I take my morning walks early. Really early. When I walked the other morning I encountered not one, but five different people with electric blowers and clippers doing loud early morning work in their yards. The thinking, I would presume, was, "I don't want to be out there in the heat of the day, so I'll do it early." The actual message would be, "I have to suffer getting up early to do this, so I don't care if everyone else in my neighborhood has to suffer the same as long as I don't have to endure too much heat." No one ever said that, of course. I'm not convinced they thought it, either. But it was the message, loud and clear.
We've all heard, "Actions speak louder than words." We all acknowledge it is true. So what do our actions say? I'm thinking most intently here about Christians who are carrying the most important message the world needs -- Jesus. Too much of the time our words say the right thing, but our actions counteract them. We declare our love for Jesus while we ignore His explicit commands ... in full public view. We call ourselves "Christians" -- Christ-followers -- while we travel down roads He would never walk. We refuse to love our neighbors when that was His #2 command, and don't even get me started about our failure to love God "with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). I mean, "Mind? Really? Who does that?" Let alone the rest.
Paul chastised the Jews for dishonoring God by breaking the Law. "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:23-24). How many times have we heard, "Oh, you Christians. You're all just hypocrites"? Too many times the accusation is accurate. We claim a love for God but we live selfishly. And we wonder why we get accused of hypocrisy. Everyone of us fails and falls. The trick isn't to embrace it. The correct response is to admit it and correct it. There is no hypocrisy in "Yes, I was guilty in what you are accusing me, and I'm working on correcting it." The alternative gives God a bad name.
Friday, June 30, 2023
Thursday, June 29, 2023
Culture of Death
The term, "culture of death," refers to a civilization that endorses killing, a culture that embraces death as a good thing. We who love human life often decry our current pro-death culture. It shows in the gun problem. Guns are not the problem; they're the tool. It's the people so willing to kill that is the problem. It shows in the entertainment world with our thirst for violent "entertainment" that seems to numb us to actual killing. It shows in our absolute demand that women be allowed to murder babies in the womb if they want, a demand that cost over 65 million lives since 1973. It shows in the new laws being passed that allow doctors to kill patients if the patients want to die. We say we want to live, but in many ways ours is becoming more and more a pro-death society.
It is, then, an interesting twist that Christianity is, at the outset, a death culture. "What??!" many will ask. It's true. Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For 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" (Luke 9:23-24). Paul wrote, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:3-4). Paul happily declared, "I have been crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:20). The Christian life consciously begins with death ... to self. We are told to lay aside the old self (Eph 4:22; Col 3:9). We are told to identify ourselves with Christ's death.
The difference, however, between our culture of death and our faith that begins with death to self is that the very next step for the believer is new life. We are baptized into Christ's death and now "walk in newness of life, a resurrected life (Rom 6:4-6). We put aside the old self and put on the new self (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). We are crucified with Christ, but we live ... in a better way. "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal 2:20). So while our walk with Christ starts out in death to self and retains death to self, the new life we receive far exceeds the old we surrendered ... unlike our modern culture of death.
It is, then, an interesting twist that Christianity is, at the outset, a death culture. "What??!" many will ask. It's true. Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For 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" (Luke 9:23-24). Paul wrote, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:3-4). Paul happily declared, "I have been crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:20). The Christian life consciously begins with death ... to self. We are told to lay aside the old self (Eph 4:22; Col 3:9). We are told to identify ourselves with Christ's death.
The difference, however, between our culture of death and our faith that begins with death to self is that the very next step for the believer is new life. We are baptized into Christ's death and now "walk in newness of life, a resurrected life (Rom 6:4-6). We put aside the old self and put on the new self (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). We are crucified with Christ, but we live ... in a better way. "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal 2:20). So while our walk with Christ starts out in death to self and retains death to self, the new life we receive far exceeds the old we surrendered ... unlike our modern culture of death.
Wednesday, June 28, 2023
Another Gospel
In Galatians Paul addresses the churches of that region about their defection from the gospel. It shouldn't sound that odd to our ears. We have it everywhere in our time.
We have the Mormons (LDS) who teach the gospel that salvation is through faith in Christ. Well, baptism is required; you can't be saved if you've never been baptized. And more. We have the Jehovah's Witnesses that deny the deity of the Christ in whom they say we need to be saved. According to jw.org, "To gain salvation, you must exercise faith in Jesus and demonstrate that faith by obeying his commands." That is, "faith and." Faith in Christ and obedience will get you in. (They also specify that God, not Jesus, is our Savior.) The Roman Catholic Church holds that the Church distributes salvation to men through their sacraments. That requires Baptism, Confirmation, Mass, Penance, and, more. And, of course, we have the common belief that salvation comes by being good. "Good" is relative, and, apparently, "good enough" is something around "better than the worst example I can think of." ("I'm not that bad.") There are, as it turns out, lots of "other gospels" out there.
But, look, can't we all just get along? I mean, Mormonism and Catholicism both teach "faith in Christ" and the JW's go with "faith in God," so can't we just agree to disagree on the peripherals? Paul says no. Paul calls it "not another gospel" (Gal 1:7). Paul says it is "damned to hell" -- anathema. According to Paul, if it is true that we require the Law in order to be saved, then Christ died for nothing (Gal 2:21). And that, he says, makes Christ a minister of sin (Gal 2:17). There is no other gospel than "a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus ... since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified" (Gal 2:16). Don't be fooled.
We have the Mormons (LDS) who teach the gospel that salvation is through faith in Christ. Well, baptism is required; you can't be saved if you've never been baptized. And more. We have the Jehovah's Witnesses that deny the deity of the Christ in whom they say we need to be saved. According to jw.org, "To gain salvation, you must exercise faith in Jesus and demonstrate that faith by obeying his commands." That is, "faith and." Faith in Christ and obedience will get you in. (They also specify that God, not Jesus, is our Savior.) The Roman Catholic Church holds that the Church distributes salvation to men through their sacraments. That requires Baptism, Confirmation, Mass, Penance, and, more. And, of course, we have the common belief that salvation comes by being good. "Good" is relative, and, apparently, "good enough" is something around "better than the worst example I can think of." ("I'm not that bad.") There are, as it turns out, lots of "other gospels" out there.
But, look, can't we all just get along? I mean, Mormonism and Catholicism both teach "faith in Christ" and the JW's go with "faith in God," so can't we just agree to disagree on the peripherals? Paul says no. Paul calls it "not another gospel" (Gal 1:7). Paul says it is "damned to hell" -- anathema. According to Paul, if it is true that we require the Law in order to be saved, then Christ died for nothing (Gal 2:21). And that, he says, makes Christ a minister of sin (Gal 2:17). There is no other gospel than "a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus ... since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified" (Gal 2:16). Don't be fooled.
Tuesday, June 27, 2023
Pastor ChatGPT
The New York Post put out a piece about AI (Artificial Intelligence) writing sermons for church pastors. "The evolving consensus among clergy," they said "is 'Yes, they can write a passably competent sermon.'" At Church and Culture, someone described the work of ChatGPT as "creepily not bad." Completely and totally evil, but not bad.
Why not? Why can't an AI do the work of a pastor? Why can't a pastor get a sermon from an artificial intelligence? Well, it depends on what you're looking for from a pastor ... and a sermon. If you want "content" -- well-written, pithy, relevant, stuff -- then why not? That AI stuff is pretty smart. But if you want a Holy Spirit-inspired expression of God's Word from the heart of a loving pastor, I'm afraid that won't be coming from AI any time soon. Or ever. We've managed to create "artificial intelligence" (to some degree, I'd say), but what we have not managed to create is a living being with a God-given soul and spirit that can have a living, breathing relationship with the Triune God. If the heart of a good pastor is the spiritual health of his congregation through ministration of the Word, the heart of the best AI is ... nonexistent.
Once again we're making fundamental mistakes based on fundamental perceptions. Man is not so good that he can duplicate God's work in making a living being artificially. Humans are not mere machines. Sunday morning is not a motivational therapy session where a well-meaning automaton can produce a "best life now" spiel on hope. Think about it. What does a machine know about hope? We have not actually made artificial intelligence. We've made a complicated mimic that can fool the unwary. Church is about fellowship (Heb 10:25) and stimulating one another to love and good deeds (Heb 10:24) by the equipping of the saints for the building up of the body of Christ (Eph 4:12). God has provided the means for that (Eph 4:11), and any substitute we provide will be "creepily not bad," but certainly completely wrong.
Why not? Why can't an AI do the work of a pastor? Why can't a pastor get a sermon from an artificial intelligence? Well, it depends on what you're looking for from a pastor ... and a sermon. If you want "content" -- well-written, pithy, relevant, stuff -- then why not? That AI stuff is pretty smart. But if you want a Holy Spirit-inspired expression of God's Word from the heart of a loving pastor, I'm afraid that won't be coming from AI any time soon. Or ever. We've managed to create "artificial intelligence" (to some degree, I'd say), but what we have not managed to create is a living being with a God-given soul and spirit that can have a living, breathing relationship with the Triune God. If the heart of a good pastor is the spiritual health of his congregation through ministration of the Word, the heart of the best AI is ... nonexistent.
Once again we're making fundamental mistakes based on fundamental perceptions. Man is not so good that he can duplicate God's work in making a living being artificially. Humans are not mere machines. Sunday morning is not a motivational therapy session where a well-meaning automaton can produce a "best life now" spiel on hope. Think about it. What does a machine know about hope? We have not actually made artificial intelligence. We've made a complicated mimic that can fool the unwary. Church is about fellowship (Heb 10:25) and stimulating one another to love and good deeds (Heb 10:24) by the equipping of the saints for the building up of the body of Christ (Eph 4:12). God has provided the means for that (Eph 4:11), and any substitute we provide will be "creepily not bad," but certainly completely wrong.
Monday, June 26, 2023
Values Clarification
A federal judge struck down Arkansas's law banning transgender treatments for children. Why? Science admits no non-binary sexes. The judge didn't do it for the truth of the question. He did it for "gender-affirming care" -- people who feel they're the "wrong sex" ought to be able to become the "right one." This judge values "affirmation of feelings" over scientific fact. When the Christian Reformed Church synod passed a resolution condemning gay and lesbian sex as sin and same-sex marriage as false, a delegate pastor walked out on behalf of "many LGBTQ+people" ... one of which was his son. The pastor valued his son's sexual orientation over Scripture.
In the past we've often suggested that "our side" has values while "the other side" does not. It's simply not true. On the other hand, I think we've largely missed the fundamental importance of values. For instance, when I discuss abortion with people in general, I don't start with Scripture; I go right to science. Science is not ambiguous. That embryo is a human being. It isn't simply a mass of cells. Nor is it mere "fetal tissue" that belongs to the mother. Science says it has its own DNA, that it is undeniably the first stage of human life. The next stage is fetus. Then there is newborn, infant, toddler ... you get the idea. All of it is the natural progression of a human being. But science rarely sways anyone on the topic. Why? Because they hold a higher value -- a woman's choice. They don't value human life as much as they value choice. Higher than life, higher than truth, they will choose a woman's free will. That is their value system.
It turns out we are expressing our value system in every choice we make and every position we espouse. A person can declare, "I value Scripture" and mean it right up until the Scriptures declare something that opposes what they value more, and Scripture will lose. A Christian -- a Christ-follower -- will seek to follow Christ at least as long as He doesn't go somewhere that violates the Christian's values. Because what we value will trump what we believe and will always supercede truth unless we have Christ as our highest value and truth as our bottom line. Thus, when we do deviate from biblical values, it serves as an indicator that our values are misplaced and gives us an indication of where to fix the problem ... in us.
In the past we've often suggested that "our side" has values while "the other side" does not. It's simply not true. On the other hand, I think we've largely missed the fundamental importance of values. For instance, when I discuss abortion with people in general, I don't start with Scripture; I go right to science. Science is not ambiguous. That embryo is a human being. It isn't simply a mass of cells. Nor is it mere "fetal tissue" that belongs to the mother. Science says it has its own DNA, that it is undeniably the first stage of human life. The next stage is fetus. Then there is newborn, infant, toddler ... you get the idea. All of it is the natural progression of a human being. But science rarely sways anyone on the topic. Why? Because they hold a higher value -- a woman's choice. They don't value human life as much as they value choice. Higher than life, higher than truth, they will choose a woman's free will. That is their value system.
It turns out we are expressing our value system in every choice we make and every position we espouse. A person can declare, "I value Scripture" and mean it right up until the Scriptures declare something that opposes what they value more, and Scripture will lose. A Christian -- a Christ-follower -- will seek to follow Christ at least as long as He doesn't go somewhere that violates the Christian's values. Because what we value will trump what we believe and will always supercede truth unless we have Christ as our highest value and truth as our bottom line. Thus, when we do deviate from biblical values, it serves as an indicator that our values are misplaced and gives us an indication of where to fix the problem ... in us.
Sunday, June 25, 2023
The Heavens Declare
David wrote, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork" (Psa 19:1). Paul rode his coattails and said, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Rom 1:19-20). How does that work?
Well, take a look. Theologians call it "natural revelation." What does nature reveal about God? The first one is easy. He's a Creator. Beyond that, obviously there is power there. Who can grasp the power of the Sun? Who can understand gravity? How much force does it take to move planets? He possesses all power; He is omnipotent. Clearly there is knowledge. We don't know how magnets work. We can't tell if electricity flows from positive to negative or from negative to positive. He does. We have only scratched the surface of the intricacies of the human body in general and the human brain in particular. He is omniscient. Everywhere you look you will see remarkable things, beautiful things, strange things. He did that. Flowers and birds, clouds and mountains, animal life, vegetable life, sea life, all kinds of life on this planet that are all so interwoven and directed that even an enthusiastic Evolution-fan cannot avoid the word, "designed."
We can learn a lot about God from His creation. Scripture indicates that was His intent. We are, He says, without excuse. So take some time as often as you can to see God's hand in everything around you and glorify Him for the astounding Creator that He is.
Well, take a look. Theologians call it "natural revelation." What does nature reveal about God? The first one is easy. He's a Creator. Beyond that, obviously there is power there. Who can grasp the power of the Sun? Who can understand gravity? How much force does it take to move planets? He possesses all power; He is omnipotent. Clearly there is knowledge. We don't know how magnets work. We can't tell if electricity flows from positive to negative or from negative to positive. He does. We have only scratched the surface of the intricacies of the human body in general and the human brain in particular. He is omniscient. Everywhere you look you will see remarkable things, beautiful things, strange things. He did that. Flowers and birds, clouds and mountains, animal life, vegetable life, sea life, all kinds of life on this planet that are all so interwoven and directed that even an enthusiastic Evolution-fan cannot avoid the word, "designed."
We can learn a lot about God from His creation. Scripture indicates that was His intent. We are, He says, without excuse. So take some time as often as you can to see God's hand in everything around you and glorify Him for the astounding Creator that He is.
Saturday, June 24, 2023
News Weakly - 6/24/23
The Sin of Pride?
At a Pride celebration on the White House lawn, a "transgender influencer" (When did "influencer" become a thing? And doesn't it warn us of what social media is aiming at?) removed his/her top. He goes by Rose Montoya. Montoya defended the action on Instagram and TikTok and then apologized because of the backlash. I think the most amusing part of this particular story was when they reported "she was within her legal rights to bear her breasts." Yes, those with breasts should be able to bear them in public ... just not bare them.
And We All Know It
Every outlet I looked at had the same story. A pregnant woman was shot and killed by two gunmen in Washington D.C. "and her baby is in critical condition." It is a tragedy, but why does everyone acknowledge that this unborn child is a baby while denying it elsewhere? Why does "public sentiment" get to define "human being"?
Missing the Point
The story in Business Insider recognizes that Trump allowed a transgender to compete in the 2012 Miss Universe pageant but is now "campaigning to ban trans women from competing in women's sports." Obvious contradiction, right? Only if you completely miss the point. Biological males have an inborn advantage in sports that makes it unfair for them to compete with biological women, so many are calling on bans on biological males from competing (unfairly) with women. Biological women have an inborn advantage over biological males in beauty contests, so comparing sports vs beauty contests is apples and oranges. Mind you, the amount of surgery and literally unnatural -- against nature -- work that has to be done to make a biological male able to compete with a biological female in a female beauty contest seems a bit unfair to me, but my point is that this sports ban isn't an "anti-transgender ban" -- it's an biological-male-competing-against-biological-female ban. Not the same thing ... as demonstrated by the fact that it says nothing about "transgender men" competing with biological men.
Those Crazy Californians
California is at it again. They're advancing a bill that would require parents to "affirm a child's gender identity." It could cost custody and/or visitation amd classify parents that refuse as abusive. "Never mind the science or the permanent damage done to a prepubescent child. We will push this anti-science, irrational agenda in California." Whatever it takes to remove the rational populace from the state.
Bring Down the Constitution
12-year-old subversive, Liam Morrison, was sent home from school in March for wearing a T-shirt that violated the dress code, making students feel unsafe. The malevolent child's shirt boldly declared "There are only two genders." A district court judge ruled against Liam's 1st Amendment right to free speech in favor of other students' nonexistent right to not feel uncomfortable. We have our priorities straight now.
Dangerous Liberty
The Southern Poverty Law Center touts itself as "fighting hate" and "seeking justice," so they like to track "hate groups." You know, hate groups like "Moms for Liberty," a group "dedicated to fighting for the survival of America by unifying, educating and empowering parents to defend their parental rights at all levels of government." Yeah ... parents with rights ... what could be more dangerous? Got it. Moms and liberty are right out. No, of course not. It's just most any conservative group that they classify as "hate."
Assault Weapon Ban
In New Zealand, an attacker with an axe visited 3 Chinese restaurants sending 3 people to the hospital. Government is calling for better assault weapon control, such as axe registration, background checks, and possibly a total ban on axes. No? If not, why not?
Democratic Religion?
Roman Catholics want the church to promote women into decision-making roles and have a "radical inclusion" of the LGBTQ community (like offering them "fraternal space"). Because, as we all know, churches are defined by their people and not, say, by the God they seek to follow. So Scripture's idea about women in authority over men is no longer to be considered. And while I think that homosexuals, etc., need what the Church has to offer, I want to be careful not to give them "fraternal space" as if people in direct, intentional, bold contradiction to God's commands can actually be "brothers in Christ." What people really want is their own club where they can lay down the rules and God has to follow them because they voted it in.
Eliminate the Opposition
A gay, tenured history professor in California was suspended after bringing chocolate bars to a campus open house. The bars were "he/him" bars containing nuts and "she/her" bars without nuts from Jeremy's Chocolate. The professor was suspended for "creating a hostile environment" in opposition to diversity and inclusion ... which, apparently, is remedied by eliminating his diverse opinion and excluding him. Got it. (I'm wondering. Has anyone ever been disciplined for creating a hostile environment for, say, conservatives or Christians?)
A Lesson in Logical Fallacy
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has been defending religious freedom since it was formed in 1994. Now that the Southern Poverty Law Center has deemed it a "hate group," the media is jumping on the bandwagon and warning everyone -- "There be Christians here!" The ACLU regularly attacks 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, but that's good these days. If it's Christian, it's bad. This is, by the way, a classic logical fallacy. "Whatever you do, don't consider the argument. You need to consider the source!" (The genetic fallacy.)
__________
Just a note here. I'm skipping the Bee's inputs this week because of the unusual length of the news items this week. I hope what I put here was humorous enough for this week.
Side note: It offended some recently when I failed to spend enough time on Trump's indictments because I'm apparently supposed to be writing about what others want me to write about. If that's the case, I hope others won't be outraged that I am not spending enough time on Hunter Biden's guilty plea. I'm sorry. You can check it out for yourself.
At a Pride celebration on the White House lawn, a "transgender influencer" (When did "influencer" become a thing? And doesn't it warn us of what social media is aiming at?) removed his/her top. He goes by Rose Montoya. Montoya defended the action on Instagram and TikTok and then apologized because of the backlash. I think the most amusing part of this particular story was when they reported "she was within her legal rights to bear her breasts." Yes, those with breasts should be able to bear them in public ... just not bare them.
And We All Know It
Every outlet I looked at had the same story. A pregnant woman was shot and killed by two gunmen in Washington D.C. "and her baby is in critical condition." It is a tragedy, but why does everyone acknowledge that this unborn child is a baby while denying it elsewhere? Why does "public sentiment" get to define "human being"?
Missing the Point
The story in Business Insider recognizes that Trump allowed a transgender to compete in the 2012 Miss Universe pageant but is now "campaigning to ban trans women from competing in women's sports." Obvious contradiction, right? Only if you completely miss the point. Biological males have an inborn advantage in sports that makes it unfair for them to compete with biological women, so many are calling on bans on biological males from competing (unfairly) with women. Biological women have an inborn advantage over biological males in beauty contests, so comparing sports vs beauty contests is apples and oranges. Mind you, the amount of surgery and literally unnatural -- against nature -- work that has to be done to make a biological male able to compete with a biological female in a female beauty contest seems a bit unfair to me, but my point is that this sports ban isn't an "anti-transgender ban" -- it's an biological-male-competing-against-biological-female ban. Not the same thing ... as demonstrated by the fact that it says nothing about "transgender men" competing with biological men.
Those Crazy Californians
California is at it again. They're advancing a bill that would require parents to "affirm a child's gender identity." It could cost custody and/or visitation amd classify parents that refuse as abusive. "Never mind the science or the permanent damage done to a prepubescent child. We will push this anti-science, irrational agenda in California." Whatever it takes to remove the rational populace from the state.
Bring Down the Constitution
12-year-old subversive, Liam Morrison, was sent home from school in March for wearing a T-shirt that violated the dress code, making students feel unsafe. The malevolent child's shirt boldly declared "There are only two genders." A district court judge ruled against Liam's 1st Amendment right to free speech in favor of other students' nonexistent right to not feel uncomfortable. We have our priorities straight now.
Dangerous Liberty
The Southern Poverty Law Center touts itself as "fighting hate" and "seeking justice," so they like to track "hate groups." You know, hate groups like "Moms for Liberty," a group "dedicated to fighting for the survival of America by unifying, educating and empowering parents to defend their parental rights at all levels of government." Yeah ... parents with rights ... what could be more dangerous? Got it. Moms and liberty are right out. No, of course not. It's just most any conservative group that they classify as "hate."
Assault Weapon Ban
In New Zealand, an attacker with an axe visited 3 Chinese restaurants sending 3 people to the hospital. Government is calling for better assault weapon control, such as axe registration, background checks, and possibly a total ban on axes. No? If not, why not?
Democratic Religion?
Roman Catholics want the church to promote women into decision-making roles and have a "radical inclusion" of the LGBTQ community (like offering them "fraternal space"). Because, as we all know, churches are defined by their people and not, say, by the God they seek to follow. So Scripture's idea about women in authority over men is no longer to be considered. And while I think that homosexuals, etc., need what the Church has to offer, I want to be careful not to give them "fraternal space" as if people in direct, intentional, bold contradiction to God's commands can actually be "brothers in Christ." What people really want is their own club where they can lay down the rules and God has to follow them because they voted it in.
Eliminate the Opposition
A gay, tenured history professor in California was suspended after bringing chocolate bars to a campus open house. The bars were "he/him" bars containing nuts and "she/her" bars without nuts from Jeremy's Chocolate. The professor was suspended for "creating a hostile environment" in opposition to diversity and inclusion ... which, apparently, is remedied by eliminating his diverse opinion and excluding him. Got it. (I'm wondering. Has anyone ever been disciplined for creating a hostile environment for, say, conservatives or Christians?)
A Lesson in Logical Fallacy
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has been defending religious freedom since it was formed in 1994. Now that the Southern Poverty Law Center has deemed it a "hate group," the media is jumping on the bandwagon and warning everyone -- "There be Christians here!" The ACLU regularly attacks 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, but that's good these days. If it's Christian, it's bad. This is, by the way, a classic logical fallacy. "Whatever you do, don't consider the argument. You need to consider the source!" (The genetic fallacy.)
__________
Just a note here. I'm skipping the Bee's inputs this week because of the unusual length of the news items this week. I hope what I put here was humorous enough for this week.
Side note: It offended some recently when I failed to spend enough time on Trump's indictments because I'm apparently supposed to be writing about what others want me to write about. If that's the case, I hope others won't be outraged that I am not spending enough time on Hunter Biden's guilty plea. I'm sorry. You can check it out for yourself.
Friday, June 23, 2023
I'm Just Sayin'
Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. (Pro 16:18)It's Pride month. July is coming. Be ready ...
Thursday, June 22, 2023
Who Do You Say I Am?
They had a lot of terms for Jesus in His day. Some called Him a blasphemer. Some called Him "Rabbi" -- teacher. Some called Him a devil, and some called Him Lord.
Now, when Jesus asked His disciples who they said He was (Matt 16:15), He got the right answer. "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt 16:16). What I find odd is that not too long after this, His disciples were scattering and running for cover. If they believed that Jesus was the Christ -- promised by God to Israel as their Savior -- and the Son of the living God, why run? Well, obviously, they no longer believed that. Maybe not consciously, but their actions spoke louder than their words.
Most of us know the right answer. We would agree that Jesus is teacher and Lord and the Son of the living God. But is that the real answer? Do our lives demonstrate it? Do we learn from Christ, the Word of God? Do we submit to Christ as Lord? Do we rely on the Son of God in everything? We will always act on what we truly believe. What do your actions and attitudes say about what you really believe about Jesus? Based on your attitudes and actions, who do you say He is?
Now, when Jesus asked His disciples who they said He was (Matt 16:15), He got the right answer. "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt 16:16). What I find odd is that not too long after this, His disciples were scattering and running for cover. If they believed that Jesus was the Christ -- promised by God to Israel as their Savior -- and the Son of the living God, why run? Well, obviously, they no longer believed that. Maybe not consciously, but their actions spoke louder than their words.
Most of us know the right answer. We would agree that Jesus is teacher and Lord and the Son of the living God. But is that the real answer? Do our lives demonstrate it? Do we learn from Christ, the Word of God? Do we submit to Christ as Lord? Do we rely on the Son of God in everything? We will always act on what we truly believe. What do your actions and attitudes say about what you really believe about Jesus? Based on your attitudes and actions, who do you say He is?
Wednesday, June 21, 2023
Thinking About the Gospel
In Paul's epistle to the churches of Galatia, he's concerned about them deserting the gospel for "a different gospel" (Gal 1:6). About that gospel he says it is "really not another" (Gal 1:7). Only one. So ... what is it? The first mention of "the gospel" is in Matthew. Jesus proclaimed it in Matthew 4. After His desert experience, He "was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom" (Matt 4:23). He was saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15). The gospel of the kingdom. The kingdom of God was at hand. The gospel. But what is it?
The erroneous gospel Paul was addressing was the ever-present gospel of works. Be good enough and you'll get in. Of course, "good enough" is relative and, as it turns out, impossible if you believe Jesus who said, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48). That "good enough" doesn't happen this side of heaven. Some want us to believe that the gospel is that everyone goes to heaven. Universalism, or something very much like it. Now, that's good news. Except, it's not the good news Jesus preached. He said, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:13-14). There's no way to twist "there are few who find it" into "everyone." Some want us to believe that His was a social gospel, that He came to make life better for the poor and oppressed. Isn't that what He said (Luke 4:17-21)? But if it was about a better life for poor and sick people, He apparently failed. He helped a lot of people, but not all. And Jesus said, "You always have the poor with you" (Matt 26:11). So, while "a better life" would be good news, it doesn't appear to be the good news that Jesus intended. So ... what was it??
The gospel Paul taught and portrayed as the only gospel was that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree' — so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith" (Gal 3:13-14). Saved by faith apart from works. Now, does that make sense? Jesus said it was about the kingdom of God (Mark 1:15). He said it required repentance and faith (Mark 1:15). It was, then, especially good news for those who accepted it. But how does the better life for the captives, the poor, and the blind that Jesus spoke about fit into this? I think we find an answer in Galatians. Paul said we were to "walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh" (Gal 5:16). He explains what the works of the flesh are (Gal 5:19-21), and he explains what the fruit of the Spirit is (Gal 5:22-23). Could it be, then, that the gospel Jesus proclaimed in the synagogue in Luke 4 was not a merely "best life now" gospel, but a spiritual one? Could it be that the poor find their wealth in Christ, that the captive find their liberty in Christ, that the blind find their sight in Christ? Could it be that this gospel is about God's kingdom coming into our hearts? Is that possibly the gospel?
Well, perhaps. There will always be people that want to tell you that the gospel is "be good enough" -- the primary teaching of every major religion ... except Christianity. There will be those who tell you that the gospel is that everyone gets to heaven ... in direct contradiction to Christ's words. There will be those that tell you that the gospel is that the marginalized of this world will have a better life in this world ... in direct contradiction to Christ's words and actions. I will hold that the good news of Scripture is that Christ died for our sins -- became sin for us -- so we can be forgiven and He rose from the dead so that we can have new life and that all of this is available through repentance and faith in Him. Scripture indicates that's the only gospel. Feel free to make up your own ... but keep in mind that Paul curses that kind of thinking (Gal 1:8-9).
The erroneous gospel Paul was addressing was the ever-present gospel of works. Be good enough and you'll get in. Of course, "good enough" is relative and, as it turns out, impossible if you believe Jesus who said, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48). That "good enough" doesn't happen this side of heaven. Some want us to believe that the gospel is that everyone goes to heaven. Universalism, or something very much like it. Now, that's good news. Except, it's not the good news Jesus preached. He said, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:13-14). There's no way to twist "there are few who find it" into "everyone." Some want us to believe that His was a social gospel, that He came to make life better for the poor and oppressed. Isn't that what He said (Luke 4:17-21)? But if it was about a better life for poor and sick people, He apparently failed. He helped a lot of people, but not all. And Jesus said, "You always have the poor with you" (Matt 26:11). So, while "a better life" would be good news, it doesn't appear to be the good news that Jesus intended. So ... what was it??
The gospel Paul taught and portrayed as the only gospel was that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree' — so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith" (Gal 3:13-14). Saved by faith apart from works. Now, does that make sense? Jesus said it was about the kingdom of God (Mark 1:15). He said it required repentance and faith (Mark 1:15). It was, then, especially good news for those who accepted it. But how does the better life for the captives, the poor, and the blind that Jesus spoke about fit into this? I think we find an answer in Galatians. Paul said we were to "walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh" (Gal 5:16). He explains what the works of the flesh are (Gal 5:19-21), and he explains what the fruit of the Spirit is (Gal 5:22-23). Could it be, then, that the gospel Jesus proclaimed in the synagogue in Luke 4 was not a merely "best life now" gospel, but a spiritual one? Could it be that the poor find their wealth in Christ, that the captive find their liberty in Christ, that the blind find their sight in Christ? Could it be that this gospel is about God's kingdom coming into our hearts? Is that possibly the gospel?
Well, perhaps. There will always be people that want to tell you that the gospel is "be good enough" -- the primary teaching of every major religion ... except Christianity. There will be those who tell you that the gospel is that everyone gets to heaven ... in direct contradiction to Christ's words. There will be those that tell you that the gospel is that the marginalized of this world will have a better life in this world ... in direct contradiction to Christ's words and actions. I will hold that the good news of Scripture is that Christ died for our sins -- became sin for us -- so we can be forgiven and He rose from the dead so that we can have new life and that all of this is available through repentance and faith in Him. Scripture indicates that's the only gospel. Feel free to make up your own ... but keep in mind that Paul curses that kind of thinking (Gal 1:8-9).
Tuesday, June 20, 2023
Hate the Sinner?
Years ago I watched a documentary on this child born without arms or legs. His mother gave him up for adoption and another couple adopted him. This couple hated the fact that this poor kid was without arms or legs, so they set about providing a remedy. They got him prosthetics for his arms and he learned how to put them on with his teeth. They got him prosthetics for his legs and he learned how to put them on with his prosthetic arms. They taught him to feed himself and dress himself and the documentary showed him playing and laughing with his "better armed" siblings. He was a happy kid. But ... of course, we know he wasn't. Underneath the surface, this kid was born appendageless. (Yes, I just made that word up.) He wanted to be free of them because he wanted to be as he was born to be and these hateful adoptive parents just wouldn't let him. No, of course that's not true. He was grateful and all who saw it were grateful that these parents hated appendagelessness (Look! Another new word!) but loved the child who was without arms and legs enough to remedy it.
We can, as this documentary illustrates, understand the concept of hating a condition without hating the people in it. We can grasp the notion of hating "A" and seeking desperately, out of genuine concern, to rescue people caught in "A" by birth or by choice or by accident. You don't have to hate a person because they are in a condition you hate. We don't have to hate poor people just because they're poor. A caring person would want to end their poverty, not encourage them to flourish in it. Unfortunately, while we can understand that concept, too many operate without it. They despise Christianity (as an example) and, therefore, hate Christians. They hate transgenderism (another example) and, obviously, must hate people who present themselves as transgender. You get the idea. Why some of us do this isn't clear, and I suspect that's a rather complex answer, but that they do is equally clear.
I am quite transparent that I oppose the concepts of transgenderism or homosexuality or abortion, to name a few. It would be an absolute mistake to conclude I must hate people who present as trans or people who are in homosexual relationships or women who have had abortions. That would be completely false. But, for the same reason that some brain-dead people read that "80% of Evangelicals voted for Trump" in 2016 and concluded, therefore, that I must be a Trump lover, people assume that since I openly oppose those concepts, I must be a hater of those people. Absolutely not true. Conversely, I find that people who hate what I believe will routinely express hate to me without regard to the reality that everyone is an individual and, even when it comes to commonalities -- we're Christians or we're Republicans or we think science is quite clear that transgenderism is a lie, etc. -- we are all still individuals and, therefore, variable. Some hate the fact that I hate those things I listed and, therefore, choose to hate me, doing the same thing they accuse me of doing and hating about me. So think back to those adoptive parents who hated the concept of appendagelessness so much that they sought desperately to rescue a young boy born that way from it and try to think about the possibility that not everyone hates the sin and hates the sinner. Just a suggestion from one sinner to another.
We can, as this documentary illustrates, understand the concept of hating a condition without hating the people in it. We can grasp the notion of hating "A" and seeking desperately, out of genuine concern, to rescue people caught in "A" by birth or by choice or by accident. You don't have to hate a person because they are in a condition you hate. We don't have to hate poor people just because they're poor. A caring person would want to end their poverty, not encourage them to flourish in it. Unfortunately, while we can understand that concept, too many operate without it. They despise Christianity (as an example) and, therefore, hate Christians. They hate transgenderism (another example) and, obviously, must hate people who present themselves as transgender. You get the idea. Why some of us do this isn't clear, and I suspect that's a rather complex answer, but that they do is equally clear.
I am quite transparent that I oppose the concepts of transgenderism or homosexuality or abortion, to name a few. It would be an absolute mistake to conclude I must hate people who present as trans or people who are in homosexual relationships or women who have had abortions. That would be completely false. But, for the same reason that some brain-dead people read that "80% of Evangelicals voted for Trump" in 2016 and concluded, therefore, that I must be a Trump lover, people assume that since I openly oppose those concepts, I must be a hater of those people. Absolutely not true. Conversely, I find that people who hate what I believe will routinely express hate to me without regard to the reality that everyone is an individual and, even when it comes to commonalities -- we're Christians or we're Republicans or we think science is quite clear that transgenderism is a lie, etc. -- we are all still individuals and, therefore, variable. Some hate the fact that I hate those things I listed and, therefore, choose to hate me, doing the same thing they accuse me of doing and hating about me. So think back to those adoptive parents who hated the concept of appendagelessness so much that they sought desperately to rescue a young boy born that way from it and try to think about the possibility that not everyone hates the sin and hates the sinner. Just a suggestion from one sinner to another.
Monday, June 19, 2023
Just a Quibble, I Suppose
This isn't a big thing. It has just kind of bothered me ... for years. In my lifetime I've lived in a lot of places and been to a lot of churches, and here's something odd that I've observed. At churches, Mother's Day is typically a day of celebrating mothers. They give them gifts and thank them and thank God for them. If there is a sermon about mothers, it's about why God loves them so and why we should be grateful for them. Father's Day is typically different. Sure, they start the service by thanking dads, but if there is a sermon on dads, it's about how they need to improve and step up and stop being sinful fathers. Mind you, this is stereotypical, but I have seen it more than a few times.
I wonder why we do this. Do we think mothers are all very good and fathers are not? Do we think that mothers are worth more than fathers? Do we not see that hugging moms and beating up dads might lead some dads to want to stay away from church? (I would suggest that there are more than a few things that we do in church that favor females over males and few things we do that encourage men to be there. But that's a different topic.) Do we think that women are more fragile and men more able to take it? I don't know.
I am not suggesting we do not celebrate mothers on Mother's Day (Although I was in one church service on one Mother's Day where everything was about how wonderful our mothers are. I kind of thought we were in church to worship God.) And I am not suggesting that fathers don't need to be encouraged to be good fathers. God ultimately holds them responsible (e.g., 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 6:4; Col 3:21). They need to be urged to be good husbands and good fathers. But not mothers? Don't mothers need to be encouraged to be godly women, godly mothers, godly wives? And don't fathers need to be appreciated? I mean, given the current societal perspective that "masculine" is "toxic" and men are the problem in all ways, I'm pretty sure they're not getting appreciated enough. I think both aspects -- appreciation and encouragement to improve -- are necessary for both, but it seems like our practice is ... gender-biased. Just a thought.
I wonder why we do this. Do we think mothers are all very good and fathers are not? Do we think that mothers are worth more than fathers? Do we not see that hugging moms and beating up dads might lead some dads to want to stay away from church? (I would suggest that there are more than a few things that we do in church that favor females over males and few things we do that encourage men to be there. But that's a different topic.) Do we think that women are more fragile and men more able to take it? I don't know.
I am not suggesting we do not celebrate mothers on Mother's Day (Although I was in one church service on one Mother's Day where everything was about how wonderful our mothers are. I kind of thought we were in church to worship God.) And I am not suggesting that fathers don't need to be encouraged to be good fathers. God ultimately holds them responsible (e.g., 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 6:4; Col 3:21). They need to be urged to be good husbands and good fathers. But not mothers? Don't mothers need to be encouraged to be godly women, godly mothers, godly wives? And don't fathers need to be appreciated? I mean, given the current societal perspective that "masculine" is "toxic" and men are the problem in all ways, I'm pretty sure they're not getting appreciated enough. I think both aspects -- appreciation and encouragement to improve -- are necessary for both, but it seems like our practice is ... gender-biased. Just a thought.
Sunday, June 18, 2023
Father's Day, 2023
It's Father's Day, and for those of you have been around for awhile, you know that my father went to be with the Lord in March. I won't be sending him a Father's Day card. Little did I know last year that it would be my last Father's Day with my father. But I will remember him today, so I'm posting this (modified) from back then.
I grew up taking my father for granted. He was a good enough dad. He didn't get mad much, didn't yell much, that kind of thing. He was kind enough while being sufficiently distant to avoid much emotional conflict. So it was ... okay. It was okay until I became an adult and started telling others -- randomly and in various circumstances -- about my life with my father. What I found ordinary they saw as astounding. Dad loved to travel, so one summer we took a month-long trip around the country, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, and from the South up into Canada. Years later we took a trip -- a caravan of vehicles and RVs -- for six weeks going up into Alaska. (The fact that my dad let me, at 17, drive the family motorhome was astounding enough on its own.) Because of his wanderlust, I've visited, I think, 45 of the 50 states as well as Mexico and Canada. Beyond that, he loved to fish, but he didn't like to do it alone. We went to many an opening day, fishing in California, just Dad, my brother, and I. Or he would take us down to Ensenada for a weekend deep sea fishing excursion. Sometimes it was the whole family; sometimes it was more than that. But the truth was that when he took us, he spent most of his "fishing" time tending to our needs rather than his fishing pole. Once he took my brother and I with him in a backpacking trip miles into the Sierras with some of his coworkers. Another time he had a friend fly us to a part of Baja California without paved road access to do some fishing on the Bay of California. Then there was the time he arranged with a friend to take us out on his sailboat so we could whale watch. Just fun stuff for his family and especially for his sons.
Beyond fun stuff, my father lived Christ in front of me. He had a passion for the lost. He'd bring them home in need of a meal and the gospel. He took my brother and me to skid row in Los Angeles to help out at the Union Rescue Mission. He took the family on one vacation to deep, dark Mexico to visit remote missionaries and minister to them. In the most recent times, he became passionate about the Good Samaritan story and made it his own mission to help out homeless people he came across, often taking them for a meal and the gospel. There are, today, many people off the streets because of his direct ministry and many people out of eternal danger because of his loving and sharing the gospel with them. At one point my mother told me he had spent $10,000 in 3 months on this venture. When I told him, "You know, Dad, you're being taken advantage of," he told me, "I know that, but if Jesus could give His life for them, I can surely surrender some of what He gave me for them if it might bring them to faith." How could I argue with that?
My father passed away in March. He was 93 years old. He went quietly in his sleep. He was a faithful follower of Christ, a self-sacrificing husband and father and fellow human being. He was the finest example of a Christian father that I have had in my life. And today he is fully healed and happy in the presence of His dear Savior. I will remember him fondly and thank God for him as a special gift from God.
I grew up taking my father for granted. He was a good enough dad. He didn't get mad much, didn't yell much, that kind of thing. He was kind enough while being sufficiently distant to avoid much emotional conflict. So it was ... okay. It was okay until I became an adult and started telling others -- randomly and in various circumstances -- about my life with my father. What I found ordinary they saw as astounding. Dad loved to travel, so one summer we took a month-long trip around the country, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, and from the South up into Canada. Years later we took a trip -- a caravan of vehicles and RVs -- for six weeks going up into Alaska. (The fact that my dad let me, at 17, drive the family motorhome was astounding enough on its own.) Because of his wanderlust, I've visited, I think, 45 of the 50 states as well as Mexico and Canada. Beyond that, he loved to fish, but he didn't like to do it alone. We went to many an opening day, fishing in California, just Dad, my brother, and I. Or he would take us down to Ensenada for a weekend deep sea fishing excursion. Sometimes it was the whole family; sometimes it was more than that. But the truth was that when he took us, he spent most of his "fishing" time tending to our needs rather than his fishing pole. Once he took my brother and I with him in a backpacking trip miles into the Sierras with some of his coworkers. Another time he had a friend fly us to a part of Baja California without paved road access to do some fishing on the Bay of California. Then there was the time he arranged with a friend to take us out on his sailboat so we could whale watch. Just fun stuff for his family and especially for his sons.
Beyond fun stuff, my father lived Christ in front of me. He had a passion for the lost. He'd bring them home in need of a meal and the gospel. He took my brother and me to skid row in Los Angeles to help out at the Union Rescue Mission. He took the family on one vacation to deep, dark Mexico to visit remote missionaries and minister to them. In the most recent times, he became passionate about the Good Samaritan story and made it his own mission to help out homeless people he came across, often taking them for a meal and the gospel. There are, today, many people off the streets because of his direct ministry and many people out of eternal danger because of his loving and sharing the gospel with them. At one point my mother told me he had spent $10,000 in 3 months on this venture. When I told him, "You know, Dad, you're being taken advantage of," he told me, "I know that, but if Jesus could give His life for them, I can surely surrender some of what He gave me for them if it might bring them to faith." How could I argue with that?
My father passed away in March. He was 93 years old. He went quietly in his sleep. He was a faithful follower of Christ, a self-sacrificing husband and father and fellow human being. He was the finest example of a Christian father that I have had in my life. And today he is fully healed and happy in the presence of His dear Savior. I will remember him fondly and thank God for him as a special gift from God.
Saturday, June 17, 2023
News Weakly - 6/17/23
Stop Me If You've Heard This
A new study from a team of researchers at Iowa State University found that limiting daily social media usage could have significant benefits in health and emotional wellbeing. Those who cut their social media usage "scored far better on score of anxiety, depression, and loneliness." Of course, the Surgeon General has already issued an advisory on this, but, hey, let's go ahead and give our kids unlimited access and see how that works out for them.
Word Play
GLAAD is reporting that Twitter is "the most dangerous social platform for LGBTQ users." Apparently all platforms "fail at enforcing the safeguarding of LGBTQ users from online hate speech" (and more), but Twitter is worst. Now, when Jesus pointed out that insults to Christians are classified as persecution (Matt 5:11), the world says that's ridiculous, but "hate speech" to the favored group is classified as "dangerous." I just can't keep up with the standards of what constitutes "dangerous."
Biden v Beyoncé
We have Biden to thank for our record inflation. Apparently Sweden has Beyoncé. An analysis by an economist is blaming her for a spike in Sweden's economy because of a highly-touted and very expensive concert she did. Go figure.
If At First You Do Succeed ...
After her failed rape case against Trump followed by her successful defamation lawsuit, E. Jean Carroll is ready for Round 3. That first defamation suit went well, so why not a second? Hey, after that, I'm sure we can find other mean things Trump said about her. (In fact, I think he's said mean things about just about everyone.) Besides, inflation is making our lives more expensive, so she'll need more from Trump to maintain the lifestyle to which she'd like to become accustomed, right? If at first you do succeed, try, try again.
I Told You I'd Bee Back
It's Pride Month, and the official state religion has entered high holy days. However, in a shocker of a story, Bert and Ernie have come out as straight. In the midst of the "women as pastors" controversy, the SBC is wishing God had written some sort of a book that would have explained just who could become pastors. Garth Brooks is defiant about serving Bud Light at his bar despite "anti-trans backlash" (real story). One news outlet simply reported that Garth Brooks opened a gay bar.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
A new study from a team of researchers at Iowa State University found that limiting daily social media usage could have significant benefits in health and emotional wellbeing. Those who cut their social media usage "scored far better on score of anxiety, depression, and loneliness." Of course, the Surgeon General has already issued an advisory on this, but, hey, let's go ahead and give our kids unlimited access and see how that works out for them.
Word Play
GLAAD is reporting that Twitter is "the most dangerous social platform for LGBTQ users." Apparently all platforms "fail at enforcing the safeguarding of LGBTQ users from online hate speech" (and more), but Twitter is worst. Now, when Jesus pointed out that insults to Christians are classified as persecution (Matt 5:11), the world says that's ridiculous, but "hate speech" to the favored group is classified as "dangerous." I just can't keep up with the standards of what constitutes "dangerous."
Biden v Beyoncé
We have Biden to thank for our record inflation. Apparently Sweden has Beyoncé. An analysis by an economist is blaming her for a spike in Sweden's economy because of a highly-touted and very expensive concert she did. Go figure.
If At First You Do Succeed ...
After her failed rape case against Trump followed by her successful defamation lawsuit, E. Jean Carroll is ready for Round 3. That first defamation suit went well, so why not a second? Hey, after that, I'm sure we can find other mean things Trump said about her. (In fact, I think he's said mean things about just about everyone.) Besides, inflation is making our lives more expensive, so she'll need more from Trump to maintain the lifestyle to which she'd like to become accustomed, right? If at first you do succeed, try, try again.
I Told You I'd Bee Back
It's Pride Month, and the official state religion has entered high holy days. However, in a shocker of a story, Bert and Ernie have come out as straight. In the midst of the "women as pastors" controversy, the SBC is wishing God had written some sort of a book that would have explained just who could become pastors. Garth Brooks is defiant about serving Bud Light at his bar despite "anti-trans backlash" (real story). One news outlet simply reported that Garth Brooks opened a gay bar.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, June 16, 2023
Unequal Representation
I did a search through a standard news feed. I counted the number of stories I found and how many were on the topic of LGBTlmnop in general or transgender in particular. Easily 10% of the news was on these topics. It seems odd since a generous study would say that the group (LGBT) constitutes less than 5% of the population. "Equal representation" is the term that is bandied about, and it doesn't seem like they're getting "equal representation." Now, you can argue, "Well, they're just much bigger news" for some reason. Perhaps, but if you argue that "More black people go to jail for committing crimes than others because they commit more crimes," you'd be dragged out and lynched. Explaining or making excuses for unequal representation doesn't make it right, apparently. Pointing out, for instance, that while more than 14% of Americans are black, but more than 75% of professional basketball players are black, is unacceptable. "No! That's not unequal representation!" Well, yes, it is.
How is it that one is and the other is not? Or, perhaps a better question, why is it right in one application and wrong in another? Obviously, it's right if it meets your agenda, if it's what you want to see. And that is almost never "equal representation." The question is always, "Is it accomplishing what I want accomplished?" So, is the unequal representation of LGBT issues in the media getting the public to complain and agree that LGBT is "normal" and, in fact, "valued"? Then bring it on. The goal is not to "live and let live." They want to silence Christians who point to Scripture and say, "The Bible says that's wrong." "Hate!" they yell. If I say, "Science is clear that there are only two sexes," I'll be met with loud rejoinders. Mind you, I'm not asking them to agree. I'm not moving legal boundaries, pushing laws, or tormenting anyone. But if a teacher has a "Pride" flag in the classroom, they are applauded, yet if they have a Christian flag in the classroom, they are fired.
Equal representation is not the aim. Any fool can see that. It's a nice sounding term, but it's not practical, not useful, and not of any real interest to anyone. It should be deleted from the "Social Justice" platforms. It won't be, but, like the ACLU that won't fight for the civil rights of Christians, Social Justice Warriors will pick terms and fights they want and not necessarily "equality" issues. It's just not on the agenda. Neither is truth.
How is it that one is and the other is not? Or, perhaps a better question, why is it right in one application and wrong in another? Obviously, it's right if it meets your agenda, if it's what you want to see. And that is almost never "equal representation." The question is always, "Is it accomplishing what I want accomplished?" So, is the unequal representation of LGBT issues in the media getting the public to complain and agree that LGBT is "normal" and, in fact, "valued"? Then bring it on. The goal is not to "live and let live." They want to silence Christians who point to Scripture and say, "The Bible says that's wrong." "Hate!" they yell. If I say, "Science is clear that there are only two sexes," I'll be met with loud rejoinders. Mind you, I'm not asking them to agree. I'm not moving legal boundaries, pushing laws, or tormenting anyone. But if a teacher has a "Pride" flag in the classroom, they are applauded, yet if they have a Christian flag in the classroom, they are fired.
Equal representation is not the aim. Any fool can see that. It's a nice sounding term, but it's not practical, not useful, and not of any real interest to anyone. It should be deleted from the "Social Justice" platforms. It won't be, but, like the ACLU that won't fight for the civil rights of Christians, Social Justice Warriors will pick terms and fights they want and not necessarily "equality" issues. It's just not on the agenda. Neither is truth.
Thursday, June 15, 2023
Grasping Ingratitude
Comedian Louis CK said, "Everything is amazing and nobody is happy." Yeah, yeah, it's part of a routine, but how true it is. Have you ever noticed? For instance, America has a real poverty problem. Well, real to those in it. But apparently the poorest 20% of Americans are richer than the average person in most European countries. Forbes reported that America's poor still live better than most of the rest of humanity. The Heritage Foundation reported that the average poor family in America has a refrigerator, at least one television, air conditioning, cable or satellite television, a cell phone, and an XBox.
Just an example. I'm not talking here about poverty. I'm talking about ingratitude. We are prone to complain about the things we don't have and think we should and the things we do have but aren't satisfied with. Our most common measure of what we think we should have is what others have. We live in a world full of wonder and beauty, but we rarely appreciate it. We have friends and family and rights and privileges and stuff ... lots of stuff ... and we're not grateful. It's our nature, and it's not the good side of our nature.
Paul wrote, "I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content" (Php 4:11). Imagine that! He wrote, "Godliness with contentment is great gain" (1 Tim 6:6). How many of us can say the same? How many of us find either godliness or contentment sufficient? Yet, we are told, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Eph 1:3). Our typical response seems to be a collective "Meh!" Is it any wonder that God's wrath includes our failure to give thanks (Rom 1:18-21)? How would your life change if you were a person of contentment?
Just an example. I'm not talking here about poverty. I'm talking about ingratitude. We are prone to complain about the things we don't have and think we should and the things we do have but aren't satisfied with. Our most common measure of what we think we should have is what others have. We live in a world full of wonder and beauty, but we rarely appreciate it. We have friends and family and rights and privileges and stuff ... lots of stuff ... and we're not grateful. It's our nature, and it's not the good side of our nature.
Paul wrote, "I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content" (Php 4:11). Imagine that! He wrote, "Godliness with contentment is great gain" (1 Tim 6:6). How many of us can say the same? How many of us find either godliness or contentment sufficient? Yet, we are told, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Eph 1:3). Our typical response seems to be a collective "Meh!" Is it any wonder that God's wrath includes our failure to give thanks (Rom 1:18-21)? How would your life change if you were a person of contentment?
Wednesday, June 14, 2023
Mixed Messages
We were in a home recently visiting with friends. We spent the night in the room they fixed up for their grandchildren when they visited. Along with a variety of things to play with and things to create with, they had what I would term "recommended reading" -- things they want their grandchildren to read. Atheist Christopher Hitchens wrote a book titled, God is Not Great. That was one of the books on the shelf, cued up for the kids to read. On the refrigerator they had a magnet with a quote from atheist Richard Dawkins. "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction." These grandparents had a mission. They had a message for their grandkids. And I thought it was sad. Then I noticed a print up on the wall. It said, "Hope." Below was a verse. "Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD his God" (Psa 146:5). Strange, right? Is hope found in the Lord, or is there no God at all?
People are strange. They'll tell you it's wrong for Christians to say, "Well, there are just things we can't understand, but we trust God" and then they will tell you, "I know there are things we can't understand, but it's okay." They'll tell you, "We need to love our neighbors" and never meet their neighbors. They'll say, "We need to be more embracing and forgiving of things we aren't comfortable with" and then refuse to embrace or forgive things they're uncomfortable with. They say, "I know that God works all things together for good" and then complain about how God is working things.
Christians, unbelievers, all humans ... we are inconsistent. And, well, why wouldn't we be? "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9) We live in a world hostile to God (Rom 8:7). Even Christians have a sin nature (Rom 7:17). Why we are inconsistent isn't a necessary question. Why don't we know it? That's a good one. Do you examine yourself? Does your life reflect what you think you believe? Or are you simply sending mixed messages?
People are strange. They'll tell you it's wrong for Christians to say, "Well, there are just things we can't understand, but we trust God" and then they will tell you, "I know there are things we can't understand, but it's okay." They'll tell you, "We need to love our neighbors" and never meet their neighbors. They'll say, "We need to be more embracing and forgiving of things we aren't comfortable with" and then refuse to embrace or forgive things they're uncomfortable with. They say, "I know that God works all things together for good" and then complain about how God is working things.
Christians, unbelievers, all humans ... we are inconsistent. And, well, why wouldn't we be? "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9) We live in a world hostile to God (Rom 8:7). Even Christians have a sin nature (Rom 7:17). Why we are inconsistent isn't a necessary question. Why don't we know it? That's a good one. Do you examine yourself? Does your life reflect what you think you believe? Or are you simply sending mixed messages?
Tuesday, June 13, 2023
Tidy Little Circles
Christians often tend to reside in tidy little circles where other Christians of like mind are found. We get our ideas reinforced rather than challenged, or, if they are challenged, it is only in a nonthreatening way like on peripheral subjects or, at the very least, in a safe environment. Now, that sounds very "typical," I know. "Yes, you Christians, you just don't consider outside ideas. That's why you're so narrow." But the truth is that I could replace "Christians" with "People" and be equally true. Humans, as a whole, prefer to gather their input from sources friendly to their ideas and get their news from places that affirm their position and spend time with likeminded people. What we generally don't like to do is to wade into combat zones where people with opposing -- especially strongly opposing -- views will take shots at us. Whether it is on philosophy or religion or politics or just about anything, we prefer to stick with our own. It's just safer, and it makes us feel better about ourselves.
I don't doubt that Jesus felt the same way, but it didn't stop Him from hanging out in hostile places. He spent time with sinners who would surely not greet Him with warmth when He urged them to repent. He spoke openly with Pharisees who actually wanted to kill Him. He didn't agree with their views on life and religion, but neither did He excise them. He understood them. Only in that way could He clearly demonstrate why theirs were wrong. Only then could He correctly expose the Pharisees as "white-washed tombs" (Matt 23:27), pretty on the outside but dead on the inside. Only then could He demonstrate His authority to forgive sins through His authority to heal (Mark 2:2-12). Only then could He correctly identify repentance in a sinner versus hypocrisy in the unrepentant (Luke 7:36-50).
It is, in fact, dangerous to leave our tidy little circles of comfort and walk among the opposition. It's not an even battlefield. We will use Scripture and susbsequent reasoning with guidance from the Spirit while they will listen to their deceitful hearts guided by the father of lies. They won't even know they're doing it. We won't survive in that hostile environment on our own merits and abilities, but we're not out there on our own. I'm convinced that Jesus's powerful, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations ..." (Matt 28:19) doesn't simply mean "Go somewhere else." I am certain it means "Go next door" or "Go to your friends and family who are hostile to the gospel" or "Go to your workplace" and make disciples. We are promised persecution -- mild or serious -- for doing so, but we aren't doing it alone and we aren't doing it unarmed. We're to be prepared to give a defense for our hope (1 Peter 3:15), to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3) rather than sit comfortably in a safe corner. Obedience can get messy. It can cost you a friendship, a family relationship, maybe even a job or worse. It will also yield great rewards.
I don't doubt that Jesus felt the same way, but it didn't stop Him from hanging out in hostile places. He spent time with sinners who would surely not greet Him with warmth when He urged them to repent. He spoke openly with Pharisees who actually wanted to kill Him. He didn't agree with their views on life and religion, but neither did He excise them. He understood them. Only in that way could He clearly demonstrate why theirs were wrong. Only then could He correctly expose the Pharisees as "white-washed tombs" (Matt 23:27), pretty on the outside but dead on the inside. Only then could He demonstrate His authority to forgive sins through His authority to heal (Mark 2:2-12). Only then could He correctly identify repentance in a sinner versus hypocrisy in the unrepentant (Luke 7:36-50).
It is, in fact, dangerous to leave our tidy little circles of comfort and walk among the opposition. It's not an even battlefield. We will use Scripture and susbsequent reasoning with guidance from the Spirit while they will listen to their deceitful hearts guided by the father of lies. They won't even know they're doing it. We won't survive in that hostile environment on our own merits and abilities, but we're not out there on our own. I'm convinced that Jesus's powerful, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations ..." (Matt 28:19) doesn't simply mean "Go somewhere else." I am certain it means "Go next door" or "Go to your friends and family who are hostile to the gospel" or "Go to your workplace" and make disciples. We are promised persecution -- mild or serious -- for doing so, but we aren't doing it alone and we aren't doing it unarmed. We're to be prepared to give a defense for our hope (1 Peter 3:15), to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3) rather than sit comfortably in a safe corner. Obedience can get messy. It can cost you a friendship, a family relationship, maybe even a job or worse. It will also yield great rewards.
Monday, June 12, 2023
A Theory of Relativity
"Embryo: the young of a viviparous animal, especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb." That's what the dictionary says. The "early stage of development." The first stage of development, where stage 2 naturally follows and stage 3 is next and so on. It is a constant process. Embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler ... you get the idea. But for me to make such a claim, solely on the basis of science, is offensive. I must not claim that the thing in the womb is a human being. It's something else. It's not human until I say it is. ("When?" "I'm not sure, but it is not when you say.") That's hate. That's sexism. That's evil. Got it. Science is evil.
"Male: of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to produce relatively small, usually motile gametes which fertilize the eggs of a female." "Female: of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young." "No, no, no! Females can fertilize eggs and males can bear young and no amount of hate will change that!!" Sadly, science has become the enemy of culture, a hateful, heteronormative voice for anti-trans forces. Dictionaries and encyclopedias and biology itself have been subverted to this acrimonious position of binary sex in humans.
We have arrived. Truth is relative. Some truth claims are easy to dismiss. There are no leprechauns or unicorns. 2 + 2 does not equal 5. Easy. But when objective truth violates our current truth we've voted in by divine media and coercion, it is no longer true. And we'll dismiss it out of hand without even considering the ramification that dismissing objective truth will only eliminate the ground we stand on. But, hey, you go ahead. We'll see how that works out for you.
"Male: of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to produce relatively small, usually motile gametes which fertilize the eggs of a female." "Female: of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young." "No, no, no! Females can fertilize eggs and males can bear young and no amount of hate will change that!!" Sadly, science has become the enemy of culture, a hateful, heteronormative voice for anti-trans forces. Dictionaries and encyclopedias and biology itself have been subverted to this acrimonious position of binary sex in humans.
We have arrived. Truth is relative. Some truth claims are easy to dismiss. There are no leprechauns or unicorns. 2 + 2 does not equal 5. Easy. But when objective truth violates our current truth we've voted in by divine media and coercion, it is no longer true. And we'll dismiss it out of hand without even considering the ramification that dismissing objective truth will only eliminate the ground we stand on. But, hey, you go ahead. We'll see how that works out for you.
Although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:21-22)
Sunday, June 11, 2023
Without Hope
Peter wrote, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3). "He has caused us," he said, "to be born again to a living hope." By God's special working, we have hope. Through Christ's resurrection, we have a living hope. Born again. Now, I know lots of Christians who feel hopeless. I know lots of believers who suffer with despair. It must be from an error because Scripture says ours is a living hope caused by God, so if we lack hope, I would suggest it is on our end. I would, in fact, suggest it's a lie we tell ourselves -- a suppression of truth.
I was talking to an honest atheist. He told me, "You Christians tell me the only way they can imagine coping in this world is by this relationship with God. Well, I don't have that relationship with their imaginary being. And I'm happy to have no relationship with an imaginary being. I am free from that nonsense. Oh, I'm not better off; I have no reason to hope. But I'm free." Better off.
Which are you? You might be born again to a living hope while you live without hope. You might be at odds with any sort of divine being and living with hope. Both of those are irrational positions. You might be an enemy of God and be without hope, and that makes sense, or you might be alive in Christ with living hope and that makes sense. The former, however, cannot be "better off" -- without hope. Which are you?
I was talking to an honest atheist. He told me, "You Christians tell me the only way they can imagine coping in this world is by this relationship with God. Well, I don't have that relationship with their imaginary being. And I'm happy to have no relationship with an imaginary being. I am free from that nonsense. Oh, I'm not better off; I have no reason to hope. But I'm free." Better off.
Which are you? You might be born again to a living hope while you live without hope. You might be at odds with any sort of divine being and living with hope. Both of those are irrational positions. You might be an enemy of God and be without hope, and that makes sense, or you might be alive in Christ with living hope and that makes sense. The former, however, cannot be "better off" -- without hope. Which are you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)