Christianity

What Is Biblical Israel?

Standard

There is a nation in the world that identifies as Israel.  And, as we all know, if a person or group of people identify as something then this is what they are.  If I say that I’m a ham sandwich you better believe it!  Israel is what calls itself Israel.

That out the way, is that Israel the same as the Biblical Israel established by God?

If you were raised under Zionist teachings this isn’t even a question.  Of course, it is!  What else could it be?  Biblical criteria or qualifications, what are those?  I mean, how exciting would those end times novels be without our favorite backdrop???  And next, you’ll be telling us reality television is fake and that Caitlyn Jenner is a man and not a stunning and brave woman!?! 

Isn’t everyone who identifies as something that thing?

However, for those slightly more literate, and not born yesterday, the question of what the Biblical Israel is and if the state by the same name is the same thing is important.  For a Christian, up until the time of the reformation and a little after, this answer was quite clear and that is that Israel today is the remnant of the Jews who remained faithful—as well as those Gentiles converted. 

From the perspective of New Testament writers Israel is the Church or the body of those who believe—a religious affiliation and not a particular race.

About Religion, Not Race…

While still a member of a Mennonite church, I was not happy to have my religious identity be classified as an ethnic group.  In my own opinion I wasn’t born a Mennonite, it was my religion and something that I had to choose to participate in.  And yet there was truth to the claim.  There is was an ethnic component to being part of the group.  We shared a culture, and have our own common surnames, and many converts don’t fit in well.  

However, the most damning evidence, other than having unique genetic disorders, is the broad range of beliefs and practices under the Mennonite banner.  Those calling their church Mennonite span from those who are progressive and ordaining lesbian pastors to those very traditional still using horses and buggies for transportation.  So, when the only true common bond between all of these Mennonite groups is a sprinkling of Yoders, Gingrichs, Millers, or Barkmans, can it really be a religious belief system?  

Rev Michelle Yoder, a charismatic lesbian pastor of the Mennonite faith, sitting comfortably with partner in her electric Mennonite buggy as she makes her way through Africa

Okay, like a Facebook relationship status, it’s complicated.  People can and do convert to become Mennonite.  And, surprisingly enough, since a few decades ago, an African version of the Mennonite denomination has been growing rapidly to the point there are now more Mennonites in Congo than in Canada.  I mean, who knows if their doctrines or religious practices are anything that a North American conservative would recognize, nevertheless they do carry the name of Menno Simons in a direction he probably never imagined.

That’s one thing that the Orthodox generally put up front.  If you are Orthodox in Greece or a Greek community, then you’re a Greek Orthodox.  The liturgy and general practice are the same, established by canons, but there is also room for ethnic expression and use of the language common to the people.  In the Arabic world, for example, they use “Allah” where we use the Roman pagan word ‘God’ and have been using it before Islam even existed as a religion.  Anyhow, in Orthodoxy, unlike Mennonites, the identity is built from the substance of something established and a faith that is ancient.

Absurdly, when it comes to Judaism, we no longer care if they’re practicing or apostate, we slap that big ethnic label on them all and claim all of them have a claim to the land by their DNA.  To us, they’re all the same.  But that’s certainly not the case when it comes to Biblical Israel, not every part of the assembly was blessed, some were literally swallowed up by the earth, while others were put to death for disobedience, and the whole would end up in exile: 

But if you or your descendants turn away from me and do not observe the commands and decrees I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land I have given them and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. Israel will then become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. This temple will become a heap of rubble. All who pass by will be appalled and will scoff and say, ‘Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and to this temple?’ People will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the Lord their God, who brought their ancestors out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why the Lord brought all this disaster on them.’ ‭‭‭‭

1 Kings‬ ‭9:6‭-‬9‬ ‭NIV

It is quite clear that the covenant was even conditional for those who were biological offspring of Abraham.  Not only this, but people could become part of Israel who were not blood descendants of Abraham, Ruth the Moabite, or Rehab the prostitute, a Gentile, for example.  So it was never about ethnicity, it was always about obedience and the covenant conditional based upon obedience rather than bloodlines.

Chosen For Abraham’s Faith

The children of Israel were not picked for their superior genetics.  That’s not to say there aren’t very intelligent and extremely talented people of Jewish religious heritage.  Abraham was picked for being a righteous man:

And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

Genesis 18:17‭-‬19 KJV

It was Abraham’s righteousness and how he would guide his children to “keep the way of the Lord,” that God picked him.  God went on to set Israel aside through religion, not race, and those who did not keep the law would soon find themselves entirely cut off from the assembly of Israel.  There was never a blessing for simply being a blood relative of Abraham.  It was always conditioned on a faith that produced the work of obedience and this remains the case.  

Those born to keep the law of Moses must recognize their Lord and Savior or they’re no more blessed than the Benjamites put to the sword for their evil:

The tribes of Israel sent messengers throughout the tribe of Benjamin, saying, “What about this awful crime that was committed among you? Now turn those wicked men of Gibeah over to us so that we may put them to death and purge the evil from Israel.” But the Benjamites would not listen to their fellow Israelites. […] The Lord defeated Benjamin before Israel, and on that day the Israelites struck down 25,100 Benjamites, all armed with swords. […] The men of Israel went back to Benjamin and put all the towns to the sword, including the animals and everything else they found. All the towns they came across they set on fire.

Judges 20:12‭-‬13‭, ‬35‭, ‬48 NIV

If this were a Covenant merely about blood or genetics, then the Benjaminites really got shafted.  I mean, I’m not sure how anyone could construe being slaughtered wholesale as being a blessing or some special thing to be chosen for, “Congratulations, you’ve been selected to be purged!”  So this idea that anyone will ever be saved simply for their chosen race is wrong and there is only one true religion which is founded in Abraham’s seed, through the law of Moses, and is fulfilled in Christ.  

My favorite Jewish writer explains:

Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God. 

Galatians 6:12‭-‬16 NIV

After Christ, even the law of circumcision becomes secondary to what St Paul describes as being “the new creation.” 

So it was the righteousness of Abraham, which was followed up with their being set aside by careful obedience to the law—which was the test of the Old Covenant—and finally, reconciliation through Christ that is salvation for all. 

It was NEVER only about ethnicity or race.  Modern descendants of the Jews must do the same as anyone else, repent and accept their King or perish. Repentance is the first step to salvation and that is what distinguishes true Israel from the counterfeit.  The first followers of Jesus were Jewish.  Christianity is the part of the assembly that remained faithful to their Lord while the others who rejected their rightful king are called anti-Christ:

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.  They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. […]  Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.  No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” ‭‭

1 John‬ ‭2:18‭-‬19‬ ‭NIV‬‬

There are a great many who call themselves Christian today who have Scripture and yet no discernment whatsoever.  You don’t even need to believe in Jesus to understand what is being said in the passage.  Who is identified as the liar and anti-Christ?  1 John 2 very plainly tells us who: “It is whomever denies that Jesus is the Christ.”  That is to say those unfaithful to the covenant made with Abraham through their rejection of the Son—God in the flesh.

To say that some can deny the Son and still have a Covenant with the Father?  It is to basically throw out the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is completely moronic and a sign that someone was never truly part of the assembly of God.  If they truly belonged they would see their Lord as the fulfillment and not be so easily led astray.  When Jesus says “Salvation is from the Jews” he is not talking about an ethnic group, he is talking about himself and how he is the Messiah that was promised through the faithful seed of Abraham.

Chosen by Christ

It is really a form of idolatry to hold a race or ethnicity up as chosen by God for no reason other than their genetics.  That is not what the “Israel of God” ever was.  The assembly (or ‘ekklesia’) was always about those who were faithful, a remnant of Abraham’s seed that included Gentile converts, and turning it into an ethno-nationalist state is a perversion of what the original covenant between God and Abraham actually entailed.  A covenant is a two-edged sword, while it comes with blessings for those who obey there is also a list of curses for those who do not hold up their own end.

‭‭Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. […] “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ […] “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

Matthew‬ ‭22:1‭-‬3‬,5-9,14 ‭NIV‬‬

Any guess which of those on the guest list killed the servants sent by the King?

The Biblical Israel, for those who believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is that remnant of Jews who obey and follow after the Word of God incarnate.  This is always how Israel worked.  Some were pruned off the tree and others grafted in.  There were never special exceptions made for anyone merely on the basis of ethnicity or race.  The Church is the nation of those faith to the work of God that started with a Covenant with Abraham and needs no worldly state or rebuilt temple of stones.  Christians are the chosen people.

This essay doesn’t mean that there should be no modern state of Israel or that the mistreatment of any group of people in the world who have rejected Jesus is ever acceptable. We just need to know there’s a big difference between “identifies as’ and what is actually being referred to in the Bible.

We’re Not Made for Paradise

Standard

Having overindulged in a stimulating activity more than once, I’ve felt the effects of the dopamine withdrawal.  Trivia Crack, aptly named, consumed me for a few weeks as I moved up through the ranks of friends.  The game played to my strengths and it became obsession after a little success.

The chemical rewards system of our body is hijacked by addiction.  For me things will often spiral quickly when exposed to a new stimulant.  Which is the nature of things in the social media and smart phone era, it is not restricted to location, the gratification of desire is instant, and the stigma is not large enough to restrain us.

What gives me new clarity about this is my good intentions for my son.  He loves to be on his tablet, watching TikTok videos, and can do this for hours on end.  Which is fine if his life is to be a consumer rather than a creator.  The problem is there is no need of art or mastery, both of which require some effort end struggle.  His entertainment will come at the expense of ambition.

The reason why I limit his screentime is to keep him directed towards development of talents.  In the ‘real world’ you don’t actually get any where sitting on your butt glued to a screen.  I mean, I do make a living this way, by clicking imaginary objects on a screen that others will fabricate into trusses using wood and metal plates.  Still, this isn’t really as fulfilling as it would seem and certainly isn’t as rewarding as winning a hard fought basketball game after weeks of practice.

Whether by creation in an instant or through generations, the basic systems of our body are designed to seek out those things that we need to survive.  And the rarer that these things are the more desirable they must be because this is what drives us.  Essentially, free will is questionable when so much of our own behavior is governed by impulses we have little control over.  Just try going without food for a day or two and tell me who is really in control of your actions.

The real problem is both excessive supply of things meant to be rare and the artificial replacements.  Eat too much sugar and the results will eventually catch up in the form of weight gain and diabetes.  If you wish to crush a man’s natural desire, the kind that is accompanied by productive behavior, then give him a unending access to sources of pleasure that aren’t tied to any work.

And this is the true sin of pornography and masturbation.  It isn’t so much that seeing the female form and appreciation of those feminine assets is so bad, it is why men get married after all.  However, it is when these things are satisfied in a way that does not produce the end that was intended.  Sexual activity without relationship or commitment is certainly fun and yet equivalent to empty calories.  It doesn’t build anything.

Which leads to the other problem of access and that being diminished returns.  In other words, with the replacements, while killing natural drives, one must do more and more to get the same pleasure.  No, maybe it isn’t good to enter the world always horned out or starved, that has it’s own problems, but some things are meant to be obtained via the traditional path.  Men who always get what they want in life never develop good character.

Which is the paradox.  We dream of having our desires satisfied.  And yet, even if we had the real deal to indulge ourselves to the max, would we be happy?  Was King David content with multiple wives?  Did it prevent him from noticing what other men had and acting out in lust?  The reality is most of us would be lascivious and bloated, like Harvey Weinstein, if we actually had the power to take shortcuts to our paradise.

We are not made to be removed from the limitations of our environment.  But, beyond this, all triumphs are short lived.  The point of our natural desires isn’t to ever lead us to contentment.  If anything, accomplishment of our ultimate goals may be anticlimactic and a disappointment.  That ‘perfect’ girl is going to fart in bed.  She’s not going to look dolled up and sexy like the fantasy version of her suitor’s mind.

As a child I wasn’t much different from my son.  I would draw my ideal world.  And in one of these visions was a bedroom with an automatic pizza making machine and soda fountain.  As an adult, I now know that this would be awesome for a week and not too long after that it would be disgusting.  The same goes for almost anything when piled up in excess.  Value drops with availability, which deprives is of satisfaction.

In the end, a Grand Theft Auto world, or one where we can simply take anything we want and is free of all consequences, would not be wonderful.  This is what went wrong with sexual liberation and dismissal of the moral wisdom passed down.  No, religious authority doesn’t accomplish the balance without wisdom, but it definitely can give a head start to the wise.  We’re not made for heaven—only to strive for it.

Biblical Reversionism

Standard

I’m dismayed by the number of people who profess Christ as their Lord and Savior yet fall for the most brazen of heresies.  The one which is the topic of this post turns the Bible on its head.  It diverts attention from what is important and undermines the Gospel Jesus preached first to the Jews, for their salvation, before it was spread throughout the world by way of his disciples.  Biblical reversionist heresy elevates the Old Covenant to be equal with the fulfillment of these promises in Christ. It is, in the end, a rejection and mockery of Christ.

The Resurrection of Old Defies the New…

The reversionist believes that, despite Jesus coming to save both Jews and Gentiles, according to Romans 1:16, the Old Covenant continues in parallel for those who have rejected Christ. It is ignorant of the fact that the New Testament talks about both those who are cut off from the vine (which is Christ) and those who are grafted in:

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.  You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble.  For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

(Romans 11:17-21 NIV)

The Old Covenant law does not save:

For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

(Romans 8:3-4 NIV)

It was only ever a shadow:

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

(Hebrews 10:1-4 NIV)

Which is made obsolete, in Christ:

But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

(Hebrews 8:6‭-‬13 NIV)

The outdated covenant *did* disappear with the destruction of the Temple.

From John the Baptist:

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

(John 8:7-10 NIV)

At no point does Jesus say that there will be multiple paths to salvation or that there will be a tree of salvation that stems only from being biologically linked to Abraham. There is one true vine, that is Jesus, some are cut off and destroyed, others are grafted in and saved. There is nowhere where it is said that the Old Covenant will be resurrected to provide another way for those who have rejected and continue to reject Christ. To preach that is heresy, it is reversionism, and replaces the true Israel (that is to say those who believed or the church) with a secular nation borrowing the name.

The New Covenant is not about an ethnostate or the Haaretz of Israel. No, it is about the heavenly kingdom, a kingdom where there is no Jew or Gentile, that is defined by faith rather than biological pedigrees. Our blessing, eternal life, comes through Christ Jesus alone.

Blessings of the Anti-Christ?

The reversionists base their entire interpretation on a misuse of this blessing given to Abram:

“I will make you into a great nation,
    and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you.”

(Genesis 12:2,3 NIV)

They ignore everything St Paul said to explain the seed of Abraham as being singular (Christ) in his rebuke of the foolish Galatians trying to revert back to the Old Covenant. Over and over again Scripture tells us of the failure of those who try to do things through means of the flesh and yet here we are again.

But even the passage itself is spoken specifically about Abram (later Abraham) and those who bless or curse him. It doesn’t say anything about those who bless or curse this “great nation” promised nor does it seem to be talking about nations period. It is a promise to Abraham specifically and then ends by saying that “all people on earth will be blessed through you” which is to say him or his seed, which again is Christ—who didn’t require blind allegiance to a worldly nation.

Furthermore, the modern state of Israel, with a powerful military and foreign backing, does fit the criteria of the nation God said must be fully dependent on Him. Israel is a progressive state, ranked 7th in the world for gay happiness, and one of the least religious countries in the world, and God’s Covenant with the nation of Israel was always conditional. Both Leviticus and Deuteronomy make this quite clear: If they obey God will bless them and if they do not they will be destroyed. Zionism, the Jewish version, makes the Jews themselves the saviors of the world and totally replaces Christ.

This being our own Christ and denying the true Christ is exactly what is being referred to when New Testament writers use the phrase anti-Christ:

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

(1 John 22-23 NIV)

If there is a temple rebuilt, it will be the seat of the anti-Christ:

Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.  He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. […] The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

(2 Thessalonians 2:3,4,9-12 NIV)

And what a powerful delusion some believe, that puts the Church established by Christ behind the nation that rejected Him, this we’re told:

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.  They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

(1 John 2:18-19 NIV)

Ultimately, choose whatever Israel you want. But you can’t have both. You can’t have your worldy Israel, that is rejected even by observant Jews who call it fraudlent, and then claim to be a part of the kingdom of Christ Jesus. Reversionism is in no way a Covenant with the God of Abraham. It is only a counterfiet of the original promise and one that draws many away from their only means of salvation. Don’t be one who is decieved by this new version of the same old heresy, don’t be like Judas looking for his worldly fulfilment. There is only one Israel where Christ is king and that’s His Church.

The saddest part about reversionism (or ‘Christian’ Zionism) is that it muddies the waters and sends mixed messages to those who need salvation. So many professing Christ and then supporting the brutal reality of what it takes to create a Jewish state on land that was inhabited is a slanderous and degrading witness of Christ who would have had no problem establishing a worldly kingdom through use of violence over two millenia ago. So many are like Gehazi, servant of Elisha, dishonoring the example of their master and inheriting the disease that was healed: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”





I Don’t Care What You Call It

Standard

I feel the need to preface this once again with a trigger warning for those who won’t read through and will miss my point. No, I’m not saying what Hamas did was justified. Nor am I saying that Israel should not respond. But I am trying to confront a bias, motivated by a misuse of Scripture, that is leading our side to look the other way at what amounts to dumping white phosphorous on innocent children and then pretending this is a just response to the death of Israelis. I am addressing what clouds the moral judgment here and not saying that one side or the other should just take the abuse.

I’m addressing the false dichotomy exposed in this letter from Albert Einstein (Jewish) in his opposition to the terrorism that was taking place. He wrote this right after a massacre carried out by Zionist extremists and warning of what would eventually become the horrendous reality of the Nakba and why Palestinians today are reluctant to leave their homes today. They know the history even if you’re ignorant. Read what Einstein wrote and then study what happened next…

To be clear, Einstein was not against a Jewish homeland. He was simply against the violent means being employed that have led to the current hatred. Had more followed his advice then we wouldn’t be facing yet another bloody war today. When will we learn?

Framing Issues

Had the British managed to put down the bloodthirsty terrorists who fought to “water the tree of liberty” by violently taking over their American colonies, does that mean they never existed? No, they (along with their weird pagan offshoot religion that required regular human sacrifice to keep their tree nourished) did exist and they existed as a distinct entity the moment that they declared themselves to be independent. And to say otherwise would be dumb.

One of the stupidest arguments ever made is “tHeRe Is nO PaLeStINe” as if the millions of people pushed into Gaza and West Bank simply do not exist. By that sort of semantic and legal argument, there was never a state of Israel prior to May 14, 1948. Sure, there were a people called the children of Israel and a kingdom of David, but never a STATE by that name, and certainly not one that was a Western-style democracy, prior to a bunch of Europeans moving to British-controlled Mandatory Palestine (which is what it was called) and most certainly a nation with the world’s strongest standing army is not the same one as found in the Scriptures. No, that doesn’t mean they should be run into the sea or not recognized as a legitimate nation (although many do not) and yet we must deal with the reality that the land was occupied before European settlers arrived to claim it. Historical claims may make a nice romantic script, for those with no skin in the game, but telling people that their grievance of being displaced doesn’t exist because you don’t like the name is asinine. It is reasoning that may get you likes in your echo chamber but suggests you are silly and should not be taken seriously by those with a modicum of intelligence. It’s not like the Palestinians are going to stop their fight against those who took their deeded land because you claim they don’t exist.  

Furthermore, legal recognition does not change what something is. By now we all should know this. The governments of the world can call black white or white black and it doesn’t change the nature of color. Calling a man a woman or your affinity for your pet a marriage doesn’t make it true. We have the absolute right to question legal precedent or to hold to whatever existed in our minds prior to their changes. Maybe your modern definitions are simply ignorant of the original meaning and the other side is right. You might eventually be blotted off from the face of the Earth and forgotten. But it doesn’t mean you or the perspectives you held don’t exist. A person’s perspective still exists even if opposed by the powerful who have better propaganda and denying it exists is plain dumb.

Palestinians exist even if they are erased from the land or never officially recognized by many in the United States. That’s not a statement that will suit many from my fundamentalist religious background. But they’re simply not dealing with reality, it is denial, and ridiculous. Einstein called it Palestine. It was Palestine. The modern-day Israeli state came after.

Who were the Samaritans?

They were people deemed illegitimate by the pure-blooded religious elites.  They made a counterclaim to what the other descendants of Abraham Jesus mingled with saw as their own exclusive property.  The Samaritans had their own priests (apparently descendants of Aaron directly) and, contrary to the belief of their Jewish rivals, also continuously occupied the land like their Semitic cousins.

This is what makes how Jesus recognized these people so significant.  We learn, in his conversation with a Samaritan woman, that true worship wasn’t about location, including Jerusalem, but about Spirit and truth.  If this wasn’t clear enough, the parable of the good Samaritan was a slap in the face of those whom Jesus addressed.  A Samaritan more righteous than their own best?  Jesus was intentionally antagonizing. He intended to offend and insult them.

The point, however, remains that salvation is not a birthright.  It is not about your claim to be or ethnic inheritance.  The Christian truth is about what we do, and how we love, and never a matter of our worship ritual or genetics.  The measure of Christian pedigree is faith, pure and simple, like that of Abraham—which is what makes a person a son or daughter of Abraham.

Jesus didn’t mince words when addressing those who believed they would be saved by their ethnicity or Abrahamic bloodline:

Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

(John 8:39‭-‬44 NIV)

There are not multiple paths, according to Jesus, but only one way, truth, and life for all to come to the Father.  Galatians makes it clear that Abraham’s seed is fulfilled fully in Christ and all who believe in Him:

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. […] So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

(Galatians 3:16‭, ‬26‭-‬28 NIV)

Romans affirms what St Paul said above in Galatians:

So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. […] What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened…

(Romans 11:5‭, ‬7 NIV)

The “remnant” is those who believed in Jesus.  While the “hardened” are those who rejected Him and, in their unbelief and ignorance, crucified the one who was called their King.  And, for those who contort and turn the Gospels inside out trying to revert to a Covenant that passed away, Hebrews 8:13, I despise your bastardization of truth.  Those who would replace His Kingdom “not of this world” with a modern secular state are not legitimate scholars or Christians.

I reject your ignorant religion.

I reject your indifferent religion.

I reject your false religion.

The true Christ isn’t an ethno-nationalist or waiting on yet another stone temple to be built.  And I don’t really care what your Scofield reference or some random guy on YouTube says.  Christian Zionism is a contradiction of terms.  I’m perfectly fine with European Jews finding a homeland and defending it.  But it should never be confused with the fulfillment of anything more than that.  We should instead be looking for the new Jerusalem.  So stone me like Stephen for repeating what he said: “The Most High does not live in houses made by human hands.”

Count me with the Samaritans.

A blessing or a curse?

Since the 1950s, no other nation has shown more perfect loyalty or full allegiance to the state of Israel than the United States.  The Biden administration is no exception and doubling down on what Trump started.  For this have accumulated a mountain of debt, a decay of our institutions, and sharp moral decline as more and more Americans fall away from faith.  Sure, we are materially wealthy, for now, but churches are empty and those that remain are temples to consumerism rather than self-sacrificial love.  If support for this country is a blessing then I guess we’ll need to redefine that word like we have been with everything else lately.  Or maybe consider we’ve gotten things wrong?

The direction of the US doesn’t look good right now and maybe that is because we’re like the Jeruselum condemned by Ezekiel:

“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.

(Ezekiel 16:49-52 NIV)

Maybe it is time to stop focusing on the sins of Samaria and consider our own. Sure, maybe IsRaEl hAs ThE rIgHt To DeFeND iTsElF, but then so do the other Semitic people in that region. Consider that we are Haman, from the book of Esther, unwittingly building our own gallows as we justify our unjust vengeance against undeserving people. We’re not a righteous judge. The children of Gaza did not attack Israel. It is not anti-Semitic to stand with Einstein or recognize the unjust suffering of the Semitic people in Gaza. It is not our allegiance to the state of Israel that will bring us blessings, only allegiance to the king of the true Israel can do that and we must all repent of our delusions otherwise.

Your Own Personal Jesus

Standard

The title of this blog is a repeated line from a popular song, “Personal Jesus,” covered by Johnny Cash.  According to the writer, this song is “about being a Jesus for someone else” and more specifically the mentoring role Elvis Presley had played in the life of his wife Priscilla.  The power of these words is how they change meaning depending on the artist who sings them.  When it was covered by Marilyn Manson they came off as being mocking and derisive.

My own thoughts, hearing the song, always brings me to the popular Evangelical phrase “accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior” and the theological implications.  Unintentionally, it is a commentary on how the Christian religion has been reinvented in this consumerist and individualistic age.  It is all about you.  Jesus is now personal, like a boyfriend, and pretty much whatever you want him to be.  There is no obligation to others, no real need for self-sacrificial love, or becoming part of the body of believers, only to hold a kind of positive sentiment in your heart.

And this is what I encountered in the church of my youth.  Except for those few symbolic expressions of community and caring, carry-overs from those radical Anabaptist roots, it was pretty much everyone for themselves—which is how most of us preferred it to be.  I mean, sure, we would tell the other guy we would be praying for him after ritual foot washing, some would still call you brother as if simply saying it made it true, but that was generally the extent of it.  We all had our own families if there was ever a real need, the church projects were generally for the elderly and those few favorites.

Saved Together 

Orthodoxy has a more robust view of Holy Communion and could, in theory, answer the overly independent view of salvation.  At the very least, with our partaking of the body and blood together central to worship, this puts to rest this idea that the internet preacher is enough.  Life in Christ is about His body and His physical presence, not only something we hold in our minds as true.  It is not only our knowledge of Christ and mental assent but is also about making His example the basis of our actions—being an incarnation.

Faith is not about what we claim to believe, it is about how we act:

Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. […] Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

(Galatians 6:2‭, ‬7‭-‬10 NIV)

Carrying of burdens is about more than mere “thoughts and prayers” or those mostly empty expressions.  No, it is all about providing real relief to others, being that ‘neighbor’ like the good Samaritan or the true advocate like St. Paul was for Onesimus.  It is not enough to only say “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” without ever helping others with their actual needs as we read in James 2:16.  It is our job to be our brother’s keeper, that is to look after their needs like we would our own or that of a family member.  This is what a community of faith is supposed to be about and also key to our salvation.

“If anyone falls, he falls alone. But nobody is saved alone.”

—Alexei Khomiakov

For some, their salvation comes from the hand we offer.  For others, their salvation comes from offering that hand.  The early church had this saying, “unus Christianus, nullus Christianus.”  That is to say that one Christian is no Christian.  This is what it means to follow Christ, this is what being in Communion is really about.  Sure the ritual and religious practice matters.  But the true substance in the blood and the flesh we are to consume is in how we become the hands and feet of Jesus.  To do otherwise, to only partake without acting in genuine love is to drink unworthily and bring damnation upon ourselves:

In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. […] So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

(1 Corinthians 11:18‭-‬21‭, ‬27 NIV)

Stay In Your Lane

Sadly, within Orthodoxy, for some, it is about lighting a candle, making a sign of the cross, paying their membership dues (tithes), and regular church attendance.  In other words, all about going through the motions.  They don’t want to be bothered by real relationships or overcoming differences—let alone be concerned with the salvation of their fellow parishioners.  

Sheesh, let the priest do his job!  Mind your own business!  Don’t you have enough sins of your own to attend to?  

I’ve even heard clergy give advice like “stay in your lane” as if there’s no difference between confrontation of lingering issues and petty fault-finding…

I’ll back up a second and agree fully that we should be “work[ing] out [our] salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:13), which does imply some introspection and that we start first with the beam in our own eye.  But, that said, even this admonition is addressed to “my dear friends” or the church body and not as a personal note.  So even this could be used to further the view of salvation that is about collective effort and not some sort of personal experience we have while sitting in the pew deliberately not noticing elephants in the room as our penance.

There are some who do not seem to realize that their mother’s scold, “If you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say anything at all,” isn’t written in Scripture, but this is:

“‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the Lord.“ ‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt. “ ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

(Leviticus 19:16b‭-‬18 NIV)

Speaking the truth is not always pleasant to the ears of those hearing it and yet it is part of what love does.  It is not that we should never confront, rather it is the SPIRIT of how we approach these sins or shortcomings of others.  So, sure, staying in our lane is good, but that doesn’t mean we should never alert someone driving with their headlights off at night since we have also done the same in the past.  It may feel like ‘keeping the peace’ to sweep everything under the rug or let the ‘problem’ go away by ignoring it—but it’s also an unloving attitude.

“Church is not a social club…”

I’ve now encountered it in two very different religious traditions.  When that cry is made for real brotherhood, deeper connections or genuine relationships are met with the strong suggestion that you’re not spiritual enough and a reminder that church is for worshipping God and superficial interactions.  If you expect a little more then you’re turning it into a social club.  This is an inversion.  It is a psychological projection and a garbage excuse.  It’s telling a person seeking medical care that hospitals are about the awe of the building and reverence for the institution, that they should go to the dance club if they so desperately want to be touched by someone.  

These phony physicians only add insult to injury, they are exactly the type of religious authorities that Jesus rebuked: 

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. 

(Matthew 23:2‭-‬4 NIV)

For them, it is all about the right image, the dress standards, and keeping their perfect attendance record.  Basically, they check all of the right boxes.  Performative religion.  And who knows?  Maybe their Bible study and prayers, ten hours a day, really does it for them?  Who am I to say that their mission to Uganda was entirely a self-indulgent display of privilege and a waste of resources?  But I’ll also say that those who travel the world while doing the bare minimum for those whom God put right at their own doorstep are condemned as hypocrites by Jesus.

The church is established by the same God who told us that it is not good for man to be alone.  Good for you if you need nobody in your life.  Jesus is your homeboy?  But most of us need those meaningful and sometimes messy interactions with other humans.  That is what family is.  That’s what hospitals are built to facilitate.  And that is what a church is literally supposed to be.  If you don’t need a doctor maybe you are the doctor and your salvation requires you to show up to attend to those sick and suffering?  Why call would we call each other brothers and sisters in Christ if this weren’t the case?  If the church isn’t at all about social interactions—why do we waste the gas?

Those who say that church isn’t a social club are right.  It is also not an art museum where pretentious people go to engage politely and then share a light snack.  It should be much more than that.  It should be a refuge we can flee, the juniper tree where God sends angels to comfort and attend to the physical needs of Elijah, a garden of Gethsemane where the disciples are not sleeping in hours of need, it should be intimate and practical, a hospital or home.  A place to be ministered to and minister to each other.  It’s both where we share our moments of happiness and also mourn with those who mourn.

Church is a family or it is just fake.  

Post Script: Those who personalize Jesus tend to depersonalize their religion. Protestant or Orthodox, it doesn’t matter, they want to claim their great devotion with their embrace of abstraction and their own prescribed practices, but seem to forget that pure religion is about the human touch (James 1:27) and what they do materially for others is how to show their love for Jesus. Our salvation does not come apart from the body of Christ. Communion isn’t only what we partake of on a Sunday morning, it is what we participate in as far as loving others and, in particular, the community of believers. You cannot stay in your lane, avoiding people in a pretense of righteousness, and also love God.

Seeing Behind The Veil

Standard

In storytelling, there is a plot device called a MacGuffin.  This is an object, character, or event used to push the narrative forward and yet isn’t all that important in and of itself.  In other words, a thing that creates motivation and yet never even needs to be revealed to the audience.  We are supposed to believe this is something significant or valuable and that’s all we need to be told.

The contents of the briefcase are left a mystery despite being pivotal in motivating the characters.

While reading through the Old Testament and pondering how temple worship worked, it is hard not to see the Ark of the Covenant as a sort of MacGuffin.  Sure, their God was not a thing.  And yet this sacred object, we’re told, contained something of God’s presence and would even strike dead those who innocently mishandled it.  Of course, most people may never have seen it, it was kept behind a veil in the temple where few had access, but all would be told of the sacredness.

“Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever.”

(1 Kings 8:12‭-‬13 KJV)

In fact, it was made sacred as much by this treatment as much as what actually dwelled within it.  The mythology surrounding it, as in the cultural or religious significance that was given to it, was extremely powerful.  Starting a special priestly class, Tabernacle and ritual practice, later the impressive structure of the Temple, there was a huge investment in this sacred object.  And yet, for all the attention it got, the Ark itself was usually kept hidden in darkness, guarded, within the Holy of Holies and behind a veil.

Holy Of Holies 

There are other things hidden behind a veil with significant motivational power.  One of them being the marriage MacGuffin.  For me this was a pursuit of something sacred, the church does consider the marriage bed to be sacred, and there is a whole mythology that is constructed around marriage.

This is what made it so jarring when, during my pursuit of the impossibly, a psychiatrist would classify it as “sexual attraction.”  They had just heard me describe a pure and faith-driven quest only to reframe it in such crass terms.  How dare they!  I was after love, not sex!  It really did offend me at the time.  With their clinical roughness, they had penetrated the veil of my marriage delusion.  It was an act of sacrilege.  

My childhood innocence is beyond recovery at this point.  For whatever reason, those of us born into a fundamentalist purity culture believe that we must be in denial of our own sexual urges that lead to marriage.  This is strange given how blunt St. Paul is on the topic, in 1 Corinthians 7:9, advising those who “burn with passion” to get married and basically get a room.  Why the veil of secrecy, these many euphemistic expressions to cover and mystify the bumping of uglies?

Speaking of erotic euphemism:

“Awake, O north wind; And come, thou south; Blow upon my garden, That the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, And eat his pleasant fruits.”

(Song of Solomon 4:16 KJV)

Why blush, be embarrassed or ashamed by this?

Could it be that without dressing this whole affair up with great ceremony, white bridal veils, teary-eyed parents, and such, we would have to face the reality of being creatures as hormone-driven as two ducks on a pond?  I mean, why aren’t we as honest as Solomon was in his poetry: “Roses are red, violets are blue, you have large breasts, that’s why I love you!”  Without white lies or half-truths, would our version of romance even survive?

So what is underneath the veil?

All of those things that I’ve discovered in the intervening years, that’s what…

Bride or prostitute.
Is the only difference the price each requires?

To the extent I was in deep denial of my own sexuality, I was doubly in denial of the sexual nature of my female counterparts within the conservative Anabaptist culture.  The young lady who first propositioned, then made it all awkward and worried about somehow being ‘defiled’ if she got coffee with me has long since dropped the veil.  She has joined the others whom I had held in such high regard, revealed now as not being nearly as prudish or pure as I had once imagined.  That’s not a criticism or judgment either.  It is just the reality of the situation.

So, when the impossibly told me “I cannot not love that you the way that you wanted to be loved” what she was really saying the same thing as those Tinder girls with “must be 6′ or over to ride” in their profiles.  She wanted a guy who got her juices flowing, certainly someone a bit more rugged and traditionally masculine than me.  And, I mean, why not?  Why hide it?  Marriage is not only (or even primarily) about the high ideal that is advertised.  It is also about our scratching the itch.  Which is to say getting down and dirty with someone who meets the correct physical qualifications.

Also, perhaps it is that the fantasy is more satisfying than the act itself?  We read how Amnon, King David’s eldest son, had such an infatuation with his half-sister Tamar.  It tells us after having his way with her he despised her.  Or consider the disgust of Victorian-era art critic John Ruskin when, in marriage, he discovered that women aren’t like porcelain dolls.  You’ll have to forgive him, they put skirts over piano legs back then to keep the eyes of men safe from the unveiled feminine form.  Maybe there are some things that are better chased than caught?  If we find what we went looking for we might be shocked at what we found.

Sacred Fertility & Symbolism 

The final stop on this exploration of sacred and taboo has to do with something that I can’t unsee now that I’ve seen it.  I’m bound to lose half of my final two readers for going here. 

Nevertheless, I’m not here to please the pearl-clutching crowd. 

For me, this is not about toppling sacred cows or making people uncomfortable, it is about being honest enough to see reality for what it is and correcting our own perspectives of the cultural baggage we’ve inherited.

First, what drives much of the Old Testament Biblical narrative?  We know Abraham’s story, how he wanted an heir, and yet how Sarai, his wife, was unable to produce.  In this Genesis account we see various cases where wombs are opened or closed.  And the punishment of Michal, for rebuking her dancing husband, was that she had no child until the day of her death.  Being fruitful and multiplying was a high priority, as well as having sons to carry on the family line.

As an aside, we live in a very sterile world in comparison to our ancestors, we’ve become sheltered and sensitive to the point many do not eat meat or want their children exposed to death.  This wasn’t an option at the time when Scripture was written.  There is a kind of earthiness to their world and perspective, something more primal or real, a brutality of life difficult to stomach.  It is with this reality in mind, that we also have different sexual taboos and could be more prudish than they were about such things.

Second, I was sitting in church and taking a look at the colorful streams of light pouring through a stained glass image of Jesus pulling Adam and Eve from the grave.  My moment of appreciation for this beauty was interrupted by my noticing part of the symbolism.  Jesus is shown to be emerging from an oval shape, at the bottom of which are the covers of their opened tombs.  Requiring very little, if any, imagination, it bears striking resemblance to one Christian symbol even an iconoclastic Protestant would likely recognize, and that being a vertically arranged “Jesus fish” or Ichthys.

Light and life shining down…

However, concurrent to this, and a cause of some momentary shame, was the thought “That’s a vulva!”  I mean, how inappropriate to think that any part of the female anatomy, let alone those private nether regions, be put on prominent display or be associated with Christ!  

But is it really?

A mother, Mary, is necessary for the birth of Jesus.  Without her, and her womb that is miraculously made made more spacious than the heavens, there is no salvation for mankind.  It didn’t matter if God could have used any other way, all we know is that he used this young woman and all of the faithful since have followed the lead of Elizabeth, who full of the Holy Spirit loudly proclaimed:

“Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

(Luke 1:42‭-‬43 NIV)

As far as the symbolism, I would find that indeed my observation had basis in reality as the Ichthys is a version of Vesica Piscis (literally “fishes bladder” in Latin) or, in sacred geometry, the oval that two intersecting circles create an oval and said to be the place where spiritual and physical worlds interface. According to Syriac Press, in ancient Mesopotamia, it was used as a symbol of the combination of masculine and feminine energies that create a Divine Child.  Any pagan coincidence, like those with baptism, only serves to reinforce the power of the symbolism.

In a time when many settle for ‘fur babies’ over producing human offspring and the unique female contribution to the world is dismissed by feminists seeking male roles— when real women are mocked by men who pretend to menstruate—we need to start doubling down on our celebration of this reproductive role of women.  Phrases like “saved through childbearing” did not come into the Bible by accident.  The world was saved by the one who came out of Mary’s fertile womb and we ought not to downplay or be embarrassed by this.

Empty Vessel—Dying Corpse

Solomon’s Temple was destroyed in 586 BC, by the Babylonians, and the fate of the Ark within it is unknown.  This loss of sacred relics did not stop the Jewish faithful from rebuilding the temple, in 515 BC, but does make one wonder how much the contents mattered.  So long as the people were kept in awe that’s all that really seemed to be the point whether the edifice truly contained anything of real value or not.  With nothing behind the veil, the people still did the ritual and sacrifice. 

Why?

It seems sort of analogous to the US Dollar, a currency once backed by actual gold and now only by faith people continue to hold in the economic system it represents.  The harsh reality is that it has become merely a means to exploit. It is a way for a few elites to rob the value of the savings of other people by printing more money for themselves.  Those money changers Jesus chased out of the Temple were the amateurs. The real professionals never get caught.  The carefully maintained veil of secrecy around the Federal Reserve ensures that this particular scam continues for a long long time.

But, I digress.  

G. K. Chesterton once wrote, “a corpse crawling with worms has an increased vitality,” and that “a dead man may look like a sleeping man a moment after he is dead,” trying to describe the subtle yet significant difference between truly sacred tradition and a cheap gimmick version of this religion that was intended to replace it.  Perhaps this is what has me disillusioned?  With so many things, once the veil is lifted (which few ever dare to do) so much of the enticing mystery and popular mythology which propelled us forward falls apart.  And in this way some of the life I had felt early on feels more like decomposition.

Perhaps this is what is left when you’re the dog who has finally caught the car?  Nothing left to do but pee on the tire and continue on your way again.  The anticipation leading up to the day of revelation may be more exciting than the moment the veil is lifted and when all is seen.  Ruskin may have spent the rest of his life waxing eloquently about his female love interest.  Or maybe—just maybe—that MacGuffin which led us to the point we’re at today was merely a plot device to move the story forward and the only truly sacred part of the encounter is the fruit produced?

Sexual pleasure is fleeting.  We’re lured there by our imaginations, by our desire for what is beyond the veil of marriage, but it can all be a bit anti-climactic and even repulsive once you consider it after it is finally unwrapped from the flowery speech and those flawless air-brushed mental pictures.  But fatherhood, by contrast, seeing the great potential of my son, tending to his needs, pruning as needed, is something extremely fulfilling.  It is what has emerged from the womb that brings us renewed life and hope.  Pity the barren, the dying corpse who has lifted the veil and only saw the emptiness of their pursuits.

Aliens Are Here! Maybe…

Standard

Did you hear?  A ‘whistleblower’ testified before Congress about aliens and finding non-human remains at crash sites.  I can’t really know if this was reliable or someone simply getting their fifteen minutes of fame, but it does seem unlikely to me that beings capable of flying the enormous distances of space would be such poor navigators.  I’ll be a skeptic until I can see for myself and make my own determination.

However, in pondering the topic, a friend of mine posted an interesting meme and it is an angle worth exploring.  If aliens do exist, according to the insinuation of this image posted, then they are demonic entities and not to be treated as friends.  To some this may seem like a missed opportunity, why would we avoid a chance to expand our own horizons?  Typical human behavior, right, to meet with violence the things that we don’t understand or defy expectations.

Maybe. Maybe not.

And yet, this seems another case of being directionally correct even if wrong on the details.  I mean, there’s a chance that aliens are some kind of creature from another planet and come in peace. However, what if they don’t?  What if they, like many traveling to new lands, have colonial ambitions and will destroy or subjugate us if allowed? 

It is correct, instinctively, to have zero trust for these new arrivals.  Maybe, technically, they are not demons, but they are others and may as well be demons, right?

Tinfoil Hat Time

This is why I’m generally on the fence so far as the MAGA and Q-Anon types.  Sure, they vastly oversimplify and often get the details wrong enough to be easily ‘debunked’ by fact-checkers.  However, half the problem is usually about the use of semantics and not the substance.  Maybe the world isn’t run by a ring of reptilian pedophiles, nevertheless there are many who lack morality, have their secret plots, hidden motivations, and cover-ups.  It might not be organized, but this is pervasive enough that it is adequately put in terms of a grand conspiracy.

Women, don your head coverings!

So far as aliens, and as a devoted speciesist who prefers native life to that which is most certainly extra-terrestrial, does the exact approach we take to ‘othering’ them really matter?   They are an other, a true existential threat, and therefore to be regarded as demonic beings.  Curiosity could be our undoing and especially when it comes to those things powerful and beyond our own understanding.  

So what does the Scripture tell us about this topic?

First, be respectful:

In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.

(Jude 1:8‭-‬10 NIV)

Quibbling over what exactly they are is okay, but there is no room for casualness when it comes to aliens or demons.  Those coming from other worlds obviously have technology or means better than our own.  They can run circles around us.  So we would be wise to be cautious and exercise due respect—that is to say rely on God’s power rather than our own strength in these encounters.

Second, we should learn from record history and not make the same mistakes:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

(Genesis 6:4 NIV)

The non-canonical book of Enoch goes into greater detail about this event when beings from another realm came to Earth, shared their advanced knowledge (including that of weapons) and interbred with women.  These enhanced hybrid offspring were extremely powerful, they also had insatiable appetites and their enormous consumption eventually led to a destructive rampage.  We are told this is why God finally wiped the slate clean with the great flood, where Noah and his family were spared.  This is why St Paul writes, in a letter to the Corinthians:

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. […] It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.

(1 Corinthians 11:7‭, ‬10 NIV)

Women, wear your tinfoil hats.  Err, I mean, veils, because there are Watchers, sons of God not named Jesus, and thus it is for this reason you should definitely declare what is the ordained order.  Mennonites and Amish are just unwittingly ahead of the game!

Aliens or Angels?

My wife speaks English.  However, given that she comes from the Philippines, sometimes her word usage can be different from that of an American.  Hanging out with friends and family, for example “bonding” and a “polo” can basically be any shirt with buttons.  So truly, if use of language can be this confusing even for us contemporaries, what happens when we expand this “telephone game” over centuries?

It is quite possible that we are reading about what we call aliens in these ancient texts.  I mean, the descriptions do seem to match so they not?  Those who came to Earth with advanced knowledge and abilities, messed with human genetics through impregnation of women (see: Aliens) and wreaked havoc on the planet before God intervened.  There is no way to know if the difference is only semantics or of substance.

Space horror, fantasy or reality?

It seems very unlikely, given the distances involved, that aliens beings can travel from galaxies far away.  It is much more likely that these beings would emerge from a parallel (spiritual) dimension, and perhaps through a portal, and are able to take physical form to interact with us.  And, either way, similar to artificial intelligence not sharing our human priorities, I’m doubtful these aliens or angels would really have our best interests in mind if they did come. 

Ultimately, for all intents and purposes, they are demons.  In other words, those of Orthodox Christian tradition do already know what they really are.  And, therefore, we must both exercise great caution and strengthen our faith.  If they have returned then widespread destruction may be soon to follow.  It is not a reason to be afraid, there is no need to panic, these gods are not greater than the good God who has defended those righteous from the beginning and will never let evil win in the end.

Path of [Least] Resistance…

Standard

One of my favorite players, while coaching ‘semi-pro’ was a guy named Jerry. The league knew him as this out-of-control and sort of dirty player. He would get wound up with his asthma attacks and get into verbal altercations on the field. But to me, despite his reputation as a loose cannon, he was actually more coachable than many on the team. The guy could’ve easily ripped my head off, he was a fairly large guy (playing defensive end) and a physical force on the field. However, in the few times when I did need to directly to intervene, he was surprisingly respectful. I mean, he would address me as “coach” and, every time, after a few mumbles, he would back down. He would even often apologize later.

Only once, with a little alcohol involved, did I catch a small glimpse of what was driving him. At the time, in his late forties or early fifties, he recalled how his own dad had pushed him. He was abusive and never satisfied. And football was the direction his dad was pushing him in. Jerry had D-1 offers as a younger man. Yet, ultimately, he walked away from the sport at that level and much to do with the pressure he had felt. Obviously, he was still very conflicted over all of this. He played as if a demon were biting at his ankles, a man on fire, and probably pushing a little too hard for a man his age. I’ve lost contact with him, not even sure if he lives in the area anymore, but his story is a cautionary tale for me as I try to navigate my son’s current involvement in athletic endeavors.

I love sports as a training ground for life. It is an opportunity for character development, to learn lessons about work and reward, teamwork, etc. I had my own regrets for having started competing only very late in high school and, therefore, have been very pleased that my own son wrestled over the winter and has been practicing for football season. He’s an amazing athlete for his age. He won his bracket in wrestling, his first year out, with a combination of will, natural strengths, and things learned from his coaches. It has not taken much encouragement to keep him going. He is an enthusiastic participant and seems to really enjoy himself with other kids his age. There have been a couple of times when he was upset and seemed ready to quit, but the next day he has always come back for more.

Desirous Distractions

Of the things I hate most, his tablet is probably in the top ten. We had successfully hidden it away (he didn’t miss it after a week or two) and yet brought it back out due to some current circumstances that make it better to keep him occupied. The result has been like an addict, or binge, where he would use the device non-stop if we allowed it. It turns him from an active and engaged kid, who loves to swim in the local pool and requires a ton of attention, to a slug barely moving for hours. It’s not healthy and that’s the reason why I’ve fought back against this and haven’t minced my words on this topic with him either. I’ve been glad that we had football practices to give that indisputable non-negotiable reason to separate him from the screen. However, the other day, after practice, he confessed that he wished that he didn’t play football so he could be on his tablet more!

One of my successes, so far, as a parent was to keep sports as his idea. Sure, I want him to play, I have done my part to facilitate his involvement as well, but I’ve mostly let him lead in what direction he wanted to go and was glad that his own desires lined up with my own. I’m sure my own hopes and expectations have found their way to influence, children likely know their parents better than their parents know them and generally want to please them. He knows that I’m a Penn State football fan and that, Charlie, the elementary wrestling coach was an old teammate. So it isn’t really surprising that he went down this path similar to my own. Still, I didn’t want to be one of those dads, the kind living vicariously through their son and putting undue stress on him. It does seem we’re too sports-obsessed, where youth leagues are year-round, there is this camp and that camp, which is driven by parents with glowing ambitions more than it is by the children themselves. I wouldn’t be all that surprised if many of these overworked and pushed too hard will quit. At the very least, it won’t be enjoyable.

The big question for me is what would I do if my son said “I don’t want to play anymore.” I’ve already assured him that not playing doesn’t mean he would get more time with his tablet and that he would probably be bored. And he seems to understand that he needs to finish what he started as far as the current season. Nevertheless, the chill I felt, all of my own dreams of watching him now threatened, could easily lead to my being more controlling. It is scary to me that a tablet, this path of least resistance, has so much appeal that he would sacrifice all for it. I’ve also had to question my own motives. Am I doing what is best for him? When I restrict access, when I push him to do things that make him uncomfortable, that’s the reason why I do. But as a parent, we really need to be careful not to project our own desires onto our children so much that they are stifled and not free to be themselves.

The Elusive Balance

My son would likely be completely happy if I just let him play on his tablet nonstop. Maybe he would eventually get over it on his own if we didn’t interfere? I mean, I doubt it. There are always new games to download and more distractions to occupy for hours and hours. And that’s my concern, that the hours he spends vegging out could be put to much better use. It would be negligence, on my part, to simply give him what he wants and never resist his short-sighted perspective. It is my job to develop him, to make him ready for life and sports are one of those tools used towards that end. I don’t want him to develop character, not to be a character in a video game. I want him to get exercise, experience the tactile and real world, and not just live in the fantasies that others created for him. I must resist him.

That said, football is also just a game. I don’t want to be that dad who ended up putting so much pressure on his son to be successful that it ruined our relationship and he quits in frustration. There is much more to life than statistics or the accomplishments that the world will notice. Yes, I would beam with pride if my son were to score a touchdown, be on a state championship team, and be good enough to compete at the next level. A college scholarship, of course, would be great. He doesn’t seem to be the type that will get that in the classroom, so why not encourage the path that he does have? Still, that is exactly the problem. I quickly get way out ahead of reality and with that could quickly destroy even my own enjoyment of the moment. He should, as a child, be involved because it is fun. Certainly, I must coach a little, put some restrictions here and incentives there, but ultimately he needs to choose.

I don’t want my son to go down the path of least resistance. I want him to be resilient, a leader, involved, pushing back, and growing his abilities rather than comfortable. I truly want him to be better than me in all regards. Or, at the very least, to be better for having had me be a part of his life. Sometimes this will require me to bump against his will, dig in my heels a bit, and not let him rest on his laurels or waste the opportunities he has. Other times I will need to step back, let him go his own way, learn at his own pace, and accept that his goals for life may not align with my own. The real struggle is the wisdom to know when to intervene and how. Hopefully, he knows my heart is oriented towards his good even if my execution is flawed. And, actually, I’m okay if we’re not always friends so long as what I’m offering him is a way to go beyond my own limits and reach his full potential as a man, that’s my reward.

An Affirmative Reaction

Standard

The Supreme Court has finally ruled against the practice of blatant racial discrimination in university admissions.  This, after Harvard and other schools, in pursuit of filling quotas, would find means to select against qualified Asians to meet an ideal for diversity based on skin color.

The Affirmation Fairy… 

African Americans, at least as a collective whole, have suffered disproportionately and this is a historical injustice that is not easily solved.  Much of our success later in life has to do with the homes and communities that we were born into.  The values we receive via our culture make a huge difference so far as outcomes.

I remember a viral video, a few years back, that lines up a bunch of young people on a grassy field.  The announcer asked various questions, such as “Take two steps forward if both of your parents are still married,” and those who could answer yes advanced.  The results of this survey were framed as ‘white privilege’ and yet none of the statements had anything to do with race.

Social inequality is certainly not a black-and-white issue, many children of European and Asian ancestry lacked a father in the home, worried about fitting in, did not feel safe at night in their neighborhood, worried about having enough to eat, and lacked access to private education or tutors.  I once begged my mother to take me out of public school after a rough patch.  I changed my hairstyle as a response to classmates who made note of my ‘Mennonite’ side part.  I decided to quit college rather than go deep into debt.  

Am I underprivileged?

Exactly how much am I disadvantaged as a learning-disabled child of two high school dropouts, with a father who had to be away all week to support our family?

There problem with all “affirmative action” is that it is a vast oversimplification of a very complex and multi-layered problem that may be more about culture than color.  We simply cannot account for every factor or rate every single subcategory of ethnicity and culture for statistical disadvantage.  For example, do we know the college graduation rates of Americans of German ancestry or Irish and Italian?  Are a proportional amount of these ethnic groups represented?

Furthermore, our own disadvantages can be advantages, in that they can provide u much-needed motivation.  Sure, having money may mean a trip to Harvard and a certain level of success.  However, the same is true of those who are tall and athletic.  Jeff Bezos, at 5′-7″ tall, may have benefitted from having some ‘short man syndrome’ or that extreme desire some have to compensate for the discrimination they faced for physical characteristics that were beyond their control.

Affirmative action is wrong in that there is no way to rank hardships.  It is wrong because it isn’t addressing the root causes of social inequalities, even as defined by the privilege police, in that we’re not talking about things like fatherless homes or inner-city violence and cultural forces that discourage the behaviors that aid in academic achievement.  You can’t wait until a person is eighteen, then wave a wand of university education and credentials as a solution to these underlying issues.

Asterisk Graduates…

The true underlying message of affirmative action was that minorities, specifically those of African descent, couldn’t be successful without the help of the government.  As liberal arts universities continue to seek to fulfill a narrow color-obsessed definition of diversity, using quotas rather than qualifications, they unintentionally degrade all of their minority graduates—even those equal in merit to the non-minority graduates.

The idea of a “diversity hire” or a person not equally qualified to others who applied and yet are given preference only because of their special category of race or gender, is a direct consequence of discriminatory affirmative action programs.  People know how to read between the lines (albeit often unfairly) and will diminish accomplishments that weren’t actually earned or can be perceived as being unearned.  It is why we do not see the work of those ‘born into wealth’ as being equal to that of those who are self-made.

A classic example of the patronizing white saviorism that is lurking behind divisive equity campaigns.

Just as a university degree would lose value if everyone were simply given a diploma for breathing, admitting some primarily on the basis of skin color devalues the effort even in the eyes of those who benefit.  It only serves to feed an idea of black inferiority, that they need a ‘white savior‘ to swoop in and rescue them from their plight, and is grossly unfair to all who were truly qualified on the basis of merit—but will still deal with the asterisk due to systemic compensatory color preferences or racially discriminatory quotas.

The hate crimes against Asians, like the murder of Yao Pan Ma, rarely receive coverage as other racially involved crimes.
The hate crimes against Asians, like the murder of Yao Pan Ma, rarely receive coverage as other racially involved crimes.

You cannot defeat unfair discrimination with a new kind of unfair discrimination.  It is not right that overqualified Asian students were being overlooked because of their race or on some kind of subjective basis that the worth of their own “lived experience” is less than a person of African origin.  Many Asians have overcome extreme hardship, faced intense pressure at home and hate crimes (often underreported for going against the typical racial narrative), yet won’t ever express this due to cultural reserve—why should they be punished for the success of their peers?

Two-tiered or lower standards for some will never achieve the goal of equal outcomes.

Favouritism Forbidden…

We’re living in a time of moral inversion, a time when those who lived a life of crime and abuse are treated as victims simply on the basis of their outward appearance.  It is as wrong as the favoritism of preferring the wealthy over the poor for the potential benefits:

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

Leviticus 19:15 NIV

The problem was favoritism, preferring one party based on who they are (what they can provide for us) rather than the actual merit of the case.  Fairness of judgment, not equality of outcome, is the goal.

Christians were told not to judge by a person’s outward appearance:

My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

James 2:2-4 NIV

Many, trying to make a show of their own righteousness, take a Scripture like that above and turn it into a call for social justice or a special preference for the poor or otherwise disenfranchised.  However, this kind of reverse favoritism totally misses the point.  Trading one kind of perverse judgment for another is not a virtue.  No, it is a virtue signal and something people do for the social benefit of merely appearing to be an advocate for those recognized as being disadvantaged.  Even if sincere, this is a misguided approach that goes against the instruction not to show favoritism.

Affirmative action, in the end, is just a new form of white supremacy that is expressed as patronization.  It frames differences in outcomes solely in terms of identity groups while neglecting to correct the factors causing the inequal results or truly helping people to cross over these unhelpful, artificial, and arbitrary divisions.  Jesus taught more of a gracious meritocracy, where our behavior did matter and we would ultimately be judged on how we treat other people irrespective of their deserving or appearance.  In this regard, our equality comes only in repentance and our obedience to the law of Christ—not by force of courts or legislation.

We do not save the world by trying to force others into compliance or control outcomes. Rather we change ourselves and become an example of impartiality and love to all people. Honest and fair equal opportunity is having the same requirements for all and not preferences tailored to some at the expense of others. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. We shouldn’t love bomb some, even to make them feel better about themselves, by removing opportunities for those who truly have earned their place.

Making Impossible Possible

Standard

It was impossible for me to find romantic success in the religious community that I had been born into and I would most definitely have remained single if I refused to adapt. My only regret is not having realized this (along with many of the many other fatal flaws in this system) much earlier.

The most excruciating part of this ordeal was that it always seemed that victory over this adversary was right at my fingertips. But, as the expression goes, to miss by an inch is to miss by a mile. And it seems that both friends and church leaders were never that serious about help. None were willing to lift a finger to relieve this burden of so many in their churches.

It was a systemic problem that required a systemic change that would not come. Women were ruined by their own idealistic purity culture standards and not taking the opportunities available, and men by being rejected every time they tried and were reduced to simps—rendered themselves completely unattractive for their doting ‘desperate’ attention to females.

What makes me curious is what truly was so different about my own experience in a fundamentalist sect and that of those in an old-order setting where pairing up does happen. Surely young people in those settings have ideals as well and yet they appear more willing to risk relationships than my former peers. It is as if they are programmed to be more realistic or unafraid.

The thing is, the next generation probably isn’t experiencing what I did. It was just a perfect storm of frauds, like Bill Gothard or Joshua Harris, that fed female fears of being ‘defiled’ for merely having a real conversation with a male member of their group. Mixed with the already existing cultural reserve and perfectionism. A moment of hesitation is very costly, approach anxiety increased tenfold with the raised stakes, and thus failure resulted.

If only there were more fathers and responsible adult figures saying “Relax, talk to each other, and take some risks, it isn’t like you need to marry after the first date.” If only there were some pushback to this notion that independence (having things our way, going out to see the world, and the postponement of marriage) is an indication of a greater commitment to Christ. Being picky doesn’t make you St Paul or Florence Nightingale.

Instead, the trends within the conservative Mennonite churches very closely align with general cultural trends where traditional courtship has fallen out of favor. Sure, in this version the attractive men get their sexual gratification. However, women never get the kind of commitment from these men suitable for raising children, and often choose careers and European vacations instead. More average men, who would be devoted, are simply shut out and ignored for not meeting the impossible female criteria.

I’m happy to have found my ‘hack’ and finally was able to get around the broken system that put my life on indefinite hold. I would’ve done things much differently if I had a chance to do it all over again. Firstly, I would’ve been less sensitive, more assertive, and never got mired in doubt of my own value. Second, I would not be concerned in the least about pleasing a standard that didn’t actually matter.

The successful never followed the onerous rules of those moral busybodies. A man should not ask permission, he simply needs to take the initiative and get what he wants. Too many times my own indecision on what was the ‘right way’ kept me from ever taking the opportunities as they were presented. Luckily, for me, because of my failure, I have found something much better than I could ever have found in the midst of the entitled mentality and demanding confines of my past life.

The wonderful woman I have found would’ve been impossible to marry when I was still bound to their standards. I could never have had a relationship with someone as intelligent and ambitious, let alone beautiful in appearance, had I remained. The impossibility remains impossible. But the impossible has been made possible by my willingness to change the rules of the game.