We Are Not Children of the Pandemic

Can we please stop adulting and instead keep from being children?

We have those moments. Astounding explosive understanding. Often associated with a mystery or question we have been contemplating. Or after encountering an artificially constructed wall in what otherwise should be rational, thoughtful discourse. The epiphanic understanding of why or cause. Why was this wall to what was normally adult discourse important enough to shut down the discussion? Why are irrational solutions to a problem continually being pushed by the power-brokers and accepted by a large number of my acquaintances?

And the understanding occurs. The answer emerges. Light dawns on our darkened minds. Epiphany.

Like every epiphany, this one was catalyzed by someone else’s words. It was a heterogeneous catalyst. Heather Heying on an episode of Dark Horse podcast quoted C.S. Lewis. While she didn’t give the source, the quote with source is below.

To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

 C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

Along with adding this to the reasons Christians need to resist mandates that cause harm in and of themselves, and mandates that appear on the surface to be innocuous, we should be on guard against those which have the effect of making us less adult and more infantile. Those which have the effect, either purposefully or unintentionally, of offering comfort and safety in exchange for submission and surrender of normal, necessary adult self-direction. We must do this out of love for others as well as confession of our sanctification.

Our growth in Christ, our Sanctification, is just that. Leaving behind of innocence and dependence on others, and a welcomingly taking on knowledge and responsibility for our actions. Just as Paul the Apostle exhorted growth by using the distinction of adult versus child in his letter to the Church at Corinth:

For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child. When I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

1 Corinthians 13:9-12

We must grow. Adults must be adult. There is work to be done. Planning, thinking, talking, and doing. The world of maturity that includes responsible protection of self and others.

It is a devilish tool that causes adults to adopt childish characteristics. Yet, it is just that we face.

Here’s the conundrum. We have all faced the threat of this pandemic. Portrayed as a real and present danger, we joined the battle for victory. Two weeks of isolation to flatten the curve. Wearing masks to stop the spread. A new, untested vaccine to place a firewall of immunity the virus would not breach.

And when adult, rational discourse on these and more began, the attacks also began. The rules were laid down: No loud voices. No disagreement. The decisions were already made and the rest of you must stay in your lanes. The adults had already decided what was best, and it was time for the children to be obedient.

The tools

Here is where my confusion has been. The case of Gibraltar showed maximum vaccination would not stop the virus. In fact, the vaccine appeared to be causing the rise of new variants. Just a reasonable science would have predicted if it had not be told to be quiet and sit down. When adults asked questions, they were treated like children and told to “stay in their lane.”

Masks, the adults warned, were not only ineffective. They had deleterious effects. Skin rashes from the concentration of humidity and bacteria. Reduced oxygen intake and increased carbon dioxide concentration producing mental and physical fatigue. Isolation and emotional trauma for some. Why did the controlling forces still push, force, and demand their wear? For the same reason they still demanded to isolate and control movement. And why they require, neigh, demand we submit to vaccination.

They (yes, “they”) both see us as infantile and want us to see ourselves the same.

You see, those currently in power very much want that power. To have power they must take it from someone else. Us. From the adults. They both see us as foolish, dependent, imbecilic and need us to see ourselves the same. We are infantilized.

We have allowed our freedom of movement to be curtailed as if we are children. And those in “power” have aggressively used continued to curtail our movement. Vaccine passports are now required in certain cities, and to visit our Nation’s Capital. Our Capital. The one that belongs to us!

We have been separated from work and productivity. Adults produce goods and services exchanging them for things we need and desire. Children have things simply given to them. They are dependent on others for food, clothing, shelter. Adults have the gift of obtaining these for themselves and those under their charge. When we have this taken from us, we are being regressed to the state of childishness.

What else marks the distinction of adulthood from childhood? Autonomy, for one. Being able to make decisions regarding our private personal selves, and accepting the consequences of those decisions. Self-direction. Children are told not to play in the street because it isn’t safe. Adults are allowed to make decisions that may not be safe. Like not wearing a seat belt. Or, smoking. Children are placed in child-seats, and purchasing tobacco products limited by age. Every time we have our choices taken away, we are being regressed into childishness.

And, as others have noted, this can not only be done to individuals, it can be done to societies and social groups. Entire populations. Although some observers place this trend beginning early in the 1900’s, something different is happening today.

One could wonder if it was somehow purposed. Particularly with the increased messaging from President Biden and his administration, the social media use of “fact checkers”, the political-medical propaganda-like actions.

To be vaccinated or Not to be

No. It’s not a political stubbornness. It’s not personalities or ideologies. Not everyone thinks the way you do. Choosing to take or not to take the COVID-19 shot is simplistic for some. For most, though, it is a complex and difficult decision. Some choose to get the vaccine “just to get along”. Others make the decision after multiple iterations of cost-benefit analysis. Just as some choose to not get the vaccine after multiple iterations of cost-benefit analysis.

Allow me to offer the following three particular areas that are necessary to address when making important decisions. Well, in fact, for making decisions we would deem less important, too. With regard the COVID-19 shot, most would place the decision to take or not take it as an important decision.

These three areas are also helpful in mitigating judgmental attitudes. They are my explanation for my decision. If, after reading and considering them, you disagree with me and decide to take another path, do so with my blessing and be at peace. I will not judge you. I do ask that you reciprocate the same humanity to me, too.

For those who are struggling, and those who are not but need to understand more, please allow me to offer the following reasons why some individuals are not ready to take the vaccine. The following thesis is a beginning. Not a final treatment.

Theological

Artificial Enhancement as a Theological Issue

Life is at the pinnacle of God’s creative work with humans as the crown on the head of this creation. For that reason and more, Christians place humans in a particular class as requiring particular and special treatment. Mankind is not in the same theological, moral, or personal class as animals. The bodies of deceased humans are not treated as waste or trash. We don’t dispose of humans as we do other animals for an important reason. All this is true whether we are considering taking aspirin or treating a fatal disease with solid organ transplant. Therefore, there are lines in medical treatment we have drawn and determined should not be crossed. I include behind that line the purposeful changing or modifying of intact, healthy, designed normal processes of the body. For the sake of this discussion, we may need to switch “purposeful” with “artificially”.

Before the current batch of COVID vaccines, traditional vaccines introduced a non-virulent part of the wild pathogen into the body with the purpose of triggering the body’s intact, healthy, designed (normal) immune response to produce protection against the disease. The body reacted in the same way it would if it encountered the wild virus. Immune protection came from the processes God designed. These traditional vaccinations used the normal, operative, existing processes to do what the body would already do and often produced the same protection as if the body had been exposed to the wild pathogen.

Unlike traditional vaccination, the primary COVID vaccines employed in the United States use cellular information molecules: messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). These information molecules then enter the cell and hijack the body’s cellular-level processes to make an artifact similar to something found in the pathogen. This artifact is subsequently identified by the body as “foreign”, and the body responds to produce an immunity. It is an artificially created immunity produced by hijacking the cellular information systems. It forces the cell to do something it would not naturally do. The purpose (we can discuss if it successful or not) is to use the cellular protein production systems in a process that is could be compared to gain-of-function in adjusting the function of a pathogen..

My first theological concern (not in priority, only in presentation) is we should not use artificial enhancement of the human body. Traditional vaccines are not artificial in that they use the existing normal processes to provide the targeted protection. There is a very important difference.

Theological Nature of Cellular Information and Processes

The second theological concern is the tampering with the body’s information systems. By information systems, I am referring to the encyclopedic information stored and used in DNA and RNA, both as function and processes.

The eugenics movement of late 19th and early 20th centuries had at its heart the concept of improving human DNA through selective breeding. Those desires for changing the information systems of the persons through external control are similar to using the mRNA and DNA medical devices. Hijacking the information processes inside the cell are based in a common technology that would allow for direct modification of our genetic code. Direct modification by genetic manipulation takes the eugenics objectives to the next level by making genetic modification instantly available. Once humans achieved the capacity to manipulate DNA easily it is too small a step to also think we should.

DNA contains the “blueprint” of an individual. More than that, it is a unique genetic picture that includes the genetic genealogy and history of that person. It can be used, and has been used, for unambiguous identification of a person’s remains. Better than dental matching, facial recognition, or fingerprints. Your DNA is, more than any other physical part of you, a unique marker of you as a specific, distinct, and unique person. It is perhaps the only piece of you that is uniquely you. As a person, it is the address that only you own.

At the nuclear information level, a male will forever be a male, and female forever a female. Your gender is fixed here. Your cellular makeup, protein manufacturing and reproduction systems all fixed here. While it is true that your cellular information will change as you are exposed to life events (like a wild virus invading your body to reproduce itself), the body’s response is what it was designed to do. A normal immune response.

We should not modify the body in any manner that has as its purpose an artificial gain of function. This includes artificial manipulation of the informational processes of the cell. Cellular information processes, including the processes of protein synthesis and of genetic material should be hands-off.

Moral/Ethical

Artificial Enhancement as a Moral Issue

This artificiality of programming an immune response has similarities to gain-of-function work that produced the problem to begin with.

Let me be clear. It is not only acceptable but in many cases necessary to use medical treatments that do not fall within the body’s normal systems. Using prosthetic devices to replace a missing or damaged part or life-preserving capability is very different than attempting to enhance or improve existing, working, operating body function. Intervention to replace or repair something damaged by disease or other event is not the same as adding functionality.

We should recognize a moral difference of using a bovine heart valve to replace a damaged human heart valve from using lab designed and created cellular information to artificially induce a process in a normal healthy cell. We wouldn’t cut off a person’s legs – or, let me say morally we shouldn’t – just to give them artificial legs that provide better function. This is morally repugnant.

It has been suggested that this virus came from gain-of-function research. Not just research about gain-of-function, but attempts to create additional functionality. In this case, taking a normally infectious agent and making it more deadly, more contagious, more “bad” from a disease perspective.

Why would we do that?

No. Seriously. WHY WOULD WE DO THAT?

Not all my readers know that my background includes biological/chemical weapons intelligence. I have both done extensive research and work in this area, but I have also been a consultant to research and law enforcement related to this topic. I have been at Biosafety-Level 4 (BL4) facilities in the United States, and been in chemical weapons handling facilities. It is hard to forget MOPP-4 training once you’ve had it. MOPP stands for Mission Oriented Protective Posture. When you are at MOPP-4, you have the full chemical/biological outer clothing and respirators. And if you don’t, or make a mistake in putting it on, or wear it improperly, or take too long putting on all the pieces, you’re a casualty. In certain circumstances, also known as dead.

So, I am not unfamiliar with the reasons we do gain-of-function research from a national strategic and defensive standpoint. However, I take exception to gain-0f-function research for any other reason. And believe we all should.

I believe there are too many similarities between gain-of-function research and the science and technology related to this COVID shot. There have been some recent reports that the current shots were created in parallel to the work that produced this monster.

Personhood

Any medical treatment is inextricably linked to the concept of person and personhood. Identification of a person, and confessions of the status of personhood is at the foundation of understanding why slavery, abortion, and human subjects research are not normal everyday things. Or shouldn’t be. And, before anyone misrepresents me, let me state unequivocally that I am not equating any of these three. Chattel slavery is reprehensible because it takes a person and claims they are not. Abortion is wrong because it claims the person is not. Human subjects research requires that we treat persons as persons, and that full informed uncoerced consent be given prior to any research in which humans are the subject. And, by extension medical treatment.

Although definitions of person have been controversial, at the historic and modern center of most common definition of a person is the ability to reason. More precisely, the possession of rational thinking ability and ability to understand and participate in rational discussions of oneself.

The necessity of “informed consent” is anchored in this concept of a person. Animals cannot give consent. Only persons. Only humans. If a person is deemed unable, western legal systems have developed a system of protection for them. Because persons require protection. Medical treatment should only be in the best interest and with full consent of the person.

These moral concerns are closely aligned to theological outlined above. As they should be.

Scientific

Science has always overestimated it’s comprehension of what is known. One of the hallmarks of science is that it is never “settled”. We expect to learn more. The history of science is filled with examples of scientists claiming they know more than they actually know. The hubris of science and scientists should always be an important component in determining the level of trust given to their claims. For example, the now-rejected identification of “junk DNA” that was once settled science. If anything should truly be drawn from the history of science, it is that scientists most often do not know the real limits of their knowledge. That alone must be sufficient reasons to pause when scientists claim they are settled in their knowledge of manipulating any cellular information material. This includes the processes that are designed to transmit, protect, reproduce, use cellular information processes.

At the start of the treatment regimen, scientist claimed this process of using the cellular systems to produce spike proteins would be constrained to the injection site, and that spike proteins produced would not leave the site. We know now this isn’t correct. Spike proteins are found in other places in the body and have been isolated from the urine of individuals following injection.

From the original claims this vaccine would provide an individual with immunity from the disease and that the spike proteins would remain in the injection site and be rapidly destroyed, we find that at best, this shot is only therapeutic. It is not a defense against becoming sick with COVID. At best, it only reduces the severity of the disease. It is another therapeutic.

Tragically, this shot was treated as if it would provide immunity and thus build a firewall to stop the spread. Yet, individuals who have had the shot are known to carry a higher viral load than those who have not taken the shot.

Trusting science because it comes from scientists is a common problem. Actually a common danger. C. S. Lewis called this type of devotion “scientism”. There are many interesting phenomena associated with the COVID-19 epidemic. Among those is the large-scale worship of “settled science” which is really a rush to accept political agenda masquerading as science. One pastor has described our modern view of science as “whatever Dr. Fauci proclaims tomorrow”.

Exhortation

Those who are making different decisions than you did about the shot are humans, people. And some of those you are throwing hate at are your brothers and sisters in-Christ. Some of those the Government is forcing into a bad place by forcing the treatment are your brothers/sisters in Christ. Tell the Government they aren’t allowed to abuse people like that.

Already people are loosing jobs for choosing to not be treated. We have crossed a social and political line that is doing grave damage to our culture and to real, living, feeling humans. Our brothers and sisters. To fellow humans.

coda

Please help me discuss and develop these thoughts. Therefore, only reasonable and useful comments will be allowed. Comments that are flippant or off-topic will be summarily deleted. Abusive commenters will be blocked.

choices

Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” But the people did not answer him a word.

1 Kings 18:21 NASB

One of the defining characteristics of our current culture is confusion. Our culture is confused about male and female, with an overwhelming push to accept gender dysphoria. I’ve been asked to give my preferred pronouns in interactions with my doctor and with my bank. Frankly, my doctor should know my sex by now. There is confusion regarding wearing or not wearing masks, getting or not getting the COVID vaccine, locking down or not locking down our society. Confusion concerning the push for and against Marxism in our culture and in our churches. We are confused about whether police should be funded or defunded.

Our culture has never seen this level of confusion regarding Truth and what is true. If there ever was a time the people of God needed to speak with clarity, it is today. If we as Christians ever needed to be bold and precise regarding what is true, we are there.

I going to borrow from and acknowledge gratitude to a presentation by a pastor at a recent conference*. I wouldn’t want anyone to think I had plagiarized any portion of this devotional.

Contrary to our confused culture, God always speaks clearly. His words are always understandable. He has never mumbled. If we look into the Old Testament record of God speaking, we see His words and meaning are always crystal clear. The writer never has to add, “we weren’t really sure what God said at this point.” God spoke clearly, plainly, without confusion.

An important doctrine we don’t often hear about is the perspicuity of Scripture. Simply, this means that Scripture is clear in its meaning and is understandable. Both the understanding and the meaning of Scripture may require a bit of work and careful study. However, Scripture, as the breathed-out word of God is always clear and understandable.

Photo by Egor Kamelev on Pexels.com

 Let’s correct a misunderstanding of God speaking to us. Have you ever heard anyone state something like this: “God is so far above us, so much more intelligent, that His speaking to us is like me trying to speak to an ant. He is saying all the things we need to hear, we just can’t understand because we are too simple.” The view of God expressed by this idea or thought is, frankly, heretical. It is a man-sized view of God. Here’s some news. You’re not God. He is. God can speak to an ant in a way the ant can perfectly understand what God intends for the ant to know what God is saying. God is able to speak ant. You aren’t. You are not God. He is. So, when God speaks to us, He is fully perfectly able to speak precisely in way that we are able to completely understand the message. Unless, of course, we choose to not listen.

You and I have been equipped to speak the truth. And in doing so, we are equipping our students. If there ever was a time when teachers need to teach what is true, right, good, it is today. And, to teach what is true, we must convictional-ly know what is true.

So the first thing is to know when we are at the moment of decision. Over the past several years, we have been in those moments of decision without recognizing the deeper decisions being made. We thought the decision was “should we meet in person or virtually?” and “do we need to wear a mask or not?” and “should we get a vaccine, or not?” and “should we require everyone else to do as I choose, or not?”.

Listen. None of these were or are the real questions. Nor were and are they the ultimate decision. They can feel like it. They can even masquerade as the most important decisions. They are important questions. Each representing a moment of decision. However, we must remember they spring from and are inextricably linked to a deeper, foundational decision. That decision, that moment of choice is this:

---

If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.

---

This confusion of our culture is the outcome of their worldview. It is an unacknowledged clash of worldviews.

The pastor I referenced at the beginning* helped me to understand that our current culture’s worldview is no longer postmodern, or even post-postmodern. It is a neo-paganism. That paganism is in full conflict against all of the other worldviews. That is part of the cause of the confusion.

This new paganism is monist, or pantheist. It places god as fundamentally inside our world. An integral part of the creation. This pagan culture sees itself as the creation or outcome of the god that is both part of the culture and a creator of that culture. This is the dominant world-view in our culture.

Just like all religions, this new paganism makes a truth claim. And that truth claim is to define what is true. Unlike modernism, or secularlism, or even post-modernism, these new pagans will not tolerate any other truth claims. They are now the sole source of what is true.  In their world, you must acknowledge and agree with their truth or you will be punished until you convert or eliminated so that you do not bother them anymore. Paganism will not tolerate the Truth of Christianity. They will not coexist.

What should we do? What we cannot do is say to this culture, “you’re right! You need a voice just like everyone else. I apologize that Christianity has been stifling your voice because we have not acknowledged our own position of privilege”.

Our students as well as our colleagues need us to acknowledge we are a people of privilege. This privilege is not of our own doing, it is the work and gift of God. It is a privilege to receive the Truth from God. For Him to so freely give His Truth to a people so unworthy of it. So, there is no pride in this privilege. Instead, we have the indwelling Spirit of God that is an incredible gift. And it is freely available to any who repent and confess as we have done. Having the truth available that we can know, and have communion with the God who can be known and is known is an incredible privilege. Because it is not one we earned or deserve, we confess this gift with humility. But, we must confess it, nonetheless.

This is not a privilege that gives us position in the world. In reality, the world, the neo-paganist religion will increasingly see us as a threat. That’s only because the truth of God is a threat to the lies of the world.

You and I have been equipped with the Truth. Let’s fulfil our purpose by making the decision to follow God and boldly speak His truth regarding life, our purpose, His reality, personal sin, the need for personal repentance, the Gospel.

Let me conclude by recalling the words of John while he was writing from the Island of Patmos:

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, ‘I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,’ and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.’
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'”

Revelation 3:14-22 NASB

*(Dr. Jared longshore, June 14, 2021, Founders Conference “Be It Resolved”, “The New Religion and the Need for Resolution“) Associate Pastor, Grace Baptist Church, Cape Coral, FL

The List

Duties of a Husband, Part 2

• 

  Forty years is small compared to a lifetime.

What are the duties of a husband? For the sake of keeping this to something manageable, let’s limit this to the top five. If you were to make a list of the top five duties of a husband, what would be on that list? And, what would be the order from most important?

Certainly, Christians will have a different list from the rest of the world. Well, they should. That is one piece of what’s broken. Many Christian’s list looks just like someone who has no influence of God’s revelation in their lives. In spite of the clear and available Biblical statements on marriage and being a husband, these Christians are unaffected by that truth. Functionally, they are unbiblical. These Christians are unable to articulate the difference between a husband fulfilling a Biblical mandate and design, and one who is married because that was the thing to do. Get married. Because…whatever.

Some who have a wrong view of husbands are brand new Christians. In my experience, however, you can have a wrong view of being a husband and still have spent most of your life associated with church. Just because you went to Sunday School and perhaps even taught Sunday School as an adult doesn’t correlate to understanding the Bible. Although Vacation Bible School was a standard for your summers with its cookies and crafts, and you attended church with your parents, enjoyed the emotional high of yearly revival services, dropped out during college, and then came back to church after getting married, you would be part of the average crowd of Christians who do not have a good theology. Missing from all of your experience was consistent intentional learning in Biblical understanding and application. There were stories, but no real education.

Simply because you were raised a Christian does not mean that you will automatically know what a husband, a Biblical husband should do. However, let’s move on.

What, then, would be on your list? I’ve asked this question of my students while taking short breaks between topics in teaching chemistry. The common, and wrong answers are what we should expect from a culture that is confused regarding the roles and duties of members in a family. They reveal both the corruption of what we should have been as well as the consequences of letting the culture impact the definitions of family more than submitting to Biblical revelation of family. These common answers are:

• “Take out the garbage.”
• “Love their wives and family.”
• “Mow the lawn.”
• “Cook outside on the grill.”

Some of these things are done by unmarried men. Some are done by women. Some are what men as husbands do. But, they miss the connection of what husbands are. While some are or may be the consequences of being a husband, they didn’t make the list of Biblical duties of a husband.

If there are things that men who are not husbands, men who are husbands, and anyone can do, then these are not duties specific to that of being a husband. For something to be the duty of a husband, it needs to be somehow clearly linked to being a husband. What we are, as husbands, leads to a proper understanding of what we should be doing. The duties of a husband starts firmly on a foundation of a Biblical definition of a husband, and then produce the “to do list” of a husband.

A proper list does just that. The definition of a husband is the foundation of the duties. Therefore, when you read the list below, understand this is not simply a “to do” list. It’s not the things you have to accomplish to “check off” your list of things to do in order to be a good husband. These are both what you are and what you do. A husband must (in order of importance):

1. Remember
2. Be jealous
3. Interpose
4. Be a husbandman
5. Lead

I’ll unpack each of these in the next parts. Look for those soon.

The Samaritan of the Good Parable

A commencement speaker chose to encourage the graduates using the parable of the Good Samaritan from the Gospel of Luke. His exhortation was timely and helpful. I don’t know that his interpretation of the parable was original (seems like I’ve heard similar telling of the story). The telling places the main players into three groups:

• The robbers who beat the traveler – they believed that “what is yours is mine”, and were willing to use force to take his possessions for themselves.
• Second where the priest and Levite who, though they came to the beaten traveler as individuals traveling alone, shared the view of possessions as “what is mine is mine”, and refused to part with their possessions for the sake of the needs of the bruised and beaten man.
• The third was the Good Samaritan, who viewed his possessions as “what is mine is yours”, and willingly gave his belongings for the good and recovery of the stranger. 

You may be drawn to this version since it supports a view of communistic or socialistic ideals.  Within the current and dominant social-emphasizing culture of some churches, this interpretation would be very popular.

• thieves = focused inward on possessions to be taken and kept to yourself

• Priest and Levite = focused inward on possessions to be hoarded and kept to yourself

but

• Samaritan = focused outward to see possessions as for sharing.

This misses a greater point. Jesus was not trying to “fix” the “direction” of our possessions (as this wrong view of the parable claims). The speaker, and others who try to warp this parable to match their agenda, miss the point Jesus was making. And you know. That might be a bad thing.

Aimé Morot (1850-1913). “Le bon Samaritain”, 1880. Huile sur toile. Musée des Beaux-Arts de la Ville de Paris, Petit Palais.

Here is a critical truth: Our actions reveal our god (or Our God).

Although we may not realize this, neither you nor I can stop worshiping. We’ve been told or may believe that life is composed of secular responsibilities separate from any sacred responsibilities. But, this is not true. The truth is that every breath, every action, every thought is an act of worship. These actions reveal the object of our worship.

Look back to the parable. The robbers are worshipers of possessions. Their god is the god of gain. They find or hope for salvation in gathering goods. In amassing wealth. This is the same group who would live by the mantra of “the one who dies with the most toys wins.” They acted consistent with the object of their worship. Their worship of possessions, of wealth, or having “things”, was revealed by actions of taking the possessions of another person. They don’t care if he is a “neighbor” or even a person. Their god – stuff, things, money – drives them to care more for possessions than for the person they beat and leave for dead.

As the story continues, there’s hope in the next passersby. First a Priest and then a Levite come along the road. The Priests and Levites were leaders in the Jewish communities. They were expected to know, live, and teach the law. They, like the man who asked the question leading to the parable, would claim to know the law.

Yet, it is often clear they studied the word, and maybe argued over the meaning. But, they often didn’t know the Law. Consider that exchange between Jesus and the scholar that led to the parable:

“ ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ [Jesus] said to him, ‘What is written in the Law? How do you read it?’ And [the scholar] answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

The Gospel of Luke

“How do you read it?” What an incredible statement.

Back to the parable –

These two spiritual men, the priest and Levite, were negligent of the man beaten and left on the road by robbers. They failed to love “your neighbor as yourself”. In doing so, they failed to “love the Lord your God with all your heart…soul…strength…mind.”

They knew the law regarding the possessions of a fellow Jew. In Deuteronomy 22, the law instructs them to not leave their neighbor’s ox or donkey if it falls down by the road, or wonders off and gets lost. They are to care for it and return it. They are specifically instructed to not ignore the needs of these animals for the sake of their neighbor. Yet, was not the man who was robbed and beaten more than a beast of burden? How could they ignore this neighbor, this brother, when they knew he was more than the ox or donkey?

The priest and Levite knew the law. They were knew and likely studied Leviticus 19:34 and Micah 6. It was not sacrifice, not burnt offerings, not yearling calves that God desired. But, “Do justice, love kindness, walk humbly with your God.” Worshipers of the true God reveal their true inner worship. They cannot stop it from coming out.

Just as this priest and Levite couldn’t help letting their worship come out. Their self-worship, their self-righteousness was revealed in their anti-action toward this neighbor. Their worship of self was revealed in their response to the beaten and robbed man. They walked on the other side of the road. The word translated as “passed on the other side” is literally “anti-near”, or “anti-approach”. Their actions were against the needs of the beaten man. Not neutral. Not without action. Anti-action. Hateful.

Speculation on their motives can be found in just about any commentary or sermon. Yet, the parable itself gives no hint to what motivated them. The parable does clearly tell who they were – scholars of the law. They knew it was wrong to ignore and leave the man. He was a neighbor. It is clear what they did. They acted in a manner that was anti- to what the man needed. He needed compassion and care. They ignored him.

How could they? Simply, they worshiped themselves. It may have been their self-righteousness. It may have been their reputation. It may have been their own safety they cared for. They could have worshiped God and obediently followed the clear teaching in the law. They didn’t. They worshiped themselves.

The Samaritan viewed the beaten traveler as an image bearer of the only True God – Whom the Samaritan worshiped. He acted out of that worship. As a worshiper of God, he viewed all he had as coming from God, and ultimately belonging to Him. He acted as a good steward of his possessions. His possessions where his. They did not belong to the beaten man, nor was he under cultural or philosophical obligation to give them to the beaten man. He worshiped God. His internal worship was revealed by his actions.

In full analysis, this story from Luke we know as the Parable of the Good Samaritan is all about the Gospel. The lawyer who asked the question of Jesus didn’t need to know who his neighbor was. He needed to confess that he already knew, and had failed at “loving his neighbor as himself”. His worship was wrong. He must see that before he can understand his need to repent. We all need to see that.

Our actions do not create our worship, they reveal our worship. 

Does It Matter? The Seatbelt Analogy

Does the Issue of Young Earth vs Old Earth matter?

Very often, when I speak with pastors or lay-leaders in a church about whether Genesis is real – containing real history or real events that occurred in real space and time – they respond by stating it doesn’t matter to the bigger picture. To them, there are many other ministry needs, or ministry interests, that consume their time.

Does it matter? Consider “the Seatbelt Analogy”

Ignoring seat belts, or claiming they aren’t important to the operation of a car doesn’t make them unimportant to the operation of the car. Refusing to acknowledge the importance of seat belts doesn’t make any subsequent crash less fatal.

In May, 2015, Dan Bewley, a science writer at Science is OK (Oklahoma science blog) posted the picture (edited for use in this blog post) and noted,

“Climate change is important to me. Helping promote a better understanding of evolution is important to me. But this is the most important story I have ever written. See that picture below? My wife and son were in that car when it was struck last week. My wife was wearing her seatbelt and my 9-year old son was in a booster seat.”

Both survived.

In spite of overwhelming evidence that seatbelt use increases survivability in an accident by nearly 50 percent, people still refuse to wear seatbelts. When used correctly, wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of fatal injury to front seat passenger car occupants by 45%, and risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50%.

In the state of South Carolina, for 2016, there were 59 traffic fatalities in which seat belts were available to be used. Of those who died, 24 (40%) were not wearing seat belts.

Why? You can group all of the reasons under one statement: They don’t (or didn’t) think it matters.

The facts – seat belt use matters. Proper use of seat belts as they were designed to be used reduces injuries in an accident. Seat belts are important.

The facts – the events in Genesis can be placed in real history in a real space with real events. That matters. It matters to the proper use of the rest of Scripture.

The Events in Genesis are Real

It matters to our identity,

our understanding of knowledge,

our view of humanity,

and, it matters to the Gospel.