What is the difference between an ancient man calling a piece of wood a god and a modern man calling a biological man a woman? They are both a fabrication. The ancient may have been able to work out a pulley system to move the arms or head of his wooden idol but how different is that from injecting a hormone into a male breast so that it will lactate? Both are a fiction. Both are manipulations of reality.

Whatever we may think about an idol, foolish as it may be, we must not be in doubt about the infatuation that these chunks of metal and blocks of wood inspire in their worshipers. idols are precious to idolaters. What is more, idolaters are often witnesses for their idols, even though their witness proves their folly. In fact, idolatry is the epitome of sin lacking sense. We see that in the Scriptures. Just think about the description in Isaiah 44:12-17. The prophet tells us that a man plants a tree, he prunes it, cares for it and when it is tall enough, he cuts it down and cuts it in half. With one half he builds a fire. He cooks his food and warms himself with it. And he says, “Ah, I am warm; all is well!”
But with the other half of the log, he takes a chisel and shapes it. He measures it and uses a chalk like to make sure the lines are straight. He labors long like this even going without food and water using his strength to craft the wood and in the end the piece of wood looks like an image. The man sets up the image and then does the oddest thing, he bows down to the wood in worship and even prays to it saying, “Deliver me, for you are my god!
Now, anyone who hears that story from Isaiah is going to laugh because it sounds so utterly foolish.  In fact, people are wont to disparage the ancients for being primitive, underdeveloped, and lacking in understanding. But let’s wait just a minute. What if we were to ask one of those ancients about this story.  What might they say?
Well, we might be surprised at the sophistication of their answer. Take Psalm 135 as an example. There, in verses 16 and 17, the Psalmist explains the psychology of idolatry. He writes that idols have “mouths but cannot talk…eyes but cannot see…ears but cannot hear…noses but cannot smell, throats but cannot make a sound.” All very obvious observations. But notice verse 18, “Those who make them become like them, so do all who trust in them.” What’s the point? Simply this, idolaters make their idols in their own image. The idolater has no instincts for God. He has no eyes with which to see him, no ears with which to hear him, and no mouth that he might praise him. Idolatry illustrates ignorance. Certainly, that is an answer steeped in reflection.
Now, what’s my point in bringing this to your notice?
Read More
Related Posts:

Whether Crane is a racist is not the issue. I don’t know Rep. Crane and I am not interested in defending him personally at this point. The issue is that too many politicians are answering their foolish colleagues according to their folly. No wonder those of us along for the ride feel as if we are going crazy on a ship of fools.

As of late, there was a scuffle in the House because Rep. Eli Crane from Arizona used the term “colored people” instead of “people of color.” Rep. Joyce Beatty (OH) responded immediately “asking for unanimous consent to take down the words of (sic) referring to me or any of my colleagues as colored people.”[1] Shortly thereafter, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett took to Twitter, “Rep. Eli Crane just referred to Black service members as ‘colored people’. You can’t make this up. This is who these people are, and who they’ve always been.” After seeing the exchange and reading about the fallout I couldn’t help but wonder why.  Let me pose a simple question. Was Rep. Crane’s use of “colored” as a descriptor a moral failure?
This is not a hard question to answer. If the use of the term were a moral failure, then the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People or the NAACP would have changed their name long ago. Instead, they defended their use of it saying,
Times change and terms change. Racial designations go through phases; at one time Negro was accepted, at an earlier time colored and so on. This organization has been in existence for 80 years and the initials NAACP are part of the American vocabulary, firmly embedded in the national consciousness, and we feel it would not be to our benefit to change our name.[2]

Clearly, the NAACP is not so insensitive to the people they represent so as to leave a morally offensive moniker in place for the simple reason of name recognition. In other words, they might prefer to be called the NAAPC but name recognition outweighs any other concern.
But let’s ask the obvious. Why is the moniker “people of color” acceptable but “colored people” not? Let’s put our grammatical caps on for a minute. The adjective “colored” in “colored people” expresses the same relationship as the possessive in “people of color.” This is not too difficult when you think about it in relation to other examples.  A moment of silence is a silent moment. An honor code is a code of honor. A battle plan is a plan of battle.  So, what’s the difference? Really. What is the difference between “colored people” and “people of color?” This is not a harangue but a legitimate question. If the word is morally offensive, then by all means, let’s not use it.
Some might say that it is. For example, it might be argued that the phrase is like the N-word and therefore should not be used.  Not all slang is appropriate or welcome and so the N-word has been expunged from public use, at least in some spheres.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Cambridge Dictionary and Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary are not the standard…their authority is not final. But there is a book which is the final authority. It’s God’s book, the Bible.

Following the fall of the Cambridge Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary has slipped from the same cultural precipice only to dashed on the blunt rocks of wokeness below.  The evidence? A secondary definition has been added to define the word female. Now, claims the book that is supposed to normalize our use of language, the word female may mean, “having a gender identity that is the opposite of male.”[1] Of course, the words “gender identity” have a hyper-link.  Click and you will be treated to a definition of the concept. And according to Merriam-Webster Online, this is “a person’s internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female.”[2] Now, since the words “female” and “gender identity” are linked in this cultural standard, let’s use it as a map down this rabbit hole where, like Alice, we will likely be shrunk, stretched, scratched and stuffed into a tea pot before we make it out!
The key words in Merriam-Webster’s Online definition of “gender identity” are “a person’s internal sense.” Let’s take this phrase apart. Internal has several definitions in the Merriam-Webster online edition but not all of them are equally relevant. For example, the first definition is “existing or situated within the limits or surface of something” and an example given for such a thing is that which is inside the limits of the body. However, the second definition is “existing within the mind,” that is, in the thought life of a person. So, the word internal can mean either in the body or in the mind. But since the transgendered person feels that they are in the wrong body the “internal” referenced in the phrase “internal sense” must be “in the mind” or situated in the limits of one’s thinking.
Now, what about “sense”? Well, the Online Dictionary gives several definitions. However, all of them have something to do with either sense perception or a “conscious awareness or rationality.” Again, these definitions have to do with body or mind. Now, those definitions that connect sense with sense perception acknowledge that humans are fitted to the world around them. We see a friend and recognize him as such. We touch a hot stove and pull our hands away. We smell coffee in the morning and know that someone loves us. Senses connect us to the world.
The transgendered person understands this fitted-ness, but thinks it is wrong. Not because the body doesn’t fit the world, it certainly does, but it doesn’t fit their thinking. In other words, a person prior to transition can still recognize friends, smell coffee, and know the oven is hot. Their body fits the world around them. So, apparently the word “sense” in the definition of gender-identity has something to do with “conscious awareness or rationality.” Once again, the problem is in the mind.
Read More
Related Posts:

At the beginning of the prophecy, Edom is high and lifted-up while foreigners enter Israel’s gates and carry off her wealth (v. 11). But a reversal is coming! Mount Zion shall gain ascendency and Mount Esau shall be stubble. The ascendency of Israel is described in terms of possession. They will possess Philistia, Edom, Phoenicia, Ephraim, Samaria, Gilead, and the Negev – in other words, every nation will belong to God’s people! 

Obadiah is a neglected text in the Old Testament. It is a short text, weighing in at twenty-one verses. A lightweight for sure. However, this is probably not the reason for its neglect. No, neglect likely stems from its subject matter. It is a book about Edom. You heard me right, Edom, the posterity of Esau (Gen. 25:19ff). A quick consult of various commentaries reveals the same basic outline. This outline is from Leslie Allen’s commentary in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Allen, 142):
The Destruction of Edom (vv. 2-9)
The Wrongdoing of Edom (vv. 10-14)
Edom on the Day of Yahweh (vv. 15-21)
The point is clear, Obadiah has Edom on the mind.  And if you’re like me, the posterity of Esau doesn’t really excite you. In fact, Allen describes Obadiah as “hardly a presentation of God’s whole counsel, even by OT standards” (Allen, 137). However, despite being about Edom, Obadiah teaches us, albeit briefly, about the kingdom of God.
The Kingdom of God is an Opposed Kingdom
According to Obadiah, Edom is representative of all the nations, which seems to find its parallel in Amos 9:12 where the “remnant of Edom” is synonymous with “all the nations.” When one thinks of Esau, the father of Edom, as the offspring that lives in rebellion against God, the imagery is fitting. This nation is full of pride toward self (v. 3) and animosity toward their brother Jacob (v. 10). The one nation of Edom describes them all.
This rivalry between Esau and Israel is heightened further by Obadiah’s descriptions of the two. The prophet speaks of Mount Zion (vv. 17, 21) and Mount Esau (vv. 8, 9, 21).
Read More
Related Posts:

Consider chapter three of Hebrews. In verse 12, the preacher has to say some hard things to some in the congregation. He must warn them of having an “unbelieving heart” which could lead them to “fall away from the living God.” But notice how he begins the verse. He writes, “Take care, brothers…” Brothers. He is charitable toward these people who are poised to desert the Faith. He has not prejudged them but instead stands ready to minister to them. But how is he able to do such a thing?

The book of Hebrews is an incredibly valuable book. It is a superb theological text. Of course, it’s not a complete theology, but the theology in the book is impeccable.  For example, in the first three verses of the first chapter, we learn that the Son of God shares in the effulgence of God’s glory because He too is God but, as Son, He is the exact representation of the Father and is therefore a different person. A wonderful and foundational text for building a Trinitarian theology. What is more, Hebrews teaches us about the priesthood of Christ and all that means for our salvation. It is theologically rich.   But this sermon is also packed full of pastoral lessons.
Before I mention one of those lessons, allow me to remind you of the problem. The context may deepen the impact of the lesson. Put bluntly, people were leaving the church at Rome. I don’t mean that they were leaving the First Reformed Church of Rome and going to the Second Reformed Church of Rome. No, these people were thinking seriously about leaving the Faith. They were poised to return to Judaism. That statement almost rolls off the proverbial tongue, but it shouldn’t. These people were flirting, even dating, apostasy. Some had ceased attending worship (Hebrews 10:25). The people who remained were dull of hearing and spiritually sluggish (Hebrews 5:11; 6:12). By now, these people should have been teachers but instead they were getting more out of their first grader’s church school material!
As a minister, it would be easy to think the worst of these people and act in a way unbecoming of the Lord’s Servant, who ought to be gentle, not quarrelsome, and patient to the point of enduring evil while correcting opponents. It would be far simpler to declare these spiritual vagrants as a lost cause and to invest the remainder of one’s spiritual capital in the remnant of the congregation.
Read More
Related Posts:

The church has a culture and your feeling of “not being quite at home” is because you are trying to live independently and according to your own fashion. The church has a rhythm and a flow. It has patterns and practices and those who embrace them will feel cared for and safe. But those who remain aloof will not experience those blessings.

In Edith Wharton’s, The Age of Innocence, Newland Archer, the young man set in the ways of old New York, has a conversation with Countess Ellen Olenska, who has recently returned from Europe after leaving her wealthy husband for his many affairs. Olenska doesn’t fit into old New York for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is, she is unfamiliar with the customs of her new environment.
At one point, early in the novel, Archer and Ellen have a conversation. Archer speaks according to the form and fashion of the day while Ellen is free and full of candor.  At one point, Ellen does not understand why her house, situated on a respectable street, is not good enough, to which Archer replies, “It’s not fashionable.” This produces a striking and revealing reply from Ellen, “Fashionable! Do you all think so much of that? Why not make one’s own fashions? But I suppose I’ve lived too independently; at any rate, I want to do what you all do – I want to feel cared for and safe.”
I love the old literature for lines like these. Authors think deeply about the human condition and often draw insights that are pastoral in nature. For example, consider Ellen’s statement, “Why not make one’s own fashion?” In 1920 Wharton could only dream of what Sinatra would sing in 1969. “My Way” or “one’s own fashion” seems like the Adamic desire of the human heart. But even that desire understands that such a thing leads to loneliness and insecurity. In other words, fallen people want their independence so long as others are independent with them.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Psalms of Ascent are a reminder of what we possess in Christ.  So, let us take up these Psalms.  Let us read and remember that Christ built His house, laying Himself as the chief cornerstone.  What is more, each of us are living stones situated one beside another creating a beautiful house temple to His glory. Therefore, let each psalm take us on a pilgrimage to our Christ.  And there let us be glad and rejoice for we are safe in Him who is our God!

The Psalms of Ascent is a collection of Psalms in the Psalter.  There are other collection or groupings of Psalms. This collection is not unique in that sense.  However, this collection was a well-worn collection.  This dog-eared collection was taken by pilgrims to Jerusalem three times per year on their pilgrimage, hence the title, Psalms of Ascent. These pilgrims were going up to Jerusalem! Some have viewed the 15 Psalms that make up this collection (Psalms 120-134) as the fifteen steps leading up to the temple in Jerusalem.[1]
What is more, this series of Psalms is finely structured.  Psalm 127 is the middle Psalm leaving seven on either side.  This middle Psalm is the only one in the collection written by Solomon.  It is as familiar as it is loved. This is the Psalm that reminds us that “unless the Lord builds the house, those how build labor in vain.” Advice Solomon himself should have paid close attention to during his reign.  Yet, the Psalm drives us beyond Solomon to think of Christ.
Read More
Related Posts:

The shadow of totalitarianism hangs over our country today.  But how should Christians respond?  In a way that is hopefully predictable.  We should respond with the gospel. We should take our resolute stand upon it. 

Hannah Arendt was a political philosopher.  She was the author of several books and was professor at New School for Social Research and was a visiting Fellow of the committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago. I have been reading her 1951 book titled, The Origins of Totalitarianism.  It should be required reading for citizens of the United States. The lessons are as profound as they are simple. For instance, Arendt points up two illusions that plague democratically ruled countries. First, she contends that people believe that those actively involved in the government are in sympathy with that form of government. And second, the masses of people who are not involved are neutral and don’t really matter. These are two lessons we would have done well to learn long ago.
Now, among the many things I have learned while reading Arendt, I want to share one from which I think the church can benefit. It is the lesson on individualism. Had you asked me how totalitarianism succeeds before I read Arendt, I might have said that totalitarian governments flourish because of their use of propaganda. I was wrong. According to Arendt, totalitarian movements are mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals.[1] Earlier she wrote, “social atomization and extreme individualization preceded the mass movements.”[2] And “The truth is that the masses grew out of the fragments of a highly atomized society…”[3]
Let’s think about this for a minute.  What does Arendt mean by “masses”?  The term applies, says Arendt,  when we deal with people “who either because of their sheer numbers, or indifference, or a combination of both, cannot be integrated into any organization based on common interest, into political parties or municipal governments or professional organizations or trade unions.”[4] These people, writes Arendt, exist in every country and are characterized by their political indifference and their scarcity at the polls.[5] Though these people are in a “group” loosely defined by their indifference they are by description self-centered.  They would never lay down their life for this group. They would not suffer for this group. They are self-interested.  It is not hard to see these as the lost sheep of which Jesus often spoke (Matthew 18:10-14).
Read More
Related Posts:

God is certainly bigger than we can possibly imagine.  Theologians call that bigness incomprehensibility.  What is more, the practical nature of this doctrine cannot be overestimated. The finite cannot contain the infinite means more than God’s knowledge is different from ours. It means that His wisdom and goodness are beyond us. Any time we are tempted to think that things are not as they ought to be we need to check our finitude. 

High school students love biology class for one simple reason. They get to dissect frogs, worms and other once living things. In addition to grossing out their weak stomached classmates they also learn a thing or two.  They learn things not otherwise gleaned if the subject of dissection were still living.  The student gets to look at the frog’s internals. He can see what the stomach, heart and lungs actually look like. His biology professor can point out things he would not otherwise know and see.
But all of this dissecting is an attempt to master the object of our study. It’s not enough to watch the frog hop, eat and even mate. The student needs to “get inside” in order to really master the topic of study. To speak proverbially, the student wants to know his topic inside and out.  How different it is for the theologian.
Yes, God is the object of our study. But he can never be mastered. It is impossible to dissect God like we would an animal.  An autopsy on God is impossible. In fact, the relationship that a human has to a frog is not even close to the same relationship that we have with God.  God is both the known object and the knowing subject! How different is that from a frog!  The object we are seeking to know actually knows us exhaustively! He is our master. In fact, the only way that we can know the object we desire to know is by His self-revelation.
Read More
Related Posts:

God is simple and my conviction is that people need to know Him. It is not enough to assume that people know about God nor will it do to throw out a few words like communicable and incommunicable every now and again. As believers we must delight in God. Actually, “must” doesn’t seem like an appropriate word. I should say that we have the privilege of delighting in God. We get to delight in Him!  Personally, I love to preach on the doctrine of God. My heart literally thrills in the moment to proclaim God in all of His splendor. 

Many years ago I was listening to Christian radio. It was in the early 90s and there was a lot of talk about self-esteem. In fact, if you were raised in the 80s and 90s you probably remember the government, media, books and lingo associated with the self-esteem craze.  Maybe you were small enough to have been read, The Lovables in the Kingdom of Self-Esteem!  Maybe your mom read to you over and over again the inside cover, “I am lovable! I am lovable! I am Lovable! By using these magical words, the gates of the Kingdom of Self-Esteem swing open for readers of all ages.”
Yes, well, I remember listening to a radio program during those self absorbed years.  A preacher was preaching, though I don’t remember who it was, and he said something I have never forgotten.  He said if you want to improve self-esteem in a person, I think he used self-worth then you must teach them about the person and nature of God. He said that the only way a person will have any sort of self-worth to speak of is if they understand who God is.  I agreed then and I agree now.
Every once in a while in my preaching I take my congregation to theology proper.  I want them to look at God. I have even preached on the simplicity of God from the pulpit.  Why?  Because God is simple and my conviction is that people need to know Him. It is not enough to assume that people know about God nor will it do to throw out a few words like communicable and incommunicable every now and again. As believers we must delight in God. Actually, “must” doesn’t seem like an appropriate word. I should say that we have the privilege of delighting in God.
Read More
Related Posts: