Macro and Micro: Luke 6:41-45

I've been pleased lately to hear brothers and sisters speaking against, and praying against, the spirit of lawlessness in our country.

If God has shown me the deepest, most utterly grievous, sin He finds in America: and I'm certain He has: it is lawlessness. It is the spirit and attitude and idea and walk that we make our own choices, follow our own ways, and will violently resist any who tell us otherwise.

Lawlessness is itself the essential nature of sin itself, against which Jesus has conquered:

"All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him." (Isaiah 53:6)

I am pleased that other believers are also hearing God call out the spirit of lawlessness, and lead us in speaking and praying against it in His greatest power.

But my pleasure that the Church is hearing this most important word of God is dampened by the realization that our prayers against "lawlessness" are often only against street-riots. Dampened even more by realizing that many who pray against street lawlessness are themselves followers of the spiritual lawlessness of poltical deceivers, that "government is the problem."

Jesus' contrast of the moral "speck" and the moral "log" comes to mind. Perhaps the Church sees others' soulish street violence as greater sin than its own deep spirit of rebellion towards authority.

Jesus directed His moral aim against the greater sin, the determinative spirit in which we think and act. The "evil treasure" we store up in our hearts, from which we bring forth evil. The "bad" nature of the tree, which determinines what fruit it will produce.

God, forgive us our self-deception ! God, give us ears to hear. Give Your people spiritual eyes in which there are no logs, to see !

Amen

Election Predictions Absolutely Certain

There are a few predictions about this year's election (or any election) that we can make with absolute certainty.

There can be no question about the outcome of the election:

An unworthy and fallible person will become president. This is 100% certain.

The person who is elected will make some decisions harmful to America...and a few good decisions. That's been true of every president of every party in every election in American history. The best presidents have done the country some harm, and the worst have done some good (if only for self-serving reasons).

We can also be 100% certain about the election-process:

American citizens will vote for the candidate they "like."

The person God chooses will becomes president. This is absolutely certain.

God will give us a president in accordance with His heart toward America.

God will be gracious to those who love Him. God will be harsh toward those whose hearts rebel against Him. 100% certain.

Every American citizen will show where his heart is toward God when he votes, by who he "likes."

God will act toward America accordingly. 100% certain.

More About Truth

I'm fully convinced I know "the Truth." When Jesus said He IS "the Truth", I was fully convinced, once and for all.

But "unpacking" (as the current phrase is) what it means that Jesus IS the Truth has taken me 30-some years, and I'm nowhere near done yet.

One thing I think He meant by His identification is that "truth" is absolute and exclusive...as He is Himself.

An interesting passing comment in a book I was reading this week about the English language suddenly connected to Jesus' statement. In a section on the inconsistencies of our language, the author noted that we say "a lie," but "the truth."

It seems that even by the way we speak our language, we acknowledge that untruth manifests in multiple forms: but truth, only One.

Christians and Politics

For almost a Biblical generation of 40 years, Christians have been urged to participate in human political methods and purposes, on the premise that our involvement will effect moral change in the world’s evil system. We've been told that America can be made a "Christian" nation (the manipulators usually add "again") if Christians elect Christian leaders.

The hypocrisy of that idea was manifest from the start. The "Moral Majority," founded in 1979, used it the next year to make Christians' a political force instrumental in turning Jimmy Carter out of office.

The underlying premise too seems flawed, contrary to Christ’s warning against patching old fabrics with new, and His call to put new wine into new wineskins. (Matthew 9, Mark 2). Contrary as well to scripture’s teaching we not be “unequally yoked” with unbelievers, righteousness with unrighteousness, light with darkness (II Corinthians 6:14).

Do we witness righteousness when we ally ourselves with deceivers ? What contrast does the darkened world see in us, when our methods and purposes are those of its own evil system ? If the world sees no contrast, it sees no witness.

When we play the world’s game by the world’s rules, under the aegis of a worldly political faction, is the world wrong to see the Church as merely a sub-demographic voting-bloc of that faction…as the world does see us in America ?

Honest Journalism is "pro-truth"

I often listen to American Public Media's evening "Marketplace." I'm the last person who understands anything about the economy, it's ups, its downs, its quirks and dangers. That's why I listen. Host Kai Ryssdal is intelligent, straightforward, concise...after listening to Marketplace' stories, I feel like I've gained some insight into what "the market" does, and is doing, and why.

Kai gave a short commentary tonight. It's the best example of journalistic courage and integrity I've heard in years.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

A word about the unemployment rate and this election.

This weekend on CNN's Sunday show State of the Union, an interview between Jake Tapper and Donald Trump Jr. turned to the unemployment rate, about which Trump said: "These are artificial numbers, these are massaged to make the existing economy look good, to make this administration look good, when in fact, it's a total disaster."

To use as straightforward a word as possible, that's a lie.

Reasonable people can and do disagree about the health of the economy, and how to measure the labor market, but the idea that the Bureau of Labor Statistics manipulates the monthly unemployment report is without any basis in fact.

It's at best a fabrication and at worst, and most damaging, a malicious conspiracy theory.

Same thing goes, by the way, for the Republican nominee's claim that unemployment in this country is at 42 percent.

This isn't, to quote Jake Tapper, an anti-Trump position or a pro-Clinton position.

It is a pro-truth position.

Defending Trump

The head of Kentucky's Republican delegation, interviewed on NPR this morning about Donald Trump's acceptance speech, defended his candidate's outrageous assertions by saying, "I'm not convinced he actually believes all the things he says."

Yeah, Trump's defender sums him up pretty well.

Conservatives' murder hypocrisy

The faction that currently controls my state has made political theater of their contempt for national government. They've thumbed their nose at federal authority at every opportunity: environmental regulation, healthcare law, voter's rights, guns...especially guns. They extol guns as citizens' only protection from the "over-reach" of illegitimate governmental authority.

Opposing that authority ("Washington," as they call it) has been their faction's national pose as well. Opposing Washington has worked well for them, even when, as in the previous administration, they themselves held the power of the presidency, the House, and the Supreme Court in their control simultaneously.

I'm trying to think of the word that applies here. What do you call politicians who hate authority, and LOVE guns as defence against government, when they profess shock and grief at the murder of law-officers...murder by someone who thinks exactly as they do ?

Are they "oblivious" to the consequences of their political rhetoric...?

are they "disingenuous" in their principles...?

or is it just their hypocrisy showing again ?

Kudos to Ted Cruz

I've made no secret in previous posts of the fact I despise Ted Cruz.

Even in the sewer of Republican politics, there's probably no one sleazier, more blindly doctrinaire, more unctuous, more openly motivated by absolute personal ambition...and more hypocritically "Christian" in service of his ambitions.

But I'll give Ted Cruz kudos for his courage last night with his non-endorsement of Donald Trump, telling Republicans to "vote your conscience."

(Interesting that the delegates booing him, booed even while he closed with "God bless the United States of America:" surreal Republicans !)

Probably his appeal to "conscience" is wasted. Conscience is the first thing partisans abandon in order to follow their politics; followed closely by their honesty and their commonsense.

But Ted Cruz deserves credit for appealing, even if merely in service of his own personal ambition, to the moral sense of Republicans, calling them to consider if it's good...if not for America, then at least for their party's interests...that Donald Trump become President ?

What's amazing is that so many of America's "Evangelicals"...supposed moral leaders...fear speaking against the American Church' political correctness even as far as Ted Cruz does.

Melania Trump's plagiarism

The problem of any political controversy de jour is always that it muddles people's thinking: whatever modicum of substance is involved, manufactured "issues" are always beside the point.

In Melania Trump's speech last night extolling her husband, it certainly looks like her speech-writers stole some passages word-for-word from a speech in which Michelle Obama extolled her husband.

But the Trump handlers are probably right, that the things Melania said about her husband are, after all, simply the "common values" we all look for in those we consider "good people."

Beyond that, I'm skeptical how substantive an "issue" a political wife's praise of her husband can be. Nobody expects such a speech to be anything but extravagantly laudatory. Nobody expects such a speech to be entirely candid. Nobody expects such a speech to be a rousing defence of the candidate's key policies.

In the latter regard, I seriously doubt speeches by political wives praising their husbands should ever be a nominating convention's "keynote address."

But this section of Melania's speech that seems to have been lifted from Michelle Obama is where I think the "controversy" misses the point:

"From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect."

She says that these are the values she learned. I give her (or rather, her speech-writers) some credit for being careful not to claim these are her husband's values, because they obviously are not.

Donald Trump didn't have to work hard in life: he was born into great wealth.

Donald Trump's word is not his bond, and he doesn't keep his promises. A gaggle of ex-wives, former investors, and bankruptcy creditors prove that.

Donald Trump doesn't treat people with respect. That assertion would be so manifestly false as to verge on clinical insanity.

The things Melania said about her husband are indeed "common values" we all look for in those we consider "good people." The real point is that none of them are true of Donald Trump.

Christian political correctness

Today begins a political convention which will nominate Donald Trump for America's leader.

The faction nominating him is undeterred by the many things Trump has said that reveal his heart.

The American Church, which has followed that faction for a generation and increasingly gives its public support to Trump, is undeterred by the many things he has said that reveal his heart.

Trump makes no secret of his arrogance and pride: it's his signature persona, and he embraces it with gusto.

He makes no secret of his hatred for a raft of people, individuals and groups. It's the signature theme of his ranting speeches: and we probably have to believe some part of his hatred is honest, and not just for effect.

He loves to make pronouncements that invite people to fear a raft of individuals and groups, inside and outside America, especially "outsiders" like Mexicans and Muslims. It's his most popular rhetoric, and his most effective political tool: whom his listeners fear, they can easily be persuaded to hate. Fearful, hate-filled people are easily manipulated.

People's actions tell us everything we need to know about their spirit. But Trump (nothing if not voluble) has also explicitly stated his religious thinking: "Why do I have to repent or ask for forgiveness, if I am not making mistakes ?"

Scriptures' word on Trump's "religious" thinking is that "if we say that we have not sinned, we make God a liar..." (I John 1:10).

A lot of people say they love Trump because he's not afraid to be "anti-P.C."

What about the Church ?

If the Church sees things in spiritual reality, as God does: if we discern between good and evil by devotion to scripture, and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit:

can the Church not see that Trump's deeds are evil ?

Does the Body of Christ have no authority to speak against those evil deeds ?

Or does the Church' "political correctness" keep it from speaking truth ?

SHAME !!! on the American Church.