So you know I am about to give a Spoiler Alert. If you do not wish to know how this comes out, look away and scroll down.

Here goes the Spoiler: I intend to vote for the Republican candidate Ken Paxton

So you know I will vote for him with one hand while holding my nose with the other.

So you know, I cannot imagine what I would have to hold to vote for the other fellow. You know the Vegan who eats pork ribs. The Christian who hates Christianity. That one.

Why?

I have these reasons:

When confronted with an odious choice of personalities, vote for the platform that most reflects your values. Go away from the fellow, but stay with your core beliefs.

If I understand the Democrat Socialist platform, it looks a bit tipsy. They seem to want to open the borders, defund the police and disarm the citizenry. Tell me, what can go wrong with such a plan?

I cannot vote for all that mess. I did not leave them they left me.

Someone once wrote of Texas politics saying Texans often do not get to vote for the lesser of two evils but often have to vote for the evil of two lessers. This summarizes the 2026 Texas US Senatorial Election. Wear your mask, hold your nose, vote for the party, not the man.

Jon Mcpike’s new books, The 3.2.1. Experience makes generous use of one of my (ancient) blog posts, Choose. Decide. Commit. This blog post comes from an even more ancient sermon of mine. Jon uses it in his Introduction and makes more use of it in Chapter Three. He is kind to mention my name and our association

I hope you will give a look to Jon’s book from Franklin Pubslishing available now on Kindle and in paperback from Amazon.

I may have upset someone with some of my content. Today I tried to make this post three times, got stopped each time and then everything was gone on the third try. I will try to restore my previous efforts and writings but, for now, just know I am still here (I think) and I intend to continue this discussion.

I promised last week to discuss the Trinity. Life interrupts me. This time my ministry to parolees got in the way of my blogging. Sorry.

You remember we are talking about Jesus. The serious questions about Jesus, His Personhood, His life, Death and Resurrection, all deserve our attention. My main complaint about Church these days is their overall failure to give Jesus any attention at all, let alone to discuss the serious questions about Him.

You may remember the serious question about Jesus we currently consider. Is Jesus fully human, fully divine or some odd combination of the two? If He is not divine, what difference does His courageous death make? If He is divine, how can He be human? If He is some odd combination of human an divine, how can we possibly expect to imitate His actions, since, I assure, you, I am not divine or eternal?

The Evangelical Atheists of our day mock the Trinity. Of course, these are the same people who mock us for “making wishes to our imaginary friend,” which is their designation for God. In fact, we often, it seems to me, pull back when confronted at various serious points, because we just honestly do not know what we believe. We appeal to our faith, as if faith overwhelms knowledge as far as we know, and lay down our brain at the door. This opens us up to all brand of emotional appeals to “love” on;u, without any attempt to explain the Faith (not our emotional chunk of faith, as if any persuasion would be a violation of tolerance.

Richard Dawkins, in his screed, The God Delusion, insists that scholars of antiquity are doubtful Jesus even existed. He is completely wrong. Scholars of antiquity deny the divinity of Jesus but not His existence. In fact, many do not deny His divinity at all. They simply hold their pens, as they wish to be taken seriously.

Sadly, too many “believers” hold their thoughts in abeyance as well. I cannot always say why this true, but I can tell you (and remind me) what the Bible and the Church traditionally teach about the Trinity.

Back into eternity, the Triune God chooses to exist as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yes, all these words are accomodational. All human language about God is accomodational, at best and derivative as well. Imagine the task before the original writers as they attempt to show us God!

In truth, as many years (I mean decades) as I have studied the matter, I can still only describe the Person of God in functional terms, illustrating my thoughts in light of what God does, in orderk, by showing what God does, to show what matters to God.

In functional, accomodational illustrative terms, far back in eternity, the Triune God exists as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but in a horizontal relationship. Imagine this is an expression of the equality of manifest persons of God. The sacrifice of the Christ, Jesus, is on the Cross, yes, but just as boldly in the manger. In the Advent, Jesus (indeed, by taking on Him the very name Jesus) surrenders the independent exercise of His deity. Here in the manger is where He empties Himself of all things and becomes obedient to death, even the death of the Cross. Here is our explanation of why He prayed the night before His death that the will of the Father be done over His will.

In the Advent, the eternal relationship of the Trinity undergoes this illustrative change in functionality. Remember the previous statement the Trinity is horizontal in relationship. At the Advent, the Trinitarian relationship is changed to a vertical one. To the western mind, this implies a lessening of the Second and Third Persons, but the change is one of relationship and not of rank. Regardless, it is a massive sacrifice.

Since the change is one of relationship and not of rank or substance, Jesus is able to be both fully human and fully divine. He is the God-Man, able to show us how to live as human before God and to redeem us from our failings.

We are trying to answer serious questions about Jesus. It is my intention to do so in order to inform believers who may not hear about Jesus very often.

Honestly you can make three lessons/sermons from the information in yesterday’s post. Let us explore how to know the information and get some help on how to teach/preach it.

Post Two of this series (Christology: Talking About Jesus) begins with asking serious questions about Jesus as He is present in Scripture. The question from yesterday is, do we believe Jesus is merely human, only divine or a mixture fo the two. Those who follow a Low Christology find it easier to dismiss Jesus as a great teacher with influence to this day but certainly less than the Son of God who comes to seek and save that which is lost. I did reveal my bias toward High Christology, wherein I see Jesus as the divine Son of God, able and intent to redeem fallen humanity.

You decide for you. Choose wisely.

If (since) Jesus is the divine Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity, His sacrifice for us is explicable as that we see in the Advent (what we call Christmas) as Jesus surrenders the independent exercise of His divinity. He who is eternal enters the temporal. He who is omnipotent limits His ability to overcome human willfullness. Jesus demonstrates the love of God for the very persons who offend God as He (Jesus) allows Himself to be totally vulnerable in the Advent and in the Crucifixion.

How to teach/preach this knowledge about Jesus:

Ask the serious question. Is Jesus human or divine or a mixture? The Scripture it seems to me presents Jesus as fully human and fully divine. If Jesus is divine He is able to redeem and restore, not just inform.

Give a serious (informed) answer. Yes, there is a passage in Mark indicating He could not do anything great in one place at one time, causing some to see Him as less than omnipotent and so less than divine. The anamoly of Mark 6:4-13 is about His vulnerability and, so His willingness to limit Himself. Jesus does not depend on our faith to be God. He does allow our willfulness to require His presence in a manger and on a Cross.

Make a salvation application. Jesus, the Divine Son of God, is real and not imagined He is able to redeem us from sin and restore us to real kinship with God. He allows Himself to be vulnerable to a race proven to be unsafe. Jesus is more courageous than Washington, more capable than Jefferson, even more caring than Lincoln, as we approach President’s Day.

Tomorrow: A brief look at the Trinity.

We should be interested to note the number of persons who do not accept the Biblical narrative about Jesus but do not deny Jesus existed and His existence matters. Eminent atheists who state in print they doubt the existence of Jesus soon retract their statements when questioned.

If we can consider the existence of a person called Jesus who lived and died in Palestine more than 2,000 years ago, we can start to ask meaningful questions about Him in relation to His establishment of a form of reformed Judaism. He was, after all, born and raised of a strict Jewish family who often struggled with His actrions as they related to the Judaism they knew.

Jesus, we should say, and His followers soon develop a form of religion unacceptable, then and now, to the majority of His co-religionists. Some of His contemporaries participatein His ritual execution, while seeking legal justification to allow His death. We should note how extraordinary are the actions of the authorities in relation to Jesus’ execution, since a few months later they act in the stoning death of a man named Stephen for whom they seek no Roman license. This is to say, their hatred of Jesus provokes a different reaction from them.

Why? I believe Jesus provokes a response because His teaching raises so many difficult questions, for His contemporaries as well as for many of us today.

For instance, we should ask if Jesus is fully human, fully divine or some combination of both human and divine. How does the Biblical narrative inform us?

You will know there are those who have a Low Christology as set over against those who have a High Christology. So you know I am a mainstream orthodox Christian with a High Christology. That is to say, I accept both the humanity and divinity of Jesus. Persons who follow a Low Christology find it easier to explain Jesus as an important human teacher whose influence continues to touch millions down to our day. Persons with a High Christology insist on Jesus as the Christ who comes into the world both to show us how to live as humans before God and to offer a means of spiritual redemption able to take us into the presence of God as adopted family.

Lower Christology adherents point out the different emphases of the four Biblical gospels. Mark, probably the first of the gospel writers, includes no “family tree” for Jesus, while Matthew (the Jewish gospel) and Luke (the Gentile gospel) have different genealogies. John tops them all by offering a theological gospel reaching backward into eternity. The lesson for the Lower Christology believers is the posit the confusion of the earliest writers. Higher Christologists would call the work of the writers complementary rather than confused or contradictory.

Mark accepts Jesus and shows His acts. Matthew accepts Jesus and demonstrates His fulfillment of the Jewish forecasts. Luke accepts Jesus and shows His open heart for all persons. John accepts Jesus and shows His eternal power. All accept Jesus as human. Each looks on Jesus as more than human. Where, then, is the confusion?

I believe we can clear up some of this controversy (if there is any controversy) by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus as evident in the Christmas story (the Advent). The vulnerability of the Christ child at Advent mirrors the vulnerability of the martyred Christ in the Cross-Resurrection event. Besides His vulnerability at both points, what else is common to both events? In both, the Christ, Jesus, surrenders the independent exercise of His divinity.

The night before He dies, Jesus prays to the Father to take the bitter cup of death from Him. He submits, however, vocally to the will of the Father. If Jesus is God, is He just talking to Himself? No, He demonstrates the real sacrifice of the Christ in Jesus. He empties Himself of His divine prerogative and shows Himself obedient even to a bloody, naked death on the Cross.

Jesus dies a human death, then, but with a divine effect. No human can die so powerfully for all other humans. Jesus can and does die for all persons who will believe in Him.

A Low Christology is much like what is presented in the entertainment, prosperity meetings passing for church. Jesus is worthy of more. He is certainly not someone the church should ignore.

Happy new year!

We started this series on Christology for the same reason I started refereeing basketball games decades ago. I did not like what I saw on the court and thought I could add something to the game. At least I thought I could add something to the games I called.

Now, I do not much like what I see and hear from most pulpits. Jesus is mostly an afterthought if He is thought of at all. W/hat passes for preaching in the millennial nonsense and prosperity works is little other than a self-help message. To me, it seems a lot like a Participation trophy for the quasi-religious. Yes, I think we (I) should work diligentaly with my last years to “bring something to the game.”

Your Christian preacher in your Christian church should tell you and all who attend about Jesus. All should know more about Jesus clad commit to Jesus more fully at the end of each Christian worship hour.

I do not need to know about your band, the setting on your stage or how the preacher likes to watch Gilligan’s Island reruns. Men stay away from church these days, strong men who could help and, if nothing more, should be included in decision making because they think, rightly, they can get deeper, better instruction from some on-line study courses, without the bells and whistles.

And all that is ancillary. The forces of evil do not mind if you let your church become a concert series. Evil enjoys mediocre proclamation, particularly in front of large crowds.

Yes, I am an ancient being. Before I shuffle off this mortal coil I wish to tell another generation about Jesus.

See you tomorrow.

To believe in God means to be convinced that the endless chain of causality ends finally in the hands of God.\.

——Adalbert Stifter

In beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

John’s Gospel, 1:1

Stifter and John look back in time to explain our current condition with the common purpose of showing us our end. That is, we look back all the way through Creation (Causality) to find God as the First Cause (Prime Moved). Since God is the Creator Cause, it follows the Providence of God bends human history in Creation to the generous, compassionate purpose of God, which is to end human history with/in God.

Since God causes and concludes, God must be said to be both kind and generous, regardless of what may happen between beginning and end. God journies with us through all human history, patiently demonstrating how humans matter to God the Creator and End.

Jesus is God’s greatest testimony of love for humankind. Humankind is late in the Created Order, whether one asserts the historicity of Genesis 1-3 or not.

All that God does in Creation gives the lie to Nietzchean fulminations about the insignificance of humans in general and individuals in particlular. Nietzcehe and all who followed after him believed akin, “Man is a small, eccentric animal species that has its time.” If humankind is separated from God, there is no good reason not to enslave persons, to depreciate them finally to abort them in the womb, to shred them in war, to use them as fodder.

Jesus will not allow the end of Humankind,Nine billion souls in the world today do not burden Him. Jesus loves Creation. His performance as the Agent of Creation and His intent to Judge ) not condemn_ the race, means instruction to our ethics will have to continue in Human survival.

Yes, Jesus gets us. More importantly, we should strive to understand Jesus.

Men are not flattered by being shown that that there has been a difference of purpose between the Almighty and them. To deny it, however, is to deny that there is a God governing the world.

—-Abraham Lincoln, 1865

I have previously stated Lincoln’s Second Inaural was among hte top ten sermons I have ever read. You should remember I am a preacher and I have read a lot of sermons, heard more, written many and considered others. Lincoln had been converted (but not baptized, ever, putting him beyond the pale for those who need sacramental salvation) effort hte Second Inaugural Address was ever penned. President Lincoln had no more formal theological education than he did of any other kind but he knew his Bible and interpreted it beautifullly on the steps of the Capitol Building on March 4, 1865, six weeks before his murder and with his assassin looking on from the crowd.

On that day, in that place and amid a mostly approving, if quiet mass of men, Lincoln appealed first to the book of Genesis, moved to Matthew’s gospel, from there to John’s historical account and then back to the Hebrew Bible for a direct recitation of Psalm 19. He did all this in good form without citing any passage by name or number.

To begin Mr. Lincoln insisted human failure what we call sin) brought about the scourge of war, cited slavery as its cause and insisted Men could not give any reason why any race of Men should take their bread from the forced labor of another man. He moved from Genesis to the Gospelof Matthew, insisting his hearers should not judge their enemies for to do so would bring down judgement on themselves. Here he was hinting at what he would do in Reconstruction, had he lived, in holding no others man no guiltier before God than the Union. He adjusted his hearers and the nation to do unto others only as they would have others do to them.

He then quotes Matthew in announcing woe to the world if the pronouncements of the Lord’s Kingdom are not kept. Sin brings judgement and slavery was wrong, as he had said previously, if anything is wrong (at Cooper Union he had actually said, “If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong”); it should be cut off and cast away as a right arm that offends you. Lincoln has Matthew and Mark prosaically tying the crucifixion to the fallen nature of Man. He then has John showing this was exactly, literally what brought about the ritual execution of the Christ.

Mr. Lincoln starts to wrap up his sermon by appealing to the righteousness of the Lord’s judgements. Some in the crowd mocked Mr. Lincoln’s theological thinking on slavery as sin. His assassin would kill him for it. Still, on this cloudy day, as Mr. Lincoln launched into the part of his sermon wherein he called the “judgements of Lord Just and righteous” the clouds parted and the sun shone though, to remain so during his final words that day, “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the war we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among outselves and with all nations.”

At his application the crowd cheered for the only time during his address. The content prior had weighed them down with deep thought and heavy emotion. As the sun conquered the clouds the crowd caught a glimpse of one great man’s belief in a Holy God who operated in history and expected Man to do the same.

All things being equal, not all things are equal.

Our culture is falsely tolerant. In the interests of equality (so called) we acknlowledge the unity of all things, as though any old thing will do so long as one fellow feels it works for him. I fear this is another example of human vanity, the worst symptom of which is always the desire of humanity to take over the place of God.

What is it we will not abide? I think there is not much left except this one thing; we will not abide whatever disagrees with our narrative. We do not seem to do much thinking these days. We mostly seem to cast around until we find something or someone or some teaching to agree with our narrative. There we stop to absorb the prejudices of the “agree upon.” The world outside our narrative is now told to disagree with us is disrespect and disrespect is violence: ergo, no one cam disagree without being a villain.

Once upon a time in America the least intellectual groups still believed one main purpsoe of mass public education was to train young minds to see the difference between good and evil so they could tell the truth from erro. Now, it appears there is no truth or error, no good or evil except as the “tolerant” group deems it so. Confront them. You find out quickly how intolerant are the tolerant.

How must we know if something is real, good or true? I believe (yes, I, you get your own blog cries the individual arguing against individualism) a narrative must have come worth at each phase of life in order to ne seen as valid. That is, our “story” should be able to help us interpret birth, life, history, eternity, et Alia. If our narrative (our personal truth, once called our opinion, our story) does not work at all those points, or, worse, does not allow for any of them, then it is less helpful than a narrative able to show us the value of life, death, history, eternity. So, then, we have to look for some complimentary narrative, some other “truth.”

If we do not find that “extra” truth our argument about life or death or history or etnerity is naturally weak at the neglected point. Where we are weak is the very place we may most adamantly insist others agree with us or be exposed to accusations of violence. Young people are most susceptible to such emptiness, particularly when they are so scrupulously distracted from contact with real thought.

I think we are not doing a good job of preparing young people foe life, let alone for eternity. The various thoughtful young people who come by my table seem ready for something more than the superficial. The adoration of youth in our culture, that which extols them as heroic seems certain to fail them at crucial points and they seem to know it.

Let us give them instruction in the certain mysteries of our faith. I urge upon us the preaching of the cross as fact, as Truth with a capital T. We believe our faith is able to open up for us a way to have hope in enternity, but it is know less helpful to enable us to have a life of meaning for now. Imagine! A life of meaning for now and hope for later, a life able to assimilate meant in full truth from birth to death, with history to teach us and etnerity to beckon us. I think we have something here.