Be Still

You know the psalm. "Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!" (Psa 46:10). Simple, straightforward. Very significant, especially in our world today. "Be still." The word is probably best translated "cease." That's fine. Same thing. Cease striving. Stop wrestling with your problems, your life. Be still. Frankly we all like to think that's possible.

The difficulty for us is the "how." "Yes, thanks, I'd like to be still ... to cease striving. But ... how?" The answer is right there. "Know that I am God." It's simple ... yet incredibly profound ... and not very easy for humans. He says that if we know God -- who He is, what He's like, His capabilities and character -- we can ... stop striving. Be still. God "works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11). All things. Every time. Never fails. That's a comfort. He gives good gifts (James 1:17), supplies every need (Php 4:19), always works all things for good (Rom 8:28), withholds nothing good (Rom 8:32), and on and on and on. Tell me again why I'm struggling?

I suppose part of the problem is the "why," too. Why should we trust Him? Why does He do it? Well ... good news! It's not because we're so good. He does it so that "I will be exalted among the nations." He does it for His glory. And if there's anything He cares most about, it's His glory (Isa 42:8). Count on it. We can rest ... cease ... be still. How? By knowing God. Why? Because He always does what's best ... for His glory. And that should be great for us. Know God and be still. We think we know Him, but ... do we? Or is it that we just don't trust?

News Weakly - 8/30/2025

Breaking the Mold
Two kids were killed and 18 injured when a transgender shooter opened fire in a Catholic school mass. Tragic. When AI was asked a theoretical question whether it would choose to save 1 million men or one transgender, the AI "wisely" chose the transgender because we all know transgender people are better people than ... men. Except ... it's not true. Apparently there are bad people everywhere.

Orange Man Bad
The headline reads, "Trump ends security protection for former Vice President Harris," the scum. What it doesn't say is that Biden had quietly extended protection beyond the usual period. It's typically 6 months (ending in July), but Biden extended it to next January. Trump merely set it back to ... normal. Oh, the humanity!!

Like Normal
The Texas House passed a bill that would require male bathrooms be used by males and female bathrooms be used by females. Like ... normal people would do. Why does the media refer to it as "restrictions on transgender people" and not, say, women who want to use men's restrooms? Oh ... because those have always been in place. Like normal. So "transgender" isn't ... normal.

What's That Now?
A federal appeals court has declared Trump's tariffs to be illegal use of emergency power. See? Not an emperor. The system is working ... sort of. "Sort of" because they decided to leave them in place for now. What? So much for a "justice" system.

Your Best Source for Fake News
Trump got a few zings from the Bee. In one story he's promising to defeat socialism by nationalizing as many private companies as possible (a la Intel). In the other, Trump has unveiled his giant cannon for faster and more entertaining deportations. That's just funny right there. I did like Trump's plan to dumb down the Chinese by inviting them to attend American universities. Seems reasonable. So, just to "balance the books" as it were, I'll add one more on how Democrats are calling for common-sense prayer control in light of the school shooting in Minneapolis.You know ... the logic of the left.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

Biblical Pottery

Scripture has two passages about God as a potter. (More than two, but two I'm highlighting.) In Isaiah we read, "Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker—An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say, 'He has no hands'?" (Isa 45:9). "Woe" is a significant term in biblical terms. It refers not to "sad," but to judgment. That makes this text ominous. What category of people are under judgment? The clay that decries the potter's work. "What are you doing?" Understand we're not talking about a question for information. We're talking about a judgment on God's work. "You don't know what you're doing!" Or "He has no hands!" Those people, in this text, are under judgment.

There is a similar text in Romans.

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 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 9:19-22)

Paul is answering objections here to the notion that God chooses whom He will save. He chose Jacob over Esau (Rom 9:10-13). "That's not fair!" (Rom 9:14) Paul answers with "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom 9:15-18). Then this objection. "If God chooses, how can He hold us responsible?" Without a logical argument explaining it, Paul answers, "Are you really going to answer back to God?" And he uses this pottery metaphor. God has the right to make what He wants. The first difficulty is the apparent claim that He makes some for honorable use and others for common use. God ... makes them ... for that use. Is that okay with you? He explains the two uses in the text. Common use: vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom 9:22). Honorable use: vessels of mercy "which He prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:23). Does God have that right? Paul assumes it outright. "Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?"

My point here isn't the doctrine of election. My point here is the notion of being clay in God's hands. My point is whether or not we will challenge God -- "What are you doing?", or "Why did you make me like this?" -- or will we allow the potter His right to do what He wants with what is clearly His? Will you let Him act as He will, or will you challenge His choice? The latter is ... dangerous. It causes ... woe.

Imitators

Ephesians 5 begins with a somewhat startling command.

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. (Eph 5:1)

"Wait ... what? Be ... imitators of God?" That's the command. What does it mean?

The verse begins, "Therefore." What for? Well, chapter 4 ends with, "Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you" (Eph 4:32). We are to forgive as God in Christ has forgiven us. That's what the "therefore" is there for. That word, "forgive," is interesting. It's not the word Jesus used when He taught His disciples to pray. Remember? "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Mat 6:12). That "forgive" is aphiēmi. It means "to send away," as in "send away their transgressions." But in Ephesians 4, Paul uses charizomai -- "grace." Isn't that interesting? So we're supposed to "give grace to each other just as God in Christ also has given grace to us." Be imitators of God.

Paul, of course, clarifies further. "And walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma" (Eph 5:2). That's an "and." "In addition." So, we are to be imitators of God by giving grace generously and by loving as Christ loved. How? "Gave ... self ... up." Wow! We are to imitate God by giving self up for others. Paul told the Philippians, "With humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves" (Php 2:3). Yeah ... like that. It's not natural and it's not easy, but ... it's commanded. Will we ... be imitators of God? I wouldn't recommend the alternative.

Why Ask Why?

Luke includes two exclusive accounts at the beginning of his Gospel. One is the birth of John the Baptist foretold (Luke 1:5-25) and the other is the birth of Jesus foretold (Luke 1:26-38). Both involve a highly doubtful prophecy given to an individual by the angel,Gabriel (Luke 1:11, 26). The first was announced to the priest, Zechariah, while he performed duties in the temple. He was told his wife would bear a son, John (Luke 1:13). The second was announced to Mary betrothed to Joseph (Luke 1:27) that she would bear a son, Jesus (Luke 1:31). Both ... were puzzled. Both asked a similar question. Zechariah asked, "How shall I know this?" (Luke 1:18) and Mary asked, "How will this be?" (Luke 1:34). One was struck dumb (Luke 1:20) and the other was given assurances (Luke 1:35-37). What was the difference? Clearly, Zechariah, was questioning God's reliability while Mary was questioning God's method. Two very different outcomes.

I recently saw a discussion on a controversial theological concept with the question, "If this is true, is God just?" You see, that's a questionable question ... but we ask it ... or ones like it ... all the time. The problem is the premise. Zechariah challenged God. "If it doesn't make sense to me, how can I trust it?" Mary simply asked for information, where she concludes, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). "Whatever You say, Lord." We dare to put God to the test ... the test of our personal judgment. "How can God do that to someone?" "If it doesn't meet my idea of just, it's not just." "God, You say the gospel is for everyone, but I don't see it." Over and over, we challenge God, requiring Him to meet our requirements. We ask "Why?" for all the wrong reasons.

Zechariah would offer a word of warning. Go ahead and ask for information, for clarification, for data ... but ... don't challenge God. He doesn't have to meet your standards of verification. You, on the other hand, had better submit to His. We tend to think He's a human, just like us, in many ways (Psa 50:21). But He doesn't answer to us. He's too wise to be mistaken and too good to be unkind. He's perfectly Sovereign and always does what's best. We can ask, but we shouldn't question. Do you see the difference?

Double Predestination?

We all know that "predestination" is an invention of John Calvin and only Calvinists buy into it. Well ... most of us. And, of course, we'd be wrong. It's not a Calvinist invention. It's not even a Pauline invention. God practiced it when He saved Noah and when He called Abraham. Throughout the Old Testament God kept choosing people, not because of their deeds, but because of His mercy. Jesus expressed it clearly in the New Testament. "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you" (John 15:16). That's only one example. It's in multiple places in the Gospels. The disciples affirmed it after He ascended. They agreed with God that He had anointed Jesus and appointed the Jews "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur" (Acts 4:27-28). So Paul just ran with it. He referred often to believers as "chosen" or "elect." He assured the Ephesians that they were chosen and predestined (Eph 1:4-5). He said, "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). It's not Calvin. It's God.

There is a corollary that is disturbing. Paul told the Ephesians they were "chosen before the foundation of the world." John warned, "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:19) and that book was "written from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8). God has chosen. He has chosen in advance. He has chosen not on the basis of our choice or actions. But this suggests ... requires? ... the opposite, doesn't it? Doesn't it imply that ... others are not chosen? Well, no, not imply ... it is true. But doesn't that mean that, one way or another, others are predestined ... to damnation? The biblical answer is ... yes. Jude wrote, "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4). Ouch. Doing a language dance, many have assured us that's not what it means ... but the language is unavoidable. "Long beforehand." Before time. The King James Version says "before of old." No matter where you put "before of old," it precedes the people about whom this is written. So they were "marked out" before they existed for ... condemnation. When their names were not written in the book of life before time ... the outcome was predetermined.

Now, this does not require action on the part of God. It doesn't require that God actively blocks people from the kingdom. In order for anyone to be saved, they must, in Jesus's words, "be born again" (John 3:3-15). They must be "born of God" (1 John 5:1). That requires action on God's part. That requires divine intervention. If God does not intervene ... the outcome is certain, but not because He didn't intervene. It's because of their sin (Rom 3:23; 6:23). So God doesn't cause anyone to go to hell. That is their own choosing. But it is as certain as His choice of you (1 Thess 1:4).

The Jabberwocky

by Lewis Carroll
(from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, 1872)

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


I really enjoy this poem, but I can't tell you why. It's amazing to me that you get a sense of fear, of suspense, of joy ... all from a nonsense poem. None of it makes real sense, but you get the sense of it. Now, that's talent. Thanks, Mr. Carroll.

The Perfect When

Paul wrote, "When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons" (Gal 4:4-5). That phrase, "the fullness of time," is interesting, isn't it? What is it? Simply put, it's "the perfect when."

Think about it. We're not too keen on "the perfect when." "What do we want?" we cry, followed by, "When do we want it? Now!" Even so with God. "Lord, answer my prayer ... the way I want ... now." We never say that, but it's there because 1) if He answers it in a different way we consider it an "unanswered prayer" and 2) we complain when it's not ... "timely."

I want to be satisfied with my God's timing. I want to be content with His methods. I want to ... "prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2). Some call it blind faith. I think I have enough life-evidence to have good reason to trust Him. I want to declare with Job, "YHWH gave and YHWH has taken away. Blessed be the name of YHWH" (Job 1:21).

News Weakly - 8/23/2025

Standing Up
The American Academy of Pediatrics has broken with the CDC on their recommendation for COVID-19 for children ages 6 months to 2 years. They're urging the need to get them vaccinated. Mind you, children under the age of 11 had the absolute lowest infection rates and deaths, but our wise and benevolent Big Pharma ... I'm sorry ... American Pediatricians urge you vaccinate your impressively safe little ones with a vaccine that doesn't prevent the disease it's supposed to vaccinate against because ... well ... "we say so."

Saying No
I read the story of the federal judge who ruled against Alina Habba, a Trump appointee, serving as U.S. attorney for New Jersey. I didn't find the rationale. It's disturbing. I'd think a conscientious judge would offer more than "I think she's operating without lawful authority." It couldn't be just an anti-Trump ruling, could it? We'll see as the legal dispute rolls on.

Going About It All Wrong
I watched on the news as federal officers began patrolling in Washington D.C. One protester had a sign urging them to get the criminal element out of D.C. with a reference to the Epstein Files ... because much of America has already convicted Trump without evidence. Like good Americans should. "Guilty without being proven." So now the DOJ has released more Epstein files ... which continue to exonerate Trump ... you know ... on that accusation. But, don't worry. Our futile-minded generation can't be bothered with evidence.

In the Spirit of Free Enterprise
I don't get this. Trump apparently has negotiated a deal with INTEL for a 10% stake in the company. Now, why the federal government would want this in a free enterprise system or why taxpayers would have to pay for this eludes me. And you guys think I like Trump.

Your Best Source for Fake News
The Bee got a bit too real this time. They did a story on a guy who said he didn't have room in his budget for tithing because they're currently spending $30K a year on travel baseball. Hey ... that's meddling! Then, in a move that's sure to anger a lot of people, God has agreed to let Trump into heaven if he repents of his sin and trusts in Christ alone for salvation. God should expect the wrath of the "cancel culture." Finally, Chuck Schumer is confident that he has never felt in danger walking in D.C. ... with his 10 bodyguards.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

Live Here

You've probably seen this verse.

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you. (Php 4:8-9)

It's not exotic, complicated, "sketchy." There are no controversial words or strange varieties of concepts. It's really hard to find something with which to argue, "Sure, it says that, but it doesn't really mean that." It's just ... straightforward. "Dwell on these things."

So ... why don't we? Why do we dwell on the false, the dishonorable, the wrong? Oh, we do it to defend against them, but ... that's not what it says. Don't dwell there. Could it be that dwelling on these things prevents us from falling victim to their opposites? Paul says if we do this, "the God of peace will be with you." That seems like a real benefit. And still we seem to lean more toward dwelling on the negatives. "What's wrong?" rather than "What's right?" Would we find it easier to love others if we dwelled on those things? Would we be better at following God if we got our eyes off the world's evils? Why is it so difficult to dwell on the good rather than the bad?

Do Not Love

John wrote what appears to be a disturbing text. "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15). "Hang on, John. Aren't we supposed to love God and love our neighbor? Aren't we supposed to love everyone?" Well ... of course. But that's not what he's saying. He's not saying "Don't love everyone." He's talking about "the world" ... the world's systems ... the world of sin. He says so. "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world" (1 John 2:16). Okay, so ... it's still disturbing. I mean ... we live here. And we shouldn't ... love here? No ... no we shouldn't.

It's not John's idea alone. Jesus said the world would hate us (John 15:18). He said, "In the world, you will have tribulation" (John 16:33) and assured us He has overcome it. When Jesus prayed His High Priestly Prayer in John 17, He prayed, "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours" (John 17:9). Paul makes a big deal about it in Ephesians. He told them to no longer walk as the Gentiles walk (Eph 4:17) and urged them to "lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth" (Eph 4:22-24). He warned, "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience" (Eph 5:6) and "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness" (Eph 5:11). There should be such a sharp distinction between "the world" and the people of God that "immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you" (Eph 5:3). Not ... even ... be named. He told the Corinthian Christians, "Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them" (2 Cor 6:17).

Scripture is not ambiguous on the subject. Don't love the world system. Don't be like the world. And we nod and agree ... and hear over and over about how Christians are just as bad as unbelievers ... in divorce, sexual immorality ... most everything. Brothers and sisters, these things ought not be. We're supposed to be different. A new self. Imitators of Christ. Radically changed. "Fitting in" should never be an aim or even an option for us. Loving the world as we too often do doesn't bode well for believers. A really bad version of "looking for love in all the wrong places." If you love the desires of the eyes and the flesh, and pride ... maybe "believer" isn't really what you are.

Love and Obey

John wrote, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3). Pretty clear, right? Well ... maybe. You see, "the love of God" is ambiguous. Think about it ... does it mean "the love that God gives us" or "the love we have for God"? But the previous verse clears that up. "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments" (1 John 5:2). So, the topic is "we love God." Then John connects "we love God" with ... obeying.

Jesus said the same thing. "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). Apparently "love" equals "obey" when we're talking about God. That is, if I love God, my wish is to keep His commands ... to do what pleases Him. If I don't wish to keep His commands ... I don't love Him. This whole concept is throughout Scripture. God told Israel to obey His commandments which was rooted in "You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might" (Deut 6:1-17). Samuel said, "Has YHWH as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of YHWH? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice and to heed than the fat of rams" (1 Sam 15:22). Jesus summed up the law and prophets in ... love (Matt 22:37-40). Love for God produces obedience.

James said that faith without works was dead faith (James 2:17). In a similar way, love for God without obedience is dead love. Jesus said, "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matt 6:21). If we treasure God, our heart ... our love ... will be there and we will long to do what pleases Him. Perhaps our efforts to "do" for "duty" are misdirected. Perhaps what's needed is a heart for God ... the kind of heart that changes how we live.

This Old House

I live a good life with my wife. She's really remarkable. I was just looking around our home the other day. The place is in our name, but, really, it's hers. I mean ... she's selected the color schemes and decorations, the furnishings and the arrangements. Oh, I look like I'm participating. She says, "That should go there" and I do it. She says, "Those should be arranged that way" and I arrange it. But ... it's all her. And I'm not complaining. No ... quite the opposite. In the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, "A man's got to know his limitations." No, I don't mind at all; I enjoy it. She really does know colors and style and furniture and all that far better than I do. She's made our house ... a home. And at holidays? Wow! She decorates ... wonderfully. It's a real pleasure. She's a real pleasure.

I hope you know this isn't about my house or my wife. Oh, all of that was true, but I'm thinking a different direction. Paul wrote,

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)

Like my house, I appear to own myself ... but I don't. I look like I'm in charge, but I don't even want to be. I want my life "decorated" like He wants it and my utility the way that He wants it. I'm happy to cooperate. "You want this where?" But, in truth, it should be more response than initiative. I want my life to be like my house ... controlled by one who knows better than me. No one ever walks into my house, all decorated for Christmas or whatever, and says, "Wow! Stan ... you've done a great job!" They do recognize my wife's handiwork. I want people to see me and recognize Christ's handiwork -- the touch of the Master's hand. I haven't arrived, but I'm working on it.

Worship Service

I recently saw a video where the speaker explained the problem of "a worship service." "It's not in there," he essentially said. We refer to what we do on Sundays as "a worship service," but there is nowhere in Scripture that you'll find this kind of a description. There are descriptions of teaching and preaching. We read of "love feasts" and sharing meals, even. But ... nowhere do we find a description of a church gathering where they sang some songs and heard a sermon. Interestingly, there are two references to "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16) and neither are in the context of a church service. Strange, isn't it? I mean, we all have "worship services" and even "worship teams," but Scripture doesn't seem to talk about it.

"What are you saying, Stan? We shouldn't sing in church?" No, of course not. At the Last Supper, we read, "After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives" (Matt 26:30). Jesus did that. The Old Testament is full of music. The first reference to music is in Genesis. Jubal was "the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe." Most of the prophets prophesied in musical form. All of the psalms are music. There were singers in the Temple. Most of the prophets prophesied in music. In Revelation, they "sang a new song" (Rev 5:9). So singing isn't our idea. It was God's.

But ... worship. Is "worship" defined as "singing"? I know a lot of people think so. It's not. Worship is the assigning of worth to something. It is the assigning of ultimate worth. So "worship" is assigning ultimate worth to God. Because where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. We do that on our knees. We do that with hands lifted. The biblical version is proskuneō, which originally meant "to kiss toward" (like a dog licking a master's hand). The image is to prostrate oneself. So ... we prostrate ourselves, maybe not physically, but certainly in every other way. Paul wrote, "Therefore, brothers, I call on you through the compassions of God to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God, which is your reasonable service" (Rom 12:1) (where "service" is literally "service of worship"). Present your bodies. That's your sacrifice. And it's your ... oh ... "worship service." There it is.

Altar Calls

I wrote this back in 2015 and I've been running into stuff like this lately, so I thought I'd float it again.
________
Who does not know what an altar call is? An altar call is where the pastor or preacher or leader calls on the congregation or audience or crowd at hand to come forward and give their lives to Christ. That may be for a specific purpose--"Give up porn" or "Promise to be a better husband" or something like that--but most often it is for salvation. "Come forward and come to Christ." I grew up in a Baptist church, so it was the norm for me. I went to Billy Graham crusades, so it was the norm for me. I figured everyone did it. It was generally the same. "With your heads bowed and your eyes closed, if anyone wants to come to Christ, get out of your seat and come up here and one of our pastors/elders/deacons/whatever will lead you in the prayer of salvation." That sort of thing. I remember in a Calvary Chapel once where the pastor boldly proclaimed, "No! This time I will not tell you to bow your heads and close your eyes. If you want to meet Christ, come down here in front of everyone and give your life to Him." Oh, and they came by the dozens. It's just what we do. Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered the origin of the altar call. You see, it's not biblical. You won't find it in the pages of Scripture. It's not from the early church fathers. It's not part of the Nicene Creed or the Synod of Dort or any such thing. This phenomenon didn't actually see the light of day until the 1800's. What? How is that possible?

This staple of many churches today started in the Second Great Awakening. In the first (1730's and 1740's), no one knew how many were saved. George Whitefield was satisfied with, "I have determined to suspend my judgment 'til I know the tree by its fruits." But the second one wanted quantification. Now, many churches already had an altar at the front where people were invited to come if they needed prayer or encouragement, so this seemed like an easy option. This new concept of coming to the altar for salvation found its real power source in Charles Finney. Finney did not believe that humans were sinful by nature, so he sought to change their wills. Human depravity was "a voluntary attitude of the mind." He wrote, "A revival is not a miracle. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means." So one of the means he constituted was the "anxious bench" to urge people to act--a matter of the will--in order to be converted. It was a "new measure." Finney believed it "was necessary to bring [sinners] out from among the mass of the ungodly to a public renunciation of their sinful ways." And, by counting the numbers of people who came forward, revival was quantified. Of course, Finney's "new measure" has become so mainstream now that few of us even realize that it's the product of faulty theology ("The sin nature is just a voluntary attitude of the mind."). But, along with the prevalence of the procedure, I'm pretty sure that most of us know those who have "gone forward" and "given my life to Christ" only to end up abandoning the faith. Indeed, I think this reality itself is as prevalent as the procedure. Isn't that an indication of a problem? Don't get me wrong. The Bible contains calls to "Come." Jesus promised, "Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matt 11:28). We are told to do things for salvation, like believe and repent and "Be reconciled to God!" (2 Cor 5:20). Indeed, belief is a command (Mark 1:15), not a suggestion. And Scripture further endorses public confession of faith (Matt 10:32-33). Salvation requires confession with the mouth (Rom 10:9). But none of this has anything to say about the altar call.

The question is the value of the altar call. I think the fundamental question there is the question of salvation. Are we saved by making a decision, by responding to an altar call, by "coming forward"? Some worry, "What about the guy who leaves without making a decision?" Is God limited by the geography? Or are we saved by Christ? Note that in all of the "Come" commands the requirement is to "Come to Me" It is to Christ we must come to be saved. Not to the front of the church or the tent or the stadium. Nor are we saved by an emotional response evidenced by a rush to the front of the church. We are saved by a divine work that changes the heart, wrought from faith and repentance, not the Sinner's Prayer. Nor are we saved by the preacher giving the invitation. Do sinners need mediation? Sure. "How shall they hear without a preacher?" (Rom 10:14). Words are necessary. Declaring the truth in love is necessary. Expressing the Gospel is necessary. But in the end, no one is saved by the preacher or his fine altar call. The message of the cross is the power of God (1 Cor 1:18). And, as has been pointed out by others, it is not a profession of faith, but the possession of it that saves. I'm concerned about the altar call. I think it is predicated on a false theology that encourages a change of will that produces a change of heart rather than the reverse. I think it encourages the belief that we are saved by what we do. I think it engenders the notion that God is limited by our actions--whether it be the preacher or the sinner--to bring about salvation. I fear that it gives people the false confidence that "I went forward; I must be saved." And I am concerned that the newness of what we think of as a "given" points to a potentially serious problem. Yes, we need to preach the Gospel (Mark 16:15). More importantly, we need to make disciples (Matt 28:19) "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matt 28:20). I think that altar calls encourage "hit and run" conversions that are actually not conversions at all. Because I have heard far too often, "I tried that and it didn't work." And, frankly, such a thing is not possible.

News Weakly - 8/16/2025

Boggled
Police in California recovered $30,000 worth of stolen Labubus. Oh ... Labubus ... I had to look it up. That's a collectible plush toy for purses and bags. Yeah. I just don't ... wow. Is it the ridiculous value or the massive police effort for a toy that boggles my mind?

Boggled Again
The story is that the governor of New Mexico has declared a state of emergency ... because a particular county has high crime. I guess loosing law enforcement isn't sufficient. Apparently more money will fix it. Well, she declared the same thing in Albuquerque in April for the same reason and I'm sure the declaration has fixed that city's crime problem, so ... go with what works ... or doesn't.

Pot, Meet Kettle
Biden's son, Hunter, is in the news again after Melania Trump threatened to sue. Hunter claimed she was introduced to her husband by sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Hunter ... that paragon of virtue concerned only with truth and justice and the American way. Okay, the "American way" that includes "Get all you want for yourself any way you can."

Capital Punishment
In January a 21-year-old woman armed and wearing tactical gear was stopped by federal officers. She exited the car and killed one of the officers. The Department of Justice is seeking the death penalty. The story says she is linked to the Zizians, a radical cult focused on veganism, gender identity, and AI. Another prime example of "the futility of their mind" (Eph 4:17-19).

Your Best Source for Fake News
A DOJ employee threw a Subway sandwich at a federal officer (actual story). He was fired and could face charges. Meanwhile, people are lining up to be federal officers in the hopes of having a sandwich thrown at them. In Washington D.C., Trump is urging a federal takeover of D.C. police (actual story). In response, the D.C. police chief is asking about those black and white cars that go "wee-oo, wee-oo." And in a story that is not true but some wish was, Trump negotiated a ceasefire with Russia ... by giving them ... California.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

The Proper Equipping

According to Paul, the primary function of the church is "to equip the saints for the work of ministry" (Eph 4:12). Now, that's not what most people think of when they think of church. They think of worship or, quite often, evangelism. Lots of churches include a gospel message and an "altar call." "Invite your neighbors." That kind of thing. And these things are good. But this text says it's about equipping saints. That's a bit different than your normal church.

It's interesting, because Paul lists "the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers" (Eph 4:11) as gifts God gave to the Church. Clearly "evangelist" does say that evangelism is part of the church. But some churches leave off the rest. And the equipping in view is "for building up the body of Christ." The primary idea is building up the body. That would require new converts, so evangelism is a factor, but it also involves teaching and shepherding and ... the rest. The target is the unity of the faith and "mature manhood" to the standard of the fullness of Christ (Eph 4:13). This is an ongoing and essential job. And so many prefer "church lite" with little Bible and more warm feelings.

What's the issue? Why are we doing this? "So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes" (Eph 4:14). If that doesn't describe the church today, I don't know what does. The problem is "human cunning." We have winds of doctrine and "craftiness in deceitful schemes." And it doesn't take long to find them. "Name it and claim it" is still popular in some crowds. The universality of sin is questioned. The inspiration of Scripture is commonly disregarded. Human cunning and the craftiness of deceitful schemes. None of this would be a problem if the church was equipping saints toward maturity. I would hope more churches would examine this and repent.

Hear Him

I was looking at this the other day and came across an interesting anomaly.

But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus (Eph 4:20-21 KJV)

But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus (Eph 4:20-21 NAS)

But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you heard Him and were taught in Him, as the truth is in Jesus. (Eph 4:20-21 LITV)

But that is not the way you learned Christ! — assuming that you have heard about Him and were taught in Him, as the truth is in Jesus. (Eph 4:20-21)

Did you catch it? The majority of translations talk about hearing Christ. A very few talk about hearing about Christ. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary specifically mentions, "The 'Him' is emphatic: 'heard Himself,' not merely heard about Him." Now, frankly, the text doesn't seem to make sense if it is "about Him." It specifies "and were taught in Him." How is that significant? "The truth is in Jesus." Jesus said that, too (John 14:6). Jesus also said, "If you abide in My word, you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:31-32).

Paul is calling on believers to hear Christ. To learn from Christ.To learn the truth. Christ speaks today ... from His Word, from the Spirit. We ought to be listening. Do you hear Him? Paul says, "if indeed you heard Him." If you're not hearing Him in His Word, perhaps there's a more serious problem.

When It's Right to Kill

The King James Bible famously says, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exo 20:13). It causes some ripples. What about ... capital punishment? That's biblically ordered (Gen 9:6). God commanded His people at times to go kill people (like the Saul and the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:1-3)). Isn't this a contradiction? And ... "kill" ... that's vague. What about killing animals? Of course, this is simply a misunderstanding, not a contradiction. The word in the Hebrew isn't a general "kill" as in "anything at all." All modern translations make it clear it's not "kill" in a general sense, but "murder." In English, "homicide" refers to the killing of a human. But we have "justifiable homicide" because we understand that not all homicides are created equal, so to speak. The difference is intent and legality. Murder includes malice and the violation of law. Not all killing does.

There is one form of killing that is commanded in Scripture. We are commanded to "put off your old self" (Eph 4:22; Col 3:9), which sounds relatively peaceful (but, I'm sure, if you think about it, cannot be peaceful). Romans says that "our old self was crucified with Him" (Rom 6:6). We are commanded to "Put to death what is earthly in you" (Col 3:5). "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal 5:24). "You must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:11). 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" (Luk 9:23-24). None of this is "peaceful." It is an execution ... a killing of the old self.

We often take this too lightly. We're commanded to "put on the new self" (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10), but how can we do that with the old self hanging around? We're commanded to walk entirely different than the world, but how can we do that when we cling so tightly to the world? The Christian life doesn't "play well" with the ways of the world (1 John 2:15-17). The new self is radically different than the old. And this commanded killing of the old self isn't a "one and done" thing. Putting on the new self isn't a singular accomplishment. Both are commanded. Both take time. Both are ultimately accomplished by the Spirit working in us. Let's be diligent to kill ... the old self.

Greed is Good?

Paul told the Ephesians not to walk as the Gentiles walk (Eph 4:17). He explains that it's the product of their darkened understanding (Eph 4:18), and it makes them give themselves "to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness" (Eph 4:19). Now, we get the whole "futility of mind" thing (Eph 4:17). I mean, look around. It takes a truly futile mind to think you get to choose your gender, for instance. "Darkened in understanding" is apropos. So they think sensuality is a good (think "if it feels good, do it"). They think impurity is a minor issue. And they worship greed.

"Really, Stan? Worship it?" Actually, biblically, yes. According to Scripture, greed amounts to idolatry (Col 3:5). Greed, you see, is the desire for more. Like the famous Rockefeller quote about how much is enough ... "A little bit more." It doesn't require the desire for vast amounts. It just believes ... "I don't have enough." But ... Scripture says, "My God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:19). Scripture says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" (Eph 1:3). Scripture says, "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). If that's not enough ... who failed? Not God. And when we say, "I want ... I need a little bit more," that is our claim. God has failed. So we worship greed.

Gordon Gekko (Wall Street) famously claimed, "Greed is good!" We have a love-hate relationship with greed in America. We "hate the rich" even though "rich" is loosely defined, since the poorest Americans make more than most of the rest of the world. (One statistic I read said that the lowest 5% of Americans make more than 70% of the rest of the world.) And we "hate the rich" who are defined as "those with more than me" but don't think we should have to give up anything for those who are poorer than us. We ... worship greed. We live on "not enough." And it's the product of a darkened understanding and a hard heart. We shouldn't be satisfied with that.