Tag Archives: word of god

Self-Deceit

Posted on by

Lying to others is wrong. Lying to oneself is deadly. These were just a few of several recurring thoughts I experienced while watching the film Gender Transformation: The Untold Story, which the Life Team here at Our Savior in Hartland, Michigan, presented during a public forum this past Friday. Our world is right now living the dreadful compounding of lie upon lie to others and to self concerning God’s magnificent design of male and female.

But here’s the thing. While perhaps not as conspicuously awful or with such unalterably horrible results as the deceit presented in the film, we all lie to others and ourselves. If we believe we don’t, then we’ve already proven we’re self-deceived.

I think one reason we end up self-deceived is because of the way we so often prefer to process reality. We have interpretive filters. We experience something, and as we do, rather than its meaning simply being its meaning, we wittingly or unwittingly recraft it to fit us more comfortably.

For example, have you ever said something you intuitively knew was hurtful, and even as you meant the words to cut your opponent, when they did, to protect yourself from feeling bad, you insisted he or she misunderstood you? That was an interpretive filter you used. Specifically, it’s called gaslighting. Most folks might say gaslighting is more others-deceptive than it is self-deceptive. Perhaps. Either way, it’s a self-insulating barrier preventing what’s real from getting through as it should.

But enough psychoanalysis. The better exercise is figuring out why things are this way and what to do about it.

The “why” is easy. The Bible says it’s because of Sin (Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:23-24, Ephesians 2:3, etc.). Concerning self-deception, Saint John digs into the why’s soil and discovers the contaminant’s results, writing, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:5). Paul digs beside John and finds more ruined soil: “For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself” (Galatians 6:3). Shovel in hand, James hops into the hole and discovers the same, adding: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:22).

Again, the why is easy. But now, the harder part. What do we do about it?

I have two things to say in this regard. The first is Christological. We must always start with Christ and His Word.

As John, Paul, and James went deeper into the strata, other discoveries were made. Right after discovering Sin’s potential for self-deception, John also found the fertile soil of God’s gracious invitation, noting, “If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Paul found something else, too. Back in Galatians 3:11, he wrote, “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” James made the same discovery. After nudging his readers from complacency, urging them to be more than just hearers but also doers of what the Lord desires, he dusted off a glistening stone etched with the words “the perfect law, the law of liberty” (James 1:25), which is James’ rhetorical way of pointing his readers to Jesus, the One who is the law’s perfection, the One who sets us free from the law’s burden so that we can be those who not only hear His Word but keep it (Luke 11:28).

While the three dig deeper still, the Psalmist arrives singing a faith-filled work song, one that asks God for help against deceit. The Psalmist sings, “Put false ways far from me…” (Psalm 119:29), and “Save me, O Lord, from lying lips and from deceitful tongues” (Psalm 120:2).

The second thing I want to say is as practical as it is Christological. Essentially, the Gospel nuggets are enough for faith (Romans 1:16). The faith it produces results in repentance. That’s what it does. The word “repent” (μετανοήσατε) literally means to turn around and go the other way—to change the direction of one’s mind or purpose. From a human angle, repentance is incredibly self-analytical. It wants to rid itself of faulty filters. It wants to remove anything that might deceive the self. It wants to boil things down to their mineral elements, see what’s actually there, and fix what’s broken.

For example, consider the following scenario.

Let’s say one of my daughters was troubled about something and asked for a moment of my time, but I reasonably replied, “I’m sorry, honey, but maybe later. I just don’t have time right now.” I had a sermon to write. I had a phone call to make. I had a meeting to attend. Repentance removes the filters and sees the situation for what it is. Relative to this situation, among the long and varied list of things a person should do, repentance understands the role of priority. And so, it hears what was said as, “I’m sorry, honey, but you’re just not a priority to me right now.”

Saying it that way doesn’t feel so good. That’s true, in part because of repentance’s natural direction. Remember, repentance is a reversal. The process of going one way becomes one of moving in the opposite direction. As a preacher, I think there’s more than one way to experience this reversal’s impact. Similar to exchanging the phrase “I don’t have time” for “you’re not a priority,” the same astonishing swap is possible when we invert our language, saying out loud the opposite of what’s actually true. Here’s another example.

I mentioned to Jennifer last week that one day, I’m going to preach a sermon in which everything I say is the exact opposite of what the listeners would expect me to say. The reason? It’s one thing for the average pew-sitter to make excuses for sinful behavior. But what if those same excuses were being commended from the pastor’s mouth? I can only imagine the congregation’s response to me preaching that presence in worship isn’t all that important. How startling would it be to hear me say from the pulpit that fidelity to Christ is just as important as fidelity to all the other things taking up space on our calendars? Would there be wide eyes as I say there’s nothing wrong with putting God’s Word in the back seat on occasion? Would there be gasps when I say God knows we sometimes need a break from Him and that He’s perfectly content playing second fiddle in our lives?

I’d go on and on, never once saying what you’d expect from a Christian pastor. I think the language reversal would be overwhelmingly eye-opening. Like telling my daughter she’s not a priority, it just wouldn’t feel right.

The people here at Our Savior will undoubtedly know if and when I attempt this. Until then, think about what you’ve read so far. Ask yourself, “Do I have interpretive filters that make lying to myself easier? Do I shield myself with excuses that do little more than keep me comfortable doing the things I know I shouldn’t?” If the answer is yes, then contemplate the dangers of insulating yourself in this way and repent. Turn around and go the other way. If the answer is no, then consider that you may already be self-deceived and don’t know yourself as well as you think you do. And then, as with the first answer, repent.

A Little Bit About Grace

Posted on by

Grace is an amazing thing, especially when you are fully aware you need it and yet, in every way, are undeserving of it. If you don’t know what I mean, then the only thing I can think to say is that you’re a textbook narcissist who’ll never know grace’s fuller impact because you sense no need for it. That’s unfortunate. Most normal people know the downcast feeling of causing harm. Most folks likely even sense the need to admit it. When they’re all alone with their thoughts, they experience the familiar urge to ask themselves, “Why did I do that? What on earth was I thinking?”

It’s also likely that most normal people know the overwhelming exhilaration that comes from expecting retribution but receiving grace instead. I’ve certainly had my share of moments when, whether in a flurry of imposed frustration or I was just being me, I acted in ways I later regretted. I said something I wish I hadn’t. I did something I wish I hadn’t. I remember once saying something to one of my children that I felt so bad about later that I nearly couldn’t sleep for a week. I felt so terrible afterward. Still, on the very same day of my crime, there was no lack of love bestowed upon me by the one I hurt. I was treated graciously, even hugged, long before a lowly father’s sad heart materialized with a verbal apology.

Yes, grace—undeserved kindness—is an amazing thing. When you experience it, you’re different afterward.

I read somewhere that grace is proof that a person means more to you than what he or she did to you. I suppose that’s another way of saying you love them no matter what. Mark Twain wrote something somewhere about how forgiveness is the fragrance a flower leaves on the boot that crushed it. If I had the power to recraft Twain’s words, I’d swap “forgiveness” with “grace.” Grace and forgiveness are two very different things. Grace—undeserved kindness—can be extended to both the penitent and the impenitent. Forgiveness is the actual removal of sin from the sinner (Psalm 103:12). God won the whole world’s forgiveness through the person and work of Jesus. It’s there and available. Penitent faith receives it. A person who is not penitent sees no need for forgiveness. In that sense, it remains apart from him. In the meantime, grace more than sets and maintains the stage for it. When we show grace, we’re showing patient love. We’re making it so that when penitence emerges, we’re ready to bestow the kind of forgiveness that knows the full removal of guilt and the beginning of a brand new day.

Lots of folks disagree with me on this point. They point to texts like Matthew 6:15, Ephesians 4:32, and so many others. I would argue they’re missing the penitent undertow of the texts. In other words, these texts understand we ought never to withhold forgiveness from anyone desiring it. If they request forgiveness, we give it, no matter if we think the penitence is real or fake.

There’s an element of this in Jesus’ answer to Peter’s question about how many times he was required to forgive a penitent brother. “Lord,” he asked, “how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus essentially responds by saying people who ask for it get from us as much as they want. “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times” (Matthew 18:21-22). That’s hyperbole. It means we never stop doling it out.

In Luke’s version of the same narrative, Jesus turns the challenge back upon the forgiver. He says, “Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him” (Luke 17:3-4). The point here is that we should determine our own motives in the exchange. We’re not in the business of reading a person’s heart. We’re not the ones to determine if the person genuinely desires reconciliation. We’re also not in the business of making it hard for someone to be forgiven. No matter how mad at them we may be, or how much we want to get them back for their crimes, or what we think their motives might be, we get out of forgiveness’ way. We stand infinitely ready to forgive, no matter how many times they reach out to us for it.

That said, can forgiveness be given to someone who sees no need for it or, worse, rejects it outright? Knowing that human-to-human forgiveness is to be an imitation of God’s forgiveness, is that how it works between us and God (Colossians 3:13, Matthew 6:14-15)? The text from Luke 17:3-4 assumes no. John 20:23 assumes no, too, saying, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” The doctrine of excommunication taught in Matthew 18:15-18 and Titus 3:10-11 assumes the same. So does 1 John 1:8-9.

“But what about the Lord’s words from the cross?”

Even the Lord’s words to His Father from the cross to “forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34) is not an insistent decree that those who were murdering Him in absolute unbelief should somehow be granted the privilege of skirting unbelief’s result. For starters, the word here for forgive is ἄφες, and it’s equally translatable in this context as “dismiss” or “disregard.” In fact, a language scholar and commentator I trust, R.C.H. Lenski, wrote concerning this verse:

 “‘Forgive’ is not expressive enough: ‘remit,’ ‘dismiss,’ ‘send away’ render the true sense. The object is not stated but is plain from the added clause: dismiss ‘what they are doing.’”

Essentially, Christ is asking His Father to be what He already knows He is: gracious. He is asking Him to put aside His wrath at this moment, knowing full well that if there was ever a time for wrath, it was now. Still, the Lord tearfully pleads for the Father to look away, to dismiss what they’re doing, to let this one go by unpunished.

By the way, grammatically, the pronoun “them” refers to the Roman soldiers performing the crucifixion. They’re its antecedent, not the Pharisees and crowd demanding the Lord’s torture and death. That’s no small detail.

In the end, this is not complicated. Christ did not upend what we know of forgiveness. He simply continued doing what He always did during His earthly ministry. He was gracious, continuously showing concern for others before the self. On the cross, He unwaveringly emitted this others-focused grace perfectly, wanting the Father to look away, perhaps even giving His fiercest enemies time to come to their senses. Again, why? Because the Lord knows better than all of us the truest nature of Sin. He knows that humanity is influenced and held captive by something we cannot fully grasp. Indeed, far too often, we do not know what we do.

I think some of my theological critics—the ones who will say I’m mistaken in this regard—believe as they do more so because pop psychology’s understanding of forgiveness has been so ingrained in our post-modern psyche. For many therapists, forgiveness is more about personal healing and the ability to move on with a normal life. For example, forgiveness has come to mean that to get beyond a traumatic marriage, a woman must learn to forgive her abusive husband. I read a story last spring about a mother who confronted her son’s smirking murderer in court, saying, “I forgive you for what you’ve done.” The killer was by no means sorry. In fact, he was glad he did it. Can he lay claim to the forgiveness she offered? No.

But her grace can be imposed on him, whether he wants it or not.

The mother can pray for her son’s killer, asking the Heavenly Father to grant him what’s necessary to come to his senses and repent. She can write Gospel-rich letters to him in prison, knowing that the Gospel is “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16). She can visit him in prison, too, and share that Gospel face-to-face. She can show him that, as a human being, he means more to her than what he did to her son. That’s grace, and it smears a perpetrator’s filthy bootheel with the kind of scent that can lead a person to the One who, ultimately, bestows the only kind of compassion capable of instilling repentance and faith (Matthew 5:13-16, 43-45; John 13:35).

I’m sure you have situations in your life to which this little rambling might be applied. We all do. The Lord knows we’re neck-deep in a political season that’s going to require a lot of grace between so many. Of course, to those who wrong you, don’t be a pushover. Make sure they know what they’ve done. Beyond that, be gracious, and then step back and see what happens. You may be surprised. There may come a time when you hear them say with sincerity, “I’m sorry.” And because you were still immersed in grace’s patience, what a joy it will be to say, “I forgive you.”

What if Aliens Were Real?

Posted on by

Those who know me best are not surprised each year by my autumn discontent. The leaves fall, and with their pixie-like twirling, so goes a portion of my enthusiasm. Add to this autumn’s brisk breezes and its chilled and misty rains pulling down more and more of the landscape’s adornments, and it’s as if an unseen prison guard is escorting me to a dank and lightless cell. Michigan’s naked oak, maple, and dogwood trees surround and stretch skyward as its bars. My sentence? Six to eight months in the sunless cold.

I’m summer’s boy, and that’s that.

The thing is, I know it. And because I know it, I can war against the returning urge to pack up and move closer to the equator. Although, that reminds me of something. I had a phone conversation yesterday morning with one of our forthcoming conference speaker’s assistants. As is typical of many conversations, I was asked about the current weather. I was sure to mention my disdain for autumn and winter. The young woman I was talking with jokingly said she remembered hearing that space aliens appear to visit warmer regions more so than cold, which means my chances of abduction increase the closer to the equator I get. I told her I thought I’d heard the same thing from one of Joe Rogan’s podcast guests.

Familiar with Rogan, she noted his fascination with aliens, and then, to further the friendly conversation, she asked what I thought about the topic. I told her that while I appreciate sci-fi cinema, I don’t spend much time thinking about aliens, that is unless we’re talking about the millions of illegals crossing our southern border.

“What if they’re real, though?” she asked. “Then what?”

I knew what she meant. Even though we both considered the topic a relatively silly one, I could tell she had given it some thought. She wondered what the discovery of sentient beings from beyond our solar system might mean for Christianity. I think about lots of things, but I don’t spend much time thinking about things like this. Nevertheless, it certainly was an opportunity to shift gears in the way Saint Peter anticipated when he urged that we be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).

My initial thoughts were that if extraterrestrial life was ever discovered, first, I don’t think its existence would obliterate Christianity in the ways so many atheists and agnostics assume. Faith doesn’t work that way. It’s far sturdier than onlookers may realize, and history proves it. Christianity has been through the proverbial ringer, the kind of turbulence that has undone so many other religions, and yet, it’s still here, and it’s encompassing the globe’s entirety. Extraterrestrial life’s existence would be interesting, but it would not disprove or smother Christianity. Of course, my ultimate baseline for saying this is that Christianity is true and all other religions are false. Truth withstands—falsehood crumbles.

From there, I went ahead and admitted to the widely held belief that alien encounters are likely spiritual in nature—but not the good kind. They’re probably demonic. I think Tucker Carlson believes this, too, which makes us kin to this perspective.

I know how that sounds, of course. It sounds relatively backwater. Nevertheless, I shared it openly. And so, you can see how unconcerned I am for being labeled “backwater.” So much of who I am and what I do so often gets that label, anyway. I believe a man cannot be a woman. For many, that’s the old way, the ignorant way. I believe all abortions are murder. That’s indeed becoming an outdated premise. It’s fashionable nowadays to grind both early and late-term infants into hamburger. I believe sin is actual. I believe Jesus was God in the flesh. I believe He suffered, died, and rose from the dead to rescue me from sin. To the onlooking culture, anyone believing these things is considered an intellectual dullard clinging to ancient myths and their accompanying superstitions.

Again, as you can see, I’m far more bothered by autumn and winter than I am by derogatory labels.

“For conversation’s sake,” she continued, wanting something more, “what if we actually discover they aren’t demons but real beings from another solar system? What then?”

Accepting her premise purely for discussion’s sake, I restated my initial premise. For me, it wouldn’t change anything about my faith. But then I went a little further. I told her just how important God’s Word is to me—that I believe every bit of it. I’m not a “Tim Walz” Lutheran.

Walz believes that while the Bible contains worthwhile but negotiable principles, it is, by no means, the inspired Word of God. In his view, we can take and leave whatever it says as we choose. I don’t believe that at all. I certainly believe it is far more than a guidebook. I absolutely believe it is divinely inspired. It is God’s revelation to man concerning salvation, and Jesus is the epicentral purpose of both its Old and New Testaments. I also believe the Bible is inerrant and immutable. It does not contain mistakes, and its doctrines do not change. If we find what we think is a mistake, then we’re not understanding it correctly. If any of its teachings don’t fit well with our time, culture, or modern understanding, then too bad. The Bible shapes us; we do not shape it. When God gave it through His inspired writers, He knew future generations would be reading it, and therefore, it applies to all of them.

Drenched in these qualities, the Bible sure does tell us a lot about God. He’s just. He’s loving. He’s redeeming. He’s not far away from us, but near. He cares. He creates. Concerning His work as the divine Author, one thing I can say for sure is that God is incredibly imaginative. Limited only by His nature, He can make whatever He wants. He’s God. And by limited, I mean things He cannot do, such as sin. Apart from that, look around at the countless varieties of life on Earth if you doubt His creativity. With every new documentary Jennifer and I watch (because most other shows are garbage), we’re both amazed to learn about new creatures we never even knew existed.

There’s something else I know relative to this. Within the Bible’s pages, God shows mankind to be His most prized work. In all the cosmos, He claims us as His beloved. That doesn’t mean we’re the only creatures He loves (Matthew 6:25-34). His love isn’t limited to us and nothing else. He loves and cares for the birds of the air and the lilies of the field, too (Matthew 6:25-34). It means that even as the birds and lilies are trapped alongside us in this sinful world, He didn’t take upon Himself human flesh and die to save them. His sights were set on us. He died to save us. Our rescue was His love’s aim. Our redemption was the purpose for His suffering and death. That’s a whole different kind of love—an extraordinary love, by comparison.

All of this together means two things to me. First, if we ever discover that aliens exist, God made them. I can say that because I’m in concert with all the Christians who’ve knowingly or unknowingly implied it for generations in the Nicene Creed. Together, we’ve been announcing God as the “maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” In other words, He made everything we can see and everything we can’t see, everything we know, and everything we are yet to discover.

Second, if there are aliens, like everything else God made, He loves them. Beyond that, all sci-fi-becoming-reality speculation ends for me.

Why am I sharing all this? Well, because it came to mind this morning, that’s why. Remember, I mentioned before that this whole conversation seemed a little silly. That’s because I think it is. It was a transitional interaction designed to carry two people from an introduction to the business at hand. But looking back, I can see its benefit. I was given the opportunity to think through and express my hope. Moreover, by measuring one of the strangest topics out there against Christianity’s deepest convictions, faith and its relationship to God’s inspired, inerrant, and immutable Word were hardened, not rattled.

In the end, no matter what’s going on around us, a Christian holds to the Bible as the sole source for faith, life, and practice. That’s because the Gospel of salvation through Christ is its core. Trust in this eternal truth is the fuel for Saint Paul’s confidence as he writes, “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39).

Understand that “space aliens” fits into Paul’s phrase “nor anything else in all creation.”

Truth Does Not Fear Scrutiny

Posted on by

The piece I wrote a few weeks ago about the Olympic boxers, unlike most others I’ve written, had me feeling less like I’d shared my thoughts concerning a troubling situation and more like I’d turned over the detritus of our culture’s forest floor. You know what happens when you kick over a rotten log, right? The creatures living in its decay suddenly scatter. Some scurry to find other dank places to dwell, aware that they’ve been discovered. However, the more territorial residents attack their rot’s disturber. That also happened in this instance.

The initial disturbance brought a steady stream of hate-filled termites with caps-locked keyboards and the foulest vernacular. I spent a good part of the week that followed blocking content and profiles from hundreds of “tolerant” intolerants. So much for my typical “post and ghost” policy. Although, I suppose it’s good that I hadn’t yet turned off notifications for the post. I was able to run a measure of defense.

For the most part, they swarmed me through private messaging. They chirped and trilled and clicked their usual angry sounds, calling me ignorant, bigoted, and so many other names adorned with vile adjectives. Thankfully, their stingers were words and nothing more.

I experienced only one venomous spray that seemed to invite conversation, even as I knew how that conversation might go if I engaged. So, I didn’t. All the others were colorfully uninviting. Few were spelled correctly. Seriously, if you’re going to speak viciously, the least you can do is run your savagery through Grammarly. It would appear far too many believe the word “bigot” has more than one “g.”

The grammatical ignorance was enough for me to turn off overall messaging access. After deleting a number of equally vicious remarks, I also changed the comment access for the post.

There was one private message that interested me, but only because it seemed to capture the hive logic used by so many of the others. Concerned by a relatively inconsequential detail the person thought was inaccurate, the message read something like, “If you can’t even get this one thing right, then you don’t deserve to call yourself a reverend.”

Two things about this.

First, imagine if one mistake—real or supposed—was enough to strip any of us of our livelihoods or identity completely. Of course, some mistakes, even simple ones, can have life-altering consequences. Something as simple as forgetting to use your turn signal can result in someone’s death. But the reality is that most often, our typical mistakes don’t produce those results. They’re merely incidentals along life’s imperfect way, all serving as reminders of a deeper need, a deeper incapacity in Sin. That said, there’s a reason that forgetting to put the milk carton back into the refrigerator isn’t a punishable crime. In the scheme of things, it’s not important.

But imagine if it was a punishable offense. Imagine if such a simple slip was enough to condemn you. I had a professor in my doctoral program who accidentally parsed a Greek verb incorrectly in the comments on one of my papers. Being attuned to language, especially in what has become an overly-emojied society, I remember such errors, and so I remember the mistake vividly. However, did the error prove his credentials empty? By it, did he forfeit all rights to the title “professor”? The cancel-culture insects perpetuating society’s rot would say yes.

Second, they’d say yes because forgiveness is not a part of their world. Whatever falls to the dark forest floor is eaten. But forgiveness drops light into the darkness. Indeed, its light offends the dark spaces ruled by death and decay. Still, forgiveness—the Gospel’s divine lifeblood—is meant for and goes into these spaces. It goes there understanding everyone’s dreadful imperfections while announcing promises that draw all toward the sunshine of God’s grace—a grace that gives mistake-makers what they do not deserve. Mercilessness and condemnation comprise the Gospel’s anti-nature. It is the sum and substance, the body and soul, of cancel culture. One mistake, one misstep apart from rot’s narrative, brings irrevocable imprisonment.

If this describes you, then I dare to offer two more diagnoses.

First, likely, you are so ideologically captured that you’ve become incapable of receiving information and navigating disagreements in ways beneficial to societal stability. I’m convinced one of the inevitable demonstrations of ideological imprisonment is when one is entirely oblivious to self-contradiction. An ideologically captured person willfully embraces two incompatible or inconsistent premises simultaneously and yet cannot see their incompatibility. What does that look like in real time? Well, one example might be the group “Queers for Palestine.” Homosexuality is illegal in Palestine, and I’m guessing these folks missed the news story about the 25-year-old gay Palestinian man whose decapitated torso was found in the West Bank city of Hebron. Another example might be the folks praising Kamala Harris for potentially being the first female president while also pummeling anyone who dares define what a woman is. They inevitably target with vitriol someone like me who boils the definition down to its mineral elements—the science of XY and XX chromosomes. These same people do this while demanding that folks “trust the science.” How can this be? Because when someone is ideologically captured, the only consistency that matters is one’s subscription to the narrative. Everything else, even facts, becomes pliable, and if not pliable, then irrelevant or labeled as misinformation.

Second, cancel-culture tactics prohibit the exchange of ideas, resulting in societal rot. Cancel-culture’s goal is to ostracize, boycott, and crush others into silence because of their opposing viewpoints. By default, this hinders open discussion and the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because humans are survivalists. When onlookers see a person viciously canceled for expressing his or her views, no matter how controversial or disagreeable they may be, others become fearful of speaking freely. Such an environment produces rot, which is the gradual decline or decay of essential values and mechanisms that bind a thriving society together. In a cancel culture, society suffers and inevitably comes undone because it loses the ability to challenge ideas or events that require refining or preservation.

If you are inclined to cancel others, then I encourage you to reconsider your heading. For as virtuous as you might believe yourself to be, to work this way is to be a part of the problem, not the solution. Are your ideas better? Put them into the arena for testing. We’ll see. However, if there’s one thing I know, it’s that natural law—God’s beautifully designed framework for life in this world—will always be the final determiner, even if society makes an epic mistake. Natural law will forever trounce a man who jumps from a three-story building because he’s ideologically convinced he’s a bird. Natural law promises him a painful landing. Natural law will forever complicate the biology of a person undergoing hormone therapy because he believes he was born in the wrong body. No matter how many surgeries he might have, his chromosomes and everything they’re in place to determine will never be or do anything other than what their design requires. Natural law will do what it’s constructed to do, and we’ll always be kept within its boundaries, even when we believe otherwise.

To conclude, I’ll simply say this—and maybe consider it a basic rule of thumb. If you find yourself resorting to insults, threats, or unhinged attempts to go after and silence others entirely, you might pause to consider whether your position is as strong as you think it is. Another thing to keep in mind: Truth doesn’t fear scrutiny; it thrives on it. And in the end, it will win. In one sense, that’s why Christians will always have the upper hand in life. We already know we’re mistake-makers, and yet, we’re attached to the One who is the way, the truth, and the life. The entirety of this spectacular trifecta comes together in the Gospel. Christians live in the sphere of forgiveness. Jesus lives there, too. He is the “way” of forgiveness. He is forgiveness’s epicentral “truth.” He is forgiveness’s best result—eternal “life”!

By faith, we know these things, and we’re more than familiar with the wonderful byproducts of this grace. The blessings of humble repentance stirred by an overabundance of forgiveness given by God are not lost on us. We’re glad for the newfound ability to amend our lives and share that same forgiveness with others. Ultimately, these are spirit-freeing mechanisms for courage and confidence. They lift believers above rot’s capture to the grace-drenched treetops, where we can see the world as it truly is and be quite comfortable describing what we see.

The Symphony of Family

Posted on by

Every family is a symphony. Every member is a skilled musician with a unique instrument in hand. Every moment is a song, and every word is a note carrying its melody. Early last week, the Thoma family’s ensemble just grew by one performer. Preston Michael took his seat among us, and as you might imagine, for this grandpa, his promise is most rapturous.

I got to meet him the day after he was born. His dad—my son, Joshua—introduced us. I didn’t get to greet Preston properly, though. He’s currently in the NICU, and he’ll likely be there for a few more days. Nevertheless, at the time, his wriggling fingers, crinkly nose, and peeking glances were silent greetings that sang straight into my heart—a kind of resonance that only children and the angels who guard them can produce (Matthew 18:10). I finally got to hold him yesterday, and what a joy it was.

I can promise you that I intend to be the kind of grampa whose hug is felt long after I’ve let go.

With Preston’s birth came an in-rushing of familiar sensations. The day after he was born, Joshua and I talked about it while Jennifer and Lexi went down the hall for a turn with him. We spoke as only fathers can. I wondered aloud something like, “When you were born, I remember experiencing a particular sensation. It was a sudden awareness—almost a presence—something I felt like I could reach out and touch if I wanted to.” I told Joshua that when I first saw him, I knew everything in my life would be different, that nothing would ever be the same again, and that whatever happened from here on out, I was all in for him. I loved him. He was family.

Joshua confirmed the sensation. I’m not surprised. I imagine that, for most parents, the moment their child arrives—finally intersecting with the world in a touchable way—it is an event like none other. In a sense, even though the Earth still revolves around the sun, there’s a shift in gravity’s center. The child becomes the middle, a luminescent joy around which all other planets must spin. Indeed, as it was when I first became a father, it was the same for Joshua. Everything was different now, and no matter what the future held, trusting Christ, Josh knew it was going to be incredible.

We both admitted it wouldn’t be easy. In that moment, roles reverted. I was the dad again, and he was the son, with both of us recalling the challenges as we knew them. We acknowledged times when Josh made life more complicated and times when I wasn’t the best parent I could’ve been. Still, we returned to where we started.  There we were, acknowledging that the lack of ease doesn’t negate the joy of parenting. If anything, it serves to remind us even more of family’s wonderfulness.

I’ve always believed that while God has fashioned some indescribably splendid things, of them all, family is one of His best. He brings two very different people together, a man and a woman, and from their union, life! However, not just human life (which, of course, is the wonder above all others), but instead the actual experience of living—the lived reality of vocation and recreation and relationships and all the things that a human experiences. The thing about family, however, is that while we’re out and about in the world living, even as that same world will so often be vicious and unforgiving, there will always be a group of people—a place—where living assumes love and where the cardinal rule of governance is forgiveness. In other words, God has designed the human family to be reminiscent of Himself. When everything around you is coming undone, or when you’ve been as unlovable as you can be, there will be someone willing to take you in, forgive you, and continue to love you.

The writer George Bernard Shaw, while he was a philosophical and spiritual mess, managed to get something right when he wrote that “family is but an earlier heaven.” In a way, Christians know at least two deeper truths in this.

First, we know that marriage, the institution that establishes families, is a glorious image of the Gospel itself. Saint Paul described marriage as a mysterious representation of something much grander: the relationship between Christ and His bride, the Church (Ephesians 2:32). Go anywhere else in Paul’s writings, and you’ll see this relationship is what it is because of the forgiveness won and exacted by the Groom, Jesus.

Second, we know family can at least be an atom-sized glimpse of heaven because, as I mentioned before, love and forgiveness are a family’s glorious essentialities. This is to say, the Gospel of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection show us a family established by grace born from devoted love. Born into this by baptism into faith, heaven becomes our rightful home. As believers, we’re those whose robes have been washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 7:14). By this, we belong, not because of anything we’ve done, but because of what God has done for and to us.

In short, God adopted us as His children (Galatians 3:26, Romans 8:14-15). He made us family. And now, no matter where His believers are from or what scars their pasts inflicted, God always takes in His family.

I don’t know what Preston’s future holds. But I do know he’s been born into a family that loves him, one that knows its frailties, and because of those insufficiencies, things won’t always be easy. And yet, God stands at the podium. With baton in hand, He’s conducting with grace-filled movements, coaxing from His white-robed orchestra such lovely sounds. It’s a divine composition of His care, ringing out melodies that sound like “I love you,” and “I’m sorry,” and “I forgive you,” and “It’s good to see you,” and “I’m glad you’re home,” and so many more. Preston now has a seat on this stage, and like everybody else in the orchestra and audience, I can’t wait to hear him play.

Things Are Not Always As They Seem

Posted on by

Grab your coffee. I have a lot to say.

I’m guessing you’ve heard the saying, “Things are not always as they seem.” Truer statements have been made throughout history. Still, this is one worth remembering, especially now that artificial intelligence (AI) has become so prominent.

Relative to images of people, to gauge their authenticity, I’ve learned to look at the hands. It seems AI has difficulty creating human hands. There was an image of Trump going around not that long ago that seemed quite real. He was on his knees in prayer in a dimly lit church. It was defended as authentic and promoted with the byline, “This is what we want in a president.” Agreed, a praying president would be nice. The only problem is that the man in the picture had twelve fingers. I’ve shaken hands with President Trump. If he had such alien-like hands, I’m sure I would’ve noticed. Although a twelve-fingered, non-woke, pro-life extraterrestrial that affirms two genders, believes in secure borders, promotes religious liberty, and understands Critical Race Theory and Socialism as the devilish ideas they are, well, I might actually vote for such a creature.

I read an article several months ago about how 20 million of the 200 million writing assignments submitted in schools last year were as much as 80% AI-generated. That’s not good, especially since many of the assignments were university and research-level work. With this as education’s trajectory, could it be that, as a society, we’re not progressing but regressing? I wonder how many of those assignments were submitted in Michigan. U.S. News & World Report shared that Michigan is currently number 41 in education in the United States. Florida is number 1. Go figure.

Within the last year, I’ve seen occasional Facebook advertisements for sermon-generating software from a company called SermonAI. I’ve started reporting it to the Facebook overlords as sexually offensive. Why? Because there isn’t a “perverse” option, and when it comes to perverted behavior, a pastor preaching a sermon written by a machine seems pretty weird. Even if the resulting sermon’s content is good, it certainly stirs concerns relative to a pastor’s call. I mean, Jesus didn’t call ChatGPT to stand in His stead and by His command. He called a human man. He called a pastor.

A few weeks back, Elon Musk shared an AI-generated video of Kamala Harris. I half-laughed and half-cried through the whole thing. With a near-perfectly generated voice, the machine said things most already knew to be true. It confessed to knowing about Biden’s cognitive decline for many years, admitting the debate in June as proof the charade was over. It admitted to being a woke DEI candidate, which, technically, Harris already admitted during a sit-down conference conversation in 2017, saying, “We have to stay woke. Like, everybody needs to be woke. And you can talk about if you’re the wokest or woker, but just stay more woke than less woke.”

For clarification, woke means things like accepting that men can get pregnant, that the only way to conquer racism is with more racism, and that it’s reasonable to put people in jail for thought crimes. If you don’t know what thought crimes are, you should look up the term, especially if you have plans to travel to England.

The AI software even mimicked Harris’ word salad tendencies, which are the rambling go-nowhere speech patterns she often falls into during unscripted Q and A sessions. I looked up “word salad” to see if it had any clinical references. It does. It’s sometimes referred to as jargon aphasia, and across multiple sources, it appears to happen for one of three reasons. First, it’s an actual disorder, and the person speaking cannot communicate sensibly. Second, it can result from anxiety medication usage. Third, it’s a narcissistic defense mechanism. People in positions of authority who don’t know what they’re talking about will do it to make their listeners think they do. There’s no question Harris is a top chef when it comes to word salads. I’ll leave it to you to decide which of the three reasons fits.

While you’re deciding, one of my favorite Harris word salads involved an attempt at off-script intellectualism during a speech at Howard University. After some toothy cackling, Harris turned solemn, attempting intellectual eloquence, “So, I think it’s very important, as you have heard from so many incredible leaders, for us at every moment in time, and certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past but the future.”

What? That demonstrated genuine cognitive depth akin to a twelve-fingered Trump.

I could go on, showing how this message’s first premise haunts us. Indeed, things are not always as they seem. Knowing this, discernment is necessary. However, to get there, study is required. For example, did Trump really say that there’d be a bloodbath if he didn’t win the forthcoming election in November? Yes, he did. But what did he mean by it? Was he talking about a violent uprising, as the Democrats and media keep insisting, or was he referring specifically to the economy and the effects of certain trade agreements relative to American auto manufacturers? For the proper context, skip the baiting headlines and find the actual speech. You’ll have everything you need to decide.

How about the plot to kidnap Michigan’s Governor Whitmer? Was it really the brainchild of right-wing extremists? Look into it. Having graduated from the FBI Citizen’s Academy in June and experienced first-hand the Bureau’s prejudice against conservatives, I found it interesting that many in the extremist group were actually FBI informants or agents. The others were mostly exonerated. Those who weren’t—the handful who pled guilty—also pled entrapment, insisting they never would have come up with the idea, let alone acted on it, had it not been for the government’s influence. In other words, they were set up. Considering the timeline and its significance, the notably stalwart-against-right-wing extremism, Gretchen Whitmer, was handily re-elected, and both legislative chambers flipped from Republican to Democrat. A massive shift like that hasn’t happened in Michigan since 1983. It seems awfully Reichstag-like. What do I mean by that? Search “Reichstag Fire.” Even the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article will tell you everything you need to know.

How about the inconceivable idea that Planned Parenthood, as a commercial gimmick, might provide free abortions during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago next week? “That’s blatantly untrue,” were one friend’s stern online words. “That’s spreading misinformation!” Except, it isn’t. A Planned Parenthood branch—Green Rivers in Saint Louis—announced they’re taking their mobile clinic to Chicago, where they’ll park during the convention. “Here we come, Chicago!” they tweeted joyfully. “Our mobile health clinic will be in the West Loop… Aug 19-20, providing FREE vasectomies & medication abortion. EC [emergency contraception] will also be available for free without an appointment.” The post included a link for online reservations.

How about an easier one—a question that requires no investigation but instead begins with mere sensibility?

Should I trust the science? Should I get this vaccine and take that pill and wear this mask and have that procedure performed simply because the doctors and scientists—the experts—said I should? I wouldn’t even buy shoes without doing some research. I certainly wouldn’t do it simply because the shoe salesman—the product expert—said so.

In all things, investigate, discern, and then act. For Christians, the ultimate motivation for this is faithfulness to and alignment with God’s will. That’s the Bible’s uncomplicated direction. And why? Well, for one, only God truly has our best interest at heart. Therefore, we ought not to prefer above God those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul (Matthew 10:28). We ought not to live in alignment with the world in ways that contradict His Word and trade away our eternal future (Mark 8:34-38). We must be “wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil” (Romans 16:19). Indeed, in all things, “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Knowing this, we dig deeper. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, King Solomon urged, “The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly” (Proverbs 15:14). Fools post images of 12-fingered Trumps, vehemently arguing the image is real. Hosea insisted, “Whoever is wise, let him understand these things; whoever is discerning, let him know them; for the ways of the Lord are right, and the upright walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them” (Hosea 14:9). Saint John warned that Christians ought to test each spirit before believing it (1 John 4:1). Still, people blanketly believe that as an ELCA Lutheran, Tim Walz is a genuine Lutheran Christian. ELCA Lutheranism is more cult than Christian. It is in no way Lutheran. Genuine Lutheranism does not deny God’s Word is inspired, inerrant, and immutable. Genuine Lutheranism does not support nor promote abortion, transgenderism, social causes that fundamentally reject the Gospel while allowing cities to burn, and all the other leftist ideologies Walz and his beloved ELCA endorse.

The writer to the Hebrews described mature Christianity as the kind with “powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil” (Hebrews 5:14). Saint Paul reminded the Church in Philippi to pursue the kind of love for God and one another that abounds in “knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ” (Philippians 1:9-10). He said the same thing with fewer words in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, writing, “But test everything; hold fast what is good.”

I’ve already gone on long enough, and I think you get the point. So, how about I close with this?

Things are not always as they seem. Therefore, investigate. Become familiar with the characters’ names and the mechanisms’ histories. Read a transcript on occasion. Watch a congressional hearing. Read a little about the actual differences between LCMS and ELCA Lutheranism. Consider the various details you just can’t get in a two-paragraph article or a 30-second news clip. Finally, make sure you’ve answered your own nagging questions about whatever it is you’re investigating. Those questions may actually be unspoken warnings to keep digging.

When you’re finally ready, act. Put your knowledge to work. I’ve heard it said that knowledge must be put where people will trip over it. The Bible speaks similarly, noting that those who have the Word of God and the knowledge it gives will practice it. Those who do not ultimately deceive themselves in ways that could result in their unfortunate judgment (James 1:22, 2 Peter 2:21-22, Hebrews 10:26-30).

Investigate, discern, and then put your knowledge to work. Start tripping people with knowledge. And not only the identifiable (and beneficial) boundaries of right and wrong, truth and untruth, but also the better facts of sin and grace—namely, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ for the world’s rescue. As a Christian who knows stuff, you may only be working part-time if that’s missing from your efforts.

Fake Palm Trees

Posted on by

If you’ve ever been to my office, then you know I have a palm tree. Jennifer bought it for me as a Christmas gift last year. It’s fake, of course, mainly because I’m no horticulturist. Even a cactus will see me coming and take its own life. Nevertheless, real or fake, the tree rises from my office’s corner, a few of its frons reaching toward and over my desk. I like it. It looks real enough for its purpose, which is to help with the winter doldrums.

I wrote a few years ago in an AngelsPortion.com post about wanting to grow a live palm tree here in Michigan. If you’re interested, you can read about it here. I researched the different kinds, eventually learning there is one capable of withstanding occasionally colder climates. Unfortunately, in this case, natural law reestablished itself. For starters, a palm tree that can withstand occasionally colder climates is not the same as one that can withstand cold climates. Occasionally colder and regularly cold are two very different things. The former assumes more warmth than chill. The latter understands the opposite. Michigan is not just occasionally colder than places like Florida. It’s cold, and it can be so for long periods—as many as eight months. I think the way I described it in the post was that snow does not exist in Michigan; instead, Michigan exists in snow.

I grew up in central Illinois. It gets cold there. It has snow, too. I read C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe as a kid, and I’ve since reread it to my children as an adult in Michigan. There is the following moment in the volume between Mr. Tumnus and Lucy, which reads:

“It is winter in Narnia,” said Mr. Tumnus, “and has been for ever so long….”

As a kid, I don’t remember reading that line and thinking, “Ugh, just like Illinois.” Maybe that’s because I thought a lot differently about winter as a child. I can assure you I absolutely do remember reading the story to my son, Joshua, and thinking, “Narnia must be located somewhere here in Michigan.”

I won’t drone on about this anymore. You already know my love affair with summer. Relative to real and fake palm trees, however, there is at least something to be mined from my complaint. Maybe think of it this relatively simple way.

A human with XY chromosomes, even as he may suffer characteristics or physical abnormalities that make him appear feminine, is a male, and as is usually the case, his baseline capabilities native to his chromosomal standard, if left to develop, will prove predominant. In the same way, a human with XX chromosomes, while she may suffer from abnormal masculine attributes, is a female, and her developmental trajectory will inevitably prove it.

Lin Yu-ting and Imane Khelif, two individuals with XY chromosomes who unsurprisingly dominated the female Olympic boxing scene and ultimately fought one another for the gold, are artificial palm trees in Michigan. To this very day, even after suffering the typical progressive rhetoric, the International Boxing Association (IBA) insists they are men, having disqualified them from participating in IBA-sanctioned bouts. Yu-ting and Khelif were tested chromosomally, and the results were unquestionable. They are men. Both were given the opportunity to appeal the results. Yu-ting did not. Khelif did at first but then withdrew the appeal.

Why? Because a second test, like the first, would have doubly certified both are artificial palm trees—fake women—and they do not belong in women’s sports.

“Then why were they allowed to compete in the Olympics?”

First, you’re asking why the same organization that gave us an opening ceremony awash in transgenders with uncovered genitalia parodying Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” would allow men pretending to be women to compete in female sports. That alone should answer your question. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) was infected by the woke mind virus years ago, and gender has long since lost its meaning among its members. Second, while the IBA determines gender through testing, the IOC’s only gender determination comes from what’s printed on an athlete’s passport.

“But it’s not that simple, Pastor Thoma. These athletes are human beings suffering from a rare condition.”

And yet, strangely, these poor, marginalized human beings suffering from a rare condition handily destroyed every female boxer from every other country, eventually competing for gold in their individual weight divisions. What an underdog story this is. Or isn’t.

With respect, I’m not buying that argument. I’m convinced the “rare condition” discussion was popularized and used as a pity-generating excuse to make more room for gender confusion, especially since it didn’t emerge until much later in the controversy—and it was never fully substantiated. In addition, the IBA and its doctors—collectively, the recognized worldwide boxing authority—outright rejected the premise relative to women’s sports. Instead, they insisted XY boxers would always put XX boxers in danger. That’s no small thing.

Still, as blurry or unsubstantiated as the excuse may be, let’s say these men actually do have an abnormal condition. My response would not change, except maybe to say their condition saddens me. Such is sin’s dreadful fingerprint upon human flesh. Nevertheless, a person with no arms, for as unfortunate as his condition might be, cannot participate in an arm-wrestling competition. That is his lot. I have a terrible back. There are things I cannot do that others can. This is a thorn for me. I plead daily for relief. And yet, Saint Paul teaches: “I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness’” (2 Corinthians 12:7-9). Paul carried on in his lot, unable to be or do anything other than what he was.

If Lin Yu-ting’s and Imane Khelif’s conditions prevent them from competing, then so be it. It’s tragic, but it’s a tragedy that exists within reality, and we all bear thorns that prevent us from one thing or another in that sphere.

And so, yes, it really is that simple. Behold the XY’s innate advantage over its XX counterpart. Blow after blow, it asserts its natural physical dominance over its female opponents, and it does so to the women’s danger. To micromanage and ultimately convolute the issue through supposed transgender or intersex equality excuse-making only demonstrates a cultural infection that threatens to uproot far more than women’s sports. It threatens humanity’s future.

A real palm tree will not grow in a Michigander’s front yard. If you see one, it’s fake. It does not belong.

Real Family

Posted on by

I tell myself every year I’m not going to write and send an eNews message while on vacation. Every year, I fail to keep this pledge. I know why. There are two reasons.

First, it’s because I’m a writer at heart. For me, writing is far more than a byproduct of my task as a pastor. It’s in my DNA. Somewhere along the twirling genetic strand responsible for my development as a human being is a switch. In the off position, writing is a chore. But mine’s been flipped to the “on” position. I do it because it’s who I am, and as such, it’s harder to avoid writing than it is just to sit and do it.

My wife, Jennifer, more or less highlighted the second reason I continue to fail at keeping the “no eNews” pledge. It happened during a relatively recent conversation between us concerning death. She asked where I’d like to be buried. Assuming the conversation wasn’t hinting at a secret desire to off me in the pool while away, I floated along in its stream, implying I didn’t really care where the family returned me to the ground. My only two requirements have been that I not be cremated and that the mortician embalms me with my remaining whisky, fully aware that, even as I’m friends with many of the funeral directors in the area, the former is more probable than the latter. Beyond that, the family can sink me in the pond in the backyard for all I care.

From there, Jennifer asked if our church had ever considered using some of its property for a cemetery. I told her it had been discussed at one time years ago, but nothing ever came of it. It was then she betrayed a profound love for the people in our congregation and how she didn’t want to be buried in a random cemetery somewhere. When it came time for her burial, she wanted a place where she, and perhaps the generations of Thoma kin to follow, could be laid to rest together with their realest family—their church family. When she said that, not only did I know she was describing something I somehow knew I also wanted but never realized, but I understood why I would continue writing a message like this on vacation when I really don’t have to.

It’s because I love my family. The hundreds of people who receive this eNews every week at Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hartland, Michigan, where I serve as pastor, are a part of that family—my realest family. Along with my immediate family, these are the people who, when the final trumpet sounds and our corrupted bodies are raised incorruptible to stand before the throne of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:51-57), I will count it all joy to experience this beside them. I’d count it a privilege to be alongside the Christians among whom I lived and breathed and served and worshipped in this life.

Maybe it’s time to revisit the idea of a church cemetery. With twenty-six acres, we certainly have the space. I’ll leave that to the church leaders at Our Savior, who may be reading this right now. To everyone else, I’ll simply encourage you to give thanks to God for your church family. In this life and the next, they’re the realest family you’ll ever know.

By the way, for the editors out there, I know “realest” isn’t a word. I just like how it sounds.

Consistency

Posted on by

Do you listen to podcasts? I do. I know it betrays my slowness to the media streaming party, but I really only started doing so with any regularity within the last year. When I’m out and about in the car for long periods, my go-to for travel noise has always been news radio or music. I suppose everyone has their preferences.

I told my family during dinner last week that I know someone who prefers listening to operas while driving. As an art form, in my opinion, opera is just the musical’s fanciest form. I’m not knocking it. It’s just that when it comes to musicals, I’ve never been a fan. The easiest explanation for my disinterest would be that I’ve always struggled to grasp the concept of a character who, let’s say, after being mortally wounded, feels the need to sing about it. That’s just weird. It’s just too much of a break from its narrative reality.

“Well,” my eldest daughter, Madeline, interrupted, “Star Wars is a huge break from reality.”

“Yes,” I replied, “and had Luke started singing after Vader cut off his hand, or had a company of Imperial Guards performed a dance number behind Emperor Palpatine as he sang his evil plan, I’d ditch Star Wars, too.”

I know it’s an unpopular opinion. Many people adore musicals. Madeline is one of those people, and I’m pretty sure I won’t convince her to join me on the dark side of this conversation. But here’s the thing: even when it comes to my favorite sci-fi and horror films—movies that can be as weird as weird gets—the good ones have a baseline element of consistency that holds the weird stuff together. That baseline connectivity has its natural limits. That’s what’s meant by narrative reality. It’s what makes each of the story’s parts work together in harmony, even when they might not be entirely feasible. When an element of the story strays too far beyond the narrative reality’s boundaries, the story becomes harder to accept. Relative to Star Wars, there’s certainly a lot more flexibility in this regard because the narrative reality is already fantastical. Nevertheless, the rule still applies. The broader the disconnects, the harder it is to accommodate and ultimately accept the framework as a whole. It’s why so many of us Star Wars nerds had trouble with the midichlorian idea introduced in the prequels. As a scientific explanation of the Force, it strayed too far from the narrative’s mystical reality.

Now, a story set in the real world has far less flexibility. I just watched the movie Oppenheimer. Had the scriptwriter added kyber (the fictional crystal used to power a lightsaber) to J. Robert Oppenheimer’s designs, I’d have stopped the flick and moved on to something else. The idea is too far beyond believability’s boundaries. This is the trouble with musicals.

I just searched for and found a list of the highest-grossing musicals in America since 1982, and barring a few, nearly all had storylines written to exist according to ordinary human reality. The Phantom of the Opera, Les Misérables, The Sound of Music, and most others all take place in our natural world. For example, Grease is set in the 1950s. A bunch of high school guys in the 1950s building a car they can race against a rival gang is a scenario that exists in our reality. I’m just saying I’d be more inclined to watch it if, when Danny Zuko started singing and dancing in the garage, the other characters dropped their wrenches and looked at him strangely, asking, “What the heck are you doing?”

Again, I know much of this is entirely subjective. And, hopefully, you’ve sensed my playful mood this morning. I don’t necessarily prefer musicals. But I also don’t mind them. They can be great fun. I actually liked Grease. I absolutely loved The Little Shop of Horrors. Still, looking at what I’ve just written, even as I drifted into a subject I did not intend to discuss, the examination remains aligned with my original reason for mentioning podcasts. My primary intent was aimed at narrative consistency.

Something I’ve noticed while listening to podcasts, especially the longer ones in which someone is being interviewed, is that by the end of the discussion, the guest is rarely the same person he was at the beginning. I’ve been listening to Joe Rogan’s podcast quite a bit. It can be challenging sometimes because of his weird spirituality wrapped in foul language. Nevertheless, Rogan is a genuinely smart guy. I learn things listening to him. However, apart from James Lindsay’s, Riley Gaines’, and Elon Musk’s interviews with Rogan, many of his other guests have exhibited inconsistent personalities.

Because Rogan sits with each guest for several hours at a time, my first thought was that the inconsistencies likely occurred because most relaxed their guard and became more comfortable, thereby displaying a more genuine self. That can happen during lengthy conversations, and perhaps that’s what’s happening in this instance. For example, I sat beside Lara Trump at a dinner a few weeks ago. She was genuinely cordial at the beginning of our time together, but by the time she ascended the stage for her speech, she was funnier and more neighborly. Her unprotected self was different.

That said, it makes something else I’ve experienced relative to the lengthier podcasts so much more bizarre.

I’ve noticed I appreciate most guests at the beginning of the podcast more than I do at the end. In other words, I like their protected selves better. Their unprotected selves speak more crassly, less deeply, and oftentimes more vainly. Perhaps this is where my commentary on musicals applies.

I was listening to an interview with Mike Baker, a former CIA operative and the host of a reality show on Discovery+. I don’t remember the show’s name. Near the beginning of the interview, Baker spoke fondly of his own young children. Further along, he talked about the gender-confused craziness (and countless other horrors) children are being forced to endure in schools and universities and how we, as parents, need to do everything we can to protect them while modeling behaviors that demonstrate respect and concern for others without sacrificing truth. He kept the same message throughout. At the podcast’s beginning, I was nodding along with him. An hour into the episode, as he became more comfortable with the host, his premise became effortlessly draped in the grossest profanity. To hear his unprotected self using the f-word to describe raising children in a moral way was too distracting, too disjointed.

Parents model acceptable behavior for their children. The words we use are essential transfer mechanisms for whatever it is we want to teach. This is to say, words are critical to modeling. Profanity does not teach a child language forms that are capable of showing respect or concern for others. In fact, profanity is a gross demonstration of the absolute opposite. Not only is it communicatively lazy, but it shows everyone within earshot who and what’s most important to the speaker: the self.

I don’t remember who said it, but I once heard self-love—vanity—described as love’s grossest form. I agree with the sentiment, especially when considering the nature of Christ. Our Lord was not a self-lover. Everything He said or did was completely outwardly focused and for the benefit of others. That’s the Gospel’s essence. Jesus gave His all, sacrificing Himself in every way for everyone else.

I told Jen this past week that I learned a new word: orgiastic. It is as it sounds. Its root is the word “orgy,” and its purpose is to describe perverted behaviors. For example, sex is a gift from God. An orgy is sex’s perversion. Love is a gift from God. Self-love is its perversion. It is orgiastic. Writing to Timothy, Saint Paul lists self-love alongside pride, greed, slander, and so many other grave sins (1 Timothy 3:2-5). He spends more ink in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 describing just how outwardly focused genuine Christian love must be. Returning to what I’ve been talking about so far, language is also a gift of God. Profanity is its perversion. Profanity is orgiastic.

In the end, this is nothing new for Christians. By the power of the Holy Spirit at work for faith, we naturally seek to guard God’s gifts against perversion. We strive to exist within His narrative reality. The Bible certainly deals with profane speech in the same way it does with self-love. For starters, Saint Paul addresses profanity on more than one occasion in his epistle to the church at Ephesus (Ephesians 4:29; 5:3-4). I’m guessing it must have been a problem there. The rest of the Bible deals with it, too, especially when it comes to showing how the spoken word reveals what’s in someone’s heart (Proverbs 4:24; Colossians 3:8-10; Matthew 12:36, 15:11; Luke 6:45; Proverbs 10:32; and the like). To close out this lengthier pondering, and for the sake of offering a final takeaway, I suppose a person concerned about raising moral children while describing the effort’s importance using the filthiest vocabulary just doesn’t make sense to me. In fact, it seems weirdly severed from sensibility altogether. It’s a lot like a story’s character getting shot in the chest and then breaking into song as he bleeds to death. It’s just too disconnected to be believable.

Be a Man

Posted on by

The Thoma family doesn’t go out to dinner very often. It isn’t just that dining out has become quite expensive. Instead, it’s that we’ve always been more interested in family dinners at home. Any time we’re required to share a dining space with others, it seems the genuine Thoma frivolity becomes unfortunately inhibited. At home, we can be us, laughing as loudly as we’d like at whatever we like. We play games. We rib each other. Sometimes, we even throw stuff. We don’t make a mess. We’re not messy people. But we do things at home we surely wouldn’t do in a restaurant.

I should admit that in restaurants, Jennifer is the governess. She maintains the boundaries. I certainly know where the boundaries are. However, my threshold for public tomfoolery is a little higher. I can easily become a part of whatever hilarious thing Harrison or Madeline might be doing that requires a little more volume or risk. Thankfully, Jennifer anticipates this and brings us back into orbit. She doesn’t quell the fun. She maintains its appropriateness.

When things are no longer in tomfoolery mode but instead require actual discipline, it’s often the other way around. Jennifer is much gentler. I stand at the borderlands’ edges, allowing nothing illegal to cross. Ultimately, my sons are expected to be Godly men, and my daughters are expected to be Godly women.

Looking back at what I’ve written, two things come to mind.

The first is that fathers and mothers—men and women—are very different. I probably don’t need to tell you this. Or maybe I do because it sure seems these roles are more than confused these days. Men are portrayed as inept and effeminate ninnies in movies, TV shows, and commercials. Women are depicted as hardnosed boss-girls who shepherd the men around like children, but that’s only when they have need of them. The genuine give-and-take of naturally complimentary roles has been lost to artificial ideologies meant only to disrupt. Perhaps worst of all, the ability to define the actual roles has already been sacrificed at confusion’s altar. What is a woman? What is a man? Fewer and fewer can answer these questions, lest they give a truthful answer and be canceled. In fact, the answer is becoming more elusive, not only relative to gender but to species. For example, a 22-year-old man who thinks he’s a female cat is running for a seat on the Board of Commissioners here in Livingston County. I have a quick story about this.

I was picking up my daughter, Evelyn, from volleyball practice at the Hartland Community Education building when I drove past this candidate and his friends having a picnic-style demonstration on the facility’s front lawn. There were only a handful of people with him. It was by no means a grand event. Nevertheless, he placed signs near the facility’s driveway, one of which read, “Protect trans students like you protect your guns.” If I hadn’t been in a hurry to get Evelyn home to Linden and then back again to Hartland for a church meeting, I may likely have stopped to ask for clarification. This tendency does get me into trouble sometimes. Just ask Jennifer. She shifted into governess mode a couple of times yesterday at a conference in Detroit to keep my tomfoolery at bay. However, one particular gent in a breakout session who insulted me for being Lutheran rather than Catholic did receive a word or two. Actually, he received four.

Still, I believe in conversation, especially for the sake of invalidating untruths. I certainly had more than my fair share of questions before I rounded the first turn in the parking lot to fetch Evelyn that day. In particular, I would have asked the 22-year-old cat woman with male genitalia if “Protect trans students like you protect your guns” meant registering trans students with the government. Next, I would have asked if that meant red flag laws, too. In other words, if a trans student behaves in ways that make me nervous—like, say, demanding drag queen story hours at the local library—I could call the cops and have him, or her, or whatever taken away and locked up, letting the situation get sorted out in court before allowing him (or her, or whatever) to go home. Along those same lines, I’d have asked if he thinks we should keep all trans students locked away in safes to help keep children safe.

This is only one thread in gender confusion’s fabric. But this fabric is so easily unwound when the hard truth pulls on it. Speaking in an elementary sense, the fact that two men cannot create a child excludes such madness from any real claim on Father’s Day. Inherently, the word “father” assumes and requires “mother,” so whether a man and woman procreate or adopt, fatherhood remains innately a man and woman thing, not a man and man thing. The same goes for Mother’s Day.

I told you two things came to mind. The second is the blessing of home.

Everything I described begins in the home. If a child’s home is unsteady or confused, then everything beyond it will be, too. Beyond this, I once heard someone say that home is a pre-heaven of sorts. Indeed, home is a place where your seat at the table is certain. The rule of forgiveness secures it, and everyone there is family. Oliver Wendell Holmes said something about how our feet may leave home, but our hearts never will. This is to say that we’re forever rooted in a lifeblood sort of way with our home. Who we are, what we’ve learned, who taught us, and why—all these things go with us. And yet, even as they’re carried away on two legs, they are forever bound to the source, no matter where we might be. In my opinion, this is just another way of highlighting the significance of fathers and mothers and that no matter where a child goes, he can never really shake loose from the home his parents made. Good or bad, it’s forever a part of him.

Wrapping this up, I say, since it’s Father’s Day, grab hold of confusion’s fabric and pull. Do what you can to dispel gender confusion. Treat your dad like the manly man he is and ought to be. Rejoice and publicly share those things that show dads to be the God-given heads and protectors a family needs and requires. Maybe even take a chance at grabbing this world’s absurdity by the jugular. June certainly would be the month to do it. Women, demand alongside Saint Paul that the men in your life “act like men and be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13). Husbands and fathers—the gents crafting the next generation of men—insist beside King David, who instructed his son, Solomon, “Be strong, and show yourself a man” (1 Kings 2:2). Even better, demonstrate manliness for them. Demonstrate it for your daughters, too. Be tough when toughness is required. Be courageous. Most of all, shepherd them toward Jesus, and along the way, do everything you can to hold the line on truth while invalidating untruth. My guess is that when they eventually leave home, and they will, no matter where they go, their hearts will be permanently sourced by something far stronger and more certain than this world’s sin-draped irrationality.