Podcasts

 I just whittled down my podcasts to these, in rough order of importance.

Let me know what you think I should be listening to!

The Theology Pugcast - CR Wiley, Glenn Sunshine, Tom Price

Knox Unplugged - Jason Farley on cosmology/worldview

The Briefing - Al Mohler

Things Unseen - Sinclair Ferguson (NEW)

Breakpoint

Morning Wire

The World and Everything in It

Life, Books, and Everything - Kevin DeYoung

Christ Church sermons

The Plodcast - Doug Wilson

Mortification of Spin

The Aaron Renn Show

Pastors' Talk - Mark Dever

Thinking in Public - Al Mohler

Capital Record - David Bahnsen

Acton Vault

Acton Line

Jordan Peterson

Confidentiality and the Pastor

Pastors navigate various levels of confidentiality and discretion in their work.  He needs to withhold or share appropriate detail with the church, with the elders, and with his wife.

Much of this also applies to elders and deacons, in their ministries.

Confidentiality and the pastor's wife:
Many are surprised that my wife does not know something that they told me 2-3 weeks ago.  It's a common virtue signal of a healthy marriage among evangelicals: "I tell my wife everything."  So church members often assume the pastor's wife knows everything the pastor knows.  But the pastorate is a valid exception to this.  My default position is to NOT tell my wife about specific pastoral situations, or even news people don't want broadcast to the whole church.  If you don't want to broadcast it, I usually don't tell my wife or the elders, either.

Some pastors might not tell their wives, because they know she has looser lips than she should.  That is not our problem at all, and every pastor's wife should get wisdom about discretion in this area.  But even if she is perfectly discrete, it is just harder on her than it needs to be, for her to know every problem in the church, to the same detail that her husband knows.  As with every vocation, pastors shoulder burdens that their wives don't need to know all about.  This also helps her to be as much a "regular" church member as anyone else.

Now, there are certainly times when the pastor benefits from explaining a situation and getting his wife's wisdom to do his job.  But that is not the case every time, nor should it be.  She is not ordained to the office of Pastor's Wife, nor is she a quasi-Elder.  But she is his helper in his pastoral mission.

Here is an attempted list of levels, from highest to lowest clearance:

1. Top secret.  Objectively sensitive.
Someone shares quietly, one on one, that they suffered some abuse or trauma 3 years ago.  It's been dealt with legally, but it's very sensitive.  Marriage counseling and personal sexual issues probably fall into this category, too.  Unless they say I can, I don't tell anyone, and I don't usually ask if I may.  I may tell the elders or my wife in very vague terms that there are some deep wounds or struggles there, if they are members, but that I can't go into detail.

2. Secret.  Subjectively sensitive.
A church member shares a fairly routine parenting or other pastoral difficulty, but they obviously have a lot of shame and sensitivity over it.  This is something I'd usually feel free to share with the elders, but I'll ask them if it's okay first.  Sometimes people are horrified to share a personal problem with their pastor, even though that's God's design in the church.  They can need time to realize the church is a place for help, and not harmful exposure.  I may not even ask, if they are really upset, and just keep it to myself.  Maybe get someone involved who can help them, if I can't.  I might share this with my wife, but tell her it's confidential.

3. Discrete.
A regular pastoral difficulty (whatever that is).  I'll share it with the elders and maybe my wife, if it is urgent and needs more counsel than I've been able to help with.  Or as part of our monthly shepherding list review as elders.  Sometimes getting another family involved who can help, with their consent, widens the circle of confidentiality a bit.

4. Unrepentant sin.
If a member is flouting their sin or unbelief to me, or won't talk to me about it when the offense is clear, and I don't resolve it in a short time, I NEED to get the elders involved.  In the case of #3 above, I normally share it but may not for a while, depending on how acute the issue is.  With major unrepentant sin, I HAVE to share it with the elders.  And if it doesn't get resolved with them, the Session has to proceed to discipline, which would involve telling the church, too.

  a. Sidenote on discipline: Two factors may prevent required discipline, as I just asserted: membership and attendance status, and the nature of the sin.  If they are technically members but have been absent a long time, there might be a wiser course than official church discipline.  If the severity of the sin does not clearly call for excommunication, some sort of admonition and erasure of membership might be better.

5. Happy news!
Sometimes people share good news with their pastor, but they don't want to announce it just yet.  Pregnancy is the usual one here, but there are others.  I just wait for their cue, or ask a bit later if it's time to share it.  Occasionally I'll share this with the elders and wife ahead of time, making sure they know it isn't out in the open, yet.  But NOT if there's a sensitive issue, like a previous miscarriage, unless they say I may.

6.  The "open secret."
Sometimes I hear news that others already know, and when I talk to them directly, they just don't want it on the official prayer list.  So I won't volunteer the news to others, but if I realize someone knows, I'll talk about it with them.  Many people seem to like this level, but it's quite confusing to me.  Who knows?  Who doesn't?  How do I manage this well in the whole body?  As the "official" guy, I also get a sense that I'm in the dark on a lot of items in this category fairly often.  Sometimes the pastor's wife needs to let him in on the news that all the ladies have known for three weeks.  Not good, but it's how life goes, sometimes.

7.  "Tell everybody"
Time to say it at announcement time and/or put in on the prayer list, as appropriate.

8.  The legal requirement

If physical harm has been done, or is a serious impending possibility, the pastor needs to call the police.  This one is extremely sensitive and provocative, as you often wind up with state intervention in a family over spousal or sexual issues.  When someone discloses it to the pastor, he needs to investigate immediately and make a judgment call, usually within hours, whether to call the authorities.

 - there are times he does NOT call the police.  It's a severe pastoral problem, but not a criminal one.  Example: The husband has an ongoing anger problem toward his wife, and she comes to the pastor because she is getting scared of him.  It may be better for her to go stay with a friend or relative for a night or two, instead of calling the police too soon.  The husband's response will show what to do next.

 - sometimes the pastor knows he needs to call the police, but the person doesn't want that.  This one is HARD.  The pastor should prevent this from happening, if at all possible.  If he senses they may tell him something criminal, he might offer that he will need to involve the authorities if needed.  Sometimes they ask, "Can you keep a secret?  Is this confidential?"  That is an obvious clue, and the pastor should ALWAYS say something like, "I cannot promise absolute confidentiality.  If there is something criminal, I'm calling the cops.  Aside from that, I will be as discrete as possible."  This often sets the person more at ease as they think, "Well my situation is bad, but it isn't near CRIMINAL, at least."  

The church should never cover up crimes in the name of pastoral confidentiality.  A quick study of your state's laws regarding domestic violence, and sexual abuse especially within families, can be very enlightening.  Pastors are not typically well-versed in the law, so are prone to get details wrong, here.  An elder or deacon, or fellow pastor, who is well-versed, can be an invaluable asset.

9.  The major decision, criticism, or public attack.
There are times for the pastor's family to circle the wagons, and discuss the church in a way that isn't appropriate for the church or the Session to hear.  These should be quite rare.  Maybe criticism of him is spilling into officer's families and causing friction among older children.  Or the pastor is contemplating a move to another church calling, and needs to tell the kids, or get their input.  He should be talking in depth with just his wife for a while leading up to this.  He is going to talk to his children about criticism of him that they are hearing at church, very differently than he will talk to the church at large about it.  When trust has been lost with the Session in such situations, pastors will get input from other pastors and mentors and their wives, more than from the Session.  He will lean more toward informing them of his decisions, instead of seeking their counsel.  This is dysfunctional, but understandable, when church officers show themselves to be working against the pastor, instead of for him (even in constructive criticism.)

Conclusion

When you come to your pastor with a concern or personal problem that affects others, realize he is called to shepherd the whole church, not just you.  Our lives affect each other, and sometimes someone else has a solution to your problem.

Ask yourself why you really want to tell the pastor about this.  Are you genuinely seeking guidance?  Asking for prayer?  Just need a listening ear, and to unload a burden?  Telling him which of these it is can help a great deal.  Are you actually motivated to indirectly criticize someone else?

Hopefully this gives you a sense of how varied and complicated people problems are that face your pastor.  Pray for him!  Let him know you do.

Piano Life Lesson

Piano lessons carry many life lessons.  Here's one.

Many times, when a student gets frustrated with how hard the music is to play, they will change it, or blame the composer as defective.  My son just said Vince Guaraldi must've had a stroke writing those 2 measures he couldn't quite get down!

A variation of this: if the music doesn't sound quite right to us, we'll change it to how we like it, instead of trusting the composer's work.

We are like this in our lives.  When something is hard to do, we blame God for designing us like this.  We justify re-writing the moral standard, the music for our lives.

Realize instead that the Coach makes you do hard things so that you are

 - more ready for the game

 - more equipped for life, later

 - more Christ-like in your character.

Thoughts following the Election

Here are some thoughts following the election.

I sat on this for a while, to make sure it aged okay, instead doing the hot take, right-after reaction...

a. Our culture is less Christian than 10 years ago.

It will no longer do to say that pro-life or conservative messaging is the problem.  We need to face the fact that the majority of people no longer share our Christian worldview.  We see this in the rabid defense of abortion in several states, including ours, in the Ligonier "State of Theology" survey, and the leftward drift of our society to tolerate and embrace sexual perversion, even to be displayed and indoctrinated in children.  

Aaron Renn described this change well here:

• "Positive World (Pre-1994): Society at large retains a mostly positive view of Christianity. To be known as a good, churchgoing man remains part of being an upstanding citizen. Publicly being a Christian is a status-enhancer. Christian moral norms are the basic moral norms of society and violating them can bring negative consequences.
• Neutral World (1994–2014): Society takes a neutral stance toward Christianity. Christianity no longer has privileged status but is not disfavored. Being publicly known as a Christian has neither a positive nor a negative impact on one’s social status. Christianity is a valid option within a pluralistic public square. Christian moral norms retain some residual effect.
• Negative World (2014–Present): Society has come to have a negative view of Christianity. Being known as a Christian is a social negative, particularly in the elite domains of ­society. Christian morality is expressly repudiated and seen as a threat to the public good and the new public moral order. Subscribing to Christian moral views or violating the secular moral order brings negative consequences."

b. We are not coping well with this decline

It is harder for us to cope with this decline, than Christians of previous centuries.  They could take for granted that they were strangers in a strange land (1 Peter 2:11).  But WE are losing a precious Christian heritage and culture that Christians in ancient Rome never had.  Our temptation is to despair and surrender, doing nothing.  Or to anger and over-reactionary ideologies that mimic the left's identity politics.  (I believe the rise of asserting white identity, and Christian Nationalism fits this trend.)

c. We must not tie our spiritual or emotional life so closely to the state of our culture.

I remain convinced that the Gospel should permeate every aspect of society - "every square inch" of the cosmos belongs to King Jesus, as Kuyper said.  It is also true that we do not yet see everything subjected to Him (Hebrews 2:8).  This is not necessarily directly our fault.  But it should prod us to more intense efforts at evangelism and apologetics.  We should build and fight for Christian community and culture, without looking to how plausible it looks to succeed from an earthly or political calculation.  We should also be wise to pursue achievable goals, and not pursue Quixotic quests to have a Christian nation next Tuesday.  This is going to take TIME.  And/or a great revival by God's Spirit in our midst.

Say no to Gab and Torba

 If ever there was a reason to get off Gab and distance yourself from Andrew Torba, this is it. 

https://news.gab.com/2022/12/pray-for-ye/

I read this shortly after hearing Matt Walsh’s take on Ye, yesterday, which is vastly different and better.  Torba is outright defending anti-Semitism.  Ye has a right to say what he wants, including this, but others like Torba don’t have to and shouldn’t give him a forum endorsing him to say it. 

So, on Ethnicity, Kinism, and Nationalism

This post is a catchup on social media discussions.

Feel free to disregard if you haven't followed it!

Calling racial preferences inherently racist as I did is an overstatement.  I recant.

 

And yet.

 

Those ethnic or racial preferences within us are not justified by their natural existence, much less are they obligated by Scripture or natural law.

 

They are like any natural impulse or temptation, which must be disciplined by the Word.  When I hear “God Bless the USA,” I can agree and even get emotional, but I need to temper it with “God may judge the USA, instead.”

When we say grace perfects nature, we mean exactly this.  Natural affection needs sanctifying, not celebrating or justifying without qualification, just because the Left vilifies whites or America, or just because we feel it well up in us naturally.  C.S. Lewis, in The Four Loves, on Storge, is excellent on this. 

 

(To clarify, I have no qualms about tearing up watching a Trump rally where Lee Greenwood sings, “God bless the USA.”)

 

So equating natural affection for one's own tribe or race with the fifth commandment obligation to honor our fathers seems a mistake to me.  I shouldn’t come to hate my country and its founders.  But neither should I  adore it without qualification, without some theological lenses on, evaluating that nationalism.

 

 

One of you defined racism as “the belief, explicit or implicit, that one race is born morally superior to another race. It creates arrogance and pride in one group while also lowering the other group, sometimes to sub-human status.”  That is hard racism, but there are lower-grade versions that are not the woke-white-guilt variety.  I would add that Kinism asserts some level of principled segregation or preference for one’s own ethnicity, with NO inherent animosity or belief of superiority toward other races.  (Though some strands of it are undoubtedly white supremacist.)  This is a view I believe should be soundly rejected by church leadership.  I stand by Uri’s post. 

 

When Uri says “chased out of the church,” realize that we do this all the time with other issues: “We’ll have no talk of women in leadership here.”  “You want to blow up abortion clinics?  You are NOT welcome here.”  I’ve had to do this once or twice at church, in my years of ministry.  All the talk charging that I want to excommunicate people with different social theories, or throw out discipline procedure, is uncharitable to my and Uri’s position.  The question is simply where the Overton window is.  I’m deeply concerned that it has shifted recently in our circles, toward allowing and justifying ethnic preferences, in reaction to the immigration crisis and leftist reverse discrimination for minorities, which we now face, and should oppose.  However.  Whatever happened to judging people by the content of their character, instead of the color of their skin?  That is a sound Scriptural principle, regardless how some may want to ad hominem attack the man who said it.

 

Right now the church I serve has no minorities attending.  That is not a problem to fix, out of some white guilt.  I am not virtue signaling like the leftists, as I’ve been accused of.  But if the Asian or black visitors who come are made to feel awkward or excluded by things we say about this, that IS a problem.

 

More on preferences.

Yes, as of now I prefer that my single daughter marry a nice, white, Dutch Reformed boy.  The controversy isn’t over that abstract preference, but over what you will do when she brings home a black or Latino boy instead.  If he’s a gangster in lifestyle, we all agree on urging her back to a Christian way of life, and leaving him.  But if he’s a Clarence Thomas type, it seems we don’t agree.  Maybe I’m wrong.  My preference then needs to give way to God’s providence.  I don’t dig in and say my preference is based in the natural order, and God forbids or at least frowns on such a union, because He set the boundaries of nations, etc.  If it’s a problem that a black or Asian settles in to a white, Dutch Reformed church, or that a Moabite convert to Yahweh marries a faithful Israelite, or that a Hittite soldier becomes one of David’s mighty men, I define that as unbiblical Kinism, which should be (r)ejected from the church.

On Baptism and Peter Leithart

When I read Peter Leithart  I am generally edified.

When I read Peter Leithart on baptism, I usually get heartburn.

 

Here is a good review of his latest book (of several) on baptism.

The positive side is that Leithart emphasizes what Scripture emphasizes, instead of using systematic and confessional language.  This is refreshing.

The negative side is that Leithart clearly asserts that baptism regenerates the soul from death to life.  “The Bible speaks of baptism as an effective rite: baptism… regenerates (Titus 3:5); and saves (1 Peter 3:21).”

Baptism IS effective in naming us, and ushering us formally into covenant union with Christ and His people, the Church.  But Leithart wrongly conflates this with effectually saving us and giving us new life in Christ.  Baptism proclaims and announces this, but does not do it, in itself.

I can go as far as to say that baptism ushers us into the regeneration: the kingdom of light, the people of God.  But in that kingdom here on earth there remain weeds among the wheat.  Baptism does not regenerate in the “born again” John 3 sense, that we are truly saved, converted, and given eternal life.  If it did, then many have gone from born again (not just feeling or believing they were, but actually God had regenerated them), to rejecting and losing the faith.  (They were baptized, but died rejecting any faith in Christ.)  That cannot be, since no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand once they have eternal life (John 10:28-29).

In John 6 Jesus jarringly asserts that if we don’t eat His flesh and drink His blood, we don’t have life (John 6:53).  But He qualifies it a bit later, saying that the Spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing (John 6:63).  Scripture makes the same qualification after saying typologically that baptism saves us, in 1 Peter 3:21.

Baptism is a great gift from God, and we should not diminish it, or just focus on the things it doesn’t do.

But neither should we over-react to that, and claim it does more than Scripture says.

 

Theopolis folks, whom I otherwise respect, take note.  This assertion that baptism effectually saves and regenerates, is a Scriptural PROBLEM.

The Bigger Picture

I’ve been caught up in some intramural discussions, to put it mildly.  So it’s time to think more irenically (charitably, peaceably) for a moment, and regain the bigger picture.
 
The Reformed world, and the Christian world in general I believe, is made up of certain types.
 - The pietist who just wants to love Jesus and others, and focus on personal godliness and holiness.
 - The thinker who wants to get Biblical truth right, and focus on the accuracy of confessional statements.
 - The activist who wants to transform the culture with the Gospel, and focus on apologetics and politics.
 
Ideally, these three emphases should mesh together in our lives, but sadly we often put them at odds with one another.

The pietist bemoans Christians who have gotten “distracted with politics.”
The thinker criticizes the shallow faith of the pietist.
The activist berates the pietist for “truncating the Gospel” to just personal faith.
The pietist bemoans the thinker, whose faith is all in his head and not in his heart.
The thinker criticizes the activist for focusing too much on earthly things, and not eternal truths.
The activist berates the thinker for being too Gnostic, focusing too much on heavenly things, and neglecting the Gospel’s physical impact on earth.
 
In my mind, it’s a 3-legged stool.  If one leg gets over-developed to the detriment of the others, you’re going to fall over.  When any one leg gets to thinking they are THE thing, it’s time for them to recover some humility and listen to the other two legs.  

Recalibrate your opinions on “what everyone has to do.”

Men and Women // Ukraine // D.A. Carson conference

 A sound, quick take on who men and women are, by Kevin DeYoung.

An informative article on Ukraine from a viewpoint I don't quite share.  I learned a lot, though.

D.A. Carson is speaking near me, Dec 2-3.  Livestream available!

Identity Politics on the Right

In my circles, we decry the identity politics of the Left.

It is right to denounce those obsessed with race and ethnicity.  It means too much to them.  Or they see themselves as victims from generations ago.  Or they are insisting on some intersectional social preference based on it.  Or they insist on equality of outcome by race in every way.

 

But on the right, we have our own style of unhelpful identity politics.

Ibram X Kendi focuses on his blackness, or my whiteness.  But I am prone to focus on my maleness, or your feminine identity when I interact with you.  This can be an equally unhelpful problem.

 

There is no inherent virtue or vice in being a certain race.  Or in being a certain sex.

It is not an absolute good to be a man, post-fall.  Granted, it is part of our “given-ness” by God, every trait of which is good in that He gave it.  But any man can use his greater strength as a man to intimidate or abuse those weaker.  Any woman can use her words and wiles to manipulate others.  Even before the fall, God Himself said being a man, alone, was not good.  No, rather, we have to use well the various, specific identities that God has given us.  Let us not glory in masculinity in itself, just because leftists decry toxic masculinity.  We boast in the cross of Christ alone.

 

(I see the same thing happening regarding ethnicity and nationalism.  "Black Pride" has its rejoinder on the Right with, "Proud Boys" or just "It's good to be white!"  The leftists push globalism, so in knee-jerk reaction, the right pushes nationalism.  Why are we focusing so much on physical traits, when Scripture points us to spiritual ones?)

 

Part of my concern is this.  I compare my Christian, conservative upbringing with the conservative world today.  When I was young, in the families and churches around me, the roles of men and women were background assumptions.  They were truths, used to do life.  Now, they are rejected on the left, and obsessed over in themselves on the right.  Neither is good.  As CS Lewis said somewhere, a society that obsesses over politics is a sick society.  To say that the husband is the head of the home is like saying that your knees should bend when they walk.  Out for a stroll, do you think every half-second, “My knee is bending!  My knee is bending!  It SHOULD be bending!  It’s good to have a knee!”

 

I don’t want to be uncharitable to my brethren who are reclaiming biblical truth regarding sex, though.  To continue the analogy, Christians have had their knees broken for decades, and are in physical therapy learning to walk again, training their knees to bend.  We don’t know how to do basic things, so we have to focus on the dance steps, instead of on our partners (another Lewis reference – don’t know where).

 

I’m just afraid that this stage of healing is assumed by many to be the end goal.  It is not.  God calls us to DO something with that biblically shaped (reformed!) home, not just focus on the shape all the time.

 

We are overly focused on our sexual identity today.  Not just on the left (“I’m gender fluid”), but also on the right (“I’m a man!”).  For the right, it may be a needed time of realignment.  By all means, keep teaching on the different roles of men and women.  But let’s also focus on the many virtues and spiritual temptations common to all people, regardless of physical traits.

Political Sweetspot // All Saints Day

Uri Brito helps us celebrate All Saints' Day today!

Dan Crenshaw sums up the way to be, on the political Right, right now.

When he says we need to persuade, he’s probably hinting at abortion.

When he eschews grievance, he’s talking about Trump.

Re-forming Halloween

We need to be re-formed in God’s presence, not removed FROM His presence. So it is with our holidays. While the reformation rightly removed many saints’ days, several of our holidays need to be reformed, and not removed.

The church began to celebrate All saints day in the 300s, celebrating the victorious saints at rest with Christ. Over time, superstition and error came in. All Hallow’s Eve turned into Halloween. Like Mardi Gras revelry before Lent’s piety, Halloween became the devil’s last stand before the celebration of the holy ones in glory.

 

So let’s get the big picture here on the Christian church year.  It begins Dec 1 with advent and Xmas, when we celebrate the coming of the light of the world at our coldest and darkest hour. We then celebrate Christ’s death and resurrection in the spring, the time of new life. We celebrate Pentecost at the beginning of summer, when God cultivates our new life in the Spirit. Summer is the time of growth. Fall is when the harvest comes in, and we have All Saints Day to remember those who have entered their rest, and thanksgiving for the harvest. Meanwhile Satan makes one last grab at the end of history. This is Halloween. All of history is dramatized in the church year, and it is all pointing to the vindication of Christ’s saints, as they appear with Christ, when He comes again. We need to reform and recover All Saints day. Let us return thanks to God for fruitful saints now at rest with Christ, and look with hope to our joining them in the immediate presence of Christ one day.

10/31/22

Woke Fire // Walsh in Person // Spiritual Abuse

Douglas Groothuis gave two great interviews recently, on his new book, Fire in the Streets.

He reviews the 2020 riots briefly, but mainly emphasizes the contrast between the Marxist and Christian worldviews.

Breakpoint here

Mortification of Spin here

I greatly enjoyed attending this conference near me recently, and commend the talks by Thoma, Sabutis, and Matt Walsh, especially.

World interviews Michael Kruger on spiritual abuse in the church.  Here's a highlight.

"Spiritual abuse is when a spiritual leader endowed with spiritual authority executes his office in such a way that he domineers, runs down, and rules in a harsh and authoritarian way those under his leadership, all the while thinking he is accomplishing God's good work....  [they] are spiritual bullies.  They manipulate, they domineer....

"What is it not?  Spiritual abuse is not just making a mistake in a conversation, a relational misstep where you say something bothersome or offensive to somebody on occasion.  Spiritual abuse is not standing up for spiritual truth.  If I tell someone that something is sin, that's not abusive."

CrossPolitic // Crucifixion // Vote Pro-Life

 I haven't listened to CrossPolitic for a while, but two recent shows were excellent:

Megan Bashem does a post-mortem on the church's response to Covid.

Doug Wilson and Ben Merkle on building faithful institutions and communities, in response to Big Ed and Big Eva.

Give a listen.

Interesting history on Roman crucifixion

Was Jesus put to death this way, instead of the way we always envision it?

Michigan Christians need to go vote NO on Proposal 3.  Here's why.

Come to Wisdom's Table - A Meal of Mercy

 Prov 9:1-6

    Wisdom has built her house, She has hewn out her seven pillars;

    2      She has slaughtered her meat,

    She has mixed her wine,

    She has also furnished her table.

    3      She has sent out her maidens,

    She cries out from the highest places of the city,

    4      “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!”

    As for him who lacks understanding, she says to him,

    5      “Come, eat of my bread

    And drink of the wine I have mixed.

    6      Forsake foolishness and live,

    And go in the way of understanding.

 

God has saved us, not according to works we have done, but by His mercy.  Meals represent mercy.  Whatever the kids have done, however exasperating, mom makes supper for the whole family.  Whatever sins we have done as Christians during the week, God sets this table for you.  Now, we need to come repentant, and resolved to change.  But we need to come.  We have embraced foolishness, we have lacked understanding.  We admit that, and we come to wisdom’s table.  Come, and welcome, to the Lord Jesus Christ.

10/23/22

Prayer as Training to Know What We Need

Romans 8:26-28

"Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.  Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.  And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose."

In our confession reading, we are going back to finish up the Westminster Catechism.  The last section focuses on prayer, and on the Lord’s Prayer, which we sing here every week.

 

Prayer is offering up our desires to God for things agreeable to His will.  Notice our desires need shaping to His will.  Prayer is one way God does this.  It’s meant to change us, not Him.  Our desire may be, “I want to relax!  I want a vacation!”  But God has given you 1 day in 7 to relax, the other 6 are to work.   We want peace when God calls us to fight.  Or we want to fight, when God calls us to peace!  We want comfort, but God gives us hardship.

 

We don’t know what to pray for.  We often do not know what we want or need.  But God knows what is best for us, and He is working that out in our lives somehow.  This is hard to accept.  Sometimes we know exactly what we want and we’re convinced God must give it to us, or life will be over.  No, it won’t.  We have to die to ourselves, but that is not the end.  New life in Jesus is the glorious result.

 

This reminds us of our need to confess our sins.

10/23/22

From Forgiven to Forgiving, a Review

From Forgiven to Forgiving by Jay E. Adams
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This book was a godsend loaner from a friend at a time when I had to sort out in conflict my objective guilt from feelings of guilt, and when I had to think through how to be forgiving toward those who offended me and didn’t acknowledge it at all.

Adams’ key point at the start is that forgiveness is not a feeling, but a transaction. It is a promise not to hold the wrong against the other person.
He asserts that forgiveness is conditional – you can’t forgive without repentance on their part. You can pray for God to change them, and to not be bitter yourself.

In chapter 6, on errors in forgiving, he says that forgetting is not the point. You can’t determine to forget something! The point is to commit that you won’t indulge the grudge to yourself, or relate it to others to use against them. The remembrances will go away over time naturally if you do this.

On the error of forgiving yourself, Adams is a bit off. Low self-image is a real thing, and not accepting God’s forgiveness.

In chapter 7 Adams says that forgiveness is incomplete if restored relationship doesn’t follow. I don’t think this works with another key assertion Adams makes: you can be forgiven but still suffer consequences. One of the consequences may be a more limited relationship, or none at all. It is ideal to pursue complete restoration of the relationship. But very often people part, agreeing to disagree on various matters. This is not sinful.


In chapter 8 Adams asserts that you can't truly forgive unbelievers at all, because they can't repent. This is too strictly rejecting the common grace God can give an unbeliever. An unbeliever can sincerely renounce an offense and a Xian can forgive him for that.

In chapter 9, Adams discusses how to keep the promise to forgive.
You have to accept the consequences - this was good.
You have to keep busy thinking about other things, instead of brooding on someone's offense against you. This is a bit simplistic. You need more than just to occupy your mind with other things. It’s vital to truly let it go, and surrender justice to God for the offense.

Skipping to the end, in chapter 20 Adams says this:
“If you have wronged anyone by doing something the Bible forbids, you are guilty – whether you feel like it or not.”
Very true.

“If you have allowed an unreconciled condition to remain between you and a brother, you are guilty – whether you feel like it or not.”
Hold on. Don’t forget Romans 12:18. Sometimes people are determined to stay unreconciled with you, no matter what you do, so they can do what they want to do. Or you disagree objectively on the nature or magnitude of the offense. It can become a case of casting pearls before swine, if they have no interest in reconciling, and you continue to feel guilty because the relationship is not reconciled. This gives the hardened-hearted, unrepentant party all the power in the relationship. Adams’ statement here is filled with dangers.

“The Bible [in John 3:16]… isn’t speaking of love as feeling but rather of love as giving. Fundamentally love is giving. That is why you can obey the biblical commandments to love even when you don’t feel like it.”
This is SO true. When you give your time, your words, or your muscle to your family, you are loving them. If your heart is resenting it the whole time, that’s a problem and you’re being hypocritical. But it’s as hypocritical to say “be warm and well fed,” and not actually heat and feed your family. Love is objective giving as much as it is a heart loyalty.

“Since feelings are unnecessary to guilt, forgiveness and love, do they have any place at all? Certainly! There is one feeling that should always accompany reconciliation – joy!”
I would not make a simplistic bifurcation here, as Adams does. Feelings can prompt us rightly to confession and forgiveness, when we feel guilt. Or others can manipulate those feelings to make us confess things we should not. When we are truly reconciled, feelings of joy are natural. But feelings of resentment and grudge resurface and need managing (mortifying, really).

Overall, this is a very helpful and convicting book, practically in the Christian life.
But there are some areas I would caution against an overly rigid or simplistic application to complex situations.

4 stars!

View all my reviews

Library Politics

Maria Stuart writes in a local publication, appalled that Republicans would criticize our beloved local library.

https://thelivingstonpost.com/school-board-candidate-local-republicans-take-aim-at-howell-library/

 

Stuart is the VP of the library’s board, so a biased source from the get-go.  She touts all the services and community connections the library has, garnering sympathy for the library.  I don't dispute them, but they don't make the library immune from community criticism.

 

She claims the library has been immune from partisan attacks until now, admitting she has been in a “bubble.”

 

Stuart claims to have no idea why the library would be attacked.  “More of what, Mr. Bedford?”

She either doesn’t know about this, or is playing dumb:

https://howelllibrary.org/adult-recommendations/#readwoke

 

It is not the GOP, or school board candidates, that started politicking in non-partisan libraries, but the library itself.

The woke, progressive agenda has been seeking to infiltrate our school board and library for some time.  To criticize GOP or non-partisan candidates for pointing it out is the height of arrogance and gaslighting, hiding behind a veneer of community service.

 

I have been a patron of the library for 2-3 years, and have often seen the “Read Woke” signs and endorsements inside.  All the readings are pro-woke, with no substantive critique of this radical agenda to balance or question it.  At the very least, the library should have represented views critical of woke-ness in their reading list.  Not doing so implies strongly that someone has an agenda.  The library turned one-sidedly partisan on this long before the GOP or any non-partisan candidate criticized them.  Stuart essentially claims the library should be beyond ANY criticism from the community, given its service and proper “liberal” posture.  This attitude needs to change.

I (and apparently Jason Bedford and Meghan Reckling and many others) oppose this diversity agenda.  This does not make us racist.  We all want to be inclusive and treat everyone with respect.  But reverse-discriminating against whites is not the way.  As Chief Justice Roberts has said, "The way to stop discriminating by race, is to stop discriminating by race."

 

Stuart’s article is a classic example of progressives who claim to be neutral, play the victim, and try to gaslight us that they have done nothing wrong or partisan when the evidence is obvious.

 

I’ll close taking the library’s side, though.  On the national scene, we’ve heard lots of stories about libraries with drag queen story hours and sexually explicit trans or LGBTQ material for elementary readers.  I have not seen or heard of anything like that at the Howell library, for which I am very thankful.

Woke-ness Has One Thing Right

Provocative title for folks who follow me, probably.

But true.

Woke-ness has something going for it: 

A sense of morality and justice, and the need to punish wrong-doing.

This is an aspect of Christian theology that the world has rejected for decades, but has now rediscovered.

Think about it.

Woke culture is a secular version of God's judgment applied to everyone.

Have you violated the holy standard of right and wrong?

Then you deserve exile, ostracism, and removal from the camp of the community.

Yes, of course, their standard of what is right and wrong is wildly off base.

But they are getting the judgment and punishment piece absolutely correct.

So it cries out for resolution:

INSTEAD OF CANCELING OR CRUCIFYING PEOPLE, WHAT SHOULD WE DO??

The only satisfying answer is the atonement for sin God Himself offered at the cross of Jesus.  THIS satisfies in a way no riot, reparations, or legislation can ever do.

Jesus’ suffering and crucifixion was the ultimate miscarriage of justice, because of who He was/is: the eternal Word/Creator/God!  While we protest injustices in our past, we need to see this:

The woke world is ignoring the satisfaction of those injustices God offered us in Christ.

Have You Eaten?

1 Corinthians 10:15-17

"I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread."

The comedian Tim Hawkins does this funny routine about mothers who are overly concerned for their children, even when they are mad at them.  Teen comes home 2 hours past curfew – “where have you been? DO you know what time it is?”  Then mom breaks off, sighs, and says, “Have you eaten?”

 

God is like that.  However displeased He may be with the straying of His children, He remains keen to provide in compassion for them.  That’s what this table is all about.  It is why we emphasize here: you don’t earn this table by avoiding the worst sins this week.  This table is for those who are repentant of ANY sin.  It’s free grace all the way down.  There’s not some floor where, well, if you’ve done THAT, then we don’t want you here.

 

So here’s something new you may not have considered before.  We prefer having elders distribute the bread and wine to you.  Why?  Because every now and then, someone is so distressed that they hold back and don’t partake.  Elders are looking around, making sure, “Have you eaten?”  We all need to partake of Christ to be healthy.  It’s good to be part of a church body where we are looking out for each other to make sure that’s happening.

“Have you eaten?”

10/9/22

Gentle Correction

2 Timothy 2:24-26

"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will."

Social media and talking heads have trained us to perfect the art of quarrelling, when Scripture calls us to teach gently and patiently.  

Yesterday I was at a conference in Hartland that in part addressed proposal 3 on our ballot Nov.  I asked the speaker what we can do to fight it, and his answer was this:  Talk to people you know who are in the middle on this.  Extended family members who might be against abortion themselves, but want to give others “freedom of choice.”  

Really?  Freedom to kill babies?  With no restrictions, no need for parental approval, whatever the age?  You see, gentleness doesn’t mean mincing words.  

But we should not berate or insult.  In one sense, people swear because they don’t have a better vocabulary.  We insult others in our thoughts, we are just repulsed by the Left, say, because we aren’t ready with an answer for the hope that is within us.  Gentleness means loving our enemies as we seek to persuade them of the truth.  The temptation to frustration and ungodly wrath is strong, but we must not be overcome by evil.  Rather, overcome evil with good.

10/9/22

Non-Hostile Questions for Matt Walsh

 Dear Matt Walsh,

It was a pleasure hearing you speak in Michigan this afternoon.  Thank you for coming.

I almost got in the question line to say this:

First, a compliment – thanks for articulating the truth, and exposing the darkness.

Second, a concern – Pastor Thoma told us about a neighbor flying an "f- Biden" flag.  We also had President Biden visit very near where we met, a few months back.  A roadside protest was organized, to which a church member of mine went.  They were disturbed by the vulgarity and vitriol.  As a regular listener to the Daily Wire, what is DW doing to steer clear of such name-calling and derision?  I'd urge you: don’t appeal to our baser instincts, stoking our loathing of the left.  Stick to positive and entertaining arguments.

Question – you rightly rebuked church leaders for not addressing this transgender onslaught more in the church.  Some have spoken of an air war and ground war in this cultural war.  You’re doing a bang-up job on the air war.  Any thoughts for us as Christians, church members, and pastors, on how to conduct the ground war better, specifically?

What to Make of Conservative Roman Catholics?

 Jack,

Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you on the Catholic question yet.

I’d better do so, before hearing Matt Walsh in person this Saturday – I’ll probably be prejudiced to him after!

 

Here are a couple of thoughts.

 

Many Protestants see Rome as a cult or paganly superstitious.  Neither is true.  To be in the Roman Catholic church does not make one a nutjob, fruitcake.  It is true, though, that there are instances of 3^rd world syncretism between Roman Christianity and local pagan practices.  But this isn’t the usual problem facing American Christians.

 

Rome does teach serious error.  They have officially rejected biblical doctrines, and formally adopted unbiblical ones.  The Council of Trent in the 1560s explicitly denounced salvation by faith alone, for example.  And in the 1800s, Rome asserted the infallibility of the Pope.  These are false teachings that warrant calling people out of the Roman religion.

 

On the other hand, we are justified by our faith, not by believing in justification by faith alone.  This is a key distinction, that applies to many of the Catholic faithful.  Many Catholics trust Jesus, more than their church, to save them.  Their church is asking them to trust the church too much.  Likewise, many Protestant churches wrongly, subtly, ask their people to trust their own works too much (your political advocacy, purity of life, having the right opinions, etc.).

 

When hearing Catholic teachers whom we respect on the political right, we ought to take care not to assume they are right with God, just because they agree with our political convictions.  Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jew,  on his current course will be in Hell for rejecting Christ as his Savior.  Yet we can be grateful for his advocacy for biblical ethics in the public square!  We should be as grateful for Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles, and remain graciously agnostic about the state of their soul before God.  Leave that to Him.

 

When interacting with Catholics personally, we should respect their faith and search out where it truly lies.  My family is memorizing 1 Peter 2:13 right now: “rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”  Encourage them to rest in Christ, not in their church’s authority, nor in the sacraments they receive at the church, outwardly.

 

 

We Need Authority // Co-Belligerent Cautions in Cultural Conflict // Attacking Institutions

Joel Belz on authority

This is from 35 years ago (!), when the Pope visited America.

Belz reflects on how averse Americans are to authority, yet how much we need it in life.

Carl Trueman sums up the rift on the left between gay and trans advocates well.

The last two paragraphs are the important caution for us, though he is also right that we should be grateful for secular, even leftist, influencers who oppose the trans agenda.

WSJ a few days ago, on the Left questioning the Supreme Court's legitimacy.

Dead on.

The Left is attacking institutions today, more than the Right, then projecting and accusing the Right of doing so.

Pastors Needed // Writing off God // Enforcing Diversity

I found this to be a hugely significant article, on what pastors need to be.

It's long, but very worth the read.

Audacious arguments

"The government reports to me and to other adult Americans, not to God."

So says columnist Michael Kinsley.  Joel Belz from World Magazine responds.

Wall Street Journal a few days ago, on AOC's letter to Yeshiva, is great.

You WILL comply with diversity!

More on qualifications for Church Elder

I preached on Titus 1:1-9 last Sunday, the qualifications for elder.

Since I didn't get to some issues, I wrote this to supplement it.

1 Tim 3:4-5:

“He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”

Titus 1:5-6:

“appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.”

 

 

What do these verses mean?  Vigorous disagreement has been around for a while on applying this qualification for eldership to specific situations.  Here are some thoughts, in addition to my recent sermon on Titus 1:1-9.

 

A key point I’m asserting here is that men do not have to have raised and launched all of their children and ensured they are all Christians into adulthood, to be qualified to be elders.

I’ll start with a grammatical point to prove this.  Paul says, “managing” (present tense) not “having managed his own household well” (past, aorist, or perfect tense).  So it isn’t “he has raised his kids and they all turned out believers.”  It may be that, but it may also be, “he IS raising his kids, and it looks like he is doing it well.”

 

The prohibition, “not accused of dissipation or insubordination” (Titus 1:6) means that a child of an elder can’t be living a deeply entrenched life of rebellion and self-indulgence.  This is a sin that tends to show up in the teen years, at the earliest.  But we can’t infer from this that a man’s children must be old enough to see if this is happening.  This would be the same logic that we reject in our covenantal understanding of the sacraments.  We don’t wait to baptize our children until we’re sure they have “turned out.”  We don’t wait to commune our children until we see they can examine themselves with a mature mental understanding.  Neither need we wait to bring a man on as elder until we’re sure his children have “turned out.”  It is fine to go by what you see in how a man carries himself with his family when they are younger.  Is he overly deferring to their desires and letting them rule the roost?  Or is he giving direction, discipline, and correction, to train them in self-denial and godliness over time (“Keeping his children submissive” - 1 Tim 3:4), without provoking them to anger with his harshness?

 

The Titus 1:6 phrase above also means a Session should not be “trigger-happy” when an elder or elder candidate’s child has an isolated incident of foolishness or even rebellion.  Even the most faithful parent will have children that are indulgent or rebellious on occasion.  The key is if they stay that way, and how the parent deals with it.  If dad lets himself and/or his wife be too coddling or negligent (1 Sam 3:13) he is probably not qualified.  Also, if they are too harsh or tyrannical (Col 3:21; Eph 6:4), he is probably not qualified.  Every parent struggles between these two ditches.  Those who handle it best, are likely best qualified for eldership.

(In my mind this confirms that there is a parallel between parenting and pastoring.  Not that adult church members should be seen as children.  But the pastoral role is much like a parent’s.)

This fits with a point I made Sunday: elders are meant to be examples to the flock (Heb 13:7; 1 Peter 5:3), not picture-perfect.  There is a huge difference.  Positively, he has a track record such that the group expects he will usually be a good example for them to emulate.  Negatively, an example gets it wrong sometimes, and there is grace extended, but we also learn from mistakes.  If it gets bad enough, the example needs to be rebuked before all, to make it clear to everyone that he is NOT exemplary in this area where he is struggling (1 Tim 5:20).  But even in this case, Paul does not require removal from office, though the man is probably wise to offer it to the Session.

 

Now, when a man has adult children out of the home, we need to remember and balance two principles even more: covenantal connection, and individual moral agency.  Numbers 30:3 gives the principle here: a father has authority to direct his children’s lives when they are “in his house in their youth.”  But when they leave, he is less accountable for their spiritual course.  So if a man’s adult children have all, or mostly, left the faith (their own decision), and his demeanor or tone or articulation of the faith continues to show some fault that could have led to that (covenantal connection, seen in Col 3:21; Eph 6:4 again), then he is probably not qualified as an elder.  But in the absence of such a fault, or if he sees and has repented of it, we ought to consider such a man for office.  There is a parallel here with the marriage qualification (“one-woman man” Titus 1:6).  A man may have been unconverted, unfaithful to his spouse, and unbiblically divorced 10-20 years ago.  But now he is converted, repentant of that, remarried, and has a great marriage in the Lord.  Such a man should not be ruled unqualified from eldership, on this factor alone.  In the same way, a man may have come to see the error of his bad parenting ways, such that he is qualified now to be an elder, though his children have not come around.

 

The criteria is not “perfect history,” but “faithful example now, and for long enough to be trustworthy.”

 

I’ll close with something even more controversial:

Elder selection is frankly, partially relative to the best options in the group.  Each church needs incarnate, officially recognized, examples and leaders on the ground.  If you have a small, young church of all 20-somethings, single or newly married, and two guys in their 30s with 2 younger children, then the latter are the best choice, going by this factor alone.  

Of course, there are limits to this.  Sometimes the most mature in the group still aren’t “elder material.”  Then you just wouldn’t have a fully functioning church.  But there are times to “lower the bar,” and remove extra qualifications for office that we are adding to the Scriptural ones, in order to provide adequately for God’s people.  (Again, to get specific, in my circles extra qualifications would mean things like, you’ve read Rushdoony, you’re post-mil, you’re paedo-communion, you’re a VanTil fan, zero public incidents of problems with the kids, etc.)

 

“The need is not the call” is an important counterpoint to this.  To take an extreme example, a group of 20-year-old stoners suddenly convert to Christ.  It's probably a bad idea to make the guy who has been off weed the longest (for 2 weeks!) an elder.  They need a different example.

 

But a far more common situation in my circles is the opposite extreme:

There are several decently adequate men, deliberately faithful, learning and growing, who are NOT being trained for eldership, because they don’t have all the right theological opinions.

 

Character and wisdom matter much more than such opinions.

Honor Your Elders

You shall rise before the gray headed and honor the presence of an old man, and fear your God: I am the LORD (Lev 19:32).

 

Thus says the LORD:  “Stand in the ways and see,    And ask for the old paths, where the good way is,    And walk in it;    Then you will find rest for your souls.    But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ (Je 6:16)

 

God calls us to honor our elders.  Not just officers in the church, but those older than us.  They have seen more, and tend to have more wisdom.  This is convicting.  30 year olds tend to look down on boomers, as messing life up for them.  Those living in our country now, tend to deride our founders for basing our nation on slavery and other faults.  Teenagers tend to see only the faults in their parents, and not honor them for all they have done well.  Let us be a people that respects what Chesterton called, the democracy of the dead – the traditions of our forebears.  We are not hide-bound to that, they certainly made mistakes.  But God’s people have been thinking about how to live the most godly life possible for 1000s of years, and their thoughts and attempts should be a significant factor as we discern how to apply God’s word to our lives.

10/2/22

Complementarianism? // Worldview // Exemplary Sermon

This was a pretty decent take on complementarianism.

Jason Farley knocks it out of the park again, on "cosmology."

How should we see ourselves living in God's world?

This is some of the best preaching I've heard in a LONG time.

Strange New World review

 

Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution by Carl R. Trueman
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

When Carl Trueman published his book, Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self in 2020, there were plenty of furrowed brows and head shaking. It seemed a significant work, but it was a tough slog to read the long and academic style of writing.

Covid and the George Floyd riots hit right as it released, so it seemed already out of date.

Trueman took the wise advice of friends and wrote a follow-up book that is shorter, updated, and more readable for the common man.

Trueman remains an academic, so this is no Max Lucado fluffy read. But Strange New World helps us understand the course of the West’s rebellion against God, and how and why leftist progressives today think the way they do. This is critical to knowing how to respond and live faithfully in our culture today.

In each chapter Trueman deftly shows how the ideas of historic thinkers like Freud and Nietzsche show up in 1960s pop music, and in Supreme Court decisions of the last 20 years.

Trueman inveighs mainly against “expressive individualism,” seen from Rousseau and Nietzsche, to the Beatles, to Justice Anthony Kennedy. Whatever I am feeling is the standard of reality, not just for me, but others must act according to it as well. Ever balanced, Trueman is careful to not just rail against the woke Left, but also point out how the conservative church is compromising in this way, as well. Also, there is an interior, individual life we should respect, but it needs regulation by external factors. This is a far better take than rude and blunt insults from the right against “snowflakes.”

I especially appreciated the last chapter, where Trueman lays out some faithful responses to all of this. Explain the “why” of God’s design to people. Sing the Psalms in worship. Forge real community as believers. Maintain a posture of hope. Teach the whole Christian faith, using historic confessions as a guide.

5 stars. A must-read for the Christian today.

View all my reviews

Vote Pro Life, Michigan, on November 8 - No to Proposal 3

Immediately after the Dobbs ruling, petitions proliferated in MI for a "Reproductive Freedom for All" state constitutional amendment.

While pro-lifers took a victory lap, abortion advocates were busy.  They garnered a record number of signatures.  The text is below.

This petition needs to be vigorously opposed by pro-lifers voting on November 8 in Michigan.

• Planned Parenthood had a hand in crafting this amendment.
• PP business in MI has tripled since Dobbs, with Indiana and Ohio women coming here instead.
• A door knocker advocating against Prop 3 was shot last week.  Here's the shooter.
• PP has raised $10 million to support this proposal, while those opposed have raised $400,000.
• Some objections to the petition are missing the mark ("Too confusing!"), appealing to garbled grammar/typography, which is nowhere evident in the ballot summary or actual text.
• The actual wording is problematically vague, though.  Maybe this is what they mean:

1.  - the lack of "adult" in the first bullet point below means a pregnant girl of any age can get an abortion, or be sterilized, without parental consent.
2.  - the second bullet point below is deceptive: mental health is the nose in the camel's tent.  Anything distressing the mother about the pregnancy can be cause to validate any abortion.

This truly is an extreme proposal, cloaked as a "freedom" initiative.  Society should at least regulate what minors can do to their bodies, and Christian societies will protect unborn life in every situation.  

If you're going to take a life, in utero, as an abortionist, your life should be forfeit (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 21:22-25).  But this is in God's hands, and the society's at the voting booth, not in any zealous, vigilante pro-lifer's hands.

TEXT ON BALLOT OF PROPOSAL 3

​Proposal 22-3 A Proposal To Amend The State Constitution To Establish New Individual Right To Reproductive Freedom, Including Right To Make All Decisions About Pregnancy And Abortion; Allow State To Regulate Abortion In Some Cases; And Forbid Prosecution Of Individuals Exercising Established Right

This proposed constitutional amendment would:

• Establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make and carry out all decisions about pregnancy, such as prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion, miscarriage management, and infertility;
• Allow state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, but not prohibit if medically needed to protect a patient’s life or physical or mental health;
• Forbid state discrimination in enforcement of this right; prohibit prosecution of an individual, or a person helping a pregnant individual, for exercising rights established by this amendment;
• Invalidate state laws conflicting with this amendment.

Should this proposal be adopted?

ACTUAL TEXT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSAL

Article 1, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. An individual's right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.

 

(2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.

 

(3) The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.

 

(4) For the purposes of this section:

A state interest is "compelling" only if it is for the limited purpose of protecting the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual's autonomous decision-making.

"Fetal viability" means: the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.

(5) This section shall be self-executing. Any provision of this section held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

 

Parenting with the Rod and Hug

Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.  Pr 22:15 

The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. When the wicked increase, transgression increases, but the righteous will look upon their downfall. Discipline your son, and he will give you rest; he will give delight to your heart.  Pr 29:15–17

 

We’ll be considering parenting and the family today.  These proverbs focus on corrective discipline.  But notice that last one. Discipline your son, and he will give you rest; he will give delight to your heart.  The goal when parents discipline children, is rest, delight, reconciliation, peace restored.

 

But that means you need to be willing to bear the rod first.  Children need to suffer consequences for their sins.  If parents hold back from discipline, out of a misguided feeling that they need to be kind instead, then children will come to expect to get their way all the time.  If parents use only words with little ones, and spare the rod, that too will spoil the child.

 

Children also need to hear from their parents, that their parents and their God love and forgive them.  It is good when children feel guilty for their wrongdoing, but it is easy for them to slip into feeling forsaken and despairing.  Receiving children back with a hug and a comforting word is just as important as bringing the rod to bear first.

 

Children, you need to honor your parents all the time, even when you feel like they are being mean or cruel.  They are doing their best to teach you God’s ways.

9/25/22

Leaders Provide

Psalm 145:14-21

"The LORD upholds all who fall, And raises up all who are bowed down. The eyes of all look expectantly to You, And You give them their food in due season. You open Your hand And satisfy the desire of every living thing. The LORD is righteous in all His ways, Gracious in all His works. The LORD is near to all who call upon Him, To all who call upon Him in truth. He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him; He also will hear their cry and save them. The LORD preserves all who love Him, But all the wicked He will destroy.  My mouth shall speak the praise of the LORD, And all flesh shall bless His holy name Forever and ever."

In God’s design, all authority is established to serve those in their charge.  So when mom is with the kids during the day, she is in charge, and she makes lunch.  When the county commissioners are voted in to office, they go about meeting the needs of the residents.  JC has been given all authority, and He gave us this table, among other things, to meet our needs.  And what is it we need?  Him.  This is eternal life, Jn 17:3, to know the Father, and the Son He sent us.  People need Jesus, like children need parents.  We are lost and at sea without Him.  So come again, and welcome, to Jesus.

9/25/22