that feels like a really important thing. So ... what is biblical forgiveness? Most of us think of forgiveness as something like, "I'm not mad at you anymore." The dictionary says it means "to stop feeling angry or resentful toward someone for an offense." Is that it? And we are all pretty sure it requires that the person ask for it before it needs to be extended. I mean, do we really need to forgive people who don't repent, who aren't sorry?
Let's look at the best possible example of forgiveness in the Bible -- Jesus. First, Scripture makes it abundantly clear that Jesus did not die for repentant people. On the cross He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). Without waiting for someone to say, "Sorry." Further, we read, "God shows His love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). "While we were yet sinners." Not waiting for an apology. He reconciled us to God while we were enemies (Rom 5:10). The notion that "They've got to ask before we forgive" isn't biblical. Nor is the notion that forgiveness means "feeling okay." How did Jesus forgive? He took on Himself the sins of others (Heb 9:28). And I would contend, dear reader, that that is the biblical definition of "forgive." It doesn't mean to feel okay toward someone who did wrong. It means to accept on oneself the cost of their wrong. It doesn't mitigate it. "Oh, that wasn't so bad." It looks wrong in the face and says, "That was wrong and I will bear the cost." It isn't justice; it is mercy. And it isn't really feasible unless you have a relationship with Christ in which He is enough.
Forgiveness is critical. Those who will not forgive others should not expect to receive forgiveness from God. We don't forgive because it is asked; we forgive because we are commanded to do so, because it is in our best interests to do so, and because Christ in us enables us to do so. Sometimes people hurt you without knowing it. Should you forgive? Yes. Sometimes people hurt you on purpose and forget about it. Should you forgive? Yes. Forgiveness isn't even reconciliation. That's a separate part. What we are commanded to do is, on the basis of our own forgiveness from Christ, let others off the hook for their much more minor offenses against us. Forgiveness is an act of faith empowered by the Spirit and carried out in the best interest of those who have wronged you. It doesn't require forgetting (another myth about forgiveness). It just requires you to set it aside for a greater purpose. Jesus did it. As followers of Christ, so should we.
Let's look at the best possible example of forgiveness in the Bible -- Jesus. First, Scripture makes it abundantly clear that Jesus did not die for repentant people. On the cross He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). Without waiting for someone to say, "Sorry." Further, we read, "God shows His love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). "While we were yet sinners." Not waiting for an apology. He reconciled us to God while we were enemies (Rom 5:10). The notion that "They've got to ask before we forgive" isn't biblical. Nor is the notion that forgiveness means "feeling okay." How did Jesus forgive? He took on Himself the sins of others (Heb 9:28). And I would contend, dear reader, that that is the biblical definition of "forgive." It doesn't mean to feel okay toward someone who did wrong. It means to accept on oneself the cost of their wrong. It doesn't mitigate it. "Oh, that wasn't so bad." It looks wrong in the face and says, "That was wrong and I will bear the cost." It isn't justice; it is mercy. And it isn't really feasible unless you have a relationship with Christ in which He is enough.
Forgiveness is critical. Those who will not forgive others should not expect to receive forgiveness from God. We don't forgive because it is asked; we forgive because we are commanded to do so, because it is in our best interests to do so, and because Christ in us enables us to do so. Sometimes people hurt you without knowing it. Should you forgive? Yes. Sometimes people hurt you on purpose and forget about it. Should you forgive? Yes. Forgiveness isn't even reconciliation. That's a separate part. What we are commanded to do is, on the basis of our own forgiveness from Christ, let others off the hook for their much more minor offenses against us. Forgiveness is an act of faith empowered by the Spirit and carried out in the best interest of those who have wronged you. It doesn't require forgetting (another myth about forgiveness). It just requires you to set it aside for a greater purpose. Jesus did it. As followers of Christ, so should we.
Thursday, January 12, 2023
The Ordinary Means of Grace
You may or may not have heard of the Ordinary Means of Grace. I suppose it's largely a Reformed term, although I don't think it's particularly Reformed or even controversial. But, as is the case in so many things these days, language seems to trip us up. So what is the "Ordinary Means of Grace"?
According to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, "the Ordinary Means of Grace" refers to those common things all believers do to engage in their own sanctification -- to appropriate God's grace. The catechism lists the Word, the sacraments, and prayer. (And in case you were concerned, the sacraments are baptism and the Lord's Supper. Nothing too outlandish.) "Ordinary" to us means "common," but in the language of the theologians, it refers to the things ordained by God -- His ordinances. (See that? "Ordinary" -- "Ordinances"?) This has given us some common means whereby we are discipled in the faith. They are ordinary as opposed to extraordinary. As such, it would seem like there would be more than the three listed. Being a part of a local body of believers, for instance, seems like it should be part of that list (Heb 10:24-25). You get the idea.
Here's my problem. We can tend to be very programmatic people. We like "12-step programs" and "3-easy steps to godly living" and the like. The Christian life, on the other, is much more ... organic. Where a program or the "ordinary means to grace" might provide a reasonable structure, like a skeleton might, they don't take into account the meat, the flesh and blood. The Christian walk is a living relationship with Christ (e.g., Rom 6:11) and a living relationship with fellow believers. And "read your bible, pray, and go to church" may be good structures, but the danger is that we think of them as boxes to check off rather than bodies to take part in. I think that's how we got to the notion that the Great Commission was "lead people to Jesus." Check that box. Instead, we are called to make disciples in what appears to be an ongoing, never ending, fully hands-on process. Like reading His Word, praying, and being immersed in a church. Good stuff, those ordinary means of grace, but never let yourself simplify your walk with Christ into a program like that. Ours is to be a lifelong, living pursuit of a growing relationship with our Savior.
According to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, "the Ordinary Means of Grace" refers to those common things all believers do to engage in their own sanctification -- to appropriate God's grace. The catechism lists the Word, the sacraments, and prayer. (And in case you were concerned, the sacraments are baptism and the Lord's Supper. Nothing too outlandish.) "Ordinary" to us means "common," but in the language of the theologians, it refers to the things ordained by God -- His ordinances. (See that? "Ordinary" -- "Ordinances"?) This has given us some common means whereby we are discipled in the faith. They are ordinary as opposed to extraordinary. As such, it would seem like there would be more than the three listed. Being a part of a local body of believers, for instance, seems like it should be part of that list (Heb 10:24-25). You get the idea.
Here's my problem. We can tend to be very programmatic people. We like "12-step programs" and "3-easy steps to godly living" and the like. The Christian life, on the other, is much more ... organic. Where a program or the "ordinary means to grace" might provide a reasonable structure, like a skeleton might, they don't take into account the meat, the flesh and blood. The Christian walk is a living relationship with Christ (e.g., Rom 6:11) and a living relationship with fellow believers. And "read your bible, pray, and go to church" may be good structures, but the danger is that we think of them as boxes to check off rather than bodies to take part in. I think that's how we got to the notion that the Great Commission was "lead people to Jesus." Check that box. Instead, we are called to make disciples in what appears to be an ongoing, never ending, fully hands-on process. Like reading His Word, praying, and being immersed in a church. Good stuff, those ordinary means of grace, but never let yourself simplify your walk with Christ into a program like that. Ours is to be a lifelong, living pursuit of a growing relationship with our Savior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)