All Issues Are Not Equal

 It was 1992. Even though I had a decade of ministry behind me, they were in small churches, and I did not regard myself as any great “veteran” of the vocation. I was part of an inter-church team, working on a project with some other ministers of my ilk; similar background, similar church of origin, similar training. By all appearances, we were four peas in a pod. It was an election year, so politics was one of the obvious topics to distract the minds of four young preachers away from what they were supposed to be focusing on. For me, it was a pretty easy choice that year. The topic of abortion made it easy, and I shared as much.

That was the first time I heard a fellow-believer utter these words: “I like to think I’m not a single-issue voter.” I was actually a bit taken back. I would not consider myself a single-issue voter either, but I also thought that it should be fairly obvious that not all issues are equal. So, I sparred with him a bit. We got back to work. His words continued to perplex me. They never became one bit more palatable over time. But, they seemed to be such an aberration to how any thinking Christian should articulate himself or herself that I did not walk away vexed. I was a little worried about this individual, but I was not particularly worried about the state of the church as a whole.

Now, we are approaching the election of 2020. I DO find myself vexed. I DO find myself quite worried about the church and the worldliness of thought that has been embraced by professed Christians; many sheep, but also not a few of the shepherds and pastors (so-called) of the flock of God. The script has so-flipped in the last 28 years that even many writers and leaders among “evangelicals” (a word that has lost any consensus of meaning) are actually producing arguments as to why Christians are safe to wink at this issue. Long-passed are the straw-men arguments of “rape and incest” or “life of the mother” as the reason abortions should be legal. Long-gone as well are the empty mantras such as “rare but legal.” In fact, some in the visible church have become so darkened in their understanding that they now claim abortion is a Christian cause.

What I have to say here is not written to the pro-choice crowd. It will only infuriate them ... so be it.  It is written to those who profess to follow Christ. My prayer is for changed hearts, but it may very well cost me some friends and relatives. It may make it difficult for old acquaintances to look at me in the same way. I have counted that cost, and with a degree of fear and trembling, I accept it. Today, the words coming from professed believers: “I’m not a single-issue voter,” no longer sound just like a strange and disturbing oddity. They now sound like the deceived and calloused boasts of darkened minds making a pretense of enlightenment.

Let me reiterate what I believed in 1992: “All issues are not equal.” Now, let me elaborate upon what I meant then: “All issues are not equal … they are not even political. Some, like abortion, are moral. They are theological. They are spiritual. They are only societal in that they expose the utter depravity of a collective of people.

The final catalyst that provoked me into putting these thoughts onto paper was an article from someone who claimed to be an “ardent pro-lifer” who was trying to encourage Christians to not be afraid to cast their vote for the candidate supported by the ardently pro-abortion party. It was a rather thinly-veiled diatribe against the other candidate in view of his past sins and current style. In defense of the man she was endorsing, she called him a man who has “struggled” with his faith. Others would conclude that he is merely one more politician who has compromised his faith for expediency.

The writer completely lost credibility with me when she began a series of challenges prefaced with the words: “I cannot take you seriously when …” Each challenge was essentially “I cannot take you seriously when you claim this virtue is important to you but you ignore some lack of virtue in the sitting president.” These lacks of virtue were typically sins of the heart, which God indeed takes seriously … just as he takes seriously my sins of the heart, your sins of the heart, and even the sins of the heart of the sanctimonious author of the article. My immediate reaction to her, and I very much stand by it, would be to answer, “I cannot take you seriously when you claim to be an “ardent pro-lifer” even as you attempt to persuade your readers into voting for a candidate representing a political party that has based its platform on the sins of Romans 1.

According to Paul, societies on the precipice of being turned-over by God to the consequences of their sinfulness also endorse deviant sexual practices, undermine parental and other kinds of authority, as well as engage in ruthless and violent behavior. Additionally, they are described as “unloving” or “heartless” (Romans 1:31). Of course, those are the renderings of translations that came into existence for the so-called “sake of clarity.” Unfortunately, “simplicity” does not always equate to “clarity.” The word Paul uses is astorgous. Essentially, that is a negative prefix followed by storge. You may recall that Greek has several words that are translated into English as “love.”  Storge refers to the natural familial affection of parent to child and child to parent. Older versions are more precise when they render the term “without natural affection.” The infanticide we know as abortion is graphically captured by the term astorgous.

Here is the reality on the ground in 2020: the American voter has a choice between two candidates who are flawed and sinful, each in their own spectacular ways. Here is the irony: many among a flawed and sinful electorate will make a choice in November based on how the flawed and sinful advocates of each candidate can make the case that “their guy” is the lesser of two evils. If you think that your vote needs to be based on determining which candidate is the lesser of two evils, you might just be too naïve to vote. If that is our idea of self-governance, we would be just as well off with a king.

The right to have a say in determining who will lead us is a rather unique phenomenon in human history. When that process becomes about ANYTHING beyond issues, it becomes as absurd as attempting to return to Junior High School to vote for the “Most Popular Girl and Boy.” Do you really believe that you are adequately insightful so as to determine which candidate is the more righteous of the two? Can you really even know if they are more or less righteous than you? Stick to the issues. And, as I think may have already mentioned, “All issues are not equal.”

I have avoided the use of the proper names of the political parties and their respective candidates. It is not to insult anyone’s intelligence. It is a “style” thing. My agenda is to keep you focused on issues and not personalities. If someone tries to persuade you to vote against your own convictions about abortion based on their own hatred (can we please quit parsing words?) of one of the candidates, do not be gaslighted. Redundancy may be in order here. “All issues are not equal.”

Occasionally, I respond to someone’s Facebook post or a comment within the string, only to later shake my head and wonder, “What was the point?” The spiritual darkness of this age cannot be adequately addressed in a handful of characters. I used the term “infanticide” as a synonym for abortion in one such comment. The response it drew was to scoff at the term “infanticide” and to invoke the mantra of “a woman’s right to choose.” Who declared that term sacred? It is used these days as though it is some sort of a holy doctrine. Even many Christians are afraid to challenge it. It is not blasphemy to question it.

No matter how forceful, heartstring-tugging or manipulative is the rhetoric of pro-abortion advocates, and no matter how convoluted the spin of their arguments, the activity of abortion involves the termination of a human life. No one can sanitize that with rhetoric. In some states, this infanticide is allowed up to the moment of birth; in a couple of states, a little beyond that moment. Infanticide is a perfectly sound synonym for abortion. The satanic ploy of muddling reality with euphemisms and soaring rhetoric is as old as the Fall.

One “Christian” argument for abortion is that Jesus never spoke to the issue. I would ask, “In view of what we know of first-century Judaism and of the place that the Law of Moses held in that society, do you think He really needed to?” A sound biblical argument can be made against abortion, but to Christians who seem to be a little gray on this matter, does not “Thou shall not kill” cover it for you? To my knowledge, Jesus also did not speak to cyber-crime, pedophilia, speeding or crossing against the signal. 

Once upon a time, a man named Cyrus became the king of Persia, a nation that had conquered Babylon after that kingdom had carried the Jews into foreign exile. That turned out to be a very good thing for God’s people. Cyrus ended their captivity. Now, this was not happenstance. God decreed it in advance. The Bible makes this clear. Now, was Cyrus a godly king or simply a secular king that God raised up for His Own purpose? The evidence seems to point to the latter. Still, I wonder how many Jews disapproved of being freed by a pagan. I am not suggesting that such clarity will ever be available to us in this current election cycle, before or after November 3rd, only that God raising up Whoever He chooses for His Own purposes is not an unprecedented thing.

If you cannot bring yourself to vote for either candidate, that is up to you. To not vote at all is not a popular option, but it is the voter’s right, and I could conceive of such a scenario for myself. But, so long as the issues (especially, the greatest of issues) are so dramatically contrasted, my choice is an easy one. I don’t have to base my decision on my affection for one man, my disdain for another, or a relative balance of affection and disdain for either.  

John MacArthur has gone on record: “There’s no way that a Christian can affirm the slaughter of babies, homosexual activity, homosexual marriage, or any kind of gross immorality” (cited by Michael Gryboski in Christian Post). I have often joked to friends that I can never be as sure of as many things as is Dr. MacArthur. But, I’ll go this far: I will never be able to wrap my head around the idea that a Bible-believer can affirm these things simply because they personally despise any candidate.

So, What Lives DO Matter, part 2

Twice in two days, it has been suggested to me that because I have no use for the organization known as Black Lives Matter nor for the slogan that they have introduced into the public sphere, it can only follow that I do not care about the well-being of black people in America. Ironically, that leap of reasoning makes my own point more eloquently than I can.

I wrote an entry last week, attempting to draw a distinction between a virtue that might believe that “black lives matter” and the political movement, Black Lives Matter. The movement is progressive-extremist, Marxist, and according to their own web site, intent on disrupting the western nuclear family. Many have been pointing this out for some time. The previous article was just my own take on the matter. Suffice it to say, I am pleased that many people are beginning to recognize that while the slogan is innocuous enough, the organization is dangerous and treacherous. Thinking people are able to delineate between an okay sentiment and a not-so-okay organization.

Here’s the sticky wicket. The movement coined the slogan and foisted it upon us. The two are conflated by design. The mantra was birthed in demagoguery. It is no accident that if a person refuses to recite the mantra, “black lives matter,” because he does not want to even hint that he supports the organization, he can only be racist. Inevitably, he will be accused of “speaking volumes” with his silence, suggesting that such silence can only mean that black lives do not matter to him. (Perhaps, you have followed a certain NFL player trying to shame a certain NFL owner into jumping on the BLM bandwagon.) Insisting that everyone must recite, “black lives matter,” lest silence renders them racist is a naked manipulation ploy.

So, if a good slogan is the fruit of a poisonous tree (the BLM organization), it appears that social justice warriors who are not out to disrupt the nuclear family have one of two options. They can either try to wrestle the slogan away from its mother and appropriate it for good, or, they can rally around a new slogan, one birthed in less sinister soil. An old friend pointed me to Albert Mohler’s podcast page. A scholar in the Southern Baptist movement, he has dealt with this issue very similarly to me, but his concluding “advice” differs subtly. His conclusion is basically, “Embrace the slogan, but reject the movement.” I prefer, “Embrace the sentiment, reject the movement, but know that if you recite the mantra, you risk identifying yourself with some folks, some ideas and some agendas with which you may not wish to be identified.

Slogans are not my strong suit. “Working Together to Elevate Black Lives without Insisting that White People Must Loathe Themselves and Actually Trying to Work Together for a Degree of Racial Harmony … ‘Matters’”.  A little cumbersome for a hat or T-shirt, I suppose.

A fellow who recently circulated a meme defended his effort when called out with an argument that really settled nothing. The premise of the meme was that if one is not willing to say, “black lives matter,” preferring to say, “all lives matter,” then, that person is not paying attention to Jesus’ parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15. You know, ninety-nine were safe; only one was lost. Therefore, the one must matter to a degree the others do not. While the one lost sheep did require a different degree of urgency, what the author leaves out is that Jesus brought the one home and rejoiced. The text is about salvation. But, even if one allows for such a tortured application of a Bible story, the idea is that the lost sheep is restored to the safety of the fold. We see no evidence that the shepherd intended to “disrupt” the existing safety paradigm for the whole one-hundred by tearing down the fold, because the one had a difficult experience.

The meme author’s defense was that Jesus would never respond to a person’s pain with a cliché such as “all lives matter,” that effectively dismisses that sufferer’s pain. I can accept that as far as it goes. However, drawing upon one’s own subjective assessment of what Jesus may or may not say or do carries no more biblical authority than the original mishandling of the text. Apparently, if someone said to Jesus, “black lives matter,” He would only answer, “Of course they do,” so as to not cause greater pain.

This is what we can know: Jesus, the embodiment of Truth, would say the right thing at the right time in any and every circumstance. Indeed, He would never cause needless pain; “a bruised reed, he will not break.” But, if someone came to Jesus, trying to enlist Him into a cause, He might say, “Who made me an arbiter between you and your brother?” Or, He might draw that person into greater eternal truth with a parable. If He knew they were being manipulative and insincere, He might completely disarm them with a brilliant question. Jesus knew what was in a man AND He embodied all truth. That is quite an advantage when responding to situations on the fly. All we can do, in whatever circumstance we find ourselves, is to try to balance whatever wisdom and compassion we have, while crying out for divine help in regard to the compassion and wisdom from above that we need.

Having said that, I have never heard one of the victim’s survivors in one of these recent incidents plead with people to support BLM or to even take up the habit of reciting the slogan. It may have happened, but I would suspect exploitation if it did. The insistence that people embrace that slogan at the exclusion of any alternative tends to come from activists (black and white), celebrities, athletes, panderers as well as some genuinely good-hearted folks and loved ones who cannot quite trust others to think for themselves.

If, for you, saying “all lives matter,” is intended to be a dismissal of another person’s pain, then, do better! That is not why I prefer it. If black lives must matter at the exclusion of other lives mattering, that’s a problem, and I won’t sign up. And, if saying, “black lives matter” or “all lives matter” is the only option I am given, then until a better slogan comes along, I will choose the latter because I want nothing to do with a political movement that advertises some very hellish values. I choose “all lives matter” because it is inclusive and because it is true. Relegating every individual to either Team Villain or Team Victim is of no value at all. It only fuels the resentment, destroys dialogue and renders genuine reconciliation impossible.

So, What Lives DO Matter?

Do I believe that black lives matter? Do I support Black Lives Matter (BLM)? Obviously, these are two questions though some would lead you to believe that they are only one. To the former I can only answer with a clear and unambiguous, “Absolutely!” To the latter, I can only answer with a clear and unambiguous, “Absolutely not!” There is no conflict afoot here. One question speaks to a value; the other to a dubious political movement. These are two very distinct questions that cultural manipulators and societal exploiters seem determined to conflate. Do not let them. As matters unfold, one topic has very little to do with the other.

Of course, black lives matter. Black lives are the result of the breath of God breathed into fellow human beings who just happen to have more melanin than I do. Life is not something any biologist has yet figured out how to duplicate in a lab. Science has introduced great advancements for the prolonging of life and for the advancement of its quality. In ICUs, ERs, and even at accident scenes, medical procedures often reignite function into bodily systems that have briefly ceased. But, no scientist, mad or otherwise, has ever simply bestowed life upon something that was never alive.

Life comes from God. Obviously, this betrays the fact that I am not particularly “woke” in that it is the same argument I would apply to the notion that “all lives matter”; red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight. (And yes, that includes “blue lives” too.)  Life is precious because we cannot replace it. It is why warehousing elderly Covid 19 patients in nursing homes, where we knew the most vulnerable among us reside, was, at best, a foolish blunder and, one can only hope, not a sinister social engineering ploy. Of course, if the decision-makers responsible cannot confess to the one, they could never confess to the other.

God as the Author of life is the simple reason that abortion remains the defining evil of our age. Sadly, even many believers seem to be nodding off to this reality. No amount of societal acceptance will make our present culture of abortion anything but evil. If that seems off-topic, I can only say, “Life matters or it does not.” By the way, you do know that abortion is responsible for the extermination of exponentially more black lives than cops ever could be. That was the “planned” part of Margaret Sanger’s movement, which became Planned Parenthood. Sanger’s positions on controlling the black population are very easy to find. Don’t simply react. Research.

“All lives matter.” Somehow, in this topsy-turvy world, this has become an insensitive and controversial thing to say. People are losing their jobs over it. A particularly “woke” and typically narcissistic celebrity recently announced that people who say this need to be “educated.” I truly believe that all lives matter, simply because we cannot duplicate God’s miracle. Those who are saying all lives matter ARE saying that black lives matter. The movement known as BLM, on the other hand, is a totally different category.

BLM is founded upon a number of dubious narratives: 1) While every life lost in a confrontation with the police is tragic – justified, accidental or homicidal – such killings appear to be anecdotal even though the rhetoric of BLM insists that such killings are epidemic. Statistical reality does not support this. One celebrity in the widely-panned video, “I Take Responsibility,” claimed, “Black people are being slaughtered in the streets.” (Presumably, this is at the hands of the police.) If that premise was even within the stratosphere of reality, protest organizers would have many more instances to draw from … and they would. 2) BLM caught traction in the aftermath of the killing of a young man who was attempting to take a police officer’s firearm. The accompanying cry of BLM proponents, “Don’t shoot,” turned out to be fabricated, but that did not keep it from being perpetuated.

Best scenario: BLM has allowed itself to be appropriated by anarchists, fascists and looters. Worst scenario: The brain-trusts of BLM openly promote anarchy, fascism and looting. Supporters of the movement, some of them among the media, seem to endorse the violence as though that can accomplish anything other than to fuel rage in return and deepen the divisions. My son has a Facebook friend that I don’t mind calling out as a left-wing nutcase.  I asked him why he never responds to her. He does not want to get blocked because he finds her to be an amusing curiosity. She made the point that a few cars and buildings burned is a “small price to pay” for the injustices being addressed. She is not the only person that has made this irresponsible argument. In some minds, justice can somehow be served by the destruction and looting of the businesses of bystanders, many of whom are black entrepreneurs. She appears, as have others, to have ceased making such foolish arguments now that the body count of bystanders, many of them black, has begun to mount.

Predictably, corporations, politicians and networks are pandering to BLM with all sorts of empty and symbolic gestures.  An NFL quarterback was coerced into apologizing for voicing his disagreement over kneeling for the national anthem. (I don’t actually connect the dots myself between kneeling for a military-themed anthem and this particular grievance.) A Division I college football coach has apologized for wearing a t-shirt with the logo of a conservative-leaning news corporation whose critics feel that it is a little too favorable in its coverage to the President. While I loathe the fascist strong-arming and the speech-suppressing pressure by those claiming to be offended, I am utterly embarrassed for these two men who apologized for daring to hold a point-of-view that is not determined to be “woke.”

So, how should unjust killings by the police be handled? They should be against the law. (Oh, that’s right, they are.) The violators should be arrested and appropriately charged. (I heard that happened as well. In fact, it happened with such lightning quickness that the possibility is very real that over-charging and failing to wait for an autopsy could jeopardize the outcome preferred by many.) If convicted, the guilty party should pay for his crime. (I suspect that will happen as well.)

My point is very simple. Equal application of the law is the best remedy for injustice that any system can offer. Inventing special categories of crimes only muddy the issue and exacerbate tribalism. Where there is injustice, justice must be pursued. Identifying bad cops before they become empowered and having a very real discussion about tactics and methods may very well be in order. However, vilifying every police officer for the action of one or a few is as mindless, knee-jerk, hateful, prejudiced and unjust as would be making sweeping generalizations about ANY segment of the population. And, just to complete the rant: Defunding police departments is stupid, and no society can ever be safe if that which is utterly stupid social policy cannot be condemned as “utterly stupid.”

Even I think I sound like a right-wing zealot. If you knew my history, you would find that very ironic. For all the years I was in ministry, the one thing I caught the single most heat over was my reluctance to be political or to turn services intended for the worship of the living God into patriotic rallies when they coincided with patriotic holidays. But, this transcends mere politics. Our days are becoming too absurd and too dangerous. It’s just a little hard to say nothing. If we become a society driven by emotion and tribalism, wholly indifferent to data, we will never again even sniff the dream of the founders, “to form a more perfect union."

The Best Defense against a Bluff

On Sunday, December 22, the FX network premiered its new take on Charles Dicken’s “A Christmas Carol.” In passing, I saw a visual that struck me as odd, but I was not in a position to settle in and watch. Curious, I read a little about the new production. The critics called it “gritty,” uniform in their warnings that this interpretation was not at all reminiscent of the Muppet’s version. I read a little more. The developers claimed that nuances were drawn from “deeper readings” of the text, paragraphs here and there that are often overlooked. These allegedly served to inspire some of the additional material in the movie.

I decided to embark on a little experiment. I would listen to Dicken’s original on an audiobook, not a play nor a dramatization. It would take a little over three hours, but I drive an hour to work so I knew I could fit it in. Then, I would watch the FX presentation in its entirety. You see, that particular rhetoric about “a deeper reading” triggers me for reasons that will soon become evident.

I listened carefully to the audiobook. Then, on Christmas Eve, I watched the movie. Suffice it to say, I did not pick up on any paragraphs in the book that so much as remotely hinted about: 1) Jacob Marley’s interactions in purgatory with the Ghost of Christmas Past; 2) Scrooge and Marley’s complicity in scores of negligent homicides due to their indifference to essential industrial repairs amongst their scores of holdings; 3) the deliverance of a young Scrooge from a pattern of sexual abuse by his schoolmaster when his older sister, Lottie (a wholly- fabricated character), rescued Ebenezer at gunpoint; 4) Scrooge’s sexual extortion of Mrs. Cratchitt as she desperately seeks funds to pay for Tiny Tim’s life-saving surgery; 5) Mrs. Cratchitt’s repeated lies to poor old Bob in covering up her act of desperation; 6) the idea that the visitations to Scrooge by the three spirits were initiated by some vague conjuring from an angry Mrs. Cratchitt.

Additionally, sentiments and actions were attributed to characters that actually violated the text. An exasperated Fred never told his wife that he was through with inviting Uncle Scrooge to Christmas dinner. In Dicken’s original, the nephew explicitly said that he would keep inviting his uncle every year. Young Scrooge’s abusive father did not bail on the family so that the way home for Ebenezer was made possible. In the book, Scrooge’s younger sister said, “Father has become so much kinder.” Scrooge did not shut down his business at the end of the story and wander off into an unclear future. Rather, Dickens wrote that he became like a “second father” to Tiny Tim. And, of course, all kinds of events and words were placed in inaccurate settings.

Now, before anyone scolds me about the nature of poetic license or artistic liberty, let me say, “I get that.” So, script writers, just tell me that you took such liberties and not that you read Dickens “more deeply.” The latter comes across as a bluff. I was reminded of certain “constitutional scholars” I heard in recent weeks. I take nothing away from scholarship, but I think I have a fairly well-developed radar for bluffs. Constitutional scholarship does not mean that one’s opinion on this or that matter should invoke awe in others, especially when the others know what is in the constitution. That is a mere bluff.

The greatest defense against being the victim of a bluff is very simple. KNOW THE SOURCE MATERIAL!

Perhaps, nothing too critical hinges on whether or not a remake of a Dicken’s classic is particularly accurate. So, I will tell you at this point why claims of “deeper readings” are such triggers for me. Christianity today is being distorted, misrepresented and undermined because too many believers choose to be ignorant of their source material. In the meantime, new scholarship, new approaches to meanings of words, new alleged archeological findings and new treatments of historical contexts are turning traditional Christian values and virtues on their head. Marriage is being redefined. Every biblical standard for human sexuality is being cast aside. Abortion is virtuous. Any sincerely-held belief will lead a person to heaven. Apparently, when Jesus said, “Judge not,” He meant that neither He nor His disciples should ever exercise the audacity to simply distinguish between light and darkness, sin and virtue, or right and wrong.

I expect the world to oppose and undermine the church. I am angered by wolves who misrepresent truth with their claims of scholarship and deeper readings. I am nothing short of mesmerized by believers who are so disinterested in their source material that they will fall for and often parrot what they hear, simply because they lack discernment, that is, a scripturally-informed radar for bluffs.

The Problem with Those Who Claim to Know the Problem with the Church

Those who would shepherd the church of Jesus Christ must always be on their guard against the perils of worldliness, worship via entertainment, secularism, success syndrome, materialism, authoritarianism, formalism, the cult of personality, etc. Having said that, I am content, when such warnings are lovingly set forth, to trust that if shepherds DO indeed have a heart for their flocks, they will prayerfully take such warnings to heart and wrestle with them within their own respective fellowships.

I have to be content with that pattern because of the equally dangerous peril presented by some who see themselves as prophetic voices to the church at large. You know the type. They speak as though they know “the problem with the church today.” They speak very generally, indicting most churches at once. They paint all churches with sweeping brush strokes. They allow for no wisdom, discernment or sensitivity to the Spirit on the part of local leaders. No one within Christendom is enlightened except those within their own camp. To put it in the simplest terms I can find: They nitpick everything. But, I guess “nitpick” is too weak of a word. In fact, they indict everything of which they disapprove as heresy and apostasy.

I recently ran across a YouTube video that attempted to be an indictment of what it called “the 

false church system.” It fussed about everything from platform speakers, paid pastors, offerings, worship practices, church polity, buildings … if you can identify it with the twentieth-century church, the video fussed about it. There were a number of points worth pondering, but just as many counterpoints left unmentioned. There was much scripture set forth. However, there were also many relevant Bible texts not addressed at all.

Ultimately, the model that was being endorsed was a home-church model based on the worship gatherings in 1 Corinthians. Lots of people spoke. There were no visible leaders of the gatherings and no conspicuous authorities over the gathered congregation. However, there was no mention of the later pastoral epistles with the worship guidelines that Paul installed after of a few decades of the church’s existence. There was no mention of the order and polity that he prescribed in those letters. There was no mention from Ephesians of the role of gifted leaders in the church whose task it is to equip others for ministry.

I have no criticism of home-church models, provided that these other guidelines are in place. But, I also have no criticism of the plethora of models and issues that this video essentially condemned. I reserve the right to voice the same cautions that I mentioned in the first sentence of these thoughts, but I choose to keep my words of condemnation a little closer to the vest.

A closer look at this particular YouTube channel revealed that exposing heresy and apostasy is pretty much all this channel is about. The problem seemed to be that no one is safe from indictment … from Benny Hinn, who many would number with the apostates, to John MacArthur, a name that rarely comes up in discussions of heresy.

What actually prompted this current rant was a perusal of the comments section for the video. There were an alarming number of respondents who have checked-out from going to church at some point in the past who now seemed to feel very affirmed in that decision. There were others who I sense now feel emboldened to drop out. And, there were some who thought they might like to try a home-church (as though those are easy to locate). In short, there was much spiritualized rhetoric from non-church-attenders lamenting the shortcomings of the churches of their assorted experiences.

I guess I took the long route to getting here, but I essentially have two takeaways:

1) If you have checked-out from any association with any church fellowship, no matter how piously you make your argument, you are living perilously. You cannot refuse to be a part of that vessel which God has provided for your safety. You cannot refuse to love that which Christ Himself loves.

2) Any spiritual curiosity remaining in you will probably not be nurtured in a healthy fashion on the Internet. The fellowship of you and the similarly critical and disengaged is not a healthy recipe for your spiritual growth.

What God Will You Follow?

Unprovoked, I prefer to be didactic rather than snarky, but I like to think that I can do either in a pinch. A friend forwarded the following link to me prefaced with these words: “I would love to hear what you think. There are so many wrong points that I don’t know where to start …” I will provide the link so that the reader can judge the article at the end of the link for himself or herself.

https://johnpavlovitz.com/2019/04/11/the-terribly-tiny-god-of-maga-christians/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=John%20Pavlovitz

I’ll give you the title and the first couple of lines:

The Terribly Tiny God of MAGA Christians

“I feel sorry for professed Christians who support this President. They have a profound and fundamental spiritual problem: their God is too small.
“They passionately worship a deity made in their own image: white, American, Republican, male …”  - John Pavlovitz

I suppose I should say at the outset that I have people in my life who see the world through a different political spectrum than I do. I try not to diminish them. They don’t seem to be bent on diminishing me. What follows is my own reaction to one man’s article; one man, that is, who appears to think that all professed Christians that support the current President should be painted with a single brush. I do not think I am stepping over any lines to suggest that the author seems to be a snarky arrogant person who does what snarky arrogant people of every ilk typically do. They belittle opposing points of view. Mr. Pavlovitz takes it a step further. He comments on the “smallness” of the god of those who do not share his political views. 

I guess I’m not sure what a MAGA Christian is supposed to be. I am a Christian. I am a conservative. I don’t own a MAGA hat, but I don’t belittle anyone who does. I support this president whenever he stands for conservative and Christian values as I understand them. That does not mean that I am at all persuaded that he bears the fruit of new birth. I believe that he HAS to tweet due to the axiomatic bias of the media, Hollywood, and much of academia. At the same time, I cringe when his tweets reflect a thin skin, boorishness, childishness or other expressions of questionable decorum. I wish he would be a little cleverer at times with those tweets.

I’ve always struggled with the proper balance between political activism and simply attempting to live as a reflection of God’s light in the world. That, no doubt, will put me on the outs with those MAGA Christian boogeymen wherever they exist (my bad, boogey-persons). Having said that, those MAGA enthusiasts are as entitled to a seat in the marketplace of ideas as is any attendee at any women’s march where the participants wear hats fashioned in the image of their most private body parts, as any persons who lobby for as many abortions as possible, as any Occupy Whatever advocate, as any Black Lives Matter devotee, or as any ANTIFA thug.

So, let’s get down to the size of my God, Mr. Pavlovitz. First of all, I have never thought of Him as white or Republican. On the contrary, I believe in a Creator Who spoke everything into existence by divine fiat. I believe in a God Who insists that He be regarded by His creatures, particularly those made in His image, as holy-other. I believe one of the perks of being the Creator of everything is that He is entitled to set the norms for human morality, something He has done through natural revelation, through His prophets of old, through the testimony of the Twelve, through the apostles and prophets of the New Testament era, through His self-revelation in the fully-God and fully-man Christ, as well as in the Holy Scriptures that encapsulate all these concepts and that steer us, in every Bible book, to Jesus as the remedy for our fallen condition.

And, though all have sinned and missed the moral mark of perfection, I believe in a God Who is big enough to rescue any penitent sinner while remaining immutable enough to not need to lower His standards with every new cultural whim. He maintains His holiness and justice in the same act by which He expresses His love and mercy … the cross of Christ. Deviations from the moral norms established in creation remain sinful whether they be theft, incontrollable rage, sexual aberration, slander, divisiveness, cruelty, lawlessness, or any other vice. Any sinner can make a claim that he is wired toward the way of his iniquity of choice, and one claim is as invalid as the next.

So, let’s take a look at your god, Mr. Pavlovitz. Your god does not seem to be able to stick to his guns in terms of moral law. Your god seems to be afraid to allow others, who do not share a progressive frame of reference, into the debate without disparaging them. Your god is so small that he seems to feel compelled to back away from his original declarations of truth for fear of being rejected by the masses. He is so insecure that he wants to cling to whatever will preserve his popularity. So, he is now content to be known solely as a god of alleged social justice, because he is powerless to rescue and transform sinners or to sanctify them for eternity. Yours is the deity of that “form of godliness” devoid of power of which Paul spoke. It seems to me that if anyone is guilty of erecting an idol in his own image, and declaring said block of wood, hunk of metal, bar of soap, or figment of imagination to be his “god,” it is you, Mr. Pavlovitz. 

Mr. Pavlovitz, I see that you are a representative of a denomination that has a noble history of pursuing legitimate social justice causes. In the meantime, social justice has become that movement’s identity to the point that its other fine history, that of proclaiming a sanctifying gospel, has been surrendered in the pursuit of attempting to remain viable. Currently, that movement is disintegrating on a very public stage, because fully half of its leaders and pastors, so it seems, are more interested in pursuing a progressive concept of social justice than they are of simply proclaiming the gospel of Christ entrusted to them.

You keep your sentimental little god that you have whittled on the back porch of your progressive mind, Mr. Pavlovitz. I will continue to try and understand the God Who has made Himself known to us in the Person of His Son.

It Is So When God Says It Is So

Malachi, the final writing prophet of the Old Testament, left Israel with this provocative word from the Lord:

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.”  - Malachi 4:5

Four centuries later, John the Baptist began to preach in the wilderness about the nearness of God’s kingdom. Priests and Levites came from Jerusalem and asked him, quite bluntly, “Are you Elijah?” to which John answered, “No, I am simply a man trying to fulfill his calling. I am just a voice in the wilderness.” (see John 1:19-21)

But on another occasion, Jesus spoke about John as something “more than a prophet”:

… “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 8What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses. 9What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet …

… 13For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, 14and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.  – Matthew 11: 7-9; 13,14

Obviously, there is a conflict in how these two cousins assessed the ministry of John. What is even more obvious is that we ought to trust Jesus’ appraisal of the issue; that John was indeed the reappearance of Elijah of which Malachi spoke. So, why did John himself seem to be left in the dark as to what was his very significant role in the kingdom?

No one can seriously consider that John was being falsely humble. His mission was consistently and simply to honor Christ: “Behold! The lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” … “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 1:29; 3:30).  I can only conclude that John truly had no idea that he himself was a prophetic fulfillment. Jesus knew something of John’s worth that John did not know about himself.

We are servants of God and we must each learn to find our highest personal fulfillment in that simple reality. If we over-assess our value to the work of the kingdom, we will inevitably find ourselves humiliated. If we under-assess our value, we will likely sink into a mindset that we are superfluous to God, and that will be followed by seasons of inactivity, either due to despondency or due to distractions into other pursuits. When we finally learn to see ourselves as the servants that we are, we will find our satisfaction in that status, knowing that self-exaltation will result in a humbling experience, while playing the servant to all will result in some exaltation. Of course, one cannot know the precise nature of that exaltation, so it is folly to preoccupy oneself with what that exaltation might entail.

Suffice it to say that each member of the triune Godhead sees things about us that we cannot see. This truth is a source of wonder, but it is also a source of great comfort when that is what is needed as well as a source of stark realignment to His thoughts and ways when that is the need of the hour. God is the God of reality. We are fallen creatures prone to fanciful imaginings.

There is a particular phrase, wrenched from its proper place in Scripture and recklessly bandied about by “Word of Faith” proponents (Osteen, Copeland, Hinn, Meyers, etc.); “calling those things that be not as though they already were.” They present the phrase as though believers in God have the power, through the use of their words, to speak realities into existence. These powerful words, these “positive confessions” are the dynamic that will ultimately bring healing and prosperity into the lives of the adherents of these nutty doctrines. The advocates of this notion cannot even lift an entire sentence from the real text because that would blow the scam.

Romans 4:13-25 makes it abundantly clear that any reference to the power to speak something into existence (verse 17) belongs to God, not to man. The immediate context means that God would bring forth a nation from one-hundred-year-old Abraham and his previously barren wife. Inescapable as well is an acknowledgement of God’s creative prowess. There is no hint that the believer inherits any such power from God.

Still, Christians are in no way diminished by lacking such a power. On the contrary, we are encouraged and steeled for everything we encounter in this world by the knowledge that God sees and brings into existence things that we cannot see. We are cleansed of sin, we are children of the Father, we are regarded as friends of Christ, we are seated with Him in the heavenly realm, we are represented before the throne of God by Christ Himself, we are destined for eternity in the Father’s presence … not because current circumstances or human appearances so dictate, but because God has thusly spoken, and that is sufficient to make it our reality.

It's About Time

With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.  (2 Peter 3:8)

The length of our days is seventy years - or eighty, if we have the strength ...   (Psalm 90:10)

In only two verses, we see just how little God is bound by the laws of time, but how restricted we are with the handful of years God gives us. Time is a limited commodity, something like our money and our gifts. A believer needs to feel a burden for using the time he has to God’s glory.

Time is also an element of God’s creation. Eternity past and present are not extensions of time. They are of an altogether different nature. God does not measure time as we do. He is not bound by the linear unfolding of days, weeks, months and years as we are. We cannot determine the things pertaining to the end of time, things that only God understands, by applying our linear grasp of how and when things must occur as we observe “the signs of the times.” 

I’ve thought about this a lot through the years – eternity operating independently of time - but were I to elaborate too much, my musings might start to read more like science fiction ramblings than the devotional thoughts I intend. There is a surely a much more practical approach to our consideration of “time” as we embark upon another New Year. I have attempted to select a few texts to help us to embrace a uniquely Christian perspective of the passage of time – past, present and future.

1) The Christian and the Past

a) Learning from the Past Is Desirable

I remember the days of long ago, I meditate on all your works and consider what your hands have done.  (Psalm 143:5)

We trust God in our present struggles, because He has always delivered us in our past struggles. Perhaps, discipline was involved.  Maybe there were times when we questioned His presence in some circumstance. As it turned out, He was not only there, but He was actively working all things together to make us more like Christ. We benefit greatly when we reflect upon God's faithfulness in the past - not only through the great events of the Bible but in our own experiences as well.

b) Living in the Past Is Undesirable

Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.  (Ecclesiastes 7:10)

All living in the past accomplishes is misery in the present. We grow to despise the present, which is rather ironic considering that people who dwell in the past almost always exaggerate the “goodness” of the “good ol’ days.”

2) The Christian and the Future

a) Living Towards the Future Is Wise

That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.  (2 Timothy 1:2)

Paul was in prison facing almost certain death. His hope was so secure that he could face the end of his life in a posture of remarkable peace. We trust that God is good to His word regarding matters events in the future. We make choices that help us to prepare for the inevitability of the future, though it is inappropriate to obsess over it.

b) Lining Out the Future Is Futile

Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.”  Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow.  What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.  Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that.”  As it is you boast and brag.  All such boasting is evil.  Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins. (James 4:13-16)

Planning for the future is responsible and godly. Presuming that we can control the future is the height of human folly. To write the script for our lives beyond this present moment is beyond our human capacity. It is too easy to set ourselves up to for disappointment. Strangely enough, some people even blame God for their own failed dreams rather than open their hearts and minds to learn what He is trying to teach them

3) The Christian and the Present

a) As a Christian, You Are Not a Citizen of this Present Moment

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.  (1 John 5:11, 12)

The “eternal” character of the life we enjoy in Christ is more about our union with God than it is mere duration. Without Christ, a life that never ended would eventually become an unspeakably awful thing. Eternal life became ours at the point we became His. There is no more pathetic witness for Christ than that of a so-called believer living in misery as he awaits some far off reward. A current perspective of joy is rooted in the reality of the present fellowship we know with Christ. Saint of God, you already belong to eternity. Let your countenance reflect it.

b) Still, Christian, God Does Not Leave Us in this Present Situation without Cause

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  (1 Peter 3:15)

This is the time and place where you have been called to serve God.  Now is your opportunity to credit a living Savior for the hope that people see in you.  You cannot change the past. You cannot manipulate the future. Any attempt to do either robs God of the best you have to offer to Him right now.

It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas

At our house, we squeeze all the mileage out of the Christmas season that we can. Many in the culture lament how the evidences of Christmas seem to appear earlier every year. For some, this is not a lament, just an observation. I like Christmas, most all of it, anytime. I like Christmas trees, Santa Claus and giving gifts. I love all the traditions that warm our hearts and bring smiles to the faces of children. In the midst of all this, I have never had the least bit of difficulty keeping central that precious theological truth at the heart of Christmas, the Incarnation of God in the Person of Jesus Christ. I enjoy the evidences of Christmastime no matter how early they appear.

Did you know that in a sense, Christmas existed in the mind of God as early as the Garden of Eden? The first prophecy pertaining to the coming of Jesus did not emerge from a warm and pleasant circumstance. God was in the process of pronouncing His curse upon the human race and upon His creation because sin had entered into the world. But then again, it was our sin that made Christmas necessary, so the backdrop for the glory of Christmas is anything but beautiful.

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."  - Genesis 3:15

Classic theology refers to this single verse as the proto-evangelium; “the First Gospel.” Charles Spurgeon called this verse, “the first gospel sermon that was ever delivered upon the surface of this earth.” In other words, this was the earliest hint of Christmas coming to the world. Satan had won a major battle. He had destroyed, or so he thought, a part of God’s handiwork. He had convinced Eve that God could not be trusted and he tempted her to disobey her Creator. Adam followed suit. Have no doubt that God was angry with Adam and Eve. Interestingly, however, before He pronounced His curse upon them for what they had done, He hinted that a hope of restoration lay ahead.

In spite of their sin, God’s first words were not directed at Adam and Eve, but to the serpent, the tempter, the devil himself. God took it very personally that Satan had introduced sin into His perfect world. The devil had set himself against God, and God told him at the outset of the conflict, “This will not stand! I will repair what you have done.” This was not a veiled prophecy foretelling the coming of Jesus. This was God’s up-front, in-Satan’s-face declaration: “I will win this!”

In a world where sin had taken over, God kept His promise alive. When God called Abraham, He promised to build a great nation from his descendants. But, He also promised to bless the whole world through that same nation. That nation produced Jesus, Who destroyed the work of sin. God entered the world as the seed of a woman, a human being. And, though the cross was a brutal and vile striking at the heel of that seed of woman, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was the final triumph over the work of Satan. The head of the snake was crushed. The power of sin and the sting of death were destroyed – and it all began with the birth of a baby.

My kids get more frustrated with me every year, because I never “give them any ideas” for what they can get me for Christmas. I’ll take whatever expression of affection they choose to offer, because a long time ago, I learned that all I really needed for Christmas is a crushed snake, and Jesus has already provided that.

The Perfect Gift

They say you can find anything on the Internet. One year, I was running a little late with my shopping, so I googled the phrase, “the perfect gift,” which yielded 5,850,000 results. That seemed a bit unwieldy, so I refined my search: “the perfect gift for your wife.” That trimmed the results down to a tidy 3,440,000. I didn’t have to look any farther than the Salsa lessons to realize that I was barking up the wrong tree.

A few years ago, I heard a preacher introduce his Christmas message with this question: “Show of hands: how many of you Dads are ‘guilty’ of buying your kids things they want for Christmas rather than things they need?” Apparently, his kids were small, and he tended to gravitate toward those toys and gadgets that would earn him the big “‘Atta boy, Dad!” But, for some reason, his inclination to thrill his kids with something impractical, made him feel guilty.

I did not raise my hand, but it was NOT because I only buy practical gifts. I did not raise my hand because I have never once felt “guilty” over buying impractical ones. I would feel much guiltier if all I could think of to give a child were socks and underwear, no matter how badly they were needed, if I knew something else might light up his or her eyes.

That is not to say that impractical gifts are better gifts than socks and underwear, but neither will I concede that they are lesser gifts. There simply is no such thing as a perfect gift, so we are each compelled to apply our best judgment to selecting various imperfect ones. A perfect gift would have to cover every conceivable criterion behind gift-giving. It would need to be practical AND thrilling. It would need to be extravagant AND precisely what is needed. We give our children the best gifts we can, because we know that there is no such thing as a perfect gift.

I stand corrected. There has been at least one “perfect” gift given in history, and that Gift is the reason we have Christmas.

A Perfect Gift Is Needed AND Wanted. Jesus, the Gift of God, fills a profound human need. Sin estranges a man from his holy Creator. Paul described people in their sinful state as “powerless,” as “enemies of God,” as “darkness” and as “objects of wrath.” Jesus appears within the pages of the Bible as the only remedy for sin. He bluntly declared as much about Himself. His disciples boldly proclaimed it as well. (see John 14:6; Acts 4:12)

Our need for Jesus is profound. Of course, just because a gift is needed, that is not to say it will be wanted. Still, after enough blisters and enough cold, wet days, a thick, warm pair of socks might become the most welcomed gift under any tree, especially if a man lacks the means to secure socks for himself. Likewise, a man needs to be awakened to His need for a Savior before he will yearn for one. There is nothing man can do to rescue himself from the throes of sin, but if he wallows in sin’s mire long enough and if he comes to the end of his own strength, then, the hunger awakened by God for the Gift will become acute. Jesus is every sinner’s greatest need, but He comes to those for whom He is also their greatest desire.

A Perfect Gift Thrills Recipient AND Giver. One cable network annually runs 24 straight hours of A Christmas Story. Ralphie Parker yearns for “an official Red Ryder carbine action two-hundred shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time.” But, is that really a perfect gift? Ralphie’s mother, his school teacher and even the department store Santa Claus warn him, “You’ll shoot your eye out.” On the other hand, Ralphie is mortified when his mother compels him to model the pink rabbit outfit that quirky Aunt Clara has joyously hand-crafted. The air rifle awakens Ralphie's joy, but everyone else's concern. The bunny outfit has brought joy to the giver, but humiliation to the receiver. Neither the Red Ryder air rifle nor the pink bunny outfit quite hit the mark of perfection.

It seems to me that if any gift is to meet the criteria of “perfection”, then, there ought to be some sort of a mutual exhilaration shared by both giver and receiver. God's Gift hits that mark. We stand forgiven because of the Gift, and God was happy to give it.

A Perfect Gift Is Costly AND Free.  It would sound crass to imply that a gift cannot be worthwhile unless it is expensive, but I have not been describing the realm of “worthwhile.” A perfect gift cannot be cheap and devoid of an element of sacrifice on the part of the giver. The free Gift of Jesus was the most precious thing the Father had to give. Jesus, in His essence, God, laid aside all the perks of deity so as to clothe Himself in human flesh. Ultimately, God Incarnate yielded to crucifixion, a kind of death penalty that only depraved minds could have conceived.

… For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.  – 1 Peter 1:18, 19

A Perfect Gift Is Unique AND Universally Available. There are many items that make nice gifts even though they are mass-produced. Take one from the shelf, and twenty just like it are lined up behind it. But again, I am not exploring the realm of merely “nice.” A truly perfect gift must be one-of-a-kind. Jesus is “the only begotten” of the Father. No one else ever knew the mind of the Father or ever made the Father known to us, for He was of the same essence as the Father. Jesus is the only Way to salvation, because He is the only One Who CAN save us. And, yet, His love is indiscriminate. This precious, unique gift is for all who hunger and thirst for it.

A Perfect Gift Is Complete as Is AND Is Constantly Increasing. “The gift that keeps on giving” is a phrase that has been applied to everything from jewelry to financial endowments to anything that remains useful over time or that even increases in value over time. The Gift of God is such a gift. There is nothing lacking in what Jesus provided to redeem us back to our Father, and yet, the longer we serve Him, the more the benefits flow back to us: “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all - how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?” (Romans 8:32). 

A Perfect Gift Is Indescribable. Paul was urging Christians in Corinth to respond generously to a need in Jerusalem where many Jewish believers had become impoverished. He appealed to the affluent Corinthians on a number of bases. He pointed to the generosity of the Macedonians, a people not nearly so well off as themselves. He taught of spiritual blessings that accompany generosity. But, the Apostle’s final appeal on the matter directed them to God’s generosity. Speaking of the grace that appeared in Jesus, the Gift of God, he wrote: 

… Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!  - 2 Corinthians 9:15

I cannot exhaust a discussion of the perfection and sufficiency of Jesus. I can only make my own meager case for it. In addition to all that I have said already, the gift is beautiful, glorious and majestic. But, when all of our linguistic superlatives inevitably fail to capture the beauty of Christ, let us settle on - and rest in the reality that the Gift of Jesus simply defies description.

Playing the Jesus Card

For these thoughts, my “muse” knows who she is, so thanks. For the rest of you, I am not sure how to get to the biblical point I need to make without first muddling through a particular political argument.

I was texted in the last few days with a request for my thoughts on an article written by one Stephen Mattson for Sojourner Magazine. The title fairly represented the author’s premise, “Social Justice Is a Christian Tradition – Not a Liberal Agenda.” He apparently wanted to make people who are wary of specific social justice movements feel more comfortable in participating with them, even to the point of believing that they are walking in the steps of Jesus for doing so. But, he lost me pretty quickly. The following introduces the article.

       “Many Christians are wary of participating in social justice because of a deep-rooted fear of being labeled “liberal,” “progressive,” or “secular.” They don’t want to be associated with “secular” movements, and are uncomfortable delving into issues that go beyond their cultural comfort zones.

     “But the Bible tells us that Jesus cared deeply about the social causes around him.

     “Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said,
     ‘Samaritan lives matter.’
     “Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Children’s lives matter.’
     “Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Gentile lives matter.’
     “Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Jewish lives matter.’
     “Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Women’s lives matter.’
     “Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Lepers’ lives matter.’

     “Even though Jesus loves everyone, even to the point of dying for their sins, he went out of his way to intentionally help specific groups of people — the alienated, mistreated, and those facing injustice.

     “So saying 'Black Lives Matter' and participating in a movement seeking justice, positive reform, and empowerment is one of the most Christ-like things we can do.”

Apparently, Mr. Mattson has in his sights those who would specifically dismiss the BLM movement with what he finds to be a cliché: “All lives matter.” But, in doing so, he began by erecting what is, in my experience, a straw man. He identified them with his first words as “Many people …”

I belong to a church, a Bible School class, and the rest of my closest relationships are largely Christian. I cannot think of any of them who have ever shared with me that they avoid joining in particular social causes because they are wary that their buddies will call them “leftists.” Without speaking for them, I could never be a part of Black Lives Matter, not because of any potential scorn from my friends, but because of the plethora of problems I have with the movement’s claims, poster-children, and rhetoric. I’ll save that explanation for anyone who asks. (By the way, I do have friends who are deeply involved in social justice causes they trust.)

I could not help but notice that, according to Mattson, Jesus never collectively said, “All lives matter,” but rather, that individually He spoke to the worth of every specific demographic of the ancient world that came to the author’s mind. In fact, we have no record that Jesus uttered any of these things. Of course, I realize that the author was just using a figure of speech, but what he communicated to me was that Jesus conducted Himself as though all lives mattered.

I hinted that my real agenda for writing was to make a biblical point, not a political one. I guess I have a little issue with a practice I call, “Playing the Jesus Card,” of which the aforementioned article is simply a blatant example. If Jesus conducted Himself according to any mantra, it was not that these or those lives mattered. Jesus embodied the ethic of the kingdom of God, and He applied that ethic to everyone He encountered. We have no example of Him ever zeroing-in on some specific social justice cause that in any way might confuse us in our understanding that His all-consuming passion was to advance the kingdom of His Father.

There is such a thing as a religious right AND a religious left, and I do not get the sense that either group is particularly interested in the precise and accurate treatment of the scriptures so as to advance the invisible kingdom of God that Jesus disclosed to His earliest disciples. Rather, the use of the Bible and the example of Jesus is played like a card to steer emotion and/or guilt. I take issue when any party represents the Bible as saying something it simply does not say, whether that misrepresentation comes from the political right or the political left. 

Every time I go to work or return home, I pass a church sign that has taken playing the Jesus card to absurd extremes. When folks were up in arms about immigrant children being separated at the southern border from the adults accompanying them, the sign said, “Let the little children come to me.” Really? I never knew that verse was about immigration. Currently the sign says, “Listen to women. Jesus did.” I had to wonder if this literary wizard understood that Jesus was a loyal Jew Who gave a high place to the Law of Moses. I suspect that He would have listened to a woman AND supported the concept of due process and corroborating witnesses, not as the United States constitution emphasizes it, but as YAHWEH, through Moses, commanded it. The stupidest slogan to date was posted several months ago: “God’s bathrooms are for everyone.” I guess the church was arguing that God is okay with the tearing down of gender distinctions.” (Actually, I did not and still do know what to say to that one except, perhaps, “Repent, or at least keep your head low in a lightning storm.”)

The only reason that any of these nonsensical misuses of the Name of God or Jesus can work is rampant biblical illiteracy among the people of God, which exposes them as fodder for emotional demagoguery because they are simply unarmed in the battle for discernment.

The Bible is not simply a book of ancient documents to be used as frivolously and carelessly as needed for some political hack to score points. It is the living, active, God-breathed Book of God that expresses the Incarnate Word of God. When it is abused to manipulate the minds of people rather than to enlighten them to the mind of God, the abusers themselves are one day going to have to answer, regardless of whether they tilt right or left in their politics.

Every Christian’s walk with Jesus should inform their walk in this world. I take no issue with those who feel led toward some work they believe in because they think it honors Jesus. But, if anyone attempts to play the Jesus card so as to coerce another into seeing things his or her way, I can only recommend to that person, “Be very sure that you are being accurate with God’s Word.” Paul spoke of “rightly dividing the word of truth,” because there must be many ways to twist it to one’s own ends.

On Hasty Judgments

(I assembled these thoughts in the middle of the past week and chose not to post them until after the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process was resolved one way or the other.) 

The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him.  – Proverbs 18:17

Could the author of the Proverbs be suggesting that we are prone to gullibility? Is it fair of him to imply that we are easily persuaded by information when we only have one-half of the story? This is an indictment against hasty judgments, which are as evil as corruption itself. After all, one tale is compelling until another tale rebuffs it. Without two sides to a story, we are poor arbiters.

If the process currently going on to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court seems to be teaching us anything, it is how knee-jerk many of us can be when it comes to arriving at beliefs without being privy to first-hand facts. “I believe him!” “I believe her!” In the Senate, trust or distrust for the candidate or his accuser almost always follows party lines, even as a final week of investigation is underway. A few votes are up in the air, but those are certainly going to be driven more by political considerations than by any new clarity of information.

I know what I am inclined to believe. Anyone who knows me well probably knows what I am inclined to believe. But, I am not writing today to support my position or to attack the other one. On the contrary, I think it would be of value for each of us to consider how we arrive at such strong, immovable positions, even in the midst of uncertainty.

Recently, a friend posted a comment reflecting a certainty that Russia “had something” on Trump. I asked what the evidence was. The party did not appear to want to defend the premise other than to say, “That’s my opinion!” That got me to thinking about how loosely we use the term “opinion.” Opinions are judgments about qualitative matters. “I like deep, dark hues of green better than I like bright, loud hues!” “I think a good brisket makes for better Bar-B-Q than any piece of chicken or pork!” Those are my opinions, and no one can disprove them empirically any more than I can prove them.  But, if I assert that the Russians have “the goods” on the President, that is not really the domain for opinion. They either do or they do not. My opinion might one day earn me a reputation as a psychic, but it might also find me to be a slanderer. Facts, if they come to light, will make that determination.

Regarding matters that require factual and not qualitative judgments, why are our opinions so strong, when, logically, they are not even appropriate? We really do not KNOW anything without facts.  Against the backdrop of the Kavanaugh process, a loved-one asked me, “Why do ____________ ALWAYS believe the _______? My reflexive response might have been, “Why do _______________ ALWAYS believe the _________? (Feel free to insert the word-sets “conservatives/man” or “liberals/woman” as you see fit. That is not the point.) I did not answer according to my reflex because I knew that both statements were certainly over-the-top generalizations. Still, the passions run high as people of every ilk bite into a position and lock-down on it like pit-bulls.

The acrimony over this immediate matter distresses me as it does many, but I learned something about myself when I went to pray about it. I learned that I could not quite bring myself to articulate a prayer that my party would be vindicated. Something inside of me knew that to do so was tantamount to asking God to side with my useless opinion. I could pray for a speedy resolution to the matter. I could pray for reliable facts to come out. I could pray for light upon the issue. I could pray for the authentic victim to be vindicated. But, to pray for my preferred outcome, when I cannot know all of the facts, seemed a little reckless. God is omnipotent. God is sovereign. I am neither. Entering His presence reminds me of that.

No one seems to be latching onto a position in this current matter because of empirically established data. We are shaped by our experiences, politics, biases, ideologies, distrusts, fears, judicial values – anything and everything but knowledge, and these others things are only a recipe for hasty and uninformed judgments.

It is in gut-wrenching times like these that we do not look for support and solace in the companionship of those who agree with us, speaking similar words without knowledge. There very well may be something quite sinister being played out before our eyes. Nevertheless, peace comes only from believing and trusting that God is directing the course of nations, utilizing and steering the vices as well as the virtues of those in charge, or so they think.