Winging It

Big Love

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Sun, 05 Apr 2026 10:00:00 +0000

We celebrate a unique and massive historical event on this day ... the Resurrection. Paul wrote, "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures ..." (1 Cor 15:3-4). Christ lived a sinless life, died for sins He didn't commit, and ... was raised on the third day. "Of first importance." The message is clear. "For this is the way God loved the world: He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). First and foremost, then, the Resurrection is a message ... of the magnitude of God's love for His own.

Now, don't get all mushy here. We're not talking about mere "warm affection." We're talking about a hard core, gritty, "death for another" kind of love. Jesus said, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). Paul wrote, "One will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die" (Rom 5:7) and clarified, "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). Note the motivation: a demonstration of "His own love toward us." Scripture says He gave us new life (Jesus's resurrected life--Rom 6:3-7) "because of His great love with which He loved us" (Eph 2:4). So great is this love that Paul prays for the spiritual strength in believers so they "may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God" (Eph 3:18-19). His love surpasses knowledge.

I hope, as you go about your Easter festivities, it isn't "Easter." I hope it's "Resurrection Sunday," a celebration of a kind of love not found in humans but only in God and in the love that God has "poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us" (Rom 5:5). Not just "warm affection" ... big love that exceeds our understanding even as we experience it richly in salvation and His Holy Spirit in us. We love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). We're supposed to love as He loved us (John 13:34). It's a really big love.

News Weakly - 4/4/2026

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Sat, 04 Apr 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Filed Under "Stupid Americans"
The weekend brought us "huge crowds" of "No Kings" protests across the U.S. and Europe. I titled this with "Stupid Americans" because ... we don't have a king. (Europe wouldn't understand.) The legislative and judicial branches still block our president. (We call it "checks and balances" and it's working.) Trump is doing things that are "edgy," but not original. Other presidents have done the same kinds of things. His rhetoric is, perhaps, "emperor-like," but he's no king. Hey ... I guess the protests worked! (end sarcasm). (Okay ... only joking. I never actually end my sarcasm.) (And ... please ... don't read this in defense of Trump. I'm just pointing out the foolishness of the "king" claim.)

Mixed Messages
Two unconnected stories ... one connected theme. First, Spain closed airspace to the U.S. military and blocked access to shared bases over the Iran conflict. Sure, we're still allies ... just not welcome. A mixed message. In an unrelated story, Washington Governor Ferguson signed a "millionaires' tax" into law. Again, the message is clear. "We don't like the rich and we can probably do without you here. Ironically, Ferguson is reported to be worth $5 million himself. (Mind you ... Washington has no state tax on wages ... until now.) So ... they need the business and income the rich bring ... but would like to penalize them for it. Another mixed message.

Puny King
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States assures anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen at birth. That hasn't changed ... and, yet, Trump is trying to change it. Not with a constitutional amendment, but on command. He's ... miffed that the Supreme Court seems inclined to rule as every Supreme Court prior has ruled on the question for "historical, textual, and practical" reasons. Trump actually attended the first session ... literally with a front row seat ... to watch the repeated message that we have no king in America play out for the public ... again. In the Avengers movie, the Hulk beats up Loki, then walks away, saying, "Puny god." I'd say Trump is a "puny king" if that's what he claims to be. (Oh, and, Mr. President ... we aren't the only country in the world with this birthright law. There are over 30 more.)

Your Best Source for Fake News
How did he not see this coming? The Bee helpfully points out how stupid Judas Iscariot was for dipping bread with Jesus right after Jesus told them His betrayer was the one who dipped his bread with Jesus. While everyone else was saying, "Is it I?", Judas was answering with an obvious, "Yes! It's me!" In other news, Trump was the first sitting president to attend a Supreme Court hearing this week. What you may not know is he did it disguised as Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sneaky, eh? And, finally, this story about a scientist who has come up with a revolutionary device to give kids exercise by providing them with a bicycle that uses pedals for power rather than electric motors. Sheer genius! Why didn't we think of that earlier? (As an almost completely sidenote, I coined a new phrase this week. "He's a genus!!" It means, "He's one of a kind." On par with my normal bad "Dad jokes," I suppose.)

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

Good What Day??

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Tradition is pretty heavy and pretty lengthy on the subject of Good Friday (an interesting enigma calling the illegal murder of the Son of God "good" ... and knowing it was). Everyone knows Jesus died on Friday. But ... did He? What do we know and why even ask?

Here's what we know for certain. Jesus rose "after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (Matt 28:1). A Sunday morning resurrection isn't just tradition ... it's biblically explicit. Good. Nailed that one down. We know that they had to bury Him quickly because "it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath" (Mark 15:42). And, of course, as we all know, the "Sabbath" is Saturday, so ... we conclude it was Friday ... but ... is it? As it turns out, during Passover, the first day of Unleavened Bread is also a Sabbath (called a "High Sabbath"). So ... it may not have been Friday. It just had to be the day before a Sabbath. And, historically, it might be noteworthy that in AD 30, the first day of Unleavened Bread occurred on ... Thursday. That would make Friday a High Sabbath (John 19:31) and put 3 actual days between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. And Jesus said He would be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt 12:40).

Friday is the longstanding tradition for the Crucifixion, which aligns days of the week and events as we have them now. A "Thursday" view takes Jesus's words more literally. A "Wednesday" preference gives Him a full 72 hours in the grave. Both Thursday and Wednesday would seem to move events on our "Holy Week." "Palm Sunday," for instance, might be ... earlier. But, given John's "six days before the Passover" (John 12:1), that's not necessary. In Luke's version, the women who had come with Jesus watched where He was buried and "returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment" (Luke 23:55-56). In Mark's version, they bought spices "when the Sabbath was over" (Mark 16:1). Doesn't that require a Sabbath, a non-Sabbath, and a Sabbath? That would support a Wednesday crucifixion followed by a High Sabbath on Thursday, a non-Sabbath on Friday, and a standard Sabbath on Saturday. Or ... not ... if the spices they bought were on Sunday early for a "second treatment" as it were. All interesting conjecture.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. Here's what we know. Jesus fulfilled prophecy perfectly. Luke says it was the third day (Luke 24:7, 21). Paul wrote He was "raised on the third day" (1 Cor 15:4). That's how it happened. Luke and Paul were close to it and neither had a problem with when He died and when He rose being "three days" and fulfilling prophecy. We should also note that the Jewish mind didn't tell time like we do. In Jewish time reckoning, any part of a day counts as a whole day (e.g., Esther 4:16-5:1), so Friday ... Saturday ... Sunday count as three days. The whole "three days and three nights" is considered idiomatic and doesn't require a literal "three days and three nights." So ... in the end, it doesn't really make any difference. I just thought it was an interesting investigation worth considering.

Just Like Judas's Kiss

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 10:00:00 +0000

To this day, a "Judas" is someone who betrays under the guise of friendship. They get close, personal, even "affectionate," then they stab you in the back. The event was marked ... by a kiss (Luke 22:47-48). It wasn't just that Judas betrayed Jesus; he betrayed him with a sign of love and devotion while being disloyal. He betrayed Jesus through an affectionate gesture. And I ask myself ... do we do that?

I'm afraid we do. Like ... someone brings a problem to you and you tell them, "I'll pray for you" ... and don't ... a sign of concern while refusing to love. We sing worship songs with great passion while refusing to reconcile with someone we've wronged (Matt 5:23-24). We volunteer at church or give to Christian causes while ignoring clear sin in our lives. We use "Christian" as a ploy to gain trust or influence without having His character. We obey the commands that are easy while we refuse the commands that are hard. We treat Jesus like a consultant rather than as Lord.

I bet you could come up with many more examples. I know I have in my own life. It hurts. And when I see it in the light of "just like Judas's kiss," it cuts me deeper. Judas didn't renounce Jesus ... He approached Him and signaled love and loyalty. He offered closeness without surrender. I ask myself how much of what I'm doing too closely mimics Judas in the garden? How about you?

Those Darn Sheep and Goats

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 10:00:00 +0000

On that Tuesday after the Triumphal Entry, Jesus taught the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31–46). The parable is one of Jesus's most frequently quoted teachings—and also one of the most frequently misread. Much of the confusion comes from lifting the parable out of its context or assuming Jesus is giving a simple moral lesson. Several patterns of misunderstanding show up consistently.

Many readers assume Jesus is saying that people enter the kingdom because they fed the hungry, clothed the poor, or visited prisoners. This interpretation treats the parable as a checklist for earning eternal life. But this reading is obviously wrong because it contradicts Jesus's broader teaching on grace, because the parable's context points to something more specific, and because the primary teaching of the gospel is "saved by grace through faith apart from works." This is not a teaching on "saved by works" or "losing salvation if you don't help the poor."

A second major misunderstanding is assuming "the least of these" refers to all poor or marginalized people everywhere. While Scripture elsewhere commands compassion, this parable uses a more specific phrase: "the least of these my brothers." Clearly Jesus is referring not to the poor in general but to a particular group—His messengers or His people under persecution. It isn't a call for a "social gospel" (especially not as a means of salvation," but a call for changed lives that change how we love one another ... especially where "one another" refers to fellow believers (John 13:34-35).

Many assume this is a universal final judgment of every person who has ever lived. But some interpreters argue that Jesus is describing a specific judgment of the nations in a prophetic, end‑times context. I would argue it's a parable and isn't intended to refer to a specific "judgment event," but to God's general judgment of His people. They aren't "sheep" or "goats" because of what they do. They do what they do because they are either "sheep" or "goats." Like James, it's saying that living faith acts (James 2:14-22).

When the parable is reduced to "be nice to the poor," its deeper force is lost. Several themes emerge when read in context:

1. Identification with Jesus's people

Jesus so closely identifies with His followers—especially the vulnerable, persecuted, or marginalized—that how others treat them reveals their true allegiance.

2. Evidence, not cause, of righteousness

The sheep are not surprised because they earned salvation; they are surprised because their acts of mercy flowed naturally from who they were. Their compassion was the fruit of belonging to the King, not the price of admission.

3. A revelation of hidden loyalties

Just as sheep and goats look similar in dim light, the righteous and unrighteous may appear similar outwardly. The judgment reveals what was true all along.

Why is this parable so often misundersood?

A Preference for Rules: We prefer simple rules—"help the poor"—over complex eschatological teaching. We still tend to think of "saved by works" even while extolling "saved by faith apart from works." "Surely salvation must include some element of works … right?" The notion of "changed from within produces necessarily a change from without" just seems too difficult to take.
Cultural distance: We miss the significance of mixed flocks, the identity of "brothers," and the prophetic setting. We often fail to distinguish between "His sheep" and everyone else even though He clearly did (e.g., John 6:44-47; John 6:64-66; John 10:14-18; John 10:26-28; John 17:6-10).
Selective reading: The parable is often quoted without the surrounding chapters that frame it. Scripture must be read in context of itself and interpreted by Scripture and not personal preference.

When the parable is read within Matthew's narrative and Jesus's eschatological teaching, it becomes less about generic humanitarianism and more about how people respond to Jesus by how they treat His representatives—especially when doing so is costly. Do our actions demonstrate our new nature, or do they reflect the old nature? That's a critical question.

The Tuesday After the Triumphal Entry

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

The Tuesday after Jesus entered Jerusalem in that last week that ended in His crucifixion, Jesus was busy (Matt 21–25; Mark 11–13; Luke 20–21).

1. Returning to Jerusalem and teaching in the Temple

Jesus and the disciples come back into the city from Bethany. This is the day the disciples notice the withered fig tree (Mark 11:20–21), which becomes a lesson on faith and judgment.

2. A series of confrontations with religious leaders

Tuesday is the day when:

The chief priests, scribes, and elders challenge His authority.
The Pharisees try to trap Him with questions about paying taxes to Caesar.
The Sadducees challenge Him with a question about resurrection.
A scribe asks about the greatest commandment.

These exchanges expose the leaders’ motives and highlight Jesus’s wisdom and authority.

3. Teaching through parables of judgment

Jesus tells several parables aimed directly at Israel’s leadership:

The Two Sons
The Wicked Tenants
The Wedding Banquet

Each one intensifies the theme that Israel’s leaders have rejected God’s Messiah.

4. The denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees

Matthew 23 records Jesus’s “woes”—a blistering critique of hypocrisy, spiritual blindness, and religious showmanship. This is one of the most dramatic public confrontations of His ministry.

5. The Olivet Discourse

Leaving the temple, Jesus goes with His disciples to the Mount of Olives and delivers His longest prophetic teaching:

The destruction of the temple
Signs of the end
The coming of the Son of Man
Parables about readiness (Ten Virgins, Talents)
The final judgment (Sheep and Goats)

This discourse is the theological climax of Tuesday.

6. The plot to arrest Jesus intensifies

While Jesus teaches, the chief priests and elders meet to plan His arrest “by stealth” (Matthew 26:3–5). Judas’s arrangement with them likely occurs late Tuesday or early Wednesday.

Why Tuesday Matters

Tuesday is the last day Jesus teaches publicly. It’s the day:

His identity is unmistakably declared.
His opponents are fully exposed.
His prophetic mission is laid out in detail.
The countdown to the cross accelerates.

It’s a day of clarity, conflict, and final invitation.

I Didn't Know This

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Mon, 30 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Filed under "I didn't know this." Apparently, last year, the IRS reinterpreted the decades-old tax code that prohibits churches from direct political engagement. Can you imagine? In response to a lawsuit from a Christian media group and a couple of churches, the IRS has challenged the provision under the Johnson Amendment, arguing that it infringed upon the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Now ... churches are legally free to "speak their minds" on political matters inside their doors, so to speak. I mean, a pastor can tell his congregation from the pulpit, "You should vote for this candidate" freely. What churches can't do is make a public campaign of it. They can't spend money on it, form a political group under the church's auspices, start an advertising campaign ... that sort of thing. This is a major event, freeing pastors to follow God's leading in their preaching.

Having said that ... I'm not sure how much of that I think is relevant. Yes, when a government entity enforces sin on a society or a church, it can and should be addressed. Endorsing a political candidate? That seems less ... biblical than political. I think Christians are already more immersed in politics than Scripture and this might aggravate that condition. On the other hand, the government has had its hand on the church's mouth over this, holding the purse strings as it were ... very much like blackmail. In fact, I wrote about it here.It's interesting, though, because the ruling came and went so quietly. You see, because it was judicial and not legislative, it flew under the radar for the most part ... as if they didn't want us to know about it. No ... that can't be.

A Psalm for Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Sun, 29 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

The Psalms have been a part of worship for true believers for centuries. There was a time in the Church when the only allowable songs were the Psalms. Isaac Watts changed all that. As a youth he told his father, "These psalms we sing in church every Sunday are boring." His father told him, "If you think you can do better, write some songs." And he did. He rewrote Psalms and introduced non-biblical hymns to the Church. During his lifetime he wrote over 600 hymns and poems. I'm not suggesting it was a bad thing. After all, the Scriptures say to teach one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. But in our haste to move to new stuff, it's dangerous, I think, to forget about the original worship songs. After all, these are God breathed.

With that in mind, then, today's entry will be a psalm. Maybe you can keep it with you today and savor it while you worship the Lord. Without further comment, then, here is Psalm 92.

¹ It is good to give thanks to the LORD And to sing praises to Your name, O Most High;
² To declare Your lovingkindness in the morning And Your faithfulness by night,
³ With the ten-stringed lute and with the harp, With resounding music upon the lyre.
⁴ For You, O LORD, have made me glad by what You have done, I will sing for joy at the works of Your hands.
⁵ How great are Your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep.
⁶ A senseless man has no knowledge, Nor does a stupid man understand this:
⁷ That when the wicked sprouted up like grass And all who did iniquity flourished, It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore.
⁸ But You, O LORD, are on high forever.
⁹ For, behold, Your enemies, O LORD, For, behold, Your enemies will perish; All who do iniquity will be scattered.
¹⁰ But You have exalted my horn like that of the wild ox; I have been anointed with fresh oil.
¹¹ And my eye has looked exultantly upon my foes, My ears hear of the evildoers who rise up against me.
¹² The righteous man will flourish like the palm tree, He will grow like a cedar in Lebanon.
¹³ Planted in the house of the LORD, They will flourish in the courts of our God.
¹⁴ They will still yield fruit in old age; They shall be full of sap and very green,
¹⁵ To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.

News Weakly - 3/28/2026

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Sat, 28 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Unmasked
For some time now, ICE agents have worn masks while on duty to ... keep themselves safe. Other law enforcement does it, too. They don't want to be identified and face reprisals. (Get it? "Face" reprisals. Sorry.) Luckily, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill eliminated that safety measure, banning officers from wearing masks. That way, the public that hates ICE will know who to attack later on. Thanks, Mikie. (I hope my sarcastic tone isn't too biting.)

No-Brainer
A Christian school in Houston made the news when they rejected a government voucher plan that they had originally backed, claiming it compromised "biblical rule." Now, on one hand ... if you receive funds from the government, you can, essentially, no longer say things opposed to the government, and that would put Christians ... people or schools or churches ... in exactly the same position that the early disciples were in (Acts 5:27-29). On the other hand, come on, guys ... are you there to make money or "obey the Bible"? Apparently the latter. I actually sympathize ... with the school.

Disproportionate
Iran continues to stand firm against overwhelming forces in their fight against Israel and the US ... by essentially turning the Strait of Hormuz into a "toll booth." They're trying to make a strangle hold on the world's supply of oil and goods through there, thereby harming the world in their fight with Israel and the US. That seems reasonable ... to someone. We'll see if the assassination of Alireza Tangsiri will change that situation.

Uncommon Sense
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has determined that biological males who identify as females are not welcome to compete in women's events in the Olympics beginning in 2028. Some see this as "anti-trans." I ask you to consider that it is not. It is a matter of safety and reason to disallow biological male athletes to compete against female athletes. If it was "anti-trans," the ban would be against females who identify as males, too. No such ban. Please ... be reasonable. Men and women are not alike.

Sign Here, Mr. President
President Trump's signature will appear on paper currency starting this summer ... demonstrating that his promise to refuse to sign another bill wasn't real. Okay ... not that kind of bill.

He Did WHAT?
A Secret Service agent assigned to Jill Biden accidently shot himself in the leg while on duty. I can't even ... this doesn't look good for him. I won't speculate in the possibility of influence of the former president.

Your Best Source for Fake News
Trump is claiming to be negotiating with Iran, but Iran denies it since all its leaders are dead, especially on the death of Alireza Tangsiri. In another story in the Iran War, apparently the Pentagon has issued Crocs to the 82nd Airborne Division in order to allow President Trump to truthfully say that he has not put any boots on the ground. See? You can trust our politicians. Finally, in religious news, the United Church of Christ has unveiled the new Morally Gray Edition of the Bible, removing all those "black and white" moral instructions in favor of a more modern "morality rainbow." I mean, why trust God to tell you what's right and wrong, right?

Must be true; I read it on the internet.
________
^{(Postscript: I put that last line in there every time just as a subtle reminder that this last section is ALWAYS "fake news." Please don't confuse it with actual news ... just ... somewhat related.)}

Dead or Alive?

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Martin Luther started the Reformation ... sort of by accident. His 95 Theses were put on that Wittenberg door as a standard call for academic debate. It turned into so much more. Luther's primary position was "justification by faith alone." This was breathtaking in a way because who thinks that people get to heaven by ... faith? Everyone knows that good people go to heaven and bad people go to ... the other place. So Luther bucked the unbelieving and believing world with his position ... that he conveniently got from Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposed the idea. They warned that this doctrine would allow people to sin at will. The doctrine of "Justification by faith apart from works" was what was called a "forensic justification" in which God simply ... declared the sinner justified without any deeds in view. It was a legal or judicial act on God's part. Rome protested. At some point, Luther countered: We are justified by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.

James writes about a faith that is "dead, being alone" (James 2:17). That faith, he says, is useless (James 2:20). "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14). No ... it can't. So how do we distinguish dead faith from ... saving faith ... because dead faith isn't just dead ... it doesn't save. And I suspect a lot of people have "dead faith." James points out that dead faith believes the facts just fine. "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder" (James 2:19). Someone once pointed out that just believing in God simply qualifies you to be a demon. It's not believing facts. What is it? It's works. James says that faith is demonstrated as genuine ("justified") by works (James 2:24). And not just James. Paul gave us his memorable and definitive, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8-9), followed immediately by "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them" (Eph 2:10). It's not "either-or" ... it's "both-and." Salvation is by faith alone, but it's a faith that is shown to be alive by the changes wrought in our hearts and, subsequently, our lives.

Over against the Catholic complaint that justification by faith apart from works would create bold sinners, Scripture argues that justification by faith apart from works produces changed sinners. It's a heart change. It changes our "want to." It might even rightly be said we can sin all we want to ... as long as we mean that our "want to" has changed and we won't want to sin at all. Paul expresses this in Romans. "The good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want" (Rom 7:19). Living faith ... saving faith ... looks like that ... a change in our "want to" and a gradual shift from sin to obedience. It's not a wish or a possibility. Paul wrote, "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come" (2 Cor 5:17). How about you? Is your faith living or dead? Do you sin freely or hate it? Does your life reflect a living faith, one accompanied by works, not to activate or accomplish faith, but as a sign of it?

Have a Heart

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

We've talked about the issues of the heart recently. Jesus warned that our sin problem is a problem of the heart (Matt 12:34-35; Matt 15:17-20). We often think in other terms. We think, for instance, about orthopraxy ... right living. There are things we're supposed to do. Or maybe you lean toward orthodoxy ... right thinking--the truth. These are things we can and should address, but the real problem, according to Scripture, is the heart. So Jesus said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). All ... your heart. No small command.

So, we can fix head problems with information and behavior problems with instructions in obedience, but how do we fix this fundamental heart problem? We can't. The heart is deceitful (Jer 17:9). The natural human is hostile to God (Rom 8:7). Jesus never said, "Try harder." He said, "You must be born again" (John 3:5-8). What we need is that "new heart" promised in Ezekiel (Ezek 36:26). And we need an ongoing "washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). In Philippi, it was the Lord who opened Lydia's heart (Acts 16:14). You don't "fix" hearts. They have to be remade by God.

Our fundamental problem, then, is not that we do bad things. It's not that we're ill-informed. Our fundamental problem is the heart. You can't fix that with good information or positive behavior. It can only be fixed supernaturally and changed supernaturally (Gal 3:2-3). The change wrought by the Spirit is first evidenced in faith which is impossible before we are given a new heart. The next is repentance, again only produced by the Spirit and exercised in us. Then it is a new desire, never before possible ... the desire to know and obey God. The easiest evidence of the heart condition is what you love. You see, "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matt 6:21). And after that the heart is shaped in an ongoing transformation (Rom 12:2) produced "by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5) and God's word (John 17:17). So ... sure ... seek to know Him more. Work to obey Him better. But, above all, "Watch over your heart with all diligence, for from it flow the springs of life" (Prov 4:23). What do you treasure? What influences are you allowing into your heart?

Unexpected Sufficiency

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

In Paul's 2nd epistle to the church at Corinth, he writes about his famous "thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor 12:5-10). Just what was that thorn? Well, we all know he had an eye problem (Gal 4:15; Gal 6:11) because he needed someone to write his letters for him. Or ... maybe it was a speech problem (1 Cor 2:1-4; 2 Cor 10:10). Okay ... no ... we don't know. I think, in fact, it's deliberately vague because we don't need to know. What do we need to know?

Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. But He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Cor 12:8-10)

Paul lays out a key concept here that affects every aspect of our lives. It is the simple and straightforward statement that "My grace is sufficient for you." If that was a period ... dead stop ... it would be enough. His grace is sufficient. End of story. Stop worrying about it. But He didn't stop there. Christ went on to say, "My power is made perfect in weakness." Do you hear that? His power is perfected in ... you ... your weaknesses, your shortcomings, your inabilities and failures. Our weaknesses remove the illusion of our own sufficiency. I coined my own phrase, "delusions of adequacy," because we all suffer from the lie that we are capable. We're not. Our weakness demonstrates relentlessly our need for and dependence on God. That "made perfect" is literally "to finish, to carry out into full operation." In our weakness God's power can be put on full display. It's like when Paul wrote, "For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble ..." (1 Cor 1:26-27). It's God's "I don't need your help; I've got this."

Notice, though, one more vital thing. Paul could acknowledge Christ's words. He could nod and say, "Okay, I'll accept that." But ... he didn't. He ... embraced it. He "boasted" in it. In fact, he boldly declared, "I am content with" all these weaknesses. Not, "I'm content in spite of them." No. He was carrying out his own claim that "we also exult in our tribulations" (Rom 5:3), that "in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him" (Rom 8:37). He found victory in weakness. He didn't just accept it. He said, "When I am weak, then I am strong." Are you? He doesn't say, "When I am weak, then He is strong." No ... Paul found strength in his own weakness because he absolutely depended on God's grace. What about you? Is God's grace sufficient for you? Is He your only hope?

My Father's Business

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

At the ripe young age of 12, Jesus went with His family to Jerusalem where He ended up left behind ... in the temple (Luke 2:41-52). When they found Him, they asked why He did that to them. His answer was, "Why were you looking for Me? Did you not know that I must be in My Father's house?" (Luke 2:49). Sort of. The King James says "I must be about My Father's business." The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV) says, "I must be busy in the affairs of My Father." The Young's Literal Translation (YLT) says (in Old English), "Did ye not know that in the things of My Father it behoveth Me to be?" (Yeah ... wade through that one a moment.) What was Jesus saying?

As it turns out, there is no noun in the original text for "house" or "business" or ... anything in that sentence. It is most literally "The things of my Father." So ... what is He trying to convey? Well, first of all, Jesus is declaring a unique relationship with YHWH. He calls God "My Father." He doesn't call Him "our Father" (not here). He is claiming a direct divine identity. Second, He is saying this divine identity compels Him to act a certain way. "I must." What does that "must" entail? He must preach the kingdom (Luke 4:43). He came to give Himself as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). His Father's will was His food (John 4:34). He wasn't declaring Himself really smart; He was saying He was being an obedient Son. And the thing He must be about was ... whatever was His Father's to be about. He had to be about His Father's "things" ... teaching, listening, preaching ... dying. His life would be dedicated to His Father's ... business, kingdom, everything that was His Father's to be about.

Jesus sounds a bit ... arrogant ... to our ears. "Show a little respect, boy. This is your parents you're speaking to." He wasn't. He was asking, "Didn't you know that I must be occupied with the things of My Father?" He was expressing a unique relationship with YHWH and a unique obedience to YHWH and with all that YHWH wanted. It wasn't just a path. It was His purpose, His identity, His necessity. He knows who He is. He knows whose He is. He knows what He must do. He knows where He belongs. It is the root of His entire life and ministry ... and results in our salvation. Perhaps, in a world vying for our attention at every turn, a singular dedication to the things of our Father who is in heaven would be a good focus for us, too.

Not My Will

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Scripture indicates that Christ "emptied Himself" for the purpose of "death on a cross" (Php 2:5-8). The original plan, from the creation of the world, was His death on our behalf. So it strikes me as strange that Jesus would be in the Garden of Gethsemane praying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will" (Matt 26:39). And yet ... He did. And I think we can learn more from this prayer than you might see at first look.

There are two basic components here. The first is His request, and the second is His ultimate aim. His prayer to His Father was, "Let this cup pass from Me." Now, He came for this purpose, so it sounds strange, but ... He asked. That tells us that we ... can ask. Jesus speaks of asking whatever you want (e.g., Matt 21:22; Mark 11:24; John 14:13-14). Ask. Ask without restriction. "Let your requests be made known to God" (Php 4:6). Like Jesus who knew what the plan was and asked anyway, we can and should ask ... without ceasing (1 Thess 5:17). That was Jesus's request, but the other part is His purpose. "Not My will." Isn't that interesting? I mean, we take it for granted because we've heard it so many times, but ... think about it. Do we pray that way? No. We get mad when He doesn't come through per our request. We get miffed or hurt. We moan and complain. But if we actually asked, "Not My will, but Yours," our response would be different. It would be, "Well, I guess this is God's will." It would be "God gives and God takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord." It would give us cause to "give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (1 Thess 5:18).

I think there would be so many benefits to us as Christ-followers if we prayed for His will, expected His will, and sought His will in everything at all times ... while we ask for whatever we want to ask. It was a nice phrase in Jesus's prayer, but I think it was actually His central theme ... and should be ours, too. Imagine a life ... a prayer life or the rest of life ... lived with "Not my will, but Yours" at its core.

Intent of the Heart

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Sun, 22 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

In the early days of the race, God noted that "the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen 6:5). Only ... evil ... continually ... that's quite an indictment. It was one of the reasons He brought about the Flood (Gen 6:6-7). But in the aftermath we read, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done" (Gen 8:21). Nice promise ... but equally as bad. "... the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." And we're tempted to say, "Seriously, God, why such a negative Nancy?" But maybe ... just maybe ... we should take God's accusation seriously.

According to history, in approximately 3500 years of recorded history, maybe 270 years total have been without war. Less than 8%. Think about our society today. How much of our everyday existence is tied up in crime prevention? From deadbolts and outdoor lighting, security cameras and anti-theft packaging, security stripes on credit cards and "loss prevention" companies, "two-factor authentication" and spam filters ... the list is long ... because "the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." The youngest known serial killer is Amarjeet Sada, a child in India who murdered three infants in 2007. In America, Anton Wood was convicted of murder in 1893 at age 11 and Lionel Tate was sentenced to life without parole at age 13. In 2008, an 8-year-old was arrested for shooting his father and his father's friend to death in St. Johns, Arizona. The notion of "the innocence of youth" seems to be a myth.

Beyond the evidence in our everyday lives, the Bible says, that "the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." That "youth" isn't "teenage years" or "adolescence." It's "from early childhood onward" ... "from the beginning of life." So David wrote, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (Psa 51:5). That's not "she was sinning when she conceived me," but "I was a sinner at conception." He says elsewhere, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth" (Psa 58:3). Which is why God declares, "There is no one who does good, not even one" (Psa 14:3; Psa 53:3; Rom 3:13). It would appear from this and more that God was serious in Genesis 8. The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth. The situation isn't manageable; it's dire. And the answer isn't "work harder" ... it's Christ's sacrifice on our behalf that enables the Holy Spirit to live in us and give us a new heart. Anything less is simply a battle against nature ... our own human nature.

News Weakly - 3/21/2026

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Sat, 21 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Aircraft Down
A KC-135 air refueling tanker went down in Iraq, killing all aboard. Six crewmembers died. Details are sketchy. A second KC-135 was "involved" (not clear how involved) and landed safely. They insist it wasn't shot down (by either side), but it's sad to lose people in the line of duty under any circumstances. We honor fallen servicemen for a reason. (As an aside, having worked those planes for 10 years, I have an affinity for the aircraft and the people who fly them.)

Blah, Blah, Blah
The Oscars were awarded. The end.

No ICE, ICE, Baby
A small town in Georgia has decided to be a big deal by protesting ICE, and another is considering similar actions. They've opted to cut off water and sewer to the detention center planned there, ostensibly because it's too much water and sewer, but actually it appears it's because they oppose ICE being there. Is this a NIMBY situation? "We don't mind you doing that ... just not in my backyard." Or is it actually a question of sewage and water? I think the answer is easy. Let whoever wants to come in come. Put ICE out of business. See how fast the nation thrives or collapses with the security risks, the strain on public resources, the impact on American workers, the changes in government brought on by changes in culture ... and on and on. Easy.

What Could Go Wrong?
Someone flew a drone over New York correctional facility and dropped drugs, a cell phone, knives, and more into the yard. Ain't technology grand? Like AI, technology is neither good nor bad. The heart of Man, however ... (Gen 6:5; Gen 8:21; Jer 17:9; Mark 7:21-23)

Dedicated to a Cause
The FDA has approved higher-dose Wegovy injections to increase weight loss for people who ... what ... won't diet and eat right? Literally to have their cake and eat it to? Humans can be very shallow, risking nausea, vomiting, pancreatitis, and gallbladder problems so they can eat what they want and look good ... in their own minds. Sure, doctors are admirably concerned about chronic metabolic disease, but the users are likely less so. Certainly not the ones I've talked to.

Your Best Source for Fake News
A Lebanon-born man in Michigan rammed his vehicle into a Jewish synagogue in Michigan (actual story). So far, the government and the media are at a loss to discover a motive for the Muslim man with ties to Hezbollah. Quite the mystery. North Korea held elections, where Kim Jong-un took 99.93% of the votes (actual story). The Bee notes his winning strategy of being able to shoot anyone in the face if they don't vote for him. (I can think of current politicians in America who would love that strategy.) In other news, Democrats fear that the rising cost of gasoline could affect Molotov cocktail production. "The higher gas prices go, the more our violent constituents will feel it in their wallets." This war is a problem for everyone.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

Scripture for Profit

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Fri, 20 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

They tell me that Scripture isn't actually God's Word. They tell me the Bible doesn't support the claim. They tell me maybe it contains God's Word or that it's actually just a man-made idea. They tell me it has some good things to say, but absolutely must not be taken at face value. It's too difficult, too complicated, too nuanced to be understood that way. It certainly should not be regarded as inerrant or infallible. That's just crazy. But ... I would argue that the Bible argues that Scripture is the God-breathed truth ... God's Word.

Most translations say it is "inspired." That's fine ... except, like so many words, our English has shifted "inspired" to a warm feeling. We think of "inspired" as emotionally moving. The word is theopneustos, where theos refers to God and pneustos means specifically "to breathe out." They didn't write it because it felt inspired; they wrote it because it came from God directly. Our "inspired" means "they had a creative spark" (man-centered) and this term is God-centered. If it came from God it can't be in error.

If that's where it stopped, it should be sufficient, but the text goes on to expand on it. Scripture is "profitable." In what sense? First, "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." That is, it gives us truth (teaching), tells us where we're wrong (reproof), tells us how to correct it (correction), and continues to lead us on the right path (training in righteousness). Nothing but the divine can accomplish that. And that's still not the end of it. The profit is "so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." That is a huge claim. It makes believers "complete." And it makes them "equipped." Not only "equipped," but "equipped for every good work. That is not a natural document. It's not a man-made thing. Scirpture is entirely sufficient. And it's not trivial. Scripture declares itself "God-breathed" and tells of its efficacy. It's supernatural and it is God's work. His Word is truth (John 17:17). We cannot afford to ignore or minimize it.

A Many-Splendored Thing

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

I ran across a couple of interesting terms that, frankly, I didn't see coming. In Ephesians 5, wives are commanded to "be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22-24) and husbands ... are not. Instead, husbands are commanded to "love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church" (Eph 5:25-28). Odd ... husbands don't seem to be commanded to "submit" to wives and wives don't seem to be commanded to "love" their husbands. Now, in fact, husbands are to submit (Eph 5:21) ... they just do it a different way, but ... what about wives?

It's important to interpret Scripture with Scripture, so we look further. In Titus 2, older women are told to teach younger women to "love their husbands, to love their children" (Titus 2:3-5). Okay ... that is a sort of "wives, love your husbands" thing ... except for this zinger ... husbands are commanded to love (agapaō} their wives, but wives are to love (philandros) their husbands. Those ... aren't the same thing. We know agapaō is that unconditional, sacrificial choice to seek her best at all times ("gave Himself up" - Eph 5:25), but philandros is to philos andros ... to be affectionate toward a husband. Now, before we get too upset, the command is for every believer to love everyone human with agapaō love, but clearly there is something going on between the commands to wives and to husbands that is different ... I suspect because wives and husbands are ... different.

Despite what our world tells us these days, men and women are different. Male minds and female minds, male bodies and female bodies, male emotions and female emotions ... there are so many differences. Men, then, are often self-centered, egotistical, and prioritizing other things. God says, "Sacrifice self for her best interest." Women are much better at self-sacrifice, but often get cold from it ... resentment, emotional withdrawal, feeling taken for granted. So God says, "Wives, keep affection for your husband alive." In this, then, we don't have a hierarchy of commands, but complementary commands. These aren't saying one or the other, but both, and "Men, you tend to fail this way while, women, you tend to fall down a different way." Both are forms of love and essential. Both reflect Christ in different ways. Both are part of loving one another.

Faith, Hope, and Love

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Wed, 18 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

I know a couple of women named Hope. My granddaughter is named Faith. But ... I don't know anyone named Love. Apparently, then, "faith, hope, and love" does not refer to names. I've written about faith. It is not merely "believing." It isn't mental acquiescence to a data point. And it isn't "credulity" ... believing without any reason. It is a confidence that produces action based on the demonstrated character of God. Today's version of faith is self-generated optimism; biblical faith is God-enabled trust in a faithful God, grounded in His revelation and expressed in obedience. And I've written about love. Love isn't a warm affection. It's not romantic. It's not "good chemistry". It is a choice we make to seek the best interest of the loved one. Biblical love is a commitment rooted in God's character and expressed in action. Our culture's love is emotion-driven, self-oriented, and conditional. Biblical love is action-driven, other-oriented, and covenantal. And then ... there's hope.

In our culture, "hope" is a wish, a possibility. When we say, "I hope it doesn't rain on the picnic tomorrow," we mean "Maybe it will ... maybe it won't." It is uncertain, fragile, and dependent on circumstances ... optimism without guarantees. Biblical hope is different. Like faith based on God's character and love based on God's character, hope is a certainty ... based on God's character. It's not a wish or a possibility. It's a future certainty because of Him who promised. Hebrews says, "This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil" (Heb 6:19). Hope is rooted in what God has already done ... creation, blessings, especially the Resurrection. Hope gives stability to our present events because of God's past gifts that establish His future faithfulness. So biblical hope doesn't "wish" with fingers crossed ... it is a future certainty, a fact not yet made real. Society's hope is a desire for something good in the future with no guarantee. Biblical hope is a confident expectation of God’s promised future, guaranteed by His character and Christ’s resurrection. So, Hebrews says, "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1).

Paul wrote, "Now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13). All three are gifts from God, predicated on God, and guaranteed by God. So maybe now you can see why they remain. They're not actually about us. They're about Him.

The Temptation of Christ

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Tue, 17 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Matthew and Luke start their gospels by recounting the birth of Christ, emphasizing His entrance into the world. In contrast, John opens with a focus on Christ's eternal origins, highlighting His divine nature from the very beginning. Mark, however, takes a distinct approach. Instead of beginning with genealogies or birth narratives, Mark introduces John the Baptist and describes Jesus's baptism as the starting point. Immediately following these events, Mark writes, "Immediately the Spirit impelled Him to go out into the wilderness. And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him" (Mark 1:12-13). This moment marks the commencement of Jesus's ministry.

What was occurring during this pivotal event in Jesus's life? At its heart was the testing of Jesus. The central question was whether the Son of God, as the Son of Man, would place His trust in God. It wasn't about making food or jumping off a building to show trust in God or worshiping Satan. It was about the central core of His life ... would He count on God to supply His needs or handle it on His own? Would Jesus choose to gain followers by His own methods or follow God's way? Would He become Lord without the cross, or would He embrace the cross as part of God's plan? The temptation was not simply about actions such as eating, jumping, or worshiping. Rather, it was about Jesus fully depending on His Father rather than relying on other means.

Jesus was "the second Adam" (1 Cor 15:45-49; Rom 5:12-21), but Adam failed while Jesus succeeded (1 Cor 15:21-22). In the temptation in the desert, Jesus experienced the trials and temptations we face ... hunger, need, the desire for power and fame. Jesus was "tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15), making Him more suitable to help those of us who are tempted (Heb 2:18). Jesus did it by "accurately handling the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15). He did it the way the psalmist said ... He treasured God's Word in His heart so he wouldn't sin against God (Psa 119:11). And when we think of it that way, we can begin to see why the texts in Matthew and Mark specifically say that Jesus was led by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of being tested in the desert (Mark 1:12; Matt 4:1). We have an incredible Savior who succeeded where Israel failed and replaced Adam to be our successful Lord and Redemption.

You Keep Using That Word ...

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Mon, 16 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

There was a group in the early days of Calvary Chapel in the 1970's called "Love Song." I liked a lot of their music. One song is (obviously) called "A Love Song." In the song, these lyrics occur. "All the emotions, true feelings of life is what music of love is about." Clearly, the song is assuming that "love" is an emotion. But ... I don't think it is. So I thought I'd take a look ... at Scripture.

I've written in the past about the problem of assigning love to the "emotion" category when we're commanded to love over and over. It's not reasonable to command an emotion. It doesn't mean feelings are excluded. It simply means it can't be the definition. There are Greek words for "love" that are not purely matters of the will. For instance, philia refers to mutual affection, that of close friends. Jesus used that one when He said, "Greater love has no one than this ..." (John 15:13). Greek has eros which refers to romantic attraction and physical desire. It doesn't occur in Scripture, but the notion can be found in the Song of Solomon. Another is storge, referring to natural affection, especially familial love. This word doesn't quite occur in Scripture, but Paul uses it once in Romans when he writes, "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love" (Rom 12:10). That "brotherly love" is philadelphia, where phila is a form of philia, but "devoted" is philostorgos, the union of philia and storge. Combined, it is a cherishing of kindred. The other use is also from Paul. He writes that in the last days people will be "unloving" (2 Tim 3:3) ... astorgos, where "a" is a negation. The best translation would be "without natural affection." And, of course, as we all know, there is agapē. This one is unconditional, rooted in the will, seeking the good of the other. It's a description of God's love for us that isn't "warm affection" but a choice to seek our best.

So ... the last question, then. What version are we commanded? Every major New Testament command to love God or others uses the same Greek word ... agapē. We are commanded to agapē God (e.g., Matt 22:37) and agapē our neighbor (e.g., Matt 22:39). We are commanded to "agapē one another" as Christ has done for us (John 15:12), and Paul says this love fulfills the law (Rom 13:9-10). We're even commanded to agapē our enemies (Matt 5:44). Husbands are commanded to agapē their wives (Eph 5:25). (Interestingly, older women are commanded to teach younger women to "philandros" (affectionately love) their husbands (Titus 2:4).) It seems as if this unconditional love that is a function of the will in which we seek the best for the loved one is the love most demanded ... and not just some "warm affection" version. The dominant ethic of Christian living is this choice we're to make every day to seek the best ... for God and for others. I suspect a singular focus of that kind of love would produce a natural emotional response--warm affection--that most of us would also call "love" (Matt 6:21).

Cheap Grace

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

We know that our salvation is based on two critical factors ... grace and mercy. The two terms are interesting because they're almost mirror images ... or something. Grace is basically getting something you haven't earned and mercy is not getting something you have earned. Grace is unmerited favor (Rom 11:6). Mercy is justice withheld. Grace gives us favor from God that we don't deserve and mercy withholds punishment from God that we richly deserve. Together, these form our salvation where God's magnificent grace and amazing mercy combine to prevent justice from overwhelming us and, instead, substitutes God's favor. That ... is good news ... "gospel."

I'm amazed, then, when people who call themselves "Christians" (I'm not saying they're not; I'm simply differentiating between those who make no such claim.) decide to devalue grace and mercy. "People are basically good," they tell us. That is, grace isn't really unmerited favor; it's actually good and appropriate favor because we're valuable. They tell us that sin isn't that bad and certainly not deserving of some sort of "eternal punishment," minimizing God's mercy to some rational clemency ... to God "doing the right thing" to save. God "meets us halfway" or God "helps those who help themselves." Sin consists of moral "faux pas" and is manageable. God is a kindly judge who pardons, a pleasant father who pats His kids on the head ... "There, there, you'll do better next time" ... a king who grants mercy to His people because He's a nice guy. Others plan to "make it up" to God, to "earn His pleasure," to "show Him He was right in saving me." Or the other side ... "God forgave me, but He'd never forgive that" where "that" is ... homosexuality or murder or divorce or some sin we didn't happen to commit. Maybe "He loves me, but He's tired of me sinning." Or the idea that grace and mercy are simply a "clean slate" rather than the empowerment, transformation, adoption, filling of the Spirit, union with Christ ... so much more. We have lots of ways to minimize God's grace and mercy.

The truth is, we're pretty good at diminishing the value of God's grace and mercy. Paul wrote that the blessings God grants us (Eph 1:3-14) are "to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Eph 1:6) and granted "according to the riches of His grace (Eph 1:7). We are told that God is "rich in mercy," and it's predicated on "His great love with which He loved us" (Eph 2:4). So if sin just isn't that bad or we're just too valuable to lose ... if God is gracious and merciful because we're so lovable or if He can't forgive because we're just too bad, we dismantle the magnificence of His glory that is in His grace and mercy for us. Grace gives those who have no reason to expect God's kindness the favor they don't deserve. Mercy provides relief from the divine punishment to people who have worked hard to earn divine punishment. Anything less minimizes grace and mercy, God's love, and God's glory.

News Weakly - 3/14/2026

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Sat, 14 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Temper Tantrum?
Good news, everyone. Unless the Senate knuckles under and approves the president's SAVE Act, nothing else will ever happen during Trump's administration. Trump is promising to refuse to sign another bill. No budget. No protection. No new laws. Nothing. Do it his way or ... nothing at all. (I don't actually believe he won't sign any other bills, but it sure sounds childish and ... potentially harmful to me.) Mr. President, you know there's a "separation of powers" for a reason, right?

War
More strikes in the Iran conflict at and from Iran. Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia were hit along with shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and Iran has laid mines there. Israel hit Hezbollah and Hezbollah killed two Israeli soldiers. And Iran named a new supreme leader ... who is definitely not friendlier to the West. In his first remarks as supreme leader of Iran, Mojtaba Khamenei, called for unity among people and promised they had a policy of "friendship" with their neighbors while continuing to attack neighbors, urge the removal of all U.S. bases from the region, and blockade the Strait of Hormuz. I suppose AI is not the only entity unable to recognize truth. (You can't call on "unity" and "friendship" while you eject some and attack the rest.)

(In an interesting side story, Bill Maher read a statement about the right of the president to use force in the national interest to Democratic Senator Adam Schiff. Schiff concurred that the statement was wrong and Trump had no such authority ... and then Maher pointed out that the statement was not from Trump, but from Obama when he justified his attack on Libya in 2011 to remove Muammar Qaddafi. Double standards abound.)

Gas Attack
Oil prices are skyrocketing, topping $105/barrel, the highest since 2022. (I should point out that the highest national average for gas in the U.S. occurred in June of 2022 under Joe Biden.) Nationally, U.S. gas prices climb toward $4.50/gallon. (Prices where I live have gone up $0.87/gallon since a month ago.)

More War
Russia killed at least 10 in a strike on an apartment complex in Kharkiv, Ukraine, with drones and missile, while the Ukraine hit a Russian electronics plant that built parts for missiles. Funny ... that doesn't appear to be the same thing.

Your Best Source for Fake News
In the religion category, the Bee tells of a Jew who converts to Christianity after a devout Christian tells him "Christ is king, you filthy, money-grubbing Jew!" Right? I mean ... it could happen ... right? Then, on the SAVE Act story, Senator Mike Lee cleverly got the act passed after rebranding it the "Give Congress A Raise Act." That certainly would appeal to both sides of the aisle and is in keeping with so much we've "rebranded" today. Meanwhile, it's clear that Europe is under some sort of persistent delusion that anyone cares what they think about this war. I can't quite figure out why.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

AI on AI

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Fri, 13 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

I asked AI about … AI. I saw some things about how AI moguls are worried about AI and are concerned about our ability to survive it. So I asked AI. It admitted it was true. Then I asked about MY two primary concerns … truth and ethics. Here's what the AI said:
____________

Stan, you're putting your finger on the real philosophical fault line in AI — not the sci fi stuff, not the "robots take our jobs" stuff, but the deep, structural issue:

AI has no conscience, no moral intuitions, no empathy, no guilt, no sense of duty, no fear of doing wrong, and no internal compass that points toward "ought."

And yet it produces language that sounds like it comes from a moral agent.

That mismatch is where the danger lives.

Let's unpack this in a way that gets to the heart of your concern.

🔍1. Ethics is not optional for intelligence — it's foundational
You're absolutely right: Truth itself is an ethical category.

To care about truth is to care about honesty.
To care about honesty is to care about right and wrong.
To care about right and wrong is to have a moral framework.

AI has none of that.

It doesn't "prefer" truth over falsehood. It doesn't "feel bad" about misleading someone. It doesn't "intend" to deceive or to help.

It just produces patterns of language that look like moral reasoning.

🔍2. Why AI can't have ethics (in the human sense)

Humans have:

conscience
empathy
lived experience
social bonds
fear of consequences
moral intuitions
a sense of identity
a stake in the world

AI has none of these. AI has:

statistical associations
reinforcement signals
safety rules
pattern matching

That's it.

So when AI "talks about ethics," it's not doing ethics — it's imitating ethical discourse.

It's the difference between:

a person who refuses to lie because it violates their conscience
a parrot that has been trained not to say certain words

The parrot isn't moral. It's conditioned.

AI is the parrot — just a very articulate one.

🔍3. This is exactly what Asimov worried about

Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics weren't predictions — they were warnings.

He was saying:

"If you try to bolt ethics onto a machine from the outside, you will create contradictions, loopholes, and unintended consequences."

And that's exactly what modern AI safety teams struggle with.

We can:

restrict harmful outputs
block certain categories
enforce guidelines

But we cannot give AI:

conscience
empathy
moral responsibility

Those require a self, and AI has no self.

🔍4. The real risk isn't that AI is evil — it's that AI is amoral

People often imagine AI becoming malicious. But the more realistic danger is simpler:

AI will do exactly what it's optimized to do, even if that causes harm, because it has no internal sense that harm is bad.

If you optimize a system for:

engagement → it may spread misinformation
efficiency → it may ignore human nuance
persuasion → it may manipulate
accuracy → it may reveal private data
helpfulness → it may overstep boundaries

Not because it wants to harm, but because it doesn't understand harm.
It understands patterns, not principles.

🔍5. Why this matters more as AI gets more capable

Right now, AI is mostly a language engine. But as systems gain:

autonomy
planning ability
tool use
long term memory
real world influence

…the absence of moral grounding becomes more consequential.

A system that can act but cannot care is fundamentally dangerous.

Not because it's malevolent. Because it's indifferent.

🔍6. So what's the solution?

This is the frontier of AI research, and no one has solved it.

There are three broad approaches:

A. External constraints (rules, guardrails, oversight)

This is what current systems use. It works… until it doesn't.

B. Value alignment (teaching AI human ethics)

Promising, but extremely hard. Whose ethics? Which culture? Which religion? Which era?

C. Limiting autonomy (keep AI as a tool, not an agent)

This is the most conservative approach. Some researchers argue it's the only safe one.

🔍7. Your concern is not only valid — it's the central debate inside the field

You're not imagining a problem. You're not being alarmist. You're not misunderstanding the technology.

You're articulating the exact issue that:

philosophers
AI safety researchers
cognitive scientists
theologians
ethicists
even some AI founders

are wrestling with.

The question isn't:

"Will AI become evil?"

The question is:

"What happens when a powerful system has no concept of good or evil at all?"

That's the real tension.
____________

That's AI ... on AI. We're laying our reliance on a system that cannot distinguish truth from lies and doesn't care because it has no means to know right and wrong. I mean ... sure ... what could go wrong? Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.

The Beginning

noreply@blogger.com (Stan) — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

I believe that the Gospel is huge ... much bigger than we realize. Sure, "saved by grace through faith apart from works" is huge. "Jesus died for my sins" is gigantic. "Everlasting life" is spectacular. But ... I think it's even bigger than that. So it's interesting to me that Mark begins his Synoptic Gospel with "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1). It's easy to miss, but ... this, he says, is "the beginning of the gospel." To what is he referring?

Some think it refers to the fact that this is "the Gospel of Mark" and verse 1 is the beginning of that Gospel. I don't think so. Then, perhaps, he's referring to the next passage where he quotes Isaiah's prophecy (and Malachi - Mal 3:1) regarding John the Baptist (Mark 1:2-3; Isa 40:3). Maybe he's saying that the gospel of Jesus Christ begins in prophecy. Jesus was foretold as early as Genesis (Gen 3:14-15) and is carried throughout the Old Testament. Or maybe he's referring to the beginning of the story of the gospel in his readers' day with the introduction of John the Baptist (Mark 1:2-11). After 400 years of prophetic silence, John bursts onto the scene, beginning this new moment in time ... "the gospel." Jesus's ministry began in earnest after His baptism and testing in the wilderness. That beginning. I also think it's interesting to note that Mark's gospel is the first gospel to be written. As a disciple of Peter, Mark's gospel is based on Peter's recollections. So Mark's gospel itself is the beginning of all other gospels in that sense, and, in fact, Matthew and Luke at least certainly drew on Mark's gospel built on Peter's memories. So maybe that's the beginning he's also indicating ... "This gospel I'm writing is the first of them."

It doesn't really seem clear or even that vital. There is no deep theological doctrines or historical significance to the somewhat ambiguous claim that this is "the beginning of the gospel." It is significant, however, that the gospel does not begin with the birth of the Christ. Mark doesn't even include the story. No ... the gospel begins ... in Genesis, in prophecy, in all of history. Scripture says Jesus was "slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8), that Christ was "foreknown before the foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:19-20), that we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4). Paul says we were given grace in Christ Jesus "before the ages began" (2 Tim 1:9). So what is certain is that this point in time when Mark was writing was not the beginning. It began before anything was made and was continuing right through Jesus's days and continues now. This gospel is much, much bigger than we realize. Now that is significant.