What's Wrong with a Christian Musician?

Years ago Christian musician Amy Grant shook up the Christian world by telling everyone she was first a musician and second a Christian. I mean, aren't believers supposed to be first identified as followers of Christ? Well, of course, Amy went on to have a fine career as a singer with lots of accolades and fans and all, so maybe she was a Christian musician -- a musician who happened to be a Christian.

Do you see that? Do you see that in the English wording? In English, we have nouns and we have adjectives. A noun is a person, place, or thing. It is the subject, the main point. It is so primary that in Spanish the noun comes before the adjective. An adjective describes a noun. So in English we might refer to "the red house," where "house" is the primary subject and "red" gives you an added description, but in Spanish it would be "la casa roja" because the house (casa) is the main idea and the color is an add-on, as it were. That is, you would look first for a house and then differentiate it as red. With this in mind, then, we have "Christian musicians." That is, the first thing you need to know -- the identifier here -- is "musician," and the modifier is "Christian." And that's a problem, isn't it?

I'm sure you can tell that this isn't about "Christian musicians." It's about using the term "Christian" as an adjective. This world is not our home. Both Paul and John wrote about how the "world is passing away" (1 Cor 7:31; 1 John 2:17), so we shouldn't be too deeply concerned or involved with the world systems, but with Christ. We ought to be identified as "Christ-followers" and not ... everything else we choose instead. We are Christian mothers and fathers, Christian musicians or engineers or politicians or burger-flippers or ... you get it. And we should not be. We should be musically-inclined Christians or motherly Christians or politically-active Christians, where our job or our hobby or our roles in life are modifiers of "Christian" rather than having "Christian" tacked on to whatever else we might be. Don't our current descriptors tie us first to the world and then to Jesus? Or is it just me?

News Weekly - 8/3/2024

Double Standards Abound
Hezbollah dropped a rocket barrage in the middle of a soccer field in Israel killing 12 people -- mostly children. This must go unnoticed, of course, because the world has determined that Israel has no right to exist and must be removed "from the river to the sea." Which, by the way, is an attempt at genocide ... of which they accuse Israel, not the Arab nations arrayed against her. Killing Israeli children is okay, apparently.

Taking Aim at America
Our government is designed with checks and balances in the system, so we have a Legislative Branch to make laws, an Executive Branch to carry out the laws, and a Judicial Branch to evaluate the laws. This way no one branch takes control. Unless, of course, you're the Democrats, it appears. Biden is promising to rein in all this nonsense that the Judicial Branch has been pulling (where "nonsense" is "the things we disagree with") with sweeping reforms to the Supreme Court. He is targeting presidential immunity and term limits for justices and a code of ethics aligned with his party's views. All in the name of "Democracy" (that capital "D" was not a typo -- it's a connection to "Democrats") where the Democrats can control ... the government and, if they lose that control, can regain it. Because if there's anything the ruling party hates, it's opposition. (And you thought it was something like "injustice" or the like, didn't you?)

Killing Peace
Iran and Hamas have reported that Israel killed Hamas leader Ismael Haniyeh in a strike in Tehran. Haniyeh was a leading voice for a cease-fire in Gaza, so expect those talks to bog down (further). What no one appears to be saying is how Israel managed a strike in Tehran. Or why Israel claims to have killed a senior Hezbollah leader in Beirut, but not Haniyeh. Whatever the truth is, it's sure to not improve the prospects of peace in the Middle East.

Kettle, Meet Pot
I was baffled by this story that Kamala Harris calls Trump's claims about her racial origins "the same old show of divisiveness and disrespect." Without denying that Trump might be divisive and disrespectful, isn't it quite clear that so is Harris (and the rest)? It has been a long time since we've seen any civility in politics (and elsewhere).

According to USA Today, Kamala Harris is the daughter of an Indian mother (a mother whose origins are in India) and a Jamaican father. She is considered "black" and "south Asian." Apparently, her father was in a line of "Afro-Jamaicans" who were originally from Africa. His paternal grandfather was a slave owner. His paternal grandmother was of Irish descent. That is, on one hand, there is African descent in Harris, but it is long and slim and is quite clearly a play of the "race card." On the other hand, why Trump would bring it up is beyond me because it is irrelevant both in content and effect. Let it go, man.

No Kings, But Masters Are OK
As promised, Chuck Schumer rolled out his "No Kings Act" to eliminate presidential immunity. They haven't figured out how to make it "for Trump only," which will surely come back to bite them later when the shoe is on the other foot. Interestingly, the Constitution does provide immunity for members of Congress which, for reasons none of us understand, Schumer et al. is not trying to rescind. You do know why government officials have immunity while in office, right? That's so opponents can't create a coup on a legal charge, and clearly that's the idea here -- to overthrow Trump either before or after entering office -- from the party trying to "defend democracy" while bypassing it as much as they can.

Olympic Domestic Violence
In case you missed it, an Olympic boxer from Algeria beat an Italian opponent in 46 seconds, and there is controversy. Imane Khelif of Algeria beat (literally) Angela Carini. Oh, did you notice? "Angela" is a woman's name. You see, it was a women's fight, and Imane was disqualified last year because he/she failed the testosterone testing and her/his DNA had XY chromosomes. But the Olympics let him/her compete this year and Carini quit 46 seconds in because "I’ve never been hit with such a powerful punch." I guess she's not used to being beat up by guys. Get used to it, lady. They don't care anymore.

Dad Jokes
Instead of the Bee this week, I had to share a few of these I came across since, as people who know me can tell you, it's just one of the services I provide.

My uncle wanted to be a map maker in Arizona until he found out he didn't have a sense of Yuma.

Steve Jobs would have made a better president than Donald Trump. But that's comparing apples to oranges.

I saw my wife sitting in front of the TV yelling at the screen, "Don't go in there! Don't go in that church, you moron!!" She was watching our wedding video.

Perhaps my favorite, though, was this one.

I ordered a chicken and an egg on Amazon. I'll let you know.

Consistent

I have a great regard for consistency. Let me explain. Everyone has beliefs, opinions, principles, values, etc. (The Right likes to argue that the Left has no values. It's not true. Their values are just different from the Right's.) What I find refreshing is when people actually live by the beliefs, opinions, principles, values, etc. that they hold. And I have to say, it's less common than you might think.

Take Peter Singer. Peter is an Australian "moral philosopher," a professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. Peter is also a devout atheist. So, in keeping with his belief in "no God," Singer argues that babies in the womb have no special rights. Indeed, he argues that those of us who are pro-life are practicing "speciesism." Speciesism is the belief that one species is more valuable or more important than any other. But if all life on this planet evolved by random chance, no life on this planet should have more rights than others based simply on their species ... such as human beings. Singer argues that certain apes should be given the same rights as humans. Singer argues in favor of post-partum abortion. Singer argues that "value" is predicated on utility -- how useful are you? Singer, then, is fundamentally flawed at the outset ("No God") but completely consistent -- more than most.

Today's world is not so consistent. Young people decry capitalism while soaking up the benefits of capitalism. Climate change klaxons drive around in climate destroying vehicles. Atheists take advantage of "Thanksgiving Day" and "Christmas" holidays while denying there is a God. The Left screams about Trump as a "threat to democracy" while offering a candidate that was not voted on. On and on. And it's not just "them" -- it's "us," too. We Christians declare that we are saved apart from works ... while we work hard to keep ourselves "saved." We claim to believe that "God causes all things together for good" while bemoaning our unpleasant circumstances. We boldly argue that God is Sovereign and wring our hands over events outside of our control. I'm not surprised the world isn't so consistent. Sin rots the brain (Rom 1:21). The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). I get it. But we who are in Christ or new (2 Cor 5:17), we're supposed to be renewing our minds (Rom 12:2). We should be living much more consistently with our professed beliefs. Are we? And why would an unbelieving world believe what we claim to be true when we so often don't live it ourselves?

Can I Get a Witness? (1980)

It was early 1980. I was a newlywed ... and had just lost my job. Mind you, it was a job as a Security Supervisor -- good enough, but not great -- so I wasn't greatly qualified for a job to take care of my wife and kids. Oh, did I forget to mention? Just before they let me go, she told me she was pregnant. So, I thought and prayed and decided that maybe the military would take me and pay me while they taught me a career-type job.

I took the ASVAB aiming to join the Air Force. As part of the ASVAB, there was a section of just preferences. "Do you like this kind of thing?" You understand. Every time a question like, "Do you like to fix radios?" or "Do you like to tinker with electronics?" came up, I gave a vehement "No!" because I'd never done it and had no interest. The Air Force offered me a job in accounting, which, I thought, would be a fine career, so I accepted and they told me they could get me in by ... October. Oh, hang on! That was 5 months away. My wife was pregnant now. "What can I take to get in sooner?" I asked. "Well," they said, "you can show up packed and ready to go and wait to see if someone who is scheduled to leave that day and in a job you are qualified to take can't make it." So I did just that. The next day I waited with a couple of changes of clothes and a few toiletries at the main station. A guy who was scheduled to leave that day broke his leg and wouldn't make it. He had signed up for ... did you guess it? ... electronics. Open Electronics, meaning any electronics the Air Force did. Well, I wanted a career and electronics seemed to be a good career, so I shipped off to Basic Training that day, complete with medical benefits for my wife (and baby-to-come) and the start of a new career.

Funny thing. I discovered not only that I could do electronics, but that I was good at it. It made sense to me. Funny thing. I went in Open Electronics, but they assigned me to one of the very few career fields still available that was entirely "hands-on." I learned to work on everything from vacuum tubes to solid state. I learned to take the equipment off aircraft, take it to the shop, fix it down to the component level, and put it back on the aircraft. In short, I got a job that I really enjoyed and that taught me all facets of electronics work from black box to inner workings. The military was not my first choice. (I was, in fact, one of the oldest guys there in Basic Training.) I didn't get this with my careful planning. My career from which I eventually retired came from this "surprise" that I didn't want and wouldn't have chosen ... because my God is much, much smarter and more capable than I am. I know; I'm an eyewitness.

'Tis So Sweet to Trust in Jesus

I'm considering adding a new feature to my blog. Paul wrote, "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God" (Col 3:16). I think we in our churches do this rarely if at all. We try to stimulate warm feelings toward God, perhaps, but not "teaching and admonishing" with our songs. I would like to give it a try, so I'm going to have this tag, "Col 3:16," and include some teaching and admonishing with various songs. We'll see how that goes. Here's the first entry.
________

'Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus,
and to take him at His word;
just to rest upon His promise,
and to know, "Thus saith the Lord."

Refrain:
Jesus, Jesus, how I trust Him!
How I've proved Him o'er and o'er!
Jesus, Jesus, precious Jesus!
O for grace to trust Him more!

O how sweet to trust in Jesus,
just to trust His cleansing blood;
and in simple faith to plunge me
'neath the healing, cleansing flood! [Refrain]

Yes, 'tis sweet to trust in Jesus,
just from sin and self to cease;
just from Jesus simply taking
life and rest, and joy and peace. [Refrain]

Written by Louisa M. R. Stead in 1882, this favorite and simple hymn speaks of the sweetness of trusting Jesus. Mrs. Stead knew something about trusting Jesus. She had felt called to the mission field since her youth, but her health prevented her from going. She married in 1875 and then tragically lost her husband who, on a family picnic at the Long Island shore, drowned trying to rescue a boy in the water. Louisa went to South Africa to be a missionary. She and her new husband returned to America after some years to recover from her failing health, but they returned again to Africa -- this time Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). From there she wrote back to America,

In connection with this whole mission there are glorious possibilities, but one cannot, in the face of peculiar difficulties, help say, "Who is sufficient for these things?" But with simple confidence and trust we may and do say, "Our sufficiency is of God."

Louisa ultimately died there in 1917. Her daughter married a missionary and served in the mission field as well. All of this -- the drive to serve, the pain of catastrophic loss, the serving under serious health problems -- all lay on top of this singular thought: "'Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus." Her life reflected her trust in Him.

The verses offer powerful points of trusting Jesus. There is His Word, where the simple "Thus saith the Lord" proved sufficient to rest in it. There is His blood, in which she could have release from sin, spiritual healing and cleansing. There is His presence that sanctifies and gives life, rest, joy, and peace. All that is necessary for life, then, can be found in trusting Jesus.

In the refrain she makes two critical points. First, her faith isn't blind. Her trust isn't credulity. She trusted Him to begin with, but after time she proved Him. Hers was a trust from experience. "How I've proved Him o'er and o'er." It is the blessed faith of a saint a little farther down the road. Can I trust Him? Yes, because He has always proven trustworthy. The second point, however, is often missed. Mrs. Stead trusted Jesus for all the essentials of life because He was ultimately trustworthy, but she had a secret. She did not see her faith in Christ as something she mustered up. No. She prayed, "O for grace to trust Him more!" You see, she saw her faith in Christ as a gift, a matter of grace.

In this is faith's critical secret. Louisa trusted Christ through bad health and the tragic loss of her husband and the father of her daughter and through serving in far-flung places. She called it "sweet". Sweet? Really? It is things like this that cause others to give up on God entirely. The difficult parts of life lead others to conclude there is no God. How could she call it "sweet"? It is because she didn't drum up this faith herself. She wasn't counting on her own capacity to trust Him. She was given a measure of faith (Rom 12:3). And she echoed the prayer of the father asking Jesus to heal his child, "I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24)

It ought to be our praise: "'Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus; I've proved Him o'er and o'er." It ought to be our prayer: "O, for grace to trust Him more." It is certainly her legacy to her daughter and to us.

Only Good

In Job 1, there is a gathering in heaven before God at the end of which God calls Satan over and says (I'm paraphrasing here), "Hey, have you seen My man, Job? He's really something isn't he?" Satan challenged God. "He's only faithful because You've given him all good stuff." So God allowed Satan to take Job's wealth and his sons (but no harm to Job). And Job said, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21). So another gathering occurs and God goads Satan a little more. "How about that Job, eh? He's still faithful." "Well," Satan retorted, "he wouldn't be so happy if he didn't have his health." So God let him take his health (but not his life). Sitting in ashes, scraping boils, Job's wife told him to curse God and die. He said, "You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10). Interesting points here. God pointed Job out to Satan. God allowed Satan to trouble Job. God limited what Satan could and could not do. And in both events, Job rightly ascribed to God his troubles ... and did not complain about God.

I think for more than a few of us it wouldn't be Job's wife that was speaking foolishly; it was Job. I think, in fact, that all of us at some time or another have told God, in essence, that we won't accept "adversity," only good. We'll either ascribe the adversity to someone or something other than God -- and diminish His Sovereignty -- or we'll rightly ascribe it to God and be angry with Him. The reason most of us would do such a thing -- think like Job's wife -- is because we aren't trusting Job's God. Job's God is different. He's a real-life God. Everyone experiences the spectrum, from pain to pleasant, from sorrow to joy, from loss to gain. If your God doesn't go there with you, "large and in charge," as they say, then He's not a real-life God. He's a passenger ... or worse. And more than a few Christians are satisfied with a passenger God who ... oh, no! ... sees our painful circumstances but can do nothing to alleviate them. "So sorry."

The God of the Bible is not afraid of managing both light and darkness, ecstasy and agony. He says, "I am YHWH, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am YHWH who does all these" (Isa 45:6-7). He always does what is right and what is best (Gen 50:20; Psa 100:5; Psa 119:68; 1 John 1:5). If we know this ... if this is the God we are trusting, then, like Job, we can 1) know that God gives well-being and calamity, and 2) it's good. From the hand of God, calamity -- adversity -- is good. We can accept from the hand of God both good and adversity. Not only good.

AI Doesn't Scare Me

Lots of people are concerned about AI -- artificial intelligence. It's everywhere. It's trying to mimic real humans. And it's not doing well. My newsfeed likes to see what I'm searching for and start to feed me appropriate news items in accordance with what I'm looking for. It's a form of AI. That is, it's an algorithm that thinks it can figure out my motives and give me what I want. It's wrong ... really, really wrong. Obviously I search for things related to Scripture and the like, so in today's feed (for instance) they gave me (and I won't link to any of them) titles like, "15 Hard Questions Atheists Wish Christians Would Answer" and "Why people are leaving the church" and "America's Spiritual Revolution: Turning Away from Christianity to Embrace Alternatives." Thanks, AI, but you are so confused.

I like that last one about embracing alternatives. It wasn't some wild religious nut who said it; it was Jesus. He's the one who said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). "Are you saying that Christianity is the only valid religion?" No ... no, I'm not. Jesus is. His disciples understood that. On trial before the Council, Peter boldly declared, "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). "Alternatives." Right. If people are embracing "alternatives" (which are not alternatives), we can come to a variety of conclusions, but one that is not possible is that they are leaving Christianity. John wrote, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). No genuine Christian ultimately walks away from Christianity. No other "alternative" is a viable alternative.

But here we have some programmed system that is suggesting to me that I should consider myself wrong for following the Christ, the Son of God, the only means of salvation. I should consider "alternatives." What, like pink unicorns and fairies? (They don't exist, either.) Because no alternatives exist that have any semblance of truth. And if programmers are going to offer this as "artificial intelligence," I think there's not much to fear. Of course, artificial insanity might be a little scary ...

Prayer as Inaction

I recently heard a character on a show explain to the pastor character on the show that "Prayer is just inaction." She was berating him for "praying" when she thought he should have been doing something. Now, obviously, this was a fictional character, but fictional characters come from the minds of real writers, and I've heard too many times (more lately) the same idea. "Our prayers are with them" gets the same basic response: "Prayer is inaction."

Is that true? Well, I'm sure in some cases it is. In John 9 in the story of the blind man healed at the pool of Siloam, the healed man told the Pharisees, "We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him" (John 9:31). It was offered as evidence that Jesus feared God and was doing His will. Now, we know that it's not entirely true because if a sinner prays in repentance, he (or she) is heard. But Scripture lists a few ways of insuring we aren't heard, such as asking for the wrong reason (James 4:3) or embracing sin (Psa 66:18; Isa 59:2) or asking without faith (James 1:6-7) and the like, so unbelievers (in particular) who pray under these conditions are making prayer inaction, as it were. But when believers pray, they pray with this in mind: we are commanded to pray (1 Thess 5:17; Eph 6:18; Php 4:6-7; etc.). And we have this confidence: if we ask according to His will, He provides it (1 John 5:14-15).

Since prayer is commanded and answers are promised, quite clearly prayer is not mere inaction. Some may use it as such, but prayer is not, by definition, inaction. The reason skeptics say it is because their premise is that God doesn't answer prayer -- God does not intervene in the affairs of human beings. The accusation, then, is not that prayer is inaction, but that God is inactive. And that's a serious mistake. We know that "The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much" (James 5:16), and "accomplishing much" is not "inaction." Some people use prayer as a "throwing my hands up" approach. "I can't do anything, so I'm giving it over to God." Sometimes that's necessary, but too often it's not. Praying for someone or something does not preclude acting, serving, involving, or, most of all, loving. In fact, if God commands it and promises answers, prayer would logically be the first action taken for other people and events about which we are concerned, but certainly not the only action. Because our God is never inactive, and He always does what's best.

News Weakly - 7/27/2024

A Different Flight of Stairs
Of course, the big news early this week was that Biden dropped out of the race ... 107 days before the election. A new record. He has endorsed Kamala (no surprise) who assures us she intends to "earn and win" the Democratic nomination. She might win it, but she hasn't earned it in office (think "Border Czar," for instance, and her penchant for confused, meaningless speeches), so I don't know how she thinks she'll "earn" it in a matter of weeks. She would not be an improvement on Biden. We'll keep an eye out and a prayer going. (Especially since Gavin Newsom is a name at the top of the list of other possibilities.)

The Double Standard
One of the big things that Dems hate about Trump was his engaging in false conspiracy theories, say, about how he lost the 2020 election. Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot, Dems dabble in conspiracy theories about the Trump assassination attempt -- "It was staged" -- regardless of evidence or facts. Because, of course, double standards are rampant.

Defending Democracy
Following the Biden exit, Kamala Harris has apparently secured enough delegates to get the Democratic nomination. Mind you, the drumbeat of this presidential season has been, "Trump will destroy democracy." Mind you, no vote has been taken of the Democrats to actually approve of Harris. Mind you, she appears to have "secured enough delegates" simply by being endorsed by her California delegation, the largest in the country. So, take that, democracy. We really have no need of you when we're fighting ... to protect democracy. (The Babylon Bee saw it too with their story, "'Donald Trump Will Destroy Democracy,' Says Party Nominating Candidate No One Voted For.") (More irony in the demand from the BLM (Black Lives Matter) for a "virtual primary" in order to protect democracy ... which the BLM has complained about since their inception.)

Another Conspiracy Shot Down
Biden quelled premature rumors of his demise by speaking this week. Apparently there were lots of concerns that he might have withdrawn from the race by actually dying, as in the Bee story of suspicions being raised when his latest press conference appeared to be shot in Minecraft.

Mixed Messages
On the same day, there was the "breaking news" that the economy grew a "robust 2.8%" in the 2nd quarter and that Nasdaq and S&P registered the worst day since 2022. Are things getting better or aren't they? The world may never know.

Who Would Have Thought?
When places (like California) moved to mandate higher and higher minimum wages to accomplish a "living wage," lots of voices warned it would increase consumer prices, decrease hours, and cause layoffs and store closures. Guess what this recent study found? You guessed it.
________
Note: For those of you looking for Bee stuff, you should note that I sifted it in with the stories above. If you missed it, look again.

Everything??

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. (2 Peter 1:2-4)

The Bible makes lots of claims, obviously, but some of them are of a grand, sweeping type. Like this one. Peter says that we should experience God's grace and peace in abundance. Why? Because God "has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness." Now, that He has granted us stuff is all well and good -- we buy that -- but this claim is much larger. He has granted us everything pertaining to life and godliness. Everything?

Paul makes the same claim.

He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? (Rom 8:32)

In this text, on the basis that God did not spare His own Son (which is an absolute certainty), we can be certain that God will "freely give us all things." What things? Paul lays them out in the subsequent verses (Rom 8:33-39) ("more than conquerors"). And Peter explains that "everything pertaining to life and godliness" is connected to making us "partakers of the divine nature" for the purpose of escaping "the corruption that is in the world by lust." The "all things" of Romans 8:32 and the "everything" of 2 Peter 1:3 have to do with forming believers into the image of His Son (Rom 8:39) in contrast to the world and its lusts.

The question, then, is pretty straightforward. You who have placed your faith in Christ, who call yourself "believers," whose only hope is in trusting Christ, who claim to believe God's Word -- do you? Do you believe the totality of that claim? Do you anticipate that God has granted you "everything pertaining to life and godliness." Do you count on God freely giving you all things? Or are you still scrabbling around, trying to scrape together what you need, to cobble together what's important, and stressing when it doesn't seem to come? Are you still muddling about in the world's lusts thinking you can get what you need? Or do you who believe ... actually believe? Because life is so sweet on the believing side of "everything."

A Different Culture of Death

According to the latest statistics, the current divorce rate in the U.S. is 6.2 per 1,000 people. In 2022, there were 673,989 divorces or annulments and 2,065,905 marriages. The average length of marriage prior to divorce is 8 years. (That is, of those who divorce, it lasts an average of 8 years.) We've been told that 50% of all marriages in the U.S. end in divorce. This isn't even close to accurate. Statistics show that, in a given year, the ratio of marriages to divorces in a given year are about 2:1, but that is a yearly snapshot that doesn't give a true picture. Using that method, in 2022 the divorce rate was roughly 33%. Beyond that, further studies suggest a vastly different number than the 50% standard. In a Census Bureau study in 2009, 20.5% of men and 22.4% of women reported ever being divorced. Currently more like 75% of those who marry stay married.

So, what about Christians? The reports have suggested that the divorce rate among Christians is nearly identical to non-Christians. Now, clearly, this shouldn't be. God hates divorce (Mal 2:16) and Jesus (you know, the "Christ" in "Christian" that Christians are supposed to follow) said, "What God has put together let no man separate" (Matt 19:6). Which begs the question ... is it that Christians are refusing to obey God, or is it that these may not be Christians we're talking about? The answer, of course, is "Yes." Christians sin. Period. But it shouldn't be "at the same rate" as the world, should it? And it turned out, when they took another look, the "Christians" who reported the same divorce rate as the world were not Bible-reading, church-going, Christ-following Christians. CINO's, then. Christians-In-Name-Only.

Still, divorce does occur among genuine Christians. All manner of sin occurs among genuine Christians. So I'm wondering. When we promise "Till death do us part," how are we defining "death"? "I don't feel good"? "I'm not exactly happy"? "I can do better"? Some Christians seem to have an extremely loose definition of "death" when they choose for any reason to divorce ... because Scripture doesn't seem to list any reason as a good one. Maybe one or two that are tolerable (e.g., Matt 19:8), but not one good reason. Which begs another question. Who are we trusting to give us the best for our lives? Ourselves? The people around us? Or God? If not God, what does that say about our faith ... in God?

What's Wrong With God?

Recently I shared (in comments) the information that my grandfather died (2007 -- not recently) rejecting Christ. A "brother in Christ" chose that opportunity of my revisiting that grief to tell me that God was a monster for failing to save my grandfather (which the "brother" took to mean that that God didn't exist). Now, who that was is irrelevant. The thought process is critical. You see, either we get to be the ones who determine the acceptable goodness and characteristics of God ... or He does. Unfortunately, the SOP -- the normal mode of operations for humans -- is the former, and it is a grave error.

Nebuchadnezzar, having endured a temporal judgment from God for his own arrogance, declared, "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?'" (Dan 4:35). In our arrogance, of course, we correct Nebuchadnezzar. "Nope! We can!" When Paul wrote, "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" (Rom 9:22), he didn't find it questionable that God would will to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. That was a given. That was expected. The surprise was the twist in which God would show mercy. We've figured out today that Paul was wrong and God was wrong and the only way God could be good is if He saved everyone (à la Rob Bell's Love Wins) or, at least, tried ... although clearly if God tried and failed, that would make Him at the very least a failure. This is because we get to decide if God is good or not, not His Word. God declares, "That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no one besides Me. I am YHWH, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am YHWH who does all these" (Isa 45:6-7). We say, "Nope!" God said, "You thought that I was just like you" (Psa 50:21) and He is not, and we say, "Not the god I know." Oh, and that pesky doctrine of "election"? That's all over the Bible, from Abraham and the chosen people all the way into the New Testament. You have to work hard to avoid it. But humans do just that ... to their own peril.

One of the preeminent biblical characteristics of God is justice. God will not allow sin to go unpunished (Prov 11:21; Rom 6:7). From the start that meant death (Gen 2:16-17; Rom 6:23). Today's world demands a recount, as it were. God cannot be good if He punishes sin in the way Scripture says He will. God cannot be righteous if He doesn't at least try to save everyone. Scripture claims that He was willing to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known and the world cries, "No!!" Ironically, the world's demand seems to be -- instead of "justice for all" -- "mercy for all!" As a result, the world blasphemes God for His justice and His character, and that is a dangerous place to stand. No one can stop God from doing what God will do or decry His plans and actions. You can't reject the God revealed in the Bible -- "I don't like that god" -- and consider yourself a believer in biblical terms. If you reject the things that Jesus said (like "The poor you will always have with you" (John 12:8) or "I came to give my life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45), etc.) because they don't fit with your view, you can't be considered a Christ-follower. It is untenable that a genuine Christian would stand there in the face of all that Scripture says on who God is and who Jesus is. So I rest in the Being that Scripture defines as "God" and pray for the repentance and salvation of all who try to deface His glory.

Heavy Duty

We know the commands. We know the instructions. We have our Bibles. And so many of them are so clear as to not be avoidable. We may start to think of God as a cosmic killjoy. And we may start to obey out of duty rather than delight. So let's think about that for a moment.

Let's face it. Some of God's commands are not "warm and fuzzy." I mean, who looks forward to "die to self" (Matt 16:24; Col 3:5) or "think of others as more important than yourself" (Php 2:3) or the like? Like the proverbial "girls," we just wanna have fun. But, like good Christians, we might knuckle under and get to it because, after all, we love Jesus, right? And I would guess that obeying out of a sense of duty is better than not obeying at all. It just seems like when Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15), "duty" wasn't in view. Love was. And "I love you because it's my duty" doesn't seem very ... loving. The problem, of course, is faulty thinking on our part. We think X is fun and when God says "No X" He's saying, "No fun." We're quite wrong. X might be fun, but fun is not the issue. When God says, "No X" it's because X is bad for us. It's like complaining that God won't allow us to drink the Draino. That'd be fun. But, no, it wouldn't, and only our shortsightedness would ever make us think otherwise.

If we believe that God is love and we believe that God is good, then it follows unavoidably that the things He commands are not to stop us from having fun, but to direct us to the best things. He's helping us avoid the bad in favor of the best. He's doing us a grand favor, because if He was like too many parents today, He'd just step back and let us run amok ... to our own harm. So, instead of duty, perhaps we might say, "Thanks" and deeply appreciate Him showing the way to a more fulfilling, more abundant life. What do you think?

Which is Harder?

We know that we are commanded to "rejoice always" (1 Thess 5:16) and "in everything give thanks" (1 Thess 5:18) and, perhaps above all else, "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17). These commands can be difficult when we find ourselves in tough times. Rejoicing at the loss of a job or giving thanks in the death of a loved one or the like can be daunting -- nearly impossible.

I'm just wondering. When Paul spoke of being "content in whatever circumstances I am" (Php 4:11), do you think he was speaking of those hard times as well? Well, actually, he tells us. "I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need" (Php 4:12). Yes, both in difficult circumstances and in good times. But which do you think is harder? Is it harder to thank God when everything is going badly or when everything is going smoothly? Are we apt to pray when we're fully satiated or when we're in need? Are we equally grateful for bad times and good times?

I've often thought that being a Christian in a country that approves and embraces Christianity (while not actually being Christian) is a much more difficult place to be. It's easy to claim the name without living it. It's easy to call yourself a Christian and live like the devil. In our society, we're not even supposed to question that. We are inundated with "CINOs" -- Christians in name only. Sometimes I think that it's more real when we are being Christians in hostile areas. And sometimes I think it's harder to rejoice, to be thankful, to pray when everything is going good. Which doesn't speak well of us, does it?

He Loves You

I've heard it in word and song and conversation far too many times. "Jesus loves you just as you are." Now, I know that there is a sense that this is true, but the message is all wrong. That is, if Jesus loves me just the way I am, why change? Indeed, I'd better not. I'd move out of the "comfort zone" of the "me" He loves. No, no, I'll just sit here in my sin and failure and stew in order to be safely loved by Jesus.

That, of course, is ridiculous, but this is the message some receive ... just not from Scripture. Scripture tells us that He chose us to become conformed to the image of His Son (Rom 8:29), not stay as we are. Christians are people in transition, changing from within to be reflections of Him. It is the term, "sanctification," a process of becoming more holy, more like Christ. It's not even optional (1 John 3:9). The old is passing away; the new is coming (2 Cor 5:17).

In our modern "warm and fuzzy" version of "love," we have come to think that "God loves you" means "God thinks of you with warm affection." So when we read that God loves us without regard to our worthiness, we think He has warm affection for our unworthiness. It's not true. Grace is unmerited favor and He saves not for what we are, but on the basis of His Son. He does love us (not in a "warm and fuzzy" way), but has every expectation of forming us into His Son's image. Despite some of the Christian songs you might hear and even enjoy, Jesus is not our "boyfriend." Therefore, He loves us as we are, knowing what we will become. Don't get confused about that.

News Weakly - 7/20/2024

Missed
The news all week, of course, was largely around the assassination attempt on Trump, so that occupies a big space in today's entry. One staffer for Democrat Bernie Thompson asked that the next gunman get some practice so he doesn't miss. (She was fired.) We still don't know the motive, but a popular suggestion is that Biden and the Dems brought this about with their "threat to democracy" and "becoming a dictator" and comparisons to Hitler rhetoric which may have just prompted a patriot to try to save America from Trump. Trump urged his followers on Jan 6, 2021, to "fight" and he was accused of insurrection. Biden said he wanted to put Trump "in the bull's-eye." Could that have been taken as a call for violence? Putin thinks so. On the other hand, former Biden press secretary, Jen Pasaki, suggested that Republican rhetoric was to blame. The Atlantic offered an opinion piece titled, "The Gunman and the Would-Be Dictator." Nice. On Monday, two days after the attempt, the New York Times published a piece on how a "megalomaniac who will happily destroy American democracy" is at the door. Helpful rhetoric that will surely not incite further violence, right? A veteran sniper suggested that the kid who took the shot could not have gotten where he was without help. Somebody on the inside. Maybe. There are questions about how a guy could be sighted on the roof with a gun, reported minutes before the shooting, and none of the protection team responded. It's a mess, but, while Trump took a literal hit, some are suggesting that it just won Trump the White House or, at least, vastly improved his position. Unfortunately, given the known unreliability of both the media and government, we shouldn't expect real answers anytime soon.

No Surprise Here
Oh ... and Trump got the GOP nomination. Like we didn't expect that. Perhaps something from the RNC that was news was the Sikh prayer offered to "Vaheguru, our one true God." Does not bode well for the RNC.

California ... Again
Good ol' reliable California Governor Newsom signed into law that schools cannot tell parents their kids are going transgender. Or, to put it another way, "You have no rights to your children; they're ours." California schools will be required to indulge the fantasies of children as if they were reasonable and expect to be trusted. Quite a leap. On the other hand, are parents so disconnected that they can't tell? Both sides are sad. (And at least one California school district is suing over it.)

Missing the Point
I had to give this one its own entry. It is on the Trump assassination attempt, but in a different direction. Robin Abcarian from the LA Times says the real issue is "We are a nation ravaged by gun violence because we make little effort to limit the availability of weapons of war." Standard ideology ... but thoroughly mistaken not because we shouldn't limit availability of weapons (not my point), but because it fails to identify the real problem -- our current culture of death. We show it on TV and in movies and call it "entertainment." We encourage it in the abortion clinics. Too many voices after the incident said, "Don't miss next time" because we have jettisoned God's values, substituted our own, and can't figure out why humans are killing humans. "Must be that we have the means to do it." Nonsense. Humans are the problem, not the tools they use. (Same principle for the death of Anne Fundner's son of fentanyl overdose. Illegal aliens are not the problem; human nature is.)

Threat to Democracy
It's interesting, isn't it? Trump is a "threat to democracy" (I'm no Trump fan, but I'm not exactly clear on why he's a "threat to democracy"), but Biden hopes to reform the Supreme Court and abolish presidential immunity. The idea is if he can get enough liberal justices in there, they can reverse the decisions made under the latest justices ... which is exactly what they're complaining about from the latest justices. To put it another way, "If we can manipulate the Judicial Branch to work as we in the Executive Branch want it without the vote of the people, we will have undercut the entire Constitution, but we'll be in charge, won't we?" Who is a "threat to democracy" now?

Viable Vaccine
President Joe is "vaccinated and boosted" ... and has COVID. No reflection on Joe, but when a "vaccination" goes from "You'll never get it again" to providing scant protection from getting, spreading, and even dying from what it's supposed to protect against, one has to wonder. Mind you, Joe is in the "worst" category because of his age and Scripture compels us to pray for all who are in authority (1 Tim 2:1-2), so you know what to do.

Target Rich Environment
The Bee, of course, had a slew of pieces with this target rich environment. Like the one about J.D. Vance donning helmet and body armor in preparation to run with Trump. May not be a joke. Or how Vance was horrified to learn he had to use Truth Social now. Ouch! Or the story of CNN doing a piece on famous assassinations throughout history with headlines like "Lincoln nods off at play" and "JFK startled by loud popping noises." Typical. I suppose if we didn't try to laugh at it all, we'd cry.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Things I Can't Afford

There are lots of things in life I can't afford. I can't afford a boat or RV. Too much money for mere entertainment and amusement. Do you know the origin of the word, "amuse"? It is from Latin muser -- to think -- with an "a" at the front for "not." To amuse in its original form meant to divert attention, to delude, to entrap, to stop from thinking. I don't think I can afford much amusement of that type.

I can't afford to ignore my wife, to be a bad husband, to fail to love her. I certainly don't succeed all the time at avoiding those pitfalls, but when I fail, it costs me ... more than I can afford. In a similar vein, I can't afford to ignore my Lord, be a bad Christian, or fail to love Jesus. To fail in any of these is even more expensive. I don't have the resources for those expenses.

What really brought this line of thinking up was current events. We're all wondering about the political scene and where that's going to go. Will it be Biden or Trump ... or ...? Who will our representatives be in the House and Senate? What can we expect in the months and years to come? Or, consider the shooting of Trump. Where will the violence come next? What direction is this country heading politically, morally, socially, economically ... all of it? The one thing that I really cannot afford is to trust my world -- politicians, business people, law enforcement, voters, planners, movers, and shakers. No stability. No confidence. I cannot afford to be double-minded like that, claiming to count on my God to see me through all while worrying about everything in this crazy, mixed-up world (James 1:7-8). I cannot afford to trust anyone more than Christ. That would certainly cost me more than I have.

Misunderstandings

The line from the Animals' song was, "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good. O, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood." When we're talking about the faith, however, that will be a given, won't it? Sharing with the world -- hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and blinded by Satan (2 Cor 4:4) -- it is a given. But even believer to believer, it seems like we will certainly be misunderstood.

My grandfather was a self-professed atheist who, every time he visited our home, heard the gospel in some form or another. Personal witnessing, Billy Graham crusades, even reading Evidence that Demands a Verdict -- both volumes. But he never budged. Then, when I was about 50 and we were visiting, he stopped us in the middle of a conversation. "Wait!" he said, "Are you saying that you get saved simply by believing in Christ???" I was stunned. How many times had he heard that ... without hearing? He figured all along it was the standard "be good enough and you'll get in" format and never heard any of the truth until that moment. Misunderstandings.

A believer I know came in contact with the doctrine of election and was outraged. "Well, if that's true," he said, "I'll just become a Hell's Angel because it doesn't matter what I think or want if He does the choosing." Mind you, election is not like that. God's choosing is not capricious or whimsical. God doesn't choose for no reason, but for His own purposes (Rom 8:29) and His own reasons (Rom 9:11) and not because we're so lovable or capable (1 Cor 1:26-27). "Well, if God denies others access to heaven simply because they're not chosen, that's not fair!" God denies no one access to heaven (John 3:16). All misunderstandings. (Note: Eventually, after my friend read more and heard more and thought it through more, he realized the truth and embraced it. Misunderstandings do not have to remain.)

"You Christians ... you operate on blind faith." That's a very common one, and we even hear it affirmed by Christians. It's not Scripture; it's a misunderstanding. Scripture refers to pistis -- to be persuaded by evidence or argument. Scripture affirms that we have reasons to believe. Credulity is the willingness to believe without evidence or reason. We're not called to that. Misunderstanding.

It is inevitable that unbelievers will misunderstand. We're told, "The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). On the other hand, among believers, we are all in various stages of sanctification and renewing the mind, so we will all have a varying level of understanding. As such, misunderstanding among believers will also be inevitable. Unbelievers will require intervention from God, but we who are born again should be careful to be slow to speak and swift to hear (James 1:19), seeking understanding and unity among brethren. We should always be willing to have our beliefs adjusted by God's Word. We all, in fact, need it.

The Importance of Forgiving

In Matthew 6 we have Jesus providing His disciples with a framework for prayer -- the famous "Lord's Prayer." Near the end of it we have this line: "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Matt 6:12). When He finished, Jesus gave further explanation ... on this line only.

"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions." (Matt 6:14-15)

The text leaves me with a dilemma. We know we are not saved by works (Rom 3:20; Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5) but this text appears to say that those who don't forgive others cannot be forgiven by God. It appears to list a particular work -- forgiving others -- that prevents "saved by grace through faith" if not carried out. It goes along with that parable Jesus told about the unforgiving servant (Matt 18:23-35), where the unforgiving servant was handed over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed (Matt 18:35).

I've known Christians who have told me, "I will not forgive ..." "I will not forgive that guy who did that to my sister." "The Nazis killed my parents in the concentration camps. I'll never forgive them." "Me? Forgive him? Not gonna happen." Christians. So what can we conclude? Have they lost their salvation? Let's ask that a different way. Was Jesus mistaken when He said, "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:29)? "Well, Jesus," we would have to say, "almost no one." Of course, that can't be true. So, no, there is no lost salvation here. What, then? The failure -- refusal -- to forgive others here is equated with -- tied to -- God's refusal to forgive. It is not lost salvation, but it is serious. I think, though, I've found the solution. I've made sense of it.

In the story of Jesus and Simon, the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50), Jesus explains to Simon why the sinful woman anointed His feet. He gives the example of a moneylender who has two debtors: one owed 500 denarii and the other owed 50. The moneylender forgives both. And Jesus asks Simon, "Which of them will love him more?" Jesus explained that the woman loved more because she was forgiven much, "but he who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47). You see, when we come to Christ in faith, we are changed. We cannot come to Christ in faith and not change. Jesus pointed out "You will know them by their fruits" (Matt 7:16, 20) because we do what is in our nature to do (Luke 6:45). So, if we refuse to forgive, according to Jesus, we must not have been forgiven. So the lack of forgiveness is an indicator of an unforgiven person. The lack of forgiveness is not causal in the Father not forgiving; it is indicative. So how are you at forgiving others?

From Principled to Pragmatic

The Atlantic in 2016 offered a political commentary from Jonathan Merritt that claimed that "Trump-loving Christians" owed Bill Clinton an apology. His premise was that Christians refused Clinton forgiveness even though he asked for it, but offered it to Trump who didn't. "Character counts!" was the cry over Vince Foster's death, Paula Jones's harassment claims, and, of course, the Monica Lewinsky debacle to name a few. "Character counts!" they cried and, clearly, Mr. Clinton was lacking. Odd, then, that today's version is coming from the Dems. Kamala Harris threw out the very same line after Trump was recently convicted. Mind you, Biden has his character issues (think hair-sniffing just off the top of my head) (Yes, that was a joke -- "hair," "off the top of my head"), but most people are keenly aware of Trump's issues with his adultery, his questionable business dealings, his crude remarks about grabbing women in ... well, you know ... and so forth, so it's Trump's character in the spotlight.

It hurts to watch. The Atlantic (Jonathan Merritt) was right. Conservatives in general and Christians in particular have done a peculiar 180° spin on the issue of character. We held the high ground back then. Now we hold the pragmatic ground. The Left said, "It doesn't matter about his character. What matters is what he accomplishes." And I'm hearing the same from Christians today. What does it matter what kind of man he is if he gets it done? Well, I guess I get stuck on the last part of the question. Gets what done? He's certainly not going to restore a sense of decorum and cooperation to the Executive Branch. He's already indicated that he has no dog in the pro-life hunt. He has suggested that he'll "hunt down his opposition" (my words, not his). Is that what we want done? What I want done is to have a president I can trust, and he won't get that done. One who will defend life. That's not him. One who will defend my values. Not gonna happen. But, of course, I didn't expect it ... from him or any other current politician.

So now we've removed Dems and Republicans from the principled position -- "Character counts" -- and into the purely pragmatic. They wanted the political outcomes that they wanted, character notwithstanding. Now so do we. What do we want? Maybe what we want done is simply to prevent Biden from doing 4 more years of damage. Maybe all we want is someone -- anyone -- in the White House that is not our current president. Now, that could be just about anybody, but obviously it would require someone who could beat Biden in an election. So maybe, from a purely pragmatic view, it will be necessary to vote for a man without significant character in whom I have little trust or expectations just to keep Biden out of office. What kind of a miserable option is that? Clearly from a low (but not necessarily faulty) view of American politics. When I consider these things, I call to mind, as the hymn says,

This is my Father’s world.
Oh, let me ne'er forget
That though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the ruler yet.