The Great Barrington Declaration

Let's stop the government overreach madness associated with COVID-19. The media makes it sound as if scientists and 'science' are unanimous in their opinion that COVID-19 is a threat that merits lock-downs, social restrictions and mask-wearing and reality could not be farther from the truth. Recently (Oct. 1-4, 2020), a meeting was hosted that brought together some of the top epidemiologists, economists, and journalists to discuss the impacts of lockdowns and social restrictions and also to present on the actual data we have gathered about COVID-19 and its threats to human life. Below is the incredible list of people who have authored and co-signed on what is now called, "The Great Barrington Declaration". You can read it's contents for yourself here. Don't tell me scientists and science are unanimous here because these highly respected people, who are all willing to put their hard-fought reputations on the line, are willing to publicly state their disagreement with the mainstream COVID-19 narrative.

The primary authors and signers of the document are 

• Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Professor, Medicine, Harvard Medical School.
• Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Professor,  Medicine, Stanford University.
• Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Professor, Theoretical Epidemiology, University of Oxford.

The co-signers include 

• Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, PhD. associate professor of biostatistics at Baylor University and the Director of the Baylor Statistical Consulting Center. He is a Colonel in the US Army (retired) whose research includes a focus on infectious disease spread and diagnosis.
• Dr. Eitan Friedman, MD, PhD. Founder and Director, The Susanne Levy Gertner Oncogenetics Unit, The Danek Gertner Institute of Human Genetics, Chaim Sheba Medical Center and Professor of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Depertment of Human Genetics and Biochemistry, Tel-Aviv University
• Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, MD, MPH a physician with the VA health system with expertise in epidemiology, health equity practice, and health impact assessment of public policy. He formerly served as a Deputy Health Officer for San Francisco for 18 years.
• Dr. Michael Levitt, PhD is a biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University. Prof. Levitt received the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems.
• Dr. Eyal Shahar, MD professor (emeritus) of public health at the University of Arizona, a physician, epidemiologist, with expertise in causal and statistical inference.
• Dr. David Katz, MD, MPH, President, True Health Initiative and the Founder and Former Director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center
• Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, PhD., professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science at Stanford University Medical School, a biostatistician and data scientist
• Dr. Simon Thornley, PhD is an epidemiologist at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. He has experience in biostatistics and epidemiological analysis, and has applied these to a range of areas including communicable and non-communicable diseases.
• Dr. Michael Jackson, PhD is an ecologist and research fellow at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
• Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden.
• Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism expert and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA.
• Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden
• Prof. Udi Qimron, Chair, Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Tel Aviv University
• Prof. Ariel Munitz, Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Tel Aviv University
• Prof. Motti Gerlic, Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Tel Aviv University
• Dr. Uri Gavish, an expert in algorithm analysis and a biomedical consultant
• Prof. Ellen Townsend, Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, UK.
• Dr. Paul McKeigue, professor of epidemiology in the University of Edinburgh and public health physician, with expertise in statistical modelling of disease.
• Dr. Mario Recker, Associate Professor in Applied Mathematics at the Centre for Mathematics and the Environment, University of Exeter.
• Prof. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge
• Prof. Stephen Bremner, Professor of Medical Statistics, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex
• Prof. Matthew Ratcliffe, Professor of Philosophy specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, UK
• Prof. Lisa White, Professor of Modelling and Epidemiology Nuffield Department of Medicine, Oxford University, UK
• Prof. Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMedSci, Department of Oncology, St. George’s, University of London
• Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine, an expert on vaccine development, efficacy and safety.
• Dr. Helen Colhoun, professor of medical informatics and epidemiology in the University of Edinburgh and public health physician, with expertise in risk prediction.
• Prof. Partha P. Majumder, PhD, FNA, FASc, FNASc, FTWAS National Science Chair, Distinguished Professor and Founder National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, KalyaniEmeritus Professor Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata
• Dr. Gabriela Gomes, professor at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, a mathematician focussing on population dynamics, evolutionary theory and infectious disease epidemiology.
• Prof. Anthony J Brookes, Department of Genetics & Genome Biology, University of Leicester, UK
• Prof. Simon Wood, professor at Edinburgh University, a statistician with expertise in statistical methodology, applied statistics and mathematical modelling in biology
• Prof. David Livermore, Professor at University of East Anglia, a microbiologist with expertise in disease epidemiology, antibiotic resistance and rapid diagnostics
• Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, em. Professor of Medical Microbiology, University of Mainz, Germany
• Prof. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, Professor of Finance, Director at Behavioural Finance Working Group, School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London
• Prof. Karol Sikora MA, PhD, MBBChir, FRCP, FRCR, FFPM, Medical Director of Rutherford Health, Oncologist, & Dean of Medicine

Turn Your Hearts to Jesus

This was from Jim Daly's blog (Focus on the Family) which, despite being regularly delivered to my email, I almost never read. What caught my eye this time was the subject line which read, "The Presidential Election of 2020: Stop the Blame Game". So I read it - I thought it was good enough to share. Bottom-line, the government of the United States was never intended to be the hope of the people. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights lay down the foundation but never suppose that life, liberty and happiness will come from the government...rather, they promise that life, the right to liberty (freedom) and one's ability to pursue happiness will be defended by the government. We would do well, as a nation, to remember this. The government is not responsible for everything that happens in this country and to make it seem that way is to put the government on a pedestal that it was never meant or intended to be on. No amount of government oversight, regulation, control or programming will stop people from dying, stop disasters from happening, or solve the cultural issues we face. We need God - and we need the love of Jesus and his Holy Spirit inside of us. That is our only true hope.

"If you tuned into last night’s debate or have spent any amount of time following this year’s race, you know blame is now the name of the game in the 2020 presidential election.

Every affliction must be assigned a villain. 

It wasn’t always so. Let me describe a true-life scene for you:

Record deaths from the virus were mounting, taxing hospitals beyond their capacity. On one day alone, over 60 desperate calls for medical help in New York City go unaided.

Meanwhile, a blizzard in North Dakota killed 34 people and a deadly tornado outbreak was sweeping through the South, killing dozens in its path. On Palm Sunday, twisters claimed the lives of 380 people throughout the Midwest and South. Days later, seven violent F-4 tornadoes devastate Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee.

Compounding the gathering woes was a deadly, category 2 hurricane in Louisiana, swamping low-lying properties and washing out roads and railroad tracks.

There was more.

In a single day, 5 wildfires ravage the dried-out Adirondacks.

In Chicago and Independence, Kansas, race riots with police rage, while another wicked feud is averted in Arkansas.

Our current life in 2020, the apocalyptic consequences of gross presidential mismanagement and/or the reckless ignoring of cataclysmic climate change?

Not quite.

Rather, a snapshot of President Woodrow Wilson’s America one-hundred years ago in 1920, just as the death toll for the Spanish flu pandemic approached 675,000 in the United States and 5 million across the globe.

By 1920, Wilson was in his second term, hampered by a stroke suffered a year earlier, but still riding high from being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for helping negotiate the peace treaty to end World War I.

Yet, despite the escalating death toll attributable to the influenza, Wilson made no public statements about it throughout the multiple-year pandemic.

No daily press briefings. No big speeches.

Not a single word.

Why?

Historians have long suggested Wilson was singularly focused on World War I, but by the end of 1920, hostilities in Europe had been over for two years.

I suspect he didn’t say anything about it because nobody was blaming him for it.

Once upon a time, Americans didn’t expect their president or their government to solve every problem. They understood that some things were outside not only a politician’s control, but also mankind’s.

They recognized that government can try to minimize and mitigate catastrophes, but in an open society, bad things happen. It’s inevitable. It’s the story of humanity.

It’s a doctor’s job to alleviate suffering, but it’s God’s to cure.

In other words, men and women can help – but only God can heal. As government takes a more active role in people’s lives, that’s become something of a foreign concept.

In fact, many now rely on government far more than God.

Tragically, tens of millions of deaths have been attributable to disease and natural disasters over the centuries. Perhaps some plagues and pandemics could have been avoided or reduced if people knew then what we know now – but hindsight is always 20/20.

Countless natural disasters struck the world long before the proliferation of fossil fuels and charges of carbon and ozone pollution. From floods to fires, catastrophes preceded cars and factory chimneys.

Despite presiding as president in the midst of the explosion of a global pandemic, Democrat Woodrow Wilson was lionized, with The New York Times lauding him for his “unflagging zeal and devotion.”

As a Christian, I try to look inward before casting stones outward. I also recognize there are so many difficult things happening in this world that are outside of my control, like disease and natural disasters. Why God allows suffering like COVID-19 is the type of question people have been asking for ages, but I do know He uses everything to accomplish His purposes.

“The problem with the world is it blames problems on things besides sin and identifies salvation on things outside God,” says my friend, pastor Dr. Tim Keller.

I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for sin to catch the blame for our current challenges – but in the “blame game,” that’s the hands-down winner."

A Ridiculous Yard Sign

 

Of all the ridiculous yard signs that you see when driving anywhere these days, this is the most ridiculous of them all. What makes it so ridiculous is the supposed viewpoint to which this sign is 'opposite' of. Hear me out. The maker of this sign (and by association, anyone who then puts this sign in their yard), is arguing that there are people out there who:

a) don't believe black lives matter, which OK, I will give you that there are definitely racist people out there

b) don't believe women's rights are equal to the rights of others; or this is a statement on abortion rights. If the former, I don't understand who it is that would argue that women's right differ, or should differ from anyone else's. If the ladder, then you're right, there are those of us out here who do not view a fetus as an extension of a women's body and who are vehemently opposed to abortion

c) believe that actual human beings are illegal; I'll talk more about this in a second

d) believe that science is false (?); again, more on this later

e) believe that love is not love (?), or this is a statement that people should be able to marry whomever they want. Here's the thing though - this statement is so oversimplified, it could be taken to condone pedophilia, bestiality, etc. The statement is far to vague to be helpful or descriptive.

f) Kindness is everything. Perhaps the most logical statement on the whole thing - another more colloquial way of saying this would be, "Be kind." Even this though - is so vague it's unhelpful. Kindness looks very different depending on the situation you're in.

One quick thing and then I'll get to the one that irks me the most. "No human is illegal". No one is arguing that human beings are illegal. Literally, no one. Some people are arguing that unlawful immigration is illegal (which it is, by definition). People argue that what humans DO is illegal, but no one is arguing that humans themselves are illegal. When someone is labeled an 'illegal immigrant' or 'illegal alien', what is actually being said is that their action of unlawfully moving to this country, not paying taxes, etc is, by the law of our country, illegal. Countries around the globe have these same laws. You, as a United States citizen, could not just up and decide to permanently move to Germany. There would be a long process of doing that legally - and if you skirted that process, you would be considered an illegal immigrant by the German government and if you were caught, you would likely be deported back to the US. Most countries in the world would do this. Anyway - I digress.

The most asinine thing on this poster has got to be the line, "Science is Real". What does this even mean? First, 'science' is not a noun. It can't be described as real or not real. Second, "Science" is about as fallible as it gets and if you don't think that's true, simply look at the scientists who have been wrong time after time after time after time on COVID. Read the dozens of great books out there on how 'science' has gotten it wrong time after time, across the centuries. Two I would recommend are "The Emperor of Maladies" by Siddhartha Mukherjee and Stuart Richie's new book entitled, "Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth". Does 'science' get a lot right? Sure - but saying "science is real" has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. The statement is utter nonsense! Are they saying science is infallible? If so, that's laughable. Are they saying we shouldn't question or challenge science? If so, that goes against the very foundation of science - science invites challenge and skepticism. When a scientist in almost any field produces a significant result, you often see 'replication studies' done as a follow-up, where other scientists try and and replicate the results achieved as a means of verifying the result of the original study. Are they simply saying that science is a thing? If so, who denies this? Why the need to state that?

When I see this kind of thing, its maddening. I try hard not to let it get to me, but my mind is too logical for that. What I see here is a sheep credo. It is a list of talking points that have nothing to do with one another which is then disseminated by people who seem to have little to no ability to think for themselves. At best, it is virtue signaling at its worst. Sorry, I just had to get this off my chest today.

Genesis 1-11 and the Prelude to Covenant

Our group has been going through a series of teachings lately that were shared to us by David Gordon and David Rickman. They are both part of the Daniel Training Network and David Gordon leads a community of believers out in Burlington, NC. The title of the class series is Studies in Torah: Biblical Frameworks for the Jewish Narrative and I've linked it there so you can access it yourself. What follows here is a summary of the first couple of teachings as well as my own thoughts. I'm not trying to 'steal' their material, but rather, I just want to solidify my own understanding by writing out my thoughts.

Genesis 1-11 - Unique in Scripture

Genesis 1-11 has one very unique aspect to it that makes it stand out from the rest of Scripture. That unique aspect is the sheer amount of time that it covers, about 1,950 years. By contrast, Genesis 12-50 covers about 360 years. The rest of Scripture tends to cover smaller periods of time. This may not seem all that important, but I thought of it this way - if someone were going to write about nearly 2,000 years of history and only mention a few things, and if those few things were more-or-less the BEGINNING of a longer story, then those few things mentioned at the beginning must be extremely important in helping us understand the rest of the story. Not only that - but in order for someone to so briefly summarize nearly 2,000 years of time, they would have to be very intentional about the words they chose. So with that in mind - let's look at the major themes of Genesis 1-11.

Saw, Took

In reading the creation narrative (Genesis 1-4), the narrative of events in Genesis 6, and the story of the Tower of Babel, we see a single theme:

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit and ate; and she gave some to her husband also and he ate." (Genesis 3:6, JPS)

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw that daughters of men were beautiful and they took them as wives." (Genesis 6:1-2, JPS)

 The references are less direct here, but the theme is the same:

"They said to each other, "Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick in stead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that that we may make a name for ourselves..."" (Genesis 11:3-4, NASB)

The main idea in all three of these stories is the same - that both man and heavenly beings saw something and instead of deferring to the boundaries that God had set in place, they decided to take it for themselves, to choose something for themselves that was outside of God's will and design. In the creation narrative, God's clear boundary to man was "you are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil..." Adam and Eve violate that boundary by eating the fruit of that tree. Similarly, in Genesis 6 (making the assumption, with evidence, that the 'Sons of God' are created divine beings), God must have set a boundary for created divine beings of not inter-marrying/having sexual relations with humans. Man, being complicit by allowing these marriages, also bears blame because it is clearly an effort on their part to circumvent God's curse of death after Adam & Eve's sin. And then with the Tower of Babel, we again see man attempting to have a relationship with the divine apart from God and God's will. It is a clear attempt to erase the boundary between earth and heavenly realm.

The creation narrative is clear - to be made in the image of God is to have the authority to steward, authority which is given by God. It is to have responsibility for something - but to CHOOSE, that is reserved for God. God alone has true authority. Created beings, both human and divine, have authority that has been delegated to them by God for certain things or over certain things. God delegates stewardship of the Earth to man early on, commanding them: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:28, NASB) This doesn't mean they get to determine how the world was made or how it works, but rather that they have been given responsibility to cultivate and subdue it.

To Choose = Authority

I've been thinking about this idea of choice as authority. Think about children - when they are born and up until about age 2, they have and exercise no choice. Every detail of their lives is chosen for them. Then they start to become aware and they develop the ability to communicate. Anyone who has had a 2-3 year-old knows that they then become quite demanding. Some become downright tyrannical. They want to exercise an ability to make choices. Or think about the person or people who run the organization that you work for. If you work for a company that has a single owner - they probably like to know what their options are in any given situation and ultimately, they are the person who is responsible for making the final call.

God has given Man responsibility (Gen 1:28). He has also given created divine beings responsibility (Daniel 10: 20-21, Matthew 18:10-11, Jude 1:6). Authority has been GIVEN, but it is not inherent to the created order. When we say that God is sovereign, we are saying that God has ultimate authority, that His authority supersedes all other authority. Therefore, we can say that if God has chosen something, then any effort made to go around that choice or to undermine that choice is an effort to assert one's own authority over God's. At the core, that is Sin. Is is knowing what the boundary is and willfully overstepping that boundary. Jesus put it this way, "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (Matt 12:30) To go against the authority of God is to set oneself up in opposition to God.

**this idea of choice equaling authority lends itself to a lot of questions. Namely, does man have the ability to 'choose' to follow God if God is ultimately the one with power? I definitely do not understand how this all works, but I would say in that instance, it's more about deference than it is about authority. God's sovereign authority demands that we defer to Him, and to the boundaries that He has set up. To choose to violate those boundaries doesn't mean that those boundaries cease to exist, but only that we have decided to assert our knowledge of what is right above His.

Prelude to the Abrahamic Covenant

Given this brief Genesis 1-11 context, we can now have a clear understanding of the dynamic happening in Genesis 12, when God CHOOSES for himself a people, beginning with Abraham. Not only that, God is also laying out what his choice is for the redemption of humanity. That redemption itself was possible was made clear in Genesis 3:15. Now we will start to see with Abraham, and on through Moses and David, just how God intends to redeem humanity. But it is important to note that this people and this plan is of God's choosing. God is exercising his sovereign authority - He is asserting that this is the way He will do it.

This all begs an important question then...has God changed His plan? Perhaps also of importance would be to ask; have there have been attempts by humans to alter God's plan of redemption and salvation? The first utterance by God of a covenant with Abraham seems very clear:

"Now the LORD said to Abram: "Get out of your country, from your family and from your father's house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make you name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you; and in you all of the families of the Earth shall be blessed." (Genesis 12:1-3)

God's plan for the salvation (blessing) of all of the families of the Earth goes through Abraham, the patriarch of the nation of Israel (Jacob's grandfather).

The Practical

Speaking for myself, I never want this stuff to be purely theoretical - because without a connection to reality, knowing things doesn't amount to anything. My 'ah ha moment' here is just how important God's promises to Abraham, Moses and David are. To me, it underscores the importance of the choice itself, even if we can't understand the 'why' of it. The point is that God chose! God said this is what I decide and this is how I'm going to do reconcile humanity to myself. He is not asking for our permission - he is asking for our obedience. As for specifics, this means that the Jewish people are still extremely important to God (which is exactly what Paul says in Romans 11:28-29). People have warped this in certain ways over the last several decades, I'm not arguing that we need to be picketing for Israel or making political overtures to or for Israel or anything like that - I'm saying that at the very least, we need to be praying for our Jewish brothers and sisters - praying for the remnant and praying that it would grow. Why? Because God has made it clear that salvation itself is going to be administered by His Chosen People. The twelve (Jewish) Apostles will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28). The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). Perhaps we also pair that with an intentional evangelism to our Jewish brothers and sisters? I don't know what that looks like, but if the Jewish people are still important to God, then they should be important to us Gentiles as well, right?

There is so much meat on the bones of the book of Genesis. I didn't even mention the flood story or how Genesis traces two lines - the line righteous line of Seth and the evil line of Cain, all the way through to the end of the book. It seems likely that one could spend many weeks and months plumbing the depths of this unique book. I hope to gain more insight as I continue to read and study and really, what this all comes down to, is further rooting myself in the hope that God has provided through his promises. Is God going to do what He said He's going to do, or not? To me, that is what the entire Bible is trying to answer. If God is faithful to His promises, then He is God and thus worthy of everything that we are. If He is not, then He is not God. Simply - this is a question worth knowing an answer to!

COVID-19: A Legal Problem

I had a very good discussion with a friend of mine the other day and while he and I disagreed on a lot - the one thing we both do agree on is that COVID-19 is now a huge legal problem. I would argue that it is a far bigger legal problem now than it is a health problem whereas my friend doesn't believe it has gotten to that point yet, but that it will.

If you look at how this has evolved, publicly, over the past 4-5 months there has been a theme. First, it was lockdowns...first with countries...then with states; one state did it, then another, then a bunch more, until most of the country, save the states where no one lives (*cough* South Dakota *cough*) were all on 'lockdown'. Then it was re-opening plans. One state developed a "re-opening" plan and pretty soon, every state had a re-opening plan that looked something like a staging model, where it would happen slowly and over the course of a couple of months. At this point, school is now the vanguard - in our area, district after district has announced they are moving exclusively to e-learning to start the school year. I'm sure similar things are playing out all across the country. Colleges and universities have followed suit with the NCAA canceling team sports and many institutions of higher learning moving to e-learning models. The bottom-line is this: no one wants to be left holding a bag of blame. Executive orders written by governors have been successfully challenged, legally speaking, in almost every state and yet many are acting as though those orders still have teeth. Why? Because states have threatened legal action (forcible closings, forfeiture of business licensing, including liquor licenses, etc) for those businesses that don't comply. In talking to a couple of restaurant owner friends of mine - they probably would open except that the departments of health in the towns they operate in have threatened to shut them down, or take away their liquor licenses. They also talk about the social stigma and/or blow back that would occur as a result of re-opening.

The data could not be more clear in terms of how minimal the COVID threat is to children. The median age of the person who dies from COVID-19 is 78 years old. If we look at the CDC's data set, which is updated to September 9th, a total of 62 people under the age of 15 have died of COVID-19, in the entire United States, since the start of the pandemic in February (data set is 2/1 to 9/9). A total of 377 people under the age of 25, in the entire United States, have died of COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic in February. By comparison, 15,644 people under the age of 15 in the United States, have died of any cause, in that same period of time. A total of 35,642 people under the age of 25 in the United States have died of all causes, in that same period of time. Our children are far less vulnerable to COVID than they are to a number of other things (the flu, for example, has killed 110 children under 15 since Feb 1st, 2020), but we are shutting down in-person school because of COVID...why?

In case that isn't convincing. 1,894,447 (as of September 9th) Americans have died in the United States, since February 1st, when all causes of death are taken into account. The latest COVID death count is 175,866. Over 1 million Americans over the age of 75 have died since February 1st (1,028,792). Death, even death on a large scale, is common in our society...and yet we are weirdly fixated on COVID. To underscore this fact - a poll recently conducted by Franklin Templeton (accounting firm) showed that "for people aged 18-24, the share of those worried about serious health consequences is 400 times higher than the share of total COVID deaths; for those aged 25-34 it is 90 times higher..."

To me, it's a head-scratcher. We have more access to hard data than we have ever had for anything, and yet the story being painted by media (social and otherwise) doesn't match with reality. The question I keep asking myself is 'what is going on here!?"

The only logical conclusion I can make is that no one wants to be sued. That is the only conclusion that makes any logical sense when you look at the numbers. Every day - the media flashes up the current COVID death statistic, without giving it any context whatsoever, and so it has become a thing. They don't give it context within itself (number of deaths FROM covid vs. WITH covid), they don't give it any context in terms of what kills people commonly (cancer, heart disease, etc). They never mention that in a regular ho-hum year, 2.8 MILLION people die in this country of various causes.

And so we have what we have - schools closed, college students forced to wear masks almost 24/7, no fans in the stands, no concerts or large gatherings, businesses closing left and right, widespread unemployment or underemployment and on and on and on. PEOPLE - the folks making decisions have the same numbers that are available to you and I. 180,000 as a number, without any context, sounds like a lot, but it's not. It just isn't, even as it relates to death. And yet, we continually hear from people like Dr. Fauci and our governors, that we won't be "safe" until we have a vaccine. Dr. Fauci said yesterday that even when we get a vaccine, it will have to have been available for 6 months to a year until it's administered to enough people to make a difference. I guarantee you Dr. Fauci knows what is truly at risk here - it is his reputation. A reputation that has been hard fought over decades of time. You put a mic in his face and ask him, "Dr. Fauci, when will we be able to go back to normal again?" - he won't be hedging his bets. He's going to say the thing that preserves his reputation. The problem is, we aren't asking enough people - we aren't asking other experts in other fields what the consequences of shutdowns, social distancing, closing schools, making people wear masks, preventing people from dining out inside, etc. are. There needs to be more voices in the room where the policy decisions are being made. There needs to be federal leadership with regard to protecting businesses and individuals from litigation related to COVID-19. These are common-sense actions that no one is taking - and so we continue, in this malaise of uncertainty and fear, waiting for a phantom vaccine that may never come. How much longer will we tolerate this?

Covenant and The Gentiles

For the past 15 months, I've been a part of a small group of guys and we call ourselves the Apocalyptic Accountability Group (AAG) - you can read all about it on our website. We gather every Sunday night for a couple of hours to pray and discuss things together and this past weekend, we were talking about the Covenants. The discussion came around to the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31, Hebrews 8) and the discussion turned to the interaction between Gentiles and the Covenants. If you look at the covenants made to Abraham, Moses and David, no covenants were cut with Gentiles. All of them are made with Jews and are about Israel's hope. This discussion had the backdrop of Romans 11. For my own edification, and for the edification of anyone who might wrestle with this themselves, I thought I would go through each of the original covenants, parse out their similarities and differences and then try and draw some conclusions about the nature of the New Covenant and the hope that we Gentiles have.

Abrahamic Covenant

"Now the LORD said to Abram: "Get out of your country, from your family and from your father's house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make you name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you; and in you all of the families of the Earth shall be blessed." (Genesis 12:1-3)

"The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever. I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth, so that if anyone can number the dust of the earth, then you descendants can also be numbered. Arise, walk about the land through its length and breadth; for I will give it to you." (Genesis 13:14-17)

“As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram ; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.” (Genesis 17:4-8)

Mosaic Covenant

Generally speaking - the entirety of the Mosaic Covenant is found in Exodus 19-24.

"Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you to Myself. Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you shall speak to the sons of Israel."" (Exodus 19:3-6)

As I read this over - the line that stands out to me is "...and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." That certainly speaks to the 'set apart-ness' of Israel, but to me, it also speaks to their special role in redemptive history. The idea of a priest in Hebrew culture was someone who interacted with God on behalf of the people; a mediator if you will. The template for this role would have been the Levite priesthood within the nation of Israel. Just as God chose the Levites for special service within the temple, both to serve the people and to represent God, so he has chosen the people of Israel, to serve the nations and to 'be a light', telling the nations about who God is and what He is doing.

Davidic Covenant

I will present here the first time the Davidic Covenant is laid out; it is referenced several times in subsequent Scripture.

"The Lord declares to you [David] that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When you days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever." (2 Samuel 7:11-16)

I'd like to include here one passage from the Psalms:

 "I will maintain my love to him forever, and my covenant with him will never fail. I will establish his line forever, his throne as long as the heavens endure. "If his sons forsake my law and do not follow my statues, if they violate my decrees and fail to keep my commands, I will punish their sin with the rod, their iniquity with flogging; but I will not take my love from him, nor will I ever betray my faithfulness. I will not violate my covenant or alter what my lips have uttered. Once for all, I have sworn by my holiness - and I will not lie to David - that his line will continue forever and his throne endure before me like the sun; it will be established forever like the moon, the faithful witness in the sky." (Psalm 89:28-37)

I included this passage from the Psalm 89 for a couple of reasons. First, the line from 2 Samuel that reads, "When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands" can be confusing. The context of the sentence that proceeds this one is alluding to Jesus so this sentence then becomes confusing..."when he does wrong"? Isn't Jesus perfect and without sin? Psalm 89 helps to clear up what is meant. The author in 2 Samuel isn't talking about Jesus doing wrong, he is talking about the sons of David's line. Second, Psalm 89 underscores just how serious this is. God swears that he will uphold this covenant by swearing to his holiness. In other words, if God doesn't not uphold this covenant, He is not holy and therefore not God!

Similarities:

- The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants are both sealed with blood. This is important because as we will see, the 'New Covenant' is also sealed with blood. Blood alludes to the sacrificial system and also underscores the seriousness of the covenant.

""I am the LORD who brought you [Abraham] out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess it." He said, "O LORD God, how may I know that I will possess it?" So He said to him, "Bring Me a three year old heifer, and a three year old female goat, and a three year old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon." Then he brought all of these to Him and cut them in two, and laid each half opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds. [...] Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him. [...] It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram..." (Genesis 15:7-18)

"Then he [Moses] arose early in the morning, and built an alter at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. He sent young men of the sons of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to the LORD. Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and the other half of the blood he sprinkled on the alter. Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!" So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." (Exodus 24:4-8)

- The Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are both unilateral. There is no part of those covenants that are dependent on man - God is both the covenant-maker and the covenant-keeper. The Mosaic covenant is the only bilateral covenant that God makes, and the question surrounding that covenant is not whether Israel will continue to be the chosen people of God but rather, whether they will remain obedient to the law and statues set forth, and thus remain in the Land. The consequence for disobedience? Exile.

- All three covenants are made to the House of Israel. Abraham, to whom the original promise is given, is the father of the nation - the Mosaic covenant is addressed "the house of Jacob" and "the sons of Israel" and the David covenant is made to the line of David, within the House of Israel.

- All three covenants contain FUTURE promises. To me this particular point is critical. Abraham 'believed God and it was credited to Him as righteousness' (Genesis 15:6). The Mosaic covenant says, "you shall be my people" - there is both the current promise, but also future aspect of it - and with that, the promise of certain exile from the Land if the covenant laws and statues are broken. The Davidic covenant is all about the future promise of a king and a kingdom that will endure forever.

New Covenant

As mentioned in the opening - the new Covenant is mentioned first in Jeremiah 31 and then quoted in Hebrews 8. It reads:

""Behold the days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will [future] put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive them their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."" (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Again we see here a unilateral covenant that is made "with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah". I've been pondering what the sign of the new covenant is, because with every covenant there has been an accompanying sign. With Adam it was 'the seed' (Genesis 3), with Noah it was a rainbow, with Abraham it was circumcision, with Moses, it was the sabbath, or perhaps the land, with David it was a coming King and an everlasting throne (Jesus, essentially)...but what about the new covenant? This is my opinion, but it seems to me like the sign of the new covenant is Jesus' return and the restoration of all things to perfect unity with him. If you read the first part of Jeremiah 31, it is undoubtedly a picture of heaven. Even in this laying out of a new covenant, you get a sense of peace, of freedom from a body of death, of there no longer being a necessity to teach anyone about God because everyone knows Him. "from the least of them to the greatest of them". The way I see it, this new covenant is entirely future. And once again, it is a covenant that is sealed in blood. In this case it is Jesus' blood and that is confirmed in Gospel narratives of the last supper when Jesus says, "In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you." (Luke 22:20) It just occurred to me that this scene in the Gospel may be misinterpreted by many to say that Jesus is fulfilling something, or saying that the new covenant is now. But we see from the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants that the establishment of the covenant was not the same as its fulfillment. Taken in this light, Jesus' death and sacrifice on the cross (and subsequent resurrection) serves as the establishment of the covenant, or said in a slightly different way, the assurance of things to come.

What about us gentiles?

So just in a relatively quick overview, we can easily see that none of the covenants that were made, were made to Gentiles (the 'goyim', the Nations); they were all made to Israel. Does that mean we Gentiles have no hope? Absolutely not. It was God's plan all along to save humanity. In his covenant with Abraham, God says, "I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you; and in you all of the families of the Earth shall be blessed." God's plan is to bless the nations (the world) through His chosen people Israel. I really don't see any other way to read it, and I if this is God's plan, I don't see any reason to question it. Paul says that Gentiles are 'grafted in' to the promises (the root of the cultivated olive tree, the covenants, Romans 11) and that we have hope because of what God has promised to His people. Like an eldest sibling typically has a special responsibility as the executor of estate even to this day, so the chosen people of God, Israel, are the 'eldest sibling' of the world - serving a special role in administrating the Kingdom of God. Our rewards are no different than theirs (eternal life, renewed bodies, having communion with and access to God), but our responsibilities are different.

There is a very interesting section in the middle of the Book of Acts, titled (in my Bible) "The Jerusalem Council". It is the 'a ha' moment for the early Apostles as it relates to the Gentiles and what God's view of the Gentiles now was. First, they recognize that this was always in God's plan (Acts 15: 12-18) to 'chose a people for his name, from among the Gentiles.' Next, Peter recognizes that Gentiles can have relationship with God, as Gentiles, which is to say - without becoming Jews (which was how it was previously understood). Lastly - Peter identifies three rules that he believes are universal when it comes to the conduct of Believers, whether Jew or Gentiles. Specifically, he mentions abstaining from sexual immorality, abstaining from the meat of strangled animals (from blood), and from eating food sacrificed to idols. Quick aside - in Deuteronomy, there are several explicit instructions from God about not eating blood - the meat of a strangled animals (i.e. not slaughtered, and thus not properly drained of blood) would still have had blood in it, thus making it unacceptable.

I mention the above passage because it seems to acknowledge that Gentiles are not under the same law as their Jewish brethren. That doesn't mean that Gentiles are under no law - Peter mentions in Acts 15:21 that he assumes Gentile believers would be hearing the law of Moses (Ten Commandments or, The Decalogue) preached in synagogues on every Sabbath. Gentiles, however, are not under the civil law of the Jews nor are they ordered to observe the Jewish festivals and ceremonies. Additionally - Gentiles were not allowed to enter the Temple of God; they could send animal sacrifices to be made on their behalf (in some, but not all, cases), but they were not allowed to enter - and thus not under the ritual and temple purity laws. The true revelation here, to the Apostles, is the Gentiles can have relationship with God as Gentiles - they don't need to convert to Judaism or adopt Jewish law and customs in order to know Him.

So, having established this - we still have this question - what about the Gentiles as it relates to the covenant? I believe the answer to this question is faith. Ultimately, for a Jew, faith in God's promises and a belief that God is going to do what He says He is going to do, is what is accounted to a person as righteousness. In the story of Abraham and Isaac, we see that Abraham's faith - his trust - is what God accounted to Abraham as righteousness. And so today - as Gentiles, grafted in to the nourishing root of the cultivated olive tree (Romans 11), we also put our hope in the Covenant/God's Promises - not that they have to do with us directly, but that by God following through on his promises to His Chosen People, we (the nations) will be blessed through them. In this way, God's statement to Abraham, "and in you, all of the families of the Earth shall be blessed" is literally true. Michael Wyschogrod, a Jewish theologian, in his book entitled, "The Body of Faith", wrote: "Salvation is of the Jews, because the flesh of Israel is the abode of the divine presence in the world. It is the carnal anchor that God has sunk into the soil of creation." God's choosing of a people necessarily means that He intends to have relationship with the humanity He created. Though some of the particularities of election may be off-putting to the modern thinker, it is nevertheless how God has chosen to do it. This also agrees with what Paul is saying in Ephesians 2:8 when he says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith..." 

I leave you with two verses from Romans, one in chapter 11 and one in chapter 15. Paul, having whipped himself up into a frenzy regarding the 'chosen-ness' of Israel and about the dance that is to occur between Gentile believers and Jewish unbelievers says,

"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them? For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen." (Romans 11:33-36)

 "For I tell you this: The Messiah has become a servant, to the Jews, to show that God is faithful to his word, confirming the truth and reliability of the promises made to the patriarchs, while the Gentiles glorify God for showing them such great mercy. As it is written, "That is the reason why I will praise you among the Gentiles; it is to your name that I will sing praises."" (Romans 15:7-9)

What Love Is

I recently read a transcript of an interview between Jen Hatmaker and her daughter, Sydney, over the weekend and I came away sad. 2 Timothy 4:3 came to mind, "For the time will come when they will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." Here is one exchange I wanted to highlight (full transcript here):

Sydney: [I was], like, this kid who loved Jesus, and I realized I was gay. And I was just scared, and alone. And I wanted to have it all. I wanted to have my family, and God, and my future. And I didn't think I'd be able to have it all.
Jen: Yes.
Sydney: And even though I know that I can now, I still definitely have a lot of work ahead of me if I still want to restore and kind of repair my own faith that I had as a child. You know?

It's the line, "and I wanted to have it all" that really stuck out to me. It's easy to identify with that statement, because who hasn't had that thought at some point, but it is also a fundamentally flawed perspective coming from someone who wants to follow Jesus. In Matthew 16, Jesus says, "Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If someone wants to be a disciple of mine, he must deny himself and take up his cross and continue coming along with me. If someone is set on saving his life, you see, he will lose it. If someone is prepared to lose his life because of me, however, he will gain it. It is really worth it for a person if he gains even all the riches in the world, yet forfeits his very life?" (v. 24-26) In our mostly affluent culture, we don't have much external suffering outside of tragedy and so I think the main way in which we will experience suffering is in the denial of ourselves and our own ideas about what is right and wrong.

Let's take a minute and look at that phrase, "take up his cross". What was the very thing that Jesus didn't want to do? He didn't want to die on the cross! As he is crying, in agony, out to God in the garden of Gethsemane - He is crying out to God for another way ("remove this cup from me, yet not my will but your's be done" Luke 22 and Matthew 26)! The cross represents an instance of Jesus' obedience to God DESPITE the disagreement of his flesh. Jesus, we can safely assume, didn't want to go through the horrific pain and suffering of being flogged, beaten, and nailed to a cross. He also didn't want to go through the extreme pain of being separated from the Father. Back to my point though - "take up your cross" represents obedience to God despite one's flesh. More on this later.

Before I go any farther - I want to be clear; having homosexual or bi-sexual feelings is not sinful. Feelings, in and of themselves, are neutral - I would even go so far as to say that temptation itself is not sinful. It is the desiring and acting:

"When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." James 1:13-15"

I may have a temptation to let loose, get drunk and just forget my life for a few hours (like I used to do in college), but provided I don't entertain and act on those thoughts, I have not sinned. Those thoughts should be a warning to me - that I need to get on my knees and pray and ask God for strength, but I have not sinned, simply by thinking about it. I realize that 'attraction' is a different thing - and that its consequences for one's life may be far more poignant, but that doesn't mean that the mechanisms involved are different.

I must also say that the mandate from Jesus to 'love one another' places incredible responsibility upon those who would follow Jesus. We are not to use the laws of God as sticks to beat one another - that is not God's intent with the law. Rather, we have a responsibility to love one another as Jesus loved us - namely, that while we were still sinners, Jesus died for us. "There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends." (John 15:13) This doesn't mean we stop preaching the Truth - it cannot mean that - rather, it means that we walk alongside people, spurring them on in faith and helping them to stay on the 'narrow' path. It means putting others before ourselves unto their perseverance and endurance in the faith.

--------

One quick aside - it occurs to me that our society has lost sight of what 'love' is. Love, in the sense of loving one's neighbor (or daughter/son, spouse, friend, etc), doesn't mean that we condone everything they do or believe...quite the opposite actually. I talked in my last post about this, posing the question, "if my two-year-old ran into the street, and a car was coming, would it be loving of me to stand there and do nothing?" In a figurative sense, this is what Jen Hatmaker has done. The street is the ways of the world and the car is God's judgement for those who set themselves up in opposition to Him through their actions and beliefs. Standing there on the side of the road, shouting, "I love you, you're doing great!" in this situation, only serves to convince the daughter that everything is fine, when in reality, it is far from fine! Sometimes, love is tender and gentle - other times love is sharp and corrective. Anyone who has little children knows this. Hebrews 12:5-7 says, "And you have forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons: "My son, do not take lightly the discipline of the Lord, and do not lose heart when He rebukes you. For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and He chastises everyone He receives as a son. Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?" One of the Biblical images for helping and loving one another is metal rubbing against metal ("iron sharpens iron", Proverbs 27:17).

I actually know someone who has been (and is) in nearly the same situation that Jen Hatmaker is in, but who instead chose to speak the truth. He didn't stop caring for his daughter, but he made it clear to her that her choices have eternal consequences, if she doesn't turn and repent. They currently have an estranged relationship, but that was something he had to risk knowing what was on the line. To him, the loving thing to do was to warn his daughter and try and get her to see the error of her ways, not to coddle and condone.

--------

We are all burdened by the flesh in different ways. For some food is a comfort beyond satiating hunger...and for them, it is difficult to stop eating. Other people have exactly the opposite issue - because of a body image issue or some other kind of pain, they exert extreme control over eating and practically starve themselves. Some people have personalities that cause them to become addicted to things (drugs, alcohol, sex, etc) easily, some people feel a compulsion to steal things, some are prone to violent anger, some people are born with very little emotional capacity...the list goes on and on and on. Just because our bodies or our minds are telling us something - that doesn't excuse Believers from obeying and following Jesus, provided we want to be his disciples.

I feel like this "you can have it all in this life AND have it all in Heaven" idea is one of Satan's most insidious tools. It takes away the urgency to persevere and endure. It is the denying that is difficult, and it is the denying that is unique to each one of us. We are in the same boat in the sense that we all have to deny ourselves, but the specific ways, for each person, are different. For me, it's control and self-reliance. My flesh wants to control everything around me and doesn't want to rely on anyone for anything. My flesh is also lazy and would rather take the easy way than have to work at something (a very odd dichotomy!). The "I can have it all" attitude also sets us up to create idols in our lives. Money, power, and all of the other things that our society promotes as 'good' become the things we chase after if we don't have an attitude of self-denial.

I can't sit here and say that I know what it's like to be attracted to the same gender. I don't know what that's like. But I know what it is like to war against the flesh of my body - to want something that I know God says is sinful. When I couple that knowledge with the words of Hebrews 10:26 which reads, "if we deliberately go on sinning after we have received the knowledge of truth, no further sacrifice for sins remains, but only a fearful expectation of judgement and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God", then I am left to conclude that my only choice, if I want to be a wholehearted disciple of Jesus (which is the only kind of disciple there is), is to obey Him and to obey the laws of Scripture. Willful sin is unrepentant sin. It is knowing that something is sinful and going and doing it anyway - essentially raising my fist and shaking it at God. Does repentance mean I'm never going to sin any more? Almost assuredly, no. But what is my attitude when the Holy Spirit convicts me - when I realize I have sinned against  a holy God? It is to continue on in that sin because it's what I like and my body says "do it" and society says "its ok"? Or, does it cause me to fall on my face, and ask God for his mercy and to decide in my heart not to do that again? I would argue it looks like the ladder, Biblically speaking. So the question is - how can the person who decides for themselves that homosexuality is ok and then goes and lives according to that belief, also have a repentant heart? The two are in direct contradiction. Paul is very clear in 2 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." Paul isn't saying that anyone who ever does any of those things is hopeless. No! If so, who of us would be worthy? He is saying that anyone who continues in those lifestyles and doesn't repent - which is to turn away from sin and toward God with the intention of not doing that sin again - those are the people who are setting themselves up as the enemies of God.

The more I read Scripture, the more I am convinced that there is no "best life now" teaching in the Bible. Jesus very clearly calls his followers to lay down their lives in service of the kingdom of God - with a primary emphasis on spreading the 'good news' of the coming kingdom of God. In both explicit and more veiled ways, Jesus is clear that God's kingdom will not come about with the help of any human hands, but only by the power, might and will of God. Building on that - in passages referenced above and in other founds in the synoptic gospels and in the letters of Paul, it is very clear that as followers of Jesus, we should expect suffering for the message and that we should expect that the ways of God (and thus, our ways, as disciples) will be at odds with the ways of the world. I don't think it means that we will lead joy-less lives as Disciples...but we are going to have to reorient our hearts if towards his Kingdom if we truly want to be joyful.

I can only imagine the difficultly of the position that Jen Hatmaker and her husband were in. However, her desire to sooth her daughter and her daughter's feelings caused her to begin to preach a message to others that is undeniably false. This is what we who are waiting have to guard against. It does not matter whether we understand or like God's law - he is a holy God and has clearly laid out for us what unholiness looks like. Jesus didn't come to sooth our hearts and make us feel better. Jesus came to tell the truth, to show us how to live, and to serve as the perfect sacrifice for sin. He will come again to sit on his throne in Jerusalem, to judge the living and the dead (2 Timothy 4:1) and to bring salvation (Hebrews 9:28). It's that simple.