Douglas Wilson Archives - Page 112 of 179

Mission, Vocation, and Body Life

Joe Harby on February 15, 2015

Introduction

As you have heard here before, mission is not something the church does on the side. Mission is at the heart of what the church is. And so, outreach, mission, evangelism, church planting all amount to the same thing. In this fallen world, the church should be about two things—birth and growth, and mission encompasses both of these. This is what Christ told the church to do in the Great Commission. Mission is why we are still here. But we need to be careful with this emphasis because there are some pitfalls.

The Text

“If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body” (1 Cor. 12:17–20).

Summary of the Text

The apostle Paul is discussing spiritual gifts, and in this section is describing what it means to be a member of the body. His use of member is taken as an illustration from the human body, and this means we shall have to think carefully about what it means to have something in common, including having a particular mission in common. If the entire body were an eyeball, then how could we hear (v. 17)? If the entire body were an ear, how could we smell (v. 17)? But God, instead of doing this sort of thing, has placed a number of different members into one body, according to his own good pleasure (v. 18). And, at first glance, it appears that an ear, an ankle, a liver, and a fingertip have very little in common. God did this because He has a higher unity in mind. If we had one big ear only, we would have no body (v. 19), and nothing would get done. In God’s wisdom, we can have multiple disparate parts, and yet have them all working together . . . on a mission (v. 20). But as mentioned earlier, we have to be careful because hand/eye coordination is not as easy as it looks.

Apparent Unity, Deep Unity

A policeman’s eyes and the eyes of the criminal he is chasing can have a great deal in common. They can both be blue, for example. They can both be nearsighted to the same extent, requiring the same prescription. They might go to the same optometrist. And the policeman’s eyes and the policeman’s heart apparently don’t have anything in common— except for the fact that they share the same vocation, the same calling, the same mission, which right now is that of chasing the criminal with the blue eyes. Both the heart and the eyes are doing their part to help catch the criminal. The eyes of the policeman are not thinking about their shared solidarity with the blue eyes of the criminal. But if we were giving a test to third graders, we might have a picture of the policeman’s right eye, the criminal’s left eye, and the policeman’s heart. What would happen if we told the kids to circle the two items that had the most in common? Right. A mistake would happen.

Another Illustration

Think of a submarine at war, with an assigned mission to seek out and sink ships in an enemy convoy. On that submarine you will find sailors who are part of the fire control team directly—the torpedo gang, say, and you will find sailors who are not a direct part of that team—the cook, say.

How does the cook advance the mission of the submarine? He does it by doing the best job that he can at his assigned post. He does it by cooking eggs. At the same time, he is not permitted to be uninterested in the mission of the submarine as a whole. He cannot detach his interests as though they were identical to his job description—as though he were somehow separate from the rest of the crew. He is part of the mission and must share an interest in that mission.

And yet, at the same time, he is not permitted to be so interested in what is going on in the torpedo room that he winds up being a bad cook. That’s no help either. If someone is called to a vocation—then the first thing to do is to be excellent at that calling. If your job is sweeping out a warehouse, and you spend your time leaning on the broom telling everyone else about Jesus, then what you are doing is stealing in the name of Jesus. Doing a poor job in the name of Jesus is a refusal to talk about Jesus honestly.

The two extremes are these: there are evangelism zealots who want every sailor to be part of the torpedo gang. And there are quiet, stay-at-home types who want to cook eggs and never, ever think about the war.

Yes and No

Should all Christians be prepared to share the message of the gospel to those who might ask? Yes, of course. In an exhortation that applies to all Christians, Peter says this: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15).

At the same time, should every Christian be an evangelist? At the end of our chapter, Paul asks a series of rhetorical questions about various gifts. The implied answer to these rhetorical questions is no. Is everyone an apostle? How about a prophet? Is everyone a teacher? No. Now the gift of evangelism is not mentioned here, but it is included in similar lists of gifts elsewhere (Eph. 4:11), and the body life argument applies. Paul and Barnabas were both missionaries, even though Paul did the bulk of the speaking.

So “evangelism proper” is not something that every part of the body shares in common. We all must have in common a love for God, a love for our neighbor, a dependence upon God’s word, a liberty in prayer, etc. This is what every member in the body should have, provided it is alive and healthy. But the ear doesn’t have to see. The elbow doesn’t have to hear.

At the same time, the elbow has to be interested in what the eye is seeing. The eye has to be interested in what the elbow is doing. This is because the eye and ear are not seeing and hearing for themselves alone. They are performing their functions on behalf of the whole body.

How do you show interest? Every part of the body is to pray for evangelism. Every part of the body participates in the energy. You can pray, and you can give. You can ask questions about how it went. And of course, the reason we want this body to function smoothly in this way is because it is the body of Christ.

Surveying the Text: Ecclesiastes

Joe Harby on February 8, 2015

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

Most cheerfulness in the world is superficial and shallow. Much deep thinking is melancholy. This great Hebrew philosopher calls us to joy—but joy which thinks deeply. Our word profound comes from the Latin profundus, which means deep, and so we are invited to profound joy, not joy that skims along the surface of things. He calls us to meditation, but to a meditation which does not despair. Only believers can enjoy the vanity.

The Text

“The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity” (Ecc. 1:1–2).

Solomonic Authorship

The author never calls himself Solomon by name, but rather Qoheleth. This means “gatherer,” “assembler,” or “preacher.” Nevertheless, Qoheleth identifies himself here as a son of David, and as a king in Jerusalem. Without entering into a detailed description of the debate, I can see no good reason not to attribute the book to Solomon. The book certainly fits the pattern of Solomon’s life.

Solomon was given great wisdom by the Lord, but nevertheless fell into great and enormous sins. In his apostasy, he introduced the idolatry of some of his foreign wives into Israel. This book was written in his old age, as a repentant rejection of his previous declension and apostasy.

Unlike the liberal, we should assume a single voice throughout the text. Unlike the pietist, we should reject the temptation to accept the edifying passages and skim over the apparently “difficult” ones. And unlike the heretic, we should reject an elevation of the “difficult” texts at the expense of the pervasive orthodoxy of the book.

Summary of the Text

Ecclesiastes has four basic sections, or divisions. The first division is found in Ecclesiastes 1:2-2:26—Solomon’s experience shows that satisfaction cannot come from anything within man’s grasp or power. The second division is contained in Ecclesiastes 3:1-5:20: God is sovereign over everything; Solomon answers objections to the doctrine, and as you should know, it is a doctrine that engenders objections. Objections grow on this doctrine, like flowers in a meadow in the springtime. The third section is Ecclesiastes 6:1-8:15. Solomon applies his doctrine that the sovereign God alone gives the power to enjoy vanity. Without Him, without this power, the world is nothing but vexation of spirit. And the last division is Ecclesiastes 8:16-12:14. This last section removes various obstacles and discouragements, and addresses numerous practical concerns.

The Two Great Refrains of the Book

Instead of viewing the book as a series of disjointed and sometimes contradictory statements, we must first look for those themes which integrate all the teaching of the entire book. Two great refrains are:

Under the Sun—this phrase occurs numerous times, and is extremely significant. “Under the sun” is the realm where vanity reigns. This is not the vanity of philosophical nihilism, but rather the vanity of endless recurring cycles. Just the way it is.

Consider what occurs “under the sun.” Work has no profit (1:3; 2:11; 2:22); nothing is new (1:9); everything is vain (1:14; 4:7); work is distressing (2:17); labor is hateful because someone else gets the fruit (2:18); a fool might receive the benefit of the work (2:19, 20); church and state are corrupt (3:16); men are oppressed (4:1); the unborn are at an advantage (4:3); popularity is in constant flux (4:15); riches destroy their owners (5:13); the wealthy are unable to enjoy their wealth (6:1); future generations are unknowable (6:12); men rule others and destroy themselves (8:9); work is incomprehensible (8:17) both good and evil men die alike (9:3); our emotions perish with us (9:6); time and chance happen to us all (9:11); ungrateful men despise the benefits of wisdom (9:13); and rulers establish egalitarianism (10:5).

The Great Gift of God—Under the sun, vanity is God’s scepter (5:18; 8:15; 9:9). For those who fear Him, God gives the gift of being able to enjoy the futility. This is the gift of God. Notice how this point is hammered home, again and again.

“Nothing is better . . .” (2:24);
“I know that nothing is better. . .” (3:12-13);
“So I perceived that nothing is better. . .” (3:22);
“Here is what I have seen: It is good and fitting. . .” (5:18-19); “So I commended enjoyment . . .” (8:15);
“Go, eat your bread with joy. . .” (9:7-9).

All these things are done by those who fear God under the sun, just as the miserable labor under the sun. But the distinction, as always, is found in the sovereignty and grace of God.

Eat Your Peaches

God frequently gives men many external blessings without giving them the spiritual taste buds to enjoy them. This is a sore affliction from the Lord. We see a man without taste buds who can afford the finest of restaurants. We see an impotent man married to a beautiful woman. Guard your hearts. Don’t envy them. Don’t want to become like them. The people you envy are frequently the most miserable people on the face of the planet. It would have been better for them to have never been born.

The blessings of this life—and there are many of them—are like cans of peaches. To His beloved, God gives them both the can and the can opener. To the others, He gives just the cans. What does it profit a man to have the whole world but with no ability to taste? Who is wealthier? The man with one can of peaches and a can opener, or a man with a thousand cans of peaches and no can opener? Without Christ, the most a rich man can do is lick the label, trying to get some kind of taste from the glue.

We live in the same world of vain repetitions as do the non-believers. Our dishes get dirty again, our lawns need to be mowed again, our lives cycle around as do theirs. The rain falls on our heads too. But their vanity, their shepherding of the wind, becomes—because of unbelief—what we might call philosophical or nihilistic vanity. Our vanity, our experience of the very same things, becomes a wild ride, the best you will ever have. Nothing is better. This understanding of Ecclesiastes is the foundational precondition of all contentment.

So eat your bread, drink wine, and rejoice. Work hard. God has already accepted you. He has already accepted your works, which He has done in the perfect work of Jesus Christ. Believe the gospel as it is preached and declared. This truly is the gift of God.

Surveying the Text: Psalms

Joe Harby on January 25, 2015

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

It would be difficult to overstate the impact and influence of the Book of Psalms on the history of Israel, and on the subsequent history of the Christian church. As Luther once said, the Psalms are a “Bible in miniature,” and the way the Psalms are given to us, they are asconstructive as they are retrospective. But more on that shortly.

The Text

“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows” (Ps. 45:6–7).

Summary of the Text

Psalm 45 is a triumphal wedding day psalm, celebrating the marriage of the king. The author of Hebrews picks up on a phrase from the psalm, telling us that it represents God speaking to His Son, the Messiah. “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom” (Heb. 1:8). Note that the Son is the bridegroom in the psalm, and that God the Father addresses Him as God. We will come back to the importance of this kind of thing shortly.

The Structure of the Book

The Book of Psalms is actually a collection of five psalters, each one ending with a doxology. Some of the psalms in the collection are ancient, going back to the time of Moses (Ps. 90), for example, but the majority are from the time of David and shortly after. The principal poet and musician represented is David (73 psalms are attributed to him), while other composers include Asaph, the sons of Korah, Solomon, Ethan, and Heman.

The five books are set up as follows: Book One (Ps. 1-41), Book Two (Ps. 42-72), Book Three (Ps. 73-89), Book Four (Ps. 90-106), and Book Five (Ps. 107-150). The doxologies that conclude each book are: Ps. 41:13, 72:18-19, 89:52, 106:48, 150:6. The first book is overwhelmingly from David. The second contains psalms from three sources—David, sons of Korah, and Asaph. The third is largely from Asaph and the sons of Korah. It is good to remember that the last book contains a section known as the Psalms of Ascent (120-134). Because of the murky history of how these books were assembled, we are not really in a position to use these divisions practically, although it is good to know that they are there.

A Translating Faith

A commonplace notion is that poetry cannot be translated. If a great poet wrote in a language not your own, then you are simply out of luck. Now certain things cannot be brought across with the same effect—that is true enough. We commonly signal the presence of poetry in hymns by means of rhyme, which the Hebrews didn’t do at all. We use meter, and other languages don’t. We use meter differently than do other languages that use meter, although Hebrew poetry didn’t at all, and so on.

Nevertheless…

Some aspects of Hebrew poetry can be transferred across the language barrier. One of the use of thought rhymes in the common use of parallelism. In English, this technique is used in the blues, but rarely elsewhere. The parallelism can have variations— synonymous, contrasting, constructive, and so on.

Another technique that carries across, and is actually common to all high poetic expression, is the use of metaphorical imagery. Some of this imagery is quite striking and indelicate. Consider the psalm where God is compared to a warrior who is awakened while sleeping off a drinking binge (Ps. 78:65-66). Now was that quite necessary? Three very common images for God in the psalms would be God as king, God as warrior, and God as fortress.

God is a king on a throne (Ps. 93:2), and He rules over much territory (Ps. 47:6-7). He is a maker of laws (Ps. 93:5), and one who makes covenants with conquered peoples (Ps. 25). And we clearly see the kingship of God in the psalm of our text. At the end of the day, all Christians are necessarily monarchists. Jesus is Lord, Jesus is King. God is a great warrior. His artillery is fearsome (Ps. 18:12, 14). He parts the heavens and comes down to fight (Ps. 18:9). He trains us how to fight (Ps. 144:1). We do not worship a pacifist God. God is a fortress, a shield, a great protection. He defends His people from harm (Ps. 18:1-2). This also is a military image, albeit a defensive one.

But we find more than just images of God. Here are some images for the wicked, those against whom we must stand. They are snakes (Ps. 58:4), bulls (Ps. 22:12), bees (Ps. 118:12), dogs (Ps. 22:16), and those are just a few of the images. What is being done in the use of imagery and metaphor? You are learning more about what you do not know from what you do know. This means carries over.

What It Means to Sing Psalms

One of the most obvious things about the psalms is how they were born in acutely personal circumstances. Their origin is individual. David wrote Ps. 52 in response to Doeg the Edomite. But when God used His servants to place these psalms in the corporate worship of Israel (and afterwards the Church), the result necessarily was two- fold: one was identification with the plight of the original author—he is our father, and we are with him. The second was application of these words to our own circumstances. Who is your Doeg? The meaning of the psalms, the import of the psalms, was therefore meant to expand. This hymnbook was intended to grow in meaning. What David used to refer to battles a thousand years before Christ (Ps. 68) was rightly appropriated by French Huguenots who made it into their battle hymn. “God shall arise and by His might, put all His enemies to flight.”

Another way of saying this is that the Psalter is alive. It is living and active. Take care not to fall into a destructive liberal/conservative dichotomy. The liberals love living documents—that’s how they kill them. Too often conservatives love preserving dead documents–Scripture is not under glass in a museum behind the velvet rope, with a brass plaque saying it is “alive.” Now we are not denying inerrancy here—that is the baseline minimum—but we are saying something much, much more than that. The Word of God is seed. What does that image mean?

The apostle Paul tells us that Christian churches are called to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Some Christians overstate the case when they say we may sing nothing but psalms, but that is not our most widespread error. The most widespread error is that of singing songs of our own invention, without reference to God’s model for hymnody. Singing should be one of our central vocations as disciples.

The Politics of Sodomy II: Not Whether, But Which

Joe Harby on January 25, 2015

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

In many respects, we are like a man who lives in a house that is increasingly cluttered and trashed. When the day finally arrives when it becomes obvious that he must do something, it is equally obvious at the same time, that he has no idea what to do, or where to start. He is overwhelmed at the magnitude of the problem. It is the same with us as we consider the politics of sodomy. We want to put things right. Where do we go to begin? Do we go back to the sixties? The New Deal? The War Between the States? The Enlightenment? And the answer is yes.

The Text

“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matt. 12:25-30).

Background

Jesus is speaking in the first place about the kingdoms of God and Satan respectively. He had been accused of fighting Satan even though His accusers said He was really on Satan’s side. Jesus responds by saying that a house divided cannot stand, and so Satan would not be so foolish as to do that (vv.25-26). Jesus goes on to say if His power over Beelzebub was a demonic power, then what power was being used by His adversaries’ children (v. 27)? But if Jesus was empowered by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God really had come to them (v. 28). And, continuing the argument, if the kingdom of God has come, why should anyone be surprised that the strong man’s house was being pillaged? The strong man was bound, wasn’t he? And then Jesus says what we all need to hear—one who is not with Christ is against Christ. One who does not gather with Christ is attempting to scatter (v. 30).

No Middle Ground

The claims of Christ are therefore total. There is no way to read through the New Testament and miss this. The claims of Christ are total. He is the King of kings, and the Lord of lords. He has been given all authority in heaven and on earth, and over any creature that can be named. Christ is King. Jesus is Lord. This is the basic Christian confession (Rom. 10:9-10). And here, if you are not with Him, you are therefore against Him. There is no spiritual equivalent of Switzerland. In the cosmic war between in light and darkness, there are no neutral parties, and there is no third way. There are only two activities in every realm of human existence, and those two activities are obedient gathering and disobedient scattering. Only two.

Hidden Assumptions

Obviously, these total claims on the part of Christ won’t do. We need to have our personal space. We need to protect our favorite forms of autonomy. But at the same time, those of us who are religious, particularly in the Christian Lite Community of Faith, need to give some sort of lip service to the language of totality that comes up so often in Scripture. We should want to bringevery thought captive, the apostle Paul says (2 Cor. 10: 5).

Obviously, we have to figure out a way to use this kind of total language while ensuring that it remains partial in effect. God calls this sort of thing by the name of hypocrisy.

What We Call It

We have developed various intellectual tricks for doing this, and we may describe these tricks as forms of American individualism, gnosticism, constitutionalism, or rationalism. A man can pick one of the following, or mix up his own combinations. Disobedience can take many forms.

Individualism: in this view, Jesus is Lord of my heart, and not that which is outside the realm of my heart. This is not thought of as partialism because the heart is what counts, right? But Jesus is Lord of your toes as well as your heart, and your world as well as your toes.

Gnosticism: in this perspective, Jesus is Lord of spiritual things, not thought of as the Lord over foreign policy, sewage disposal, botany, law, and weed control. But Jesus is Lord of both heaven and earth, and every manifestation of culture.

Constitutionalism: this excuse points to the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment, misunderstanding that amendment in a grotesque fashion. But Jesus is the King of the United States.

Rationalism: this is the approach that appeals to natural law, but to a natural law that is sure to exclude the revelation of God in Christ. But natural law is fulfilled in Christ.

Not Whether, But Which

All culture is religious, and the only question to consider is whether it is faithfully religious or idolatrously religious. It has been said that all culture is religion externalized, but even this helpful insight can be interpreted in too weak a fashion. All culture is religion. Turning Henry Van Til’s insight around, we should say that all religion is culture internalized.

So the question is not whether our culture has a god, but rather which god it has.

The question is not whether we will impose morality, but rather which morality it will be. The question is not whether we will restrict blasphemy, but rather which blasphemy.

And it is not whether we will embrace sexual politics, but rather which sexual polis it will be.

The Politics of Sodomy I: The Real Sin of Sodom

Joe Harby on January 18, 2015

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

What could possibly be meant by the phrase, “the real sin of Sodom?” Isn’t it obvious? The sin of homosexual behavior draws its name from Sodom. What could be more obvious? And shouldn’t we be suspicious of any attempt to draw our attention elsewhere? As always, the answer to such questions is, “It depends.”

The Text

“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good” (Eze. 16:49-50).

Background

The prophet Ezekiel is speaking the word of the Lord against the city of Jerusalem. In the course of his prophetic rebuke, he says that Samaria is Jerusalem’s older sister, and that Sodom is Jerusalem’s younger sister (v. 46). Samaria dwells at Jerusalem’s left hand and Sodom at her right. Moreover, the prophet denounces Jerusalem as far exceeding the sins of both these cities. Compared to Jerusalem, both these wicked cities seem righteous in comparison (v. 52).

Individual Sin

We are addressing the politics of sodomy, and consequently we are addressing the corporate nature of a certain form of sin. But it should be acknowledged at the outset that the rejection of individualism does not mean that individual sin and rebellion somehow disappear. They do not disappear at all—rather, they are placed in their proper context. But so that we may know what we are placing in context, it is true that the sin that was being attempted at Lot’s house was the sin of homosexual rape (Gen. 19:5). Lest any sophists snatch at this and say that the only problem was the rape part, the Bible says that it is wrong for men to desire men sexually (Rom. 1:27), as well as for women to desire women (Rom. 1:26). The Scriptures say that individuals who live this way will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9). This includes both sodomites and catamites, the two aspects of homosexuality mentioned here. All this is to say that by addressing the root cultural problems, we are seeking to understand individual behavior, and not to excuse it.

But Sodom Was a City

When Ezekiel mentions the sin of Sodom in an aside, many conservative Christians might be surprised at where he starts. Sodom was a degraded city, and they had gotten to the point where the rape of visitors was something that a number of people thought should be allowed in the public square. But how did they get there?

This was the sin of Sodom—pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness, neglect of the poor, haughtiness, and abominations. At the end of that list we find what caused Sodom to become a household word. But consider what went before, and ask yourself how America got to the place where the folly from our federal courts is taken even halfway seriously.

Trampling the Courts

To this we may add the word of the prophet Isaiah. The point here has to do with the combination of worship with iniquity, and the central point here is not liturgical form. We must guard against any form which seeks to make room for iniquity.

“Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah . . . When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? . . . And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood” (Is. 1:9-10, 12, 15).

So Therefore . . .

In our corporate capacity as a nation, why are we dealing (very unsuccessfully) with this sin at the very end of Ezekiel’s list? The answer is that we have long since given way to the sins mentioned earlier. Not only have we succumbed to these sins, some of them are our pride and glory.

Corrupt worship: across our nation, worship is not understood rightly, as holy covenant renewal with a holy God. Every Lord’s Day, millions of Americans cry out to God. Why does He not hear?

Pride: our pride can be seen clearly, even in how traditionalists oppose these recent legal developments. We want salvation, and we want it although we refuse to acknowledge the only Savior, Jesus Christ (Matt. 28: 17-20; Ps. 2:12). Traditionalists point to certain verses in Romans 1, verses that ignore the overarching context. Who does not honor God as God? Who does not give Him thanks?

Fullness of bread: do we really need to say anything here? But remember, the problem is not the wealth in itself, the problem is forgetting God in that wealth (Dt. 8:17-18).

Abundance of idleness: a recreational mentality, demanding entertainment in everything, has crept into everything, including worship and study.
Haughtiness: how is this different from pride? Haughtiness is pride manifested, superciliousness. Haughtiness is seen in daughters of Zion, strutting their wares at the mall (Is. 3:16).

Neglect of the poor: this is one of the areas where our wickedness is great, precisely because of the hypocritical posturing of those who defend the welfare state. Judas was concerned for the poor, because he kept the money bag (Jn. 12:4-6; 13:29).

Homosexual abominations: and so, here we are.