Patrick Hawthorne's "Has the Separation Begun ?"

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Sometimes it takes me a loooooong time to see simple things.  Sometimes I even need some help.

Patrick Hawthorne, a blogger in Shreveport whom I sometimes read, helped me with this one in his post "Has the Separation Begun ?" (https://servinggrace.com/2017/10/13/has-the-separation-begun/)

Even so, I had to read it twice to get it: once last year when he posted it, and then this week, when God again (after He'd given me  a year's more instruction) highlighted it again.

Patrick's scripture was Ephesians 5:27: “…that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.”

Actually, I should say Patrick's mom helped me, as she helped him, to an understanding.  When he was discussing that scripture with her, she (paraphrased) asked him, “Did you know that the spots and blemishes of the Church are people?" and directed him to II Peter 2:12-13:

“But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you..."

When the Church is presented to Jesus as His Bride, she will have no spots or wrinkles: the corrupt and deceived people who had attached themselves to the Church will have been removed.

I can't think of any scriptures that more clearly point to the "dividing" of the Church that God's had me meditating on.  The spots and blemishes are people currently in the Church, who will be removed from the Church.  The people of the Church will be divided: some will stay, and some will go.

In his graciousness, I doubt God will drive out those who leave, anymore than He condemns people to hell.  As C.S. Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce, "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it."

I have to think the "spots and blemishes" God removes from the Church will similarly choose it for themselves.  I have to think the evil-speaking, corrupt, carousers and deceivers, the unrighteous who presently infest the Church will...by God's will, and with His affirmation...willfully separate themselves from the Church.

So it was in Jesus' earthly ministry: He had to deal with people who were "spots and blemishes" among those "who had believed Him" (John 8:31-59).  There was no angry command that they "Get out!!," and no need for the whip He had used earlier on the money-changers in the Temple.  He simply revealed what was in their own hearts, for that was what made them "spots and blemishes."

Jesus said their hearts showed satan was their father: that their love of lies and murder was proof they were satan's own  (v. 44).  By the end of the conversation, they had angrily rejected Him, rained insults on Him, and were ready to kill Him...which was exactly what He'd said was in their hearts.

Ideally, those who who are the "spots and blemishes" on the Church today would similarly find themselves uncomfortable (at the very the least) among people who follow Jesus because they love Him and want to hear His words.  When He says that satan is "the father of lies" and "the murderer," and that those who are satan's children show it by their love satan's ways, how could they not realize He sees, and is revealing, their hearts ?  Doesn't Jesus' word, like His sight, still pierce to men's hearts ?

But the "spots and blemishes" among us feel entirely comfortable in today's political "Church."  Why should they leave ? Their love for lies and murder (which Jesus defines in Matthew 5:21-2 as angry contempt for others) are acceptable among many: are indeed laudable marks of loyalty to the liars and murderers whom the political "Church" follows.

The people whom Jesus recognized as "spots and blemishes" will be cleansed from the Church of which He is the Head.  I can only expect...and hope...that a "Church" like today's in America, so completely turned from Christ that it embraces the ways of the enemy, is due a very great cleansing.

I hope any readers who have been carried by their politics into satan's anti-Church will examine their hearts, and turn back to the Church God is preparing His Son, holy, and without blemish.

"He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming quickly.'  Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."
(Revelation 22:20.) 

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

The Counsel of the Wicked

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
Nor stand in the way of sinners,
Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!     (Psalms 1:1)

Tariq Aziz was Foreign Minister for Saddam Hussein.  He was spokesman for Iraq's dictator, and represented him at the U.N. and in meetings with other nations.  His thoughts and his words were always, reliably, exactly those of his boss.

It amazed me when I learned that he was born and raised a Christian, and remained a member of that (in Iraq minority) faith all his life.

When I learned that about him, I remember thinking, "How could a Christian willingly serve such an evil man, repeating his lies and justifying his murders !?!?"

So my view of Sarah Huckaby Sanders had been formed long before I saw her directing a presidential press-conference.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Attacking Truth, Again . . .

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Was Jesus playing word-games when He said "...I AM...the Truth..." (John 14:6), or was He telling us Who He IS ?

If we believe Who Jesus IS, what does it tell us about those who daily ATTACK Truth, such as in this link:

"Truth Isn't Truth"

And what does it tell us about those who say they love Truth, but follow those who attack Truth ?

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Vietnam Yet Again: Thinking Honestly

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Still thinking, thinking again, about Vietnam...thinking how much it still reveals about people, in their views of the war.

I'd asked a brother at church, who'd been in Vietnam, if he'd seen Ken Burns' documentary on the war.  He had, and said it focused too much on the Vietnamese, and on the Americans who protested the war, creating too much sympathy for them.

When people tell me things I find it hard to believe they believe, I usually listen quietly...because I'm too stunned to respond.  So I listened to him, as he continued with the claim I've heard many times: the protestors and the media made America lose the war.

I still find it incomprehensible that people believe that, or ever believed it.  That idea was put about by Richard Nixon, as his excuse to take any blame off himself for losing the war, simply because our part in the war (which he rightly saw as not a "victory") ended during his administration.  The historical record shows that Nixon had an abiding fear that he would be seen as "the first American President to lose a war:" he talked about that fear often, in public and (we know from the Watergate taps) in the privacy of the Oval Office.

Nixon shouldn't have worried.  There were many reasons the United States did not "win" the war in Vietnam: if by "win" we mean the United State stopping North Vietnam from reuniting the country under Communist rule.  None of those reasons originated with Nixon.

There were Vietnamese reasons America "lost" the war: the corruption of every South Vietnamese government the U.S. supported, for example, and Vietnamese nationalism.  There were American reasons: Robert McNamara later especially singled out the false "domino theory" thinking by which Presidents Kennedy and Johnson entered and conducted the war.

Nixon shouldn't have worried.  President Johnson and Robert McNamara, who'd had charge of conducting the war before him, had both privately come to the conclusion that the war couldn't be "won."  They were both aware that America was already "losing" the war when they turned it over to Nixon, so they could hardly have blamed him for the inevitable "defeat."

There's no honest reason to judge Richard Nixon "the first American President to lose a war," as he feared.  But the historical record shows that Nixon too, very early after he took charge of the war's conduct--if he didn't know it before--realized the war would not be "won," and could not be "won."  

So what should be our judgement, historical and moral, of a man willing that thousands of people die for no purpose but to protect his self-image ?

The claim that "the media and war-protesters caused America to lose the war" was likewise Nixon's hypocritical defense of his image.  Nixon knew, as did most of America, that the war would not and could not be "won:" but he needed a scapegoat to blame for the inevitable "defeat," lest he be seen as "the first American President who lost a war."

Nixon's reason for telling the lie is clear, and the historical evidence is clear that he knew it was a lie, when he told it.  What baffles me is why so many members of the "American public," the target of his deception, believed it.

What baffles me even more is why so many continue, long after Nixon's beyond telling them the lie, to deceive themselves to believe it ?  How do they do it ?  To believe that lie, people must convince themselves that except for "the media and anti-war protestors," the United States would have "won" the war in Vietnam: a premise that was in Nixon's time, and is even more clearly now, nothing short of delusion.

It all comes down to the same question I've wrestled with all my life: why do people believe a lie ?

The only answer I've ever been able to arrive at is "because they want to."

What seems to me the wisdom of that answer is that what a person most deeply wants shows who he most deeply is.  On Vietnam...or anything else...there are people who want to believe the truth, and people who want to believe a lie.

For anyone who takes seriously Jesus' identifying Himself as "The Truth" (John 14:6; and His identifying satan as "the father of lies" in John 8:44), what we want, truth or lie, is ultimately a spiritual question.  And it is the ultimate spiritual question.  Amen.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Any Takers ?

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

For anyone familiar with Revelation's scriptures about what the end-time's "man of lawlessness," or "anti-Christ," will do when he comes to power, this news-story should ring a bell.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45034092

I continue to doubt this current president could be the anti-Christ (though, as someone said, Christ is certainly "The Anti-Trump").  My understanding of scripture is that anti-Christ will be a highly intelligent and charming fellow.  I doubt the current president can change that much.

I doubt too that the current president will act on his whim-belief that Americans should present a photo-I.D. to make a purchase.  To do so, he'd have to admit they currently don't, and he's shown he's incapable of admitting he's ever been wrong in any of his assertions.  Ten angels swearing on the Bible would not convince him that Americans are not required to show I.D. to make every purchase, after he himself said they are.

His ordinary followers know his assertion is a lie; but they always choose to self-delude so they can believe his lies.  It will be interesting to see what they do.

Most of them are anti-immigrant anyway, so they may actually convince themselves it would be a good thing that everyone making a purchase be required to show I.D., as a means of weeding out the "illegals" among us.  To do so, they would have to admit the current president is wrong, and that no such requirement now exists.  But his followers have demonstrated they're capable of incredible mental gymnastics.  I'm sure if they had to admit he lied, so they could say he's right, they could do it.

But in the meantime, the current president has put the idea of requiring I.D. to buy and sell (Revelation 13:16,17) out there.  It's now in people's minds, and in public discourse, available for any future deceiving "leader" to pick up on, and put into law.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Avoiding the "Christian" Politics Deception

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

My biggest problem in blogging is that I over-analyze things: over-analyze most frequently where they come from, since I'm convinced the origins of ideas, as well as of people, gives us a unique insight into what they are.

That becomes a problem when overly-analyzing takes the edge, and the point, off an observation.
So I've consciously refrained from doing so with this observation, and just saying it.

The only protection we have against being deceived by "Christian" politics and politicians is being a radically committed Christian ourselves.  The real thing is the only thing that reveals the false.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Self-Exam Time: Director's Cut

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

I have absolutely no artistic ability: but there's one story about a famous artist...I think it was James McNeill Whistler...that I identify with.

Amateur artists often visit major art museums, bringing their own paints to practice copying a masterpiece that's on display.  The guard thought nothing of the visitor carrying a set of paints who'd posted himself in front of one of Whistler's works, and was studying it closely.  But then the visitor began to add his own brush-strokes to the masterpiece !  The horrified guard quickly nabbed the vandal, and called police.

Police determined that the vandal was James McNeill Whistler...who was unsatisfied with his painting on display, and decided to improve it with a touch-up.

I tend to be wordy, mostly by going into the full background of whatever I'm writing about.  That's the historian in me.  I very strongly believe that "things are the way they are because they got that way;" and that the only way to really understand how things are is to know the details of how they "got that way."

Many of my posts are long, convoluted, wordy ones.  Sometimes even I lose interest halfway through the telling of how things got that way, long before I get anywhere near "how things are:"...which is usually my point.
 
That's what happened with this post.  So a short while after I'd "finished" it, I decided to touch it up.

Usually a "Director's Cut" is one in which additional material is added to the completed work, to improve it.  This "Director's Cut," however actually cuts material from the completed work...and in my opinion, improves it, by getting to the point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of us quickly pick up on what is another person's primary motivation (or as we Christians say, a person's "heart").  I remember the day my brother visited me, and I showed him my new office, and introduced him to my new partner.  When the two of us went to lunch afterwards, the first thing my brother said was, "Man, Rob is all about money, isn't he ?"

My brother had spoken to Rob for less than an hour, and he exactly knew Rob's heart.

So I take it seriously when someone tells me my views of things are all about my politics.  If you hope to be truthful with yourself, you have to listen to what other people say about you. 
Sometimes other people tell you truth that you can't see, or won’t admit, about yourself.

It is (or should be) a given that every Christian wants truth.  Jesus said "I AM...The Truth" (John 14:6): so it's hard to believe anyone is Christian except they love The Truth.  That has to include even (especially) the unflattering truth about oneself.

That's my understanding too of scripture's repeated commands that we honestly and rigorously examine ourselves: our own works (Galatians 6:4), if we are "in the faith" (II Corinthians 13:5), if we are taking communion in "an unworthy manner" (I Cornthians 11:27-30).

Believing Who Jesus says He IS, and what scripture commands; I pay attention to what other people say about me, and examine myself to see if it's true.  So I test myself, to see if my view of things is all about "my politics." 

It's always "conservative" family and friends who say so: and insofar as they mean all my views are from a "politics" the opposite of theirs, I'd agree that's a fair characterization.

The actual political philosophy called conservatism is not at issue.  If it were, I'd have some points of agreement with "conservatives:" but I find they actually have very few points of honest agreement with conservative philosophy whatever.  Which is why I always denote them as "conservatives:" false, pretend, wannabe conservatives.

 (There's even greater hypocrisy when some call themselves "Christian conservatives:"
but the subject here is politics.) 

What my "conservative" family and friends mean by that label is more a tribal identifier ("us") than anything political.  And again, I'll happily agree I am not a member of their tribe.  But if they choose to see my views as solely about my "politics," it seems I should test my views in those terms.

So I did, choosing the most "un-conservative" politician I could think of, indeed a self-professed socialist.  This was the test:

If Bernie Sanders spewed lies upon lies, in everything he said, every day...if Bernie Sanders filled his twitter-account daily with violent outbursts of anger against other people...if Bernie Sanders stirred up his followers to despise and hate people he didn't like...

would I view Bernie Sanders as a good man, an honest man...a man Christians should follow ?

If Bernie Sanders did the same things the current president does...and if I adored Bernie Sanders, but criticize the current president for doing those same things...that would definitely prove my views were all about, solely about, "my politics."  It would also prove me a complete hypocrite.

But my view is that Jesus says liars and haters are children of satan (John 8:44).  If Bernie Sanders was a liar and hater, I'd take it on Jesus' word that he was a child of satan, and I'd warn other Christians not to have anything to do with him...same view I have of the current president.

I think it might be well that "conservatives" (especially "Christian conservatives") test themselves the same way, to see if their own views are all about their "politics."  They are, after all, under the same scriptural commands I am to love truth, and to examine themselves.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Repentance and Franklin Graham

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

I don't know how many times a year Franklin Graham preaches: maybe 150-200 messages, all over the world ?

In his lifetime I have to imagine he's preached the gospel message of repentance to hundreds of millions of people, in person, on radio, on T.V., in all the inhabited parts of the earth.

For an evangelist, of course, repentance is exactly the right message.  Repentance is the first step toward following Jesus: without looking honestly at all your wrong deeds and wrong ways, and turning away from them, no one can truthfully follow Jesus.

I wonder then if Franklin Graham believes in repentance.  He certainly knows what it is.  And if anyone knows how central repentance is to living in Christ, we'd have to say he know that, in and out.

Does Franklin Graham believe repentance is something he needs to do ?  I doubt he'd say or believe (as some church-goers seem to) that he repented on some specific date...and that took care of it.  I'm sure Franklin Graham knows that living in Jesus is a continuing process: I'm sure he knows that human beings continue flawed, foolish, rebellious, conniving, hypocritical, and self-deluded, in greater or lesser degree, every day of their lives.

I'm fairly confident that Franklin Graham is enough of an expert on the Biblical teaching about repentance to know that repentance has to be a daily discipline, a lifestyle, in every Christian's life.  I'm sure he's honest enough to realize that includes himself; and I'm sure he probably practices daily repentance in his own life.

So I have to wonder why he's never repented his endorsement of this current destructive president during the last election: or of appearing at last year's inauguration to tell the world the current president is "God's man:" or of his continuing support for the current president's violent foolishness, such as his threat to incinerate every North Korean in a nuclear attack ?

I have to believe Franklin Graham, of all people, must know that no one whose heart is continually filled with lies and murder (which Jesus defines as hateful contempt for others, in Matthew 5:21-22) is "God's man."  I'm sure he knows the scripture where Jesus said such a person shows he is satan's child (John 8:44).

Has Franklin Graham, the world's foremost preacher of repentance, confronted our current president with his need to repent all that ?   I of course have no way of knowing the answer to that question, one way or the other, with any certainty.  It seems unlikely, however, that anyone who'd told a sinner he needed to repent would thereafter approve and encourage him in his evil deeds.

Has Franklin Graham, the world's foremost preacher of repentance, looked at his own actions honestly; questioned if his public endorsement of a liar and murderer as "God's man" might have been wrong...and might have led millions who trust his spiritual leadership to revere and follow a person of the enemy's spirit ?

It seems a question that any Christian of rigorous honesty should ask himself, in his self-examination.  It seems a very great sin that any Christian should whole-heartily repent of.

Franklin Graham, like everyone else, will have to examine his own need for repentance.  He's preached that message often enough we have to presume he knows it.  But so does every other Christian: knowing about and doing repentance is the only way anyone has ever become a follower of Jesus, so we all have the necessary experiential knowledge.

So we all have the same question to ask ourselves in self-examination: have we obeyed God, or disobeyed Him, in what He commands of us ?  If we've disobeyed (and anyone honest with himself will sometimes have to admit he's missed God's mark), we have to choose...again, continuingly...whether or not we will confess and heartily repent our failing.

In this day, the great questions thrust on American Christians are whether God wishes us to follow and revere men of satan's character...and does He want His people to join themselves to liars and murderers, encourage them in their ways, and approve and support their evil-doing ?

It seems beyond incredible to me that Christians should EVER have to examine themselves on those self-evident questions: but the accelerating corruption of the times and the world has made it so.  And the "witness" of so many American Christians is corruptly affirmative to those questions that it's become controversial to even raise them to Christians.

(Note: those questions have become politically controversial...never Biblically controversial.)

But I hope some in the American Church will...in their secret heart, if not in public...consider those questions.  Anyone honest enough to ask themselves those questions, probably has the integrity to answer them honestly: and the courage to repent, if need be.

Two scriptures come to mind, to encourage anyone who will honestly self-examine::

"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is...to keep oneself unstained by the world."     --  James 1:27

"Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves."     --  Romans 14:22


                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Why No Repentance ?

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

It seems a valid question: why is there not a wave of repentance sweeping over the American Church ?

Some 80% of American "Evangelicals" voted for Donald Trump.  That's tens of millions of professed Christians.  Their votes were the margin by which Donald Trump became president.

Yet there are virtually no American "Evangelicals" confessing their sin to God, and asking for forgiveness.  I can only think of two reasons.

That American "Evangelicals" and "conservatives" think the president they chose for America is doing good for our country and people.

I've heard some delusional people say that.  But I doubt anyone with commonsense and a basic moral concept of "good"...which should include most Christians...could say so.

Or perhaps pro-Trump "Evangelicals" don't really believe Jesus is Lord of their political opinions and actions; that politics is somehow the one human activity exempt from His moral law and judgement of good and evil.

If "Evangelicals" believe that...how are they Christians at all ?

Why are there not millions of American "Evangelicals" bitterly repenting before God ?  The only reasons I can see are self-delusion, or unbelief.

Which, if either, is more "Christian" ?

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Faith Without Works Is Dead:

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

I think it's self-proclaimed "Calvinists" who get rabid about faith being more central to Christianity than "works."  What I've read of John Calvin's Institutes, he seems much truer to scripture than those who call their teachings with his name.

But it raises the question why some self-identify pre-eminently as followers of a particular man's interpretation of Christ's teachings.  Doing so seems to effectually make "their" man's interpretation of greater importance than Christ's teaching.  I have to think that's exactly the sort of thing Jesus had in mind when he rebuked His listeners for following the "traditions of men" (for example in Mark 7:8, where He calls them "hypocrites" for doing so).  What is more a "tradition of men" than interpretations identified by mens' names ?

It's certainly not just "Calvinists" who fall into that trap.  Wesleyans are another example; who, if I remember right, are either strongly pro-Arminian or strongly anti-Arminian...and so position themselves as a second-generation human-interpreter doctrine.  There are others: and the map of such doctrines seems too tangled to make any sense of whatever.

Needless to say, controversies about those doctrines give satan tremendous opportunities to divide Christians, and set them at their brother' throats.  Satan doesn't miss the opportunity

But for anyone who becomes apoplectic at the title of this blog (probably chip-on-the-shoulder "Calvinists"), I'll just point out those words are taken from James' discussion of faith and works.  Dogmatic controversialists can (and do) work their heuristic sophistry on James 3:14-26 to "prove" that James meant the opposite of what his words say.  But I'm quoting his words because they seem to me to mean exactly what they say.

I quote James because I've been reading Jimmy Carter's most recent book, Faith, and one of his early chapters is "Demonstrating Our Faith."  His discussion of "faith" and "works" seems scriptural, and not at all about the supposed controversy.

Indeed, everything Carter has to say seems informed by his life of commonsense Christianity.  His life is what makes his words worth listening to; and no doubt some who read his book because they admire his life will gain insight into the faith he lives.

For most convinced Christians, what he says about faith is probably preaching to the choir.  But some of the quotations he uses to open each chapter contain striking insights.  Those he used for the chapter "Demonstrating Our Faith" particularly struck me.

Emil Brunner sums up James 3:14-26 better than anything I've ever read or heard: “There is no such thing as Christian faith apart from Christian conduct.”   Faith is real-world stuff: it's what we do, not a theological construct for controversialists in-fighting.

Karl Barth too put James' truth in terms of everyday reality: “You should read the Bible in one hand and your newspaper in the other.”  Faith is what we do in terms of daily reality.

I've said it before, many different ways.  I say it here in terms of living faith manifest in Christian conduct.  In 2018 America, there is a very prominent anti-"Church," a faithless body.  A body of people who claim to love Jesus, "The Truth," but instinctively follow and revere the lies of their politics and nationalism.

May God open their eyes.  And may they choose to see, when He does.