(Be sure to click on the picture on the right to see what Christmas is really all about. ---->)

Christmas has become materialistic.  And you say, “This guy has a fantastic grasp of the obvious!”  The truth of the statement is ridiculously evident.  Therefore this statement must also be true: Jesus is not the reason for the season.  Even for Christians who wear big buttons stating the contrary, it has become quite a struggle for us to shoe-horn Jesus into what has become a blatantly secular holiday focused on purchasing lots of stuff on sale.  I even noticed a billboard advertising bank loans to help us fund the season.  If I need a loan to celebrate the birth of Christ, something is amiss.

To my dear brothers and sisters in Christ, let me suggest a different approach.  Instead of force-fitting Jesus into a holiday that functions quite well without Him, it is time we rescued Him from Christmas and started something new.

Our Savior deserves infinitely better treatment than He typically gets at Christmas.  Every December we desperately attempt to convince ourselves and others that this nearly unbridled celebration of materialism is somehow “really” about a baby in a manger in Bethlehem 2000 years ago.  Really?  How so?  Honestly, how does the typical Christian Christmas celebration depict the biblical account of the incarnation, God becoming a human being?  With a birthday cake?

We need to deliver the Lord Jesus from His bondage to Christmas and set Him free to be the great King of Glory that He is.  It is past time for us to abandon what the world calls Christmas, for a holy day that truly magnifies the greatness of our Savior.  I’m not suggesting we totally abandon “Christmas”.  There is nothing inherently wrong with buying gifts and giving them to the people we love.  But we need to stop pretending it is all about Jesus.  That is not true.  He is most certainly not the motivation behind what the stores and the credit card companies call Christmas.

So how should Christians celebrate the incarnation of Christ?  We could begin by giving it a new name.  Let’s call it Incarnation Day.  Awkward, but accurate.  Now, when you wish someone a happy Incarnation Day, people will wonder why you are celebrating reincarnation.  No, the word is incarnation.  It is a Christian word.  It refers to when God became flesh.  He dwelt among us.  Men saw His glory.  Kings bowed before Him.  Shepherds worshipped Him.  Men recognized Him as Immanuel: God with us.

Taking out a loan to bankroll a materialistic and presumed celebration of the coming of Christ is just wrong.  Exactly how do these go together: the Incarnation and this thing called Christmas?  They are very different and very unrelated.  It is time for us Christians to admit to ourselves that Jesus really has nothing to do with what this world calls Christmas because their Christmas wants nothing to do with our Jesus.  In your advent celebration, consider delivering Jesus from Christmas in order to make much of Him on Incarnation Day instead.

The following devotional was given on Thanksgiving Day at Grace Reformed Presbyterian Church in State College, PA.

The Thanksgiving holiday is quite special for our family.  One of the things I am most grateful for is a man by the name of William Brewster, one of the first settlers to come to America with the Mayflower Pilgrims.  Had he and his wife Mary, and their two children, Love and Wrestling, not made the perilous journey with that first little congregation of Separatist Christians, I never would have met my wife.  Sharon is a direct descendant of Elder William Brewster.  So was President Zachary Taylor.  And Bing Crosby, Cokie Roberts, Sarah Palin, and Naomi Judd.  Sharon will be signing autographs on your bulletins after the service.

Another person I’m very thankful for was a Patuxet (Pa-TUK-et) American Indian by the name of Squanto.  His story is remarkable.  He was kidnapped around the age of 12 by an English trader and taken to England where he learned English.  He was later brought back to North America where he served as an interpreter and guide.  He was then kidnapped a second time by another Englishman and sold into slavery in Spain.  There he was befriended by some Catholic friars.  He eventually made his way back to England, and worked for the treasurer of a company that was exploring Newfoundland.

Finally after returning to New England, he was set free and returned to his own home, only to find that his entire village, which had had as many as 2000 inhabitants, was completely deserted.  His entire tribe had died from an unknown plague and as far as we know, he was the only Patuxet (Pa-TUK-et) Indian left alive because, in the wisdom and sovereignty of God, he had been kidnapped and spent the previous few years living in England.

Because he spoke English, Squanto was used mightily of the Lord to secure the safety of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, Massachusetts.  Amazingly, they had settled in the exact location of his former village.  Again, by God’s providential hand, He supplied the Pilgrims with an interpreter who helped them establish a peace treaty with the other local Indians that lasted 50 years.  Squanto, in essence, saved the Plymouth Colony from starvation and extinction.

William Bradford, the Governor of the Plymouth Colony, said, "…Squanto continued with [the Pilgrims] and was their interpreter and was a special instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectation.  He directed them how to set their corn, where to take fish, and to procure other commodities, and was also their pilot to bring them to unknown places for their profit, and never left them till he died.

What a miraculous provision of God!  But not only had God supplied an interpreter, He had actually supplied the Pilgrims with the entire Western Hemisphere!  The Separatists were being prosecuted and persecuted by the Church of England for their conscientious and biblical objections to Church and State.  So they eventually escaped England, and at the risk of their lives, 102 people made the journey across the Atlantic to Plymouth, Massachusetts in the Mayflower.

As I was pondering all of this, it reminded me of the account of Peter’s arrest in Acts 12.  Ever since the days of the apostles, God’s people have suffered all kinds of tribulation and persecution.  In Acts 12, it is King Herod who decides to attack the Christians, killing some and imprisoning others.  It sounds very much like what Christians had to endure in England from their king in the 1600s.  Look with me at Acts 12 for a few moments.

1 About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church.2 He killed James the brother of John with the sword, 3 and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also.  This was during the days of Unleavened Bread. 4 And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people. 5 So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church.

Persecution and death were the lot of the early church, and it was the lot of the Pilgrims.  In both cases, it resulted in the spreading of the Gospel to places far away.  But here in Acts 12, we see Peter being kept in prison and the church praying earnestly for him.  They had very good reason to believe Peter would be killed just as James had been.  But the Christians prayed.

There was a second group of Pilgrims who were left behind in England while the Mayflower made it’s way across the ocean allowing their brethren to escape the wrath of the Anglican Church.  Surely they prayed earnestly for their brethren who had embarked on this treacherous journey.  The voyage itself was extremely dangerous, and if they made it to New England, then they would have to contend with even more dangers there.  I am certain that what the Church in Jerusalem did for Peter when he was in prison was the same thing the Pilgrims in England did for their brothers and sisters in the Lord as they sailed across the Atlantic as they sailed away towards religious freedom: Earnest prayer was made for them to God by the church.

Notice how God worked in answer to prayer:

6 Now when Herod was about to bring him out, on that very night, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison. 7 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood next to him, and a light shone in the cell.  He struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying, “Get up quickly.”  And the chains fell off his hands. 8 And the angel said to him, “Dress yourself and put on your sandals.”  And he did so.  And he said to him, “Wrap your cloak around you and follow me.” 9 And he went out and followed him.  He did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. 10 When they had passed the first and the second guard, they came to the iron gate leading into the city.  It opened for them of its own accord, and they went out and went along one street, and immediately the angel left him. 11 When Peter came to himself, he said, “Now I am sure that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting.”

The church prayed and God, in His great kindness, sent an angel to set Peter free from his persecutor.  Miraculously, his chains fell off and he walked away from his prison and his guards without being seen or heard.  Sometimes, God’s deliverances are wrought by angels.  Sometimes they are wrought by ships.  But in both cases, with Peter and with the Pilgrims, their deliverances were granted by the mercy of God.

12 When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. 13 And when he knocked at the door of the gateway, a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer. 14 Recognizing Peter's voice, in her joy she did not open the gate but ran in and reported that Peter was standing at the gate. 15 They said to her, “You are out of your mind.”  But she kept insisting that it was so, and they kept saying, “It is his angel!” 16 But Peter continued knocking, and when they opened, they saw him and were amazed. 17 But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison.  And he said, “Tell these things to James and to the brothers.”  Then he departed and went to another place.

Seldom do we see precisely how God works among us in answer to our prayers.  But sometimes, even when we DO see what He has done, it’s hard to believe!  This account of Peter’s deliverance and the disbelief of the church would not be so humorous if it was not so typical of us.  We pray in times of trouble, hoping for the best, but usually expecting something less than what we ask for.  And when God unexpectedly blesses beyond what we hoped for, we often respond in disbelief.

I doubt the Pilgrims back in England ever even thought of praying for something as crazy as an English-speaking Indian to come alongside William Brewster and William Bradford to help them establish peaceful relations with the Indians that surrounded them.  But what actually happened was no less miraculous than Peter’s angelic prison break.  The Pilgrims were delivered from their enemies and wound up celebrating the first Thanksgiving feast (which lasted three days) with their friends the Wampanoag Indians.  And this happened largely because of one man, Squanto, an English-speaking Native American from an extinct tribe.  That’s almost as strange as Peter’s experience.  I can hear one of the Pilgrims back in England saying, “Rhoda, you are out of your mind!”

At the end of Peter’s visit with the church that night, notice what he said: “Tell these things to James and to the brothers.” It is good for us to tell others, especially our brothers and sisters in the Lord, of the wonderful things the Lord has done for us.  We’ve been telling the story of the Pilgrim Fathers and the first Thanksgiving for nearly 400 years because we recognize it was by God’s sovereign workings among men that our forefathers survived those first few years in the New World.

And today, on this Thanksgiving holiday, we’ve gathered together as God’s people, His church, to tell each other the wonderful things the Lord has done for us, and to thank Him for His gracious and merciful dealings with us.

Oh give thanks to the Lord; call upon his name; make known his deeds among the peoples!  Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever! (1 Chronicles 16:8 &34 ESV)

========================================================

Today I read an article by AP News entitled "New HIV case causes LA porn industry shutdown".  You can read it HERE.  The title of the story seems rather straightforward and uncomplicated.  It would certainly seem prudent for the porn industry to cease filming and "performing" if there is an unnamed "actor" carrying a deadly and extremely contagious disease from partner to partner to partner to partner, if they can legitimately be called partners.

But the article went on to say there is a man by the name of Derrick Burts who in late 2010 was diagnosed with HIV.  The article tells us, "Burts has since gone on to advocate for the mandatory use of condoms in porn with the AIDS Healthcare Foundation."

This issue will also be on the Los Angeles ballot in 2012.  Residents will be asked to vote on whether condoms must be used by all participants in the multi-billion dollar porn film industry.  And then there is this quote: "The question remains how many performers must become infected with HIV and other serious STDs before the industry will clean up its act and government will do the right thing?" said Michael Weinstein, president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation.  [Emphasis mine]

My guess is the industry will never clean up its act, and the government has no idea what "the right thing" is.  Hugh Hefner led us all right past "the right thing" back in the 50s with Playboy Magazine and the hugely successful marketing of what has now become a household euphemism: the girl next door.  A more accurate description would be "the adulteress next door", or "the whore next door", but that would be a bit crass, I suppose.

The politically correct stance in all of this is to pretend that all people everywhere are at equal risk for contracting AIDS.  If we were to believe the propaganda we've been fed, as a happily married heterosexual male, I have as much of a chance of being HIV positive as an LA porn star.  Really?  Does that mean I need to be on the lookout for $1 off a pack of 10 Trojans coupons in the Sunday paper?  Most people who take even a casual look at the facts realize this is patently false.

However, if the porn industry truly "cleaned up its act", what would they actually do?  The definition of cleaning up by Michael Weinstein is the mandatory use of condoms among porn stars and their less-than-significant others.  If I am not mistaken, generally speaking, the porn industry is not known for its stellar observance of the finer points of law.  But the assumption seems to be that if a law was passed by the good people of LA requiring the use of condoms among porn stars, everyone involved would willingly or unwillingly comply, thus making inherently unhealthy and illicit sexual behavior "safe".

Friends, if the obscenely sky high risk of AIDS among porn stars does not provoke at the very least the voluntary use of "protection", then what kind of law will the government enforce to insure their safety?  I suppose the residents of California could pass a second law that would require a government agency to police the filming of all pornographic sex scenes in order to insure proper precautionary measures are being observed: The Condom Enforcement Unit.  They could even supply free condoms (at the tax payer's expense of course) to the actors and actresses in the unfortunate event that their personal supply of prophylactics has been depleted and getting dressed to make an emergency run to the Quickie-Mart for a refill would hamper the mood of the film and increase re-production costs.

A new government agency is the answer.  That would do the trick.  The voluntary cooperation of porn industry moguls with compassionate undercover CEU agents will tackle this dangerous health issue head on and eliminate the risk of AIDS amongst sodomites everywhere.  That is how to clean up the porn industry.  That is how the government can do the right thing.

At the end of the day, it seems the answer to virtually every social problem is a judicial answer: the passing of appropriate laws and the enforcement of those laws.  If we have enough laws, and if we have enough trained professionals to enforce those laws, we can do anything we set our collective minds to do!  Everything from preventing AIDS amongst pornographers to saving the planet from flatulent cows.  Already, we have made great progress in the salvation of our planet by gradually eliminating the use of evil, energy-robbing incandescent light bulbs and replacing them with insanely expensive, curly, mercury-filled fluorescent ones.  One small step for Gaia . . .

But law and law-keeping have always been a problem.  If the truth be told, people just aren't all that law abiding.  Adam had one solitary law: "Don't eat THAT stuff on THAT tree right THERE!"  And the doofus broke it.  Now look where we are!  Then that one law was replaced by ten more!  And none of us obey those either.  "Thou shalt not commit adultery!"  Are you kidding?

The obvious answer to this quandary is not the creation of new laws, but the elimination of all laws.  Look at all the money we would save in law enforcement costs alone!  If you want to use an environmentally destructive incandescent bulb that will lead directly to the destruction of polar bears everywhere, then you just go right ahead!  If you don't want to recycle your beer bottles because throwing them into the recycle bin and setting it out by the curb with the trash is just taking things TOO FAR, hey, you've got the right not to. Just chuck 'em in with the other garbage.  Who cares if they fill up all our landfills.  I mean, they don't call it a land FILL for nothing!

If you don't like using condoms in between anonymous sexual encounters with people who may or may not have AIDS or any number of other sexually transmitted diseases, then nobody is stopping you.  After all, who is to say whether using a condom is right or wrong?  And who does Big Brother think he is, telling us that condom use is the "right" thing to do?  Once we eliminate all laws, everyone can do whatever is right in their own eyes.  No more of this shoving morality down our throats!

That's exactly what they did in the Bible!  They got rid of the laws!  Judges 21:25 says, "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."  Really!  It's in the Bible.  Twice, in fact.  For emphasis.  I think we should turn back to the Bible and consider if this would be a better way to conduct ourselves.  Who needs kings and governments when we can all determine what is right or wrong individually?

So instead of insisting the porn industry and the government clean up their act and do the right thing, the better (and obviously more biblical) approach would be for the government to just back off and allow the porn industry to police itself.  Better yet, let the individual porn stars make the condom or no condom choice for themselves.  After all, it is their bodies we're talking about.  They have a right to choose to do with their own bodies whatever they want.  Right?  Who are we to try to impose our capricious, willy-nilly morality on them, refuse them their God-given right to choose according to their own free will, and require them to use condoms while performing acts of lewdness in front of a camera in order to sell those videos through the internet to men all over the world with porn addictions for a multi-billion dollar profit?

Soon, and in my estimation the sooner the better, we should pass a federal law that outlaws all laws.  We need to follow the example of the people of Israel and become lawless.  They didn't have a king over them to tell them what to do.  And they did whatever they blankety-blank-blank-blankety well pleased!  (Pardon my language.  But I'm just so passionate about this I can't help myself.)  Lawlessness is the way to go.  That way, NOBODY can tell you and me what to do.

And, brothers and sisters, it doesn't get any better than that!  Lawlessness is in the Bible.  In Genesis 6 it says,

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.  So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:5-7 ESV)

Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. (1John 3:4 ESV)

You know, maybe we should think this through before making any rash decisions.

Recently I was looking for an English Standard Version of the Bible on Amazon.com hoping to find a small edition for the sake of portability.  As I perused the various “models” to choose from, I found one that appealed to me.  Then, out of curiosity I began to read the Book Reviews of the ESV.  Jakub Friedl from Prague gave the ESV one star out of a possible five star rating: “The book is too long and contains some unnecessary kill-crazy parts.  Certainly good for historical reference but I wouldn’t reccomend [sic] this as a source of spiritual or even moral inspiration.”

I’m not sure what to make of that comment or where to start my own commentary about it.  Very much could and probably should be said.  But I will be concise.  It is somewhat encouraging that he felt the Bible was at least useful “for historical reference”.  However, it seems Mr. Friedl has no concept of what the Bible has historically represented to the Christian world.  It is as though he is a complete stranger to it and to Christianity.  If so, what motivated him to read this Bible, or at least the “unnecessary kill-crazy parts”?

Which unnecessary kill-crazy parts did he read?  I suppose there are a lot to choose from.  Maybe he was referring to the unnecessarily kill-crazy part where the people demanded the crucifixion of Jesus.  That should certainly qualify as unnecessarily kill-crazy.  Why did the crowd insist upon Jesus’ death?  If one reads the four gospels it is clear to even a casual reader that an innocent man was being murdered by a mob.  Should the Gospels be removed because of this needless reporting of violence towards Jesus?

It seems Mr. Friedl believes we would be better off with a book that contained only non-violent, positive and uplifting words of encouragement.  At the very least we could remove those unnecessary crucifixion parts.  Why did the Gospel writers consider it necessary to record such distasteful acts?  But as it stands, our commentator from Prague says the ESV Bible cannot be recommended “as a source of spiritual or even moral inspiration.”  Thus his one star rating.

Speaking from the position that the Bible is inspired by God and is infallible and inerrant in its original autographs, Mr. Friedl’s comments sound utterly absurd.  It seems he has no knowledge of the fact that multitudes of Christians for nearly 2000 years have considered the Bible to be the very Word of God.  If we were to remove the unnecessary kill-crazy part about the death of Jesus Christ, and if the recording of His crucifixion is nothing more than an unfortunate historical account of the killing of an unfortunate victim by a mindless mob, then the Bible truly is just another book which we may edit as we please or discard entirely.  Score: One star.

According to Amazon, only 3 out 102 readers of Mr. Friedl’s review found it to be helpful.  That is some comfort.

For a wonderful message on the authority and reliability of the Bible, please watch John MacArthur's explanation of why we trust the scriptures.  Click HERE.

Prude - a person who affects or shows an excessively modest, prim, or proper attitude, esp. regarding sex. (1)

Let me give you a real world example of this word in use: “Oh Dad, don’t be such a prude.  All the girls dress this way!”

Prude is a very interesting word.  Its roots are French, from a word meaning “a worthy or respectable woman”.  “Prudence” (2) was a popular name among the English Puritans.  But the meanings of words evolve and change with time.  This word has changed so much that today being a prude is akin to being stuffy, narrow-minded, “straight-laced” and Puritanical. (Yet another word with a rather interesting history that belies its current usage in our culture.)

I raise the issue because of my prudish attitude toward a movie I saw last night.  Soul Surfer is a story based upon the true-life experiences of a Christian girl by the name of Bethany Hamilton.  At the age of thirteen she tragically lost her left arm in a shark attack.  The movie is a depiction of her struggle to understand why God would allow such a thing to happen to her, as well as her heroic return to her surf board and a professional surfing career.  The movie is one of a number of Christian-themed movies in recent years such as Fireproof and The Blind Side, another “true-story” Hollywood film.

My prudishness has flourished with age.  At the over-ripe old age of 55, my prudage is operating on all eight cylinders.  Maybe nine.  I thought it peaked when I had a teen-aged daughter in the house, but not so.  It is even worse now.

I live in a large university town where Modesty and Springtime never get acquainted.  The two seldom meet.  I understand some of the reason for their apparently irreconcilable differences.

For many decades young women in their very natural attempts to attract the attention of their male counterparts, have found it difficult if not impossible to purchase attractive springtime attire that doesn’t reveal more than it covers.  And by “cover” I mean covering loose enough to prevent someone from reading “In God We Trust” on a dime through the hip pocket.  Or any other pocket, for that matter.

As a result of this perpetual lack of sufficient springtime coverage, the principle young women have slowly but surely adopted is this: Revealing is Attractive.  It seems to have acquired the status of absolute truth.  The second principle has followed close behind: More Revealing is More Attractive.  The unavoidable principle number three (because Principles #1 and #2 are now in the Bill of Rights) is: Modest is Prudish.  It is common knowledge that there hardly exists a worse affliction upon fallen humanity than being a prude.  Leprosy may be slightly worse.  In its advanced stages.

I’ve never lived in Hawaii where Bethany Hamilton grew up.  I’ve never even visited.  The main reason I never have and never will make the trip to the fiftieth state is that large body of water between here and there.  I don’t even like medium-sized bodies of water.  When I was a kid, I nearly drowned during a vacation with Johnny Traylor at Myrtle Beach.  Johnny swam like Neptune.  I swam like the Titanic.  That harrowing experience taught me more than mere respect for the ocean.  It taught me fear.  I still have regularly reoccurring dreams of floods and drowning.

So you can understand why I just don’t hang out at the beach very much.  Or at the lake.  Or at the pool.  In fact, I never do.  And although I miss out on refreshing dips in the cement pond in the heat of the summer, my near death experience as a child in South Carolina served at least one good purpose: it has kept me away from large bodies of water with large numbers of scantilly clad women.

Many would say, “Oh Keith, you’re such a prude.”  Yeah, I know that.  But it’s more than that.  Even with one and a half feet in the grave, now that I’ve reached my twilight years and can see Dr. Alzheimer quickly approaching on the horizon, . . . even at the ancient age of 55, having personally witnessed the first day of creation, . . . even at this stage in the game, an attractive woman with more than a little skin exposed still poses a problem for me.  And I am not alone.

So what did I expect to see when I went to a “Christian” movie about a surfer girl from Hawaii?  What was I thinking?  Clearly, I wasn’t.  I will admit this much: Soul Surfer wasn’t nearly as provocative as it could have been.   I genuinely appreciated the obvious attempt to avoid the needless parading of bikini-clad women across the screen.  There surely could have been more girls with less coverage.  But even so, there were plenty.  After all, it was about surfing.  And it wasn’t about surfing in Victorian England or Puritan Massachusetts.

However, the film was advertised and promoted as a Christian-based or “inspirational” movie, whatever that means.  So my question is this: Is there a biblical standard for modesty which Christians should adhere to if they want to be pleasing to their Lord, or am I just a poster child for prudeness because I never visit Myrtle Beach?  Am I a prude or is every female on the planet over the age of 10 a total stranger to modesty (except for Muslim women whose husbands really know how to avoid this problem)?  Or, more to the point, is it possible to live as a Christian woman in our culture today with modesty and still be attractive?

Soul Surfer provoked my thinking about all of this.  Without being too graphic (because I am hopelessly prudish, you know), this Christian-influenced movie featured a lot of young women from every possible angle with very little clothing.  But to make matters worse, in one scene two young ladies are shopping for what used to be called “swimwear”.  When they find a one-piece suit hanging on the rack, one girl says it is cute, to which the other replies, “Yeah, if you’re 100!”  Once again, I realize this movie is about surfer girls in Hawaii.  No one ever walks around Hawaii with “winter wear” on.  Sweaters are rather scarce.  So, yes, I understand people living on islands in sub-tropical climates don’t wear a lot of wool.  Ever.  But I did not appreciate the one vestige of conscientiousness regarding modesty in this film being ridiculed.

But the fact that beachcombers don't wear a lot of clothing does not make the question illegitimate: Is there a biblical standard for modesty which all Christians should adhere to in order to be obedient to their Lord?  Regardless of where they live?  The answer is yes.

When the apostle Paul instructs the church at Corinth regarding the various giftings amongst the members of the church, he likens each person to a different part of the human body and he says:

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. (1 Corinthians 12:21-24a ESV)

For the sake of this blog, suffice it to say Paul believed we all possess unpresentable parts which are to be treated with greater modesty.  King David knew something about that.  It was the display, whether intentional or not, of Bathsheba’s unpresentable parts that led the “man after God’s own heart” to commit adultery and eventually murder.  That’s one of the big reasons why they are called unpresentable parts.  Men often think and do very bad things in such situations.

Again, Paul gives instruction to Timothy in how believers should conduct themselves in corporate worship:

8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. (1 Timothy 2:8-10 ESV)

Respectable apparel?  Proper?  It appears Paul is saying that how Christian women (i.e. women who profess godliness) dress has an effect upon others and their perception of her.  Being respectable and honorable is something to be desired, and one’s attire directly affects one’s respectability.  The opposite of respectable attire would be to dress in such a way as to provoke lust and disrespect.  Lustiness from your husband in the bedroom?  Well, yeah!  In a worship service from a brother in the Lord across the isle.  To quote Paul once again, “May it never be!”.

This brings me back to Soul Surfer.  Should a Christian movie provoke lustful thoughts in those who watch it?  The answer is obvious.  Did Soul Surfer provoke this kind of response in some people?  It is quite safe to say it did.  In an attempt to make a movie that would present Christians and Christianity in a non-prudish, positive light, the subject matter itself sabotaged many good intentions.  It presented a problem for prudes like me.

However, apart from the rampant immodesty, I otherwise actually liked the movie for the most part even though I cannot recommend it.  In spite of a very weak, nominally Christian message which amounted to little more than moralism (3), the acting was quite good amongst the primary actors.  Dennis Quaid and Helen Hunt who played Bethany’s parents are always superb.  AnnaSophia Robb (Bethany) was excellent.  It was a very moving story which brought me to tears more than once.

The struggles the Hamilton family faced are real.  Believers are not exempt from the dangers and pitfalls of this world.  Sharks attack Christians and non-Christians alike without discrimination.  But thankfully, as we’re supposed to see in this movie (albeit with great difficulty), the Christian has a Savior in the Lord Jesus.  Like a Shepherd, He ultimately leads us safely home through all our troubles.

Bethany Hamilton is an outstanding example of perseverance in the face of serious adversity.  May we all be encouraged by her to press on through all the heartbreaking, faith-building trials God sends our way.  And I pray the Lord might grant His people everywhere the discernment we need to live godly lives for Him, not only in the things we do for Him, but also in the way we conduct ourselves in such mundane matters as how we dress.

====================================

1. "prude." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. 19 Jul. 2011. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prude>.

2. "prudence." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 21 Jul. 2011. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prudence>.

3. Much of American Evangelicalism has been reduced to teaching Moralism instead of the Gospel.  Today, Christians are presented as good people who generally don’t do bad things and Jesus somehow makes their lives nice.  This is not the biblical Christian message.  Soul Surfer was a gospel-less movie.  The name of Jesus Christ was barely mentioned at all.  According to Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Surfer_(film)], the producers wanted to remove “Holy Bible” from the cover of the Bible Bethany’s father was reading as he sat in the hospital with her.  This is no surprise considering the secular movie companies that created this film wanted to avoid offending anyone in order to appeal to as large an audience as possible.  But what is truly troubling is when the Church takes the same stance as the unbelieving film makers by avoiding the Gospel message in order to avoid offending unbelievers.  When the Church becomes gospel-less, what reason do we have to exist at all?

The recent legalization of same-sex marriage in New York State is a game changer for the gay rights movement.  This provides gigantic momentum for other gay rights groups across the nation.  I suspect we will see California repeal Proposition 8 in the very near future.  Then the rest of the dominoes will begin to fall rather quickly.

It seems clear from the news reports that New York’s politicians were far more concerned with votes in this issue than with right and wrong.  No surprise there.  Unfortunately, seldom do politicians anywhere exercise such discernment.  Ever since Pontius Pilate, we’ve had politicians who were willing to sacrifice morality and moral people for the sake of political expediency.  Such is the life of politics and politicians.  That the NY Republicans would waffle on their previous “commitment” to defend traditional marriage was simply a matter of time.  I’ve lost the little hope I had in political promise-keepers.

What is more troubling is the social impact this legislation will have upon our nation.  Americans tend to believe that since something like abortion or no-fault divorce or gay marriage is legal, then it must also be moral.  “How can you say gay marriage is wrong if it’s legal?”  Since we’ve all voted on an issue and decided amongst the majority of us that the matter is now suddenly socially acceptable through the stroke of a governor’s pen, then who has the right to find fault with it?

I was reading the preface of an interesting book, A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been by Dr. Michael Brown.  In it he mentions the case of a Columbia University professor, David Epstein, who was arrested for a supposedly consensual three-year sexual relationship with his adult daughter.

“[H]is attorney noted, ‘It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home.  How is this so different?  We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.’”

I could not have asked that question better myself.  That is precisely the issue: How do we determine what is tolerated, acceptable, and moral, and what is intolerable, unacceptable, and immoral?  How do we know our laws are indeed moral?  What is the standard by which we make moral decisions?  Clearly, in American culture today, that standard is anything but the Bible.  The book then continues with this foreboding fact:

“Not surprisingly, some Columbia students asked why any sexual acts committed by consenting adults should be considered a crime.”

That is also a good question.  How do we decide if one sexual act is acceptable but another is not?  And if there is a line to be drawn, where is it drawn?  And who draws it?  The people, via referendum?  By an internet poll?  What about people living in non-democratic societies?  Who decides in those countries what is and is not acceptable behavior?  Who is to say that incest is unacceptable?  Who has the authority to say sex with an ocelot is taking things just a bit too far?  And why?

We’ve already determined, according to Epstein’s lawyer, the New York state legislature, Hollywood, and liberal church pulpits all across the land, that homosexuals doing whatever they want in their own homes is OK.  But the key here is that we the people have declared homosexuality OK.  Therefore it’s OK.  OK equals moral.  And what higher court could there be than the collective will of the people of the United States?

But aside from mere men determining what is righteous and what is sinful, we’ve also determined that the institution of marriage is now far broader in scope than it ever was before.  Marriage no longer means what it meant for 5000 years.  In centuries gone by, the word “marriage” implied a natural, permanent mating of two people of the opposite sex in such a manner that the two, in a very real sense, become one, by design.

For the sake of illustration, notice what happens in the inanimate world.  When machined parts or pieces of furniture are manufactured, or when a house is built, all the various elements are made in such a way as to be part of a larger assembly.  Individual parts are designed to be integrated into something larger than itself.  The parts are matched and mated in order to function together as a larger unit for a larger purpose.

That is what is implied in the term marriage.  Two, a man and a woman, become one in order to function as a unit.  I’m not merely talking about sexual activity.  This is about mating or matrimony: complimentary human beings, two sexes, that are obviously different, but when brought together in marriage are mated in such a way that they become a unit that is far “greater than the sum of the parts”.  When a man and a woman commit to one another in marriage, a true marriage includes love, respect, and among other things, the ability to procreate.  The two not only become one entity, but they also become the basis for the existence of the entire human race.  That is the much larger entity that is only made possible by means of genuine, real marriage.  Marriage is the exclusive privilege and blessing of oneness between a man and a woman.  The act of procreation is an undeniable element of genuine marriage.

Until now.  New York did not legalize civil unions among gay couples.  They did not say homosexuals may legally live together in “loving, committed relationships”.  They did not overturn "archaic" sodomy laws.  They legalized "gay marriage".  What this means is the act of marriage itself has fundamentally changed in the minds of millions.  We have decided to redefine marriage.  Now a man can marry another man and it is seen to be no different than a man marrying a woman.  Now, in a gay marriage, a homosexual couple has equal rights, equal privileges, equality in every way with old-fashioned traditional marriage.

Except for one pretty significant point: They cannot make a baby.  And if that is the case (and it is), then why do we call it gay marriage?  “Well, it’s just like marriage!”  No.  Not really.  This is not about equality because such equality is physically and biologically impossible.  Is it not obvious that we’re talking about two very, very different and unequal things?  In fact, “gay marriage” isn’t anything like real marriage.  Real marriage involves a man and a woman.  Gay marriage involves people of the same sex.  Are these two things not fundamentally unequal?

It’s like saying an Amish buggy and a Corvette are equally automobiles.  Or it’s like saying a paper airplane and the space shuttle are equally aircraft.  Or it’s like saying Tarzan’s Cheetah and King Kong are equally monkeys.  It’s like saying William Shakespeare and Gary Larsen are equally published authors.

Or it’s like saying there’s really no difference between a New York Republican and a New York Democrat.  But wait, . . . actually, it is becoming more and more difficult to see the difference there.  Both are rather spineless, both are committed to few if any moral principles, both are easily swayed by political expediency and popularity polls.

The political leader of Jerusalem, Pilate, condemned Jesus Christ, the only sinless man to ever walk the face of the earth, to be crucified like a common criminal, all because of the incessant shouts of an unthinking mob.  Then he washed his hands and said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood.” Well, you may think you’re innocent, Pilate.  But you will have to give an account for your actions before the Judge of all the earth.

And the politicians of this nation may think they are above reproach because they are simply carrying out “the will of the people”.  But they and all the rest of us must stand before the final Arbiter of justice and give an account for the things we’ve done in this life.  Jesus even went so far as to say,

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak (Matthew 12:36 ESV).

If that is the case, what will become of those who for decades have incessantly shouted from the rooftops for the legalization of that which God has repeatedly stated in Scripture is sinful?  And what will become of those who by their legislation have said to America and the world, "Not to worry.  Your sin is now declared to be righteous"?

"A thousand errors may live in peace with one another, but truth is a hammer that breaks them all in pieces."  - C.H. Spurgeon

"Savage, in his September 21 Savage Love podcast, said he felt the same way [in high school as the kid who hung himself] and decided to address the problem. The project is a YouTube channel where LGBT adults can upload videos targeted at gay teens to let them know their future can still be bright.  The first video . . . features Savage and his husband talking about growing up as gay teenagers." 1

I am very saddened for this young man who felt his only escape from the torturous taunting of ruthless teenagers was to hang himself and commit suicide.  Being a teenager is tough even amongst straight kids.  But I can only imagine the hopelessness this kid must have felt when he believed he was gay and his peers bullied him to the point of death at the end of a rope.

The purpose of It Gets Better is to encourage young people in the LGBT camp to persevere through their times of suffering for their sexual promiscuity.  As they get older, presumably their coping skills will grow, they will escape from high school and find it easier as an adult to cope in a world that is often hostile towards non-straight people, if I can say it that way.  In the Google commercial, even Sheriff Woody from Toy Story fame gives a word of comfort and encouragement to the gay kids who are victims of bullying.

Bullying is evil.  It is wrong.  It sinful to hate another person and beat them up or abuse them physically simply because they are different and they don't conform to the "in crowd", whatever that crowd might be.  And while we might be able to sympathize with a teen who believes the only way out of his suffering is to hang himself, it must be said that suicide is also a sin.  As is homosexuality.  In fact, there is really nothing good about this scenario at all.  The bullying, the suicide, and the LGBT lifestyle are all sinful.  As is thievery, gluttony, adultery and being disobedient to one's parents.  The list of what qualifies as sin is a long one.  All human beings are experts in the realm of sin.  We are all born with a love for sin.

But what is particularly discouraging in this pro-gay campaign which Google has joined in a very big way is the idea that the gay life gets better as one perseveres through the tough times of teenage-dom.  One of the commentators in the brief Google clip I have now seen several times is an 80 year old man who says with a laugh, "It gets better with age!"

I don't want to ask too many questions or research this too thoroughly because quite frankly, the entire subject is (to put it very mildly) extremely distasteful.  Sodomy is repulsive.  And I find the open promotion and encouragement of it to be even more repulsive.  I'm not going to beat anyone up over it.  But I also don't want to be psychologically bullied into an acceptance of something I consider reprehensible, something the Scriptures describe as abominable to God.

What may be most troubling in all of this (even though this young man's hanging is haunting) is the encouragement to persevere against feelings of guilt for genuinely sinful behavior.  I do not intend to perform hours of research plumbing the depths of homosexual behavior, but a very cursory search turned up this statement:

"For a number of years, researchers have known that one-third of all teenagers who commit suicide are gay. In one sense, this statistic is incredibly shocking because, according to the Kinsey Report, gay teens only comprise one-tenth of the teen population. This means that they are 300 percent more likely to kill themselves than heterosexual youth." 2

This article goes on to speak of social rejection and low self-esteem among gays.  But I strongly suspect there are many who commit suicide, not because of low self-esteem, but because of a guilty conscience over their sexual sins.  It Gets Better would have young people ignore their consciences and press on in their exploration of the gay and lesbian culture because "it gets better."  In other words, the conscience becomes more and more insensitive until eventually you are able to ignore it altogether and live happily ever after.  Otherwise, you might kill yourself.

Sin produces feelings of guilt because sin violates the law of God.  We feel guilty because we are guilty.  And all of us have the amazing capacity to ignore our consciences, rationalize our most reprehensible actions, and justify our sinfulness.  But sodomy produces some of the highest levels of guilt in people because it not only violates the law of God, it even violates the laws of nature.  It is blatantly and obviously unnatural.  As one person bluntly put it, "The parts don't fit."

[26] . . . God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27 ESV)

It Gets Better wants young people to plow through the tough years of high school so they can live and thrive as adults consumed with passion that is contrary to nature. They also make revenge part of the motivation for surviving the abuse of others.  Once graduation takes place and high school is behind them, they can go on and live "the good life" in order to show their former enemies that their bigoted homophobia has done nothing to keep homosexual people from being successful and happy.

I have no sympathy for anyone who hates and violently abuses people in the homosexual community.  While sodomy may be the sin such people love to hate, hate is the sin these people love to love.  Both parties, homosexuals and those who hate them, are guilty before God and He will be the Judge of all.  But my greatest fear is how our culture is running headlong into an acceptance of the very lifestyle that brought fire and brimstone (yes, I actually said brimstone, more commonly known as sulphur) from the sky and left two entire cities of homosexual people in ashes:

[13] Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the LORD.  (Genesis 13:13 ESV)

[20] Then the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, [21] I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.”

[22] So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. [23] Then Abraham drew near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? [24] Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? [25] Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” [26] And the LORD said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”  (Genesis 18:20-26 ESV)

[32] Then he said, “Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten [righteous people] I will not destroy it.”  (Genesis 18:32 ESV)

[19:1] The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth [2] and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” [3] But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

[4] But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. [5] And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” [6] Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, [7] and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. [8] Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” [9] But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! [i.e. "Lot is a self-righteous bigot because he called us wicked!"]  Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down.  (Genesis 19:1-9 ESV)

24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven. 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 28 And he [Abraham] looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the valley, and he looked and, behold, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace. (Genesis 19:24-25, 28 ESV)

Lot was not a bigoted, homophobic hypocrite.  He calls the men of Sodom "my brothers".  Even so, he had his own very serious issues: He offered his virgin daughters to the wicked men at his door.  Not only that, but he had to be practically dragged out of Sodom by an angel.  Even so, Peter says God rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked . . .. (2 Peter 2:7 ESV)  Lot was considered righteous by God and the evidence of his righteousness was his vexation over the sinful homosexual behavior of his "brothers".

Anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda is immediately accused by the gay community of being intolerant, bigoted, homophobic, self-righteous, condemning, and downright shameful.  [“This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! "]  Those who have learned to disregard their own consciences consider the conscientious objectors of sodomy to be disgraceful.  Sometimes they are.  Google, YouTube, and countless other businesses, organizations, and even the San Francisco Giants baseball team are constant in their propaganda campaigns to make sexual behavior that is entirely unacceptable to God (obviously, according to the passages above), normal.  Natural.  Common.  They want to turn our nation into Sodom and they are meeting with unbelievable success at every turn.

Please forgive me if I feel a bit nervous about that.  And don't hate me because I think the Bible is a more weighty authority on this subject than Dan Savage and his husband, and Sheriff Woody, and the Giants.  It didn't get better for Sodom and Gomorrah.

============================

1. http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/21/Dan_Savage_Aims_to_Save_LGBT_Kids/

2. http://www.healthyplace.com/gender/gay-is-ok/stopping-gay-teen-suicide/menu-id-1420/

It is difficult to know how to respond appropriately to this story without becoming insulting.  But sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.  These folks have a super-inflated view of personal human rights.  In spite of their child's observable, physical, anatomical equipment, they truly believe it is actually possible for a person to choose his/her/its own sex.  It is the child's decision, after the fact, whether it will be male or female and, apparently, the parents don't want to unduly influence that decision regardless of what is actually the fact of the matter: their child IS male or female, one or the other.  That is the reality of situation regardless of how they or their child may feel about the matter.

How did baby Storm come into this world in the first place?  By means of a Mommy or a Daddy?  Mom and Dad obviously didn't have any gender identity issues. They got the job done and after nine months of gestation, Mom (the female), gave birth.  Believe it or not, I know this to be true without even meeting this couple.

Maybe I am the one who is brain power challenged here.  I just can't get my totally, unmistakably manly cranium around this.  What is the motivation behind their thinking?  Are they attempting to avoid some kind of future sexual identity trauma for their baby?  Really?  It appears they are well on their way to the exact opposite: miserable, monumental failure.  Already they have been wildly successful in making their desired avoidance of sexual identity angst for their little girl/boy Storm into an international news story.

But what is really going on, far beyond the protection of Baby Storm's fragile sexual persona, is yet another not-so-subtle attack on traditional gender roles and the "evil" of what amounts to a kind of "gender profiling".  We see here a retaliation against society's imposition of gender upon children who would be infinitely better off, apparently, if we just left them alone to decide if they prefer pink dresses and Barbies, or khaki cargo pants and G.I. Joes.

Some people simply loathe all forms of authority.  They despise it so much they even rebel against the laws of nature.  I understand there are a very few cases in which children are born with both male and female genitalia.  Very, very few.  That is not the case in this family.  They are not attempting to deal with a real crisis.  Rather, these folks are just rebellious against the natural order of things.  Or maybe they are attention hounds who want to get in the spotlight for a few moments any way they can.  Or some combination of the above.

Are these parents, as I have suggested in the title of this blog, truly brainless?  Are they so dumb they simply refuse to recognize what is obvious to approximately 99.9999% of the rest of the world's population?  Or is it deeper than that?

In Romans 1, verses 26 & 27, we read of homosexuals who "deny natural relations for those that are contrary to nature".  Isn't it strange how such a vast segment of our present North American population is so greatly concerned with the consumption of "all natural", "organically grown" foods with "no artificial additives or preservatives" in anything, but when it comes to gender roles and sexual orientation, un-natural is the new norm and whatever is natural (i.e. God-given) is more and more unacceptable.

These folks aren't brainless.  I suspect they are relatively well-educated and well-read.  But they are rebellious.  What they are pursuing in an attempt to be "open-minded" and "free-spirited" and independent of superimposed sexual norms from the culture is ultimately hatred toward God.  By their unrighteousness, and in rebellion against God's good design of our race as male and female, they attempt to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18).

So this is not simple stupidity.  It is a rejection of the created order and the Creator.  It is as though Satan were whispering in Adam and Eve's ears, "Did God really make you two male and female?  Surely not.  In spite of how you're obviously quite different, you know you have a choice in this matter!  You have the freedom, . . . no, the RIGHT! to choose whether you want to be a man or a woman.  Who does God think He is, trying to impose sexual identity upon you?  God?"

[24] “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, [25] and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. [26] And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. [27] And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
[28] “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. [29] So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. [30] Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. [31] Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
[32] “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. [33] Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come. (Mark 13:24-33 ESV)

Depending upon your theological upbringing, there are numerous ways Christians understand this brief passage of Scripture.  Some emphasize certain particulars while neglecting the whole of the text.  Some teach that these verses refer to the Rapture of the Church (but not Israel).  Others would say this refers to Israel (but not the Church).  Still others would make the point that this takes place at the beginning of a seven-year tribulation period, so it isn't talking about "The End" at all.  But others point out the phrase "after that tribulation" and say this really is all about "The End".  And then there are those who don't take any of this literally and simply "spiritualize" it all into doctrinal oblivion.

This entire passage hangs together as a unit.  It is dishonest, at best, to rip parts of phrases from the whole and force the whole to be all about one or two of the individual parts.  Responsible and honest and biblically respectable exegesis is always laborious, regardless of the particular text.

But when the text flat out tells you nobody but the Father knows precisely when all of this will take place, that most definitely includes Harold Camping.  So, if I'm reading this right, for those of you who aren't already prepared for Judgment Day, you probably don't need to be too worried about this Saturday.

But notice, I did say "probably".  I'm absolutely confident Saturday isn't the final global blow up.  But I'm not confident that you and I don't need to be ready to meet our Maker this Saturday.  Regardless of Mr. Camping's delusional prognostications, lots of people will die this Saturday.  And next Saturday.  And every Saturday.  For that matter, lots of people die every day.  You and I both may be dead BEFORE this Saturday.

There is no doubt Family Radio's global promotion of repentance prior to May 21, 2011 will have one huge, lasting effect: Mockery.  Many faithful followers of Camping will stop following and start apostatizing from anything remotely related to the Bible and Christianity.  For years, Camping has been instructing his followers to abandon the "organized church" which is now "apostate" and follow him.  But when they realize Sunday the 22nd of May has come, Saturday's non-event didn't vaporize large segments of the population of the world, and Harold Camping really is a liar and a false prophet, they will toss in the proverbial religious towel entirely.  It is neither fun nor spiritually profitable to be deceived and found to be such a fool regarding something as serious as one's eternal destiny.

One thing is certain: Eventually (except for those believers who are alive at the return of Christ, whenever that happens), we all die.  And none of us knows when that will happen.  But when it does, then comes judgment:

". . . [I]t is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment . . . ." (Hebrews 9:27 ESV)

Not a particularly pleasing prospect for anyone who takes these words and the holiness of God seriously.  But thankfully, there's more to the passage than that.  Notice what else it says!

[24] For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. [25] Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, [26] for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, [28] so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:24-28 ESV)

If we belong to Christ, the end of the world could happen on Friday, or Thursday, or tonight while we sleep.  It doesn't matter at all.  Because when He comes again, He comes to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him. He comes to save us from the judgment of God.

But, for those who aren't particularly concerned about who Christ is or when He is returning, and especially for those who laugh loudest over Camping's sadly distorted and deceitful teachings about the end of the world, the Scriptures have this to say:

[4] "They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” [5] For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, [6] and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. [7] But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. . . . [10] But the day of the Lord will come . . . ." (2 Peter 3:4-7, 10a ESV)

The day of the Lord isn't coming this Saturday.  But it will come.

For the multitudes who are not "eagerly waiting for Him", who are unconcerned about God or Jesus or their own deaths or what happens beyond the next Twitter, who ridicule all the fear-mongering dooming and glooming that's going on; For all those who die in the meantime, before "The End" arrives, . . . their own personal, private, solo end of the world scenario will be realized.  Each one of us faces a real end of our own world.  On that day, those who have mocked won't be laughing at Harold Camping or anyone else.

Someone should investigate why an earthquake, a tsunami, and a nuclear catastrophe all occurred simultaneously in Japan.  It sounds like a conspiracy.  A 9.0 earthquake is unbelievably destructive.  Then add a tidal wave and several leaky nuclear reactor cores and one is tempted to wonder if Someone is angry.

Many of our woes can be blamed on evil people seeking power and money.  Much can be blamed on ineptitude or greed or nothing more complicated than sheer hatred.  But who is responsible for a tsunami?  How does one investigate the acts of “Mother Nature”?  Unless we’re willing to say there is no God, and I for one am not, then the prime suspect in this is the Almighty.

A Japanese official in the UK was asked to respond to the devastation of the tsunami.  He said he was “humbled and in awe of the power of Nature.”  But it is not mere impersonal “Nature” that should humble and awe us.  Ultimately, it is the power of God that has either caused or allowed every natural calamity that has ever happened.  The Scriptures tell us, “The earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains; the world, and those who dwell in it.” (Psalm 24:1).

Many people will say, ”A good God would never do such things.”  Then what kind of entity is responsible?  An evil god?  Satan, or someone like him?  A good God who, unfortunately is occasionally asleep at the wheel?  Or some combination of the above?  Or no entity at all?  We need an investigation to get to the bottom of this.

The Bible says because of the pervasive sinfulness of mankind, God destroyed the entire world on one occasion except for eight people.  He torched the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, with only three survivors.  According to Scripture, it was God who killed all the firstborn of the people of Egypt during the Exodus.  God caused the fortified walls of Jericho to collapse and only a prostitute and her family were spared.  In Isaiah, the Messiah returns from Edom with blood spattered on His garments from having trampled His enemies in His anger.  In Revelation 20 we read of the future annihilation of all the armies of the world in a single event, by God.  All this because of sin.

Because of sin, we live in a suffering, fallen, painful and deadly world.  For that reason, we should be humbled and in awe of the power and wrath of a holy God.  Thankfully, because of love, there is an out.  Jesus Christ was sent into the world for humble and repentant sinners so they might call upon Him, receive mercy, and be saved from the wrath yet to come.

Power and Authority have faced off in Madison.  In our country, governmental authority comes from our laws.  That is the nature of a republic.  Ultimately, authority is more potent than mere strength.  For example, a policeman can stop a speeding dump truck by simply holding his hand in the air and motioning to the driver to stop.  The driver certainly has plenty of power to run over the policeman, but the authority granted by the government to the policeman commands a 20-ton truck to stop and it obeys.

Labor unions have a lot of power which has been granted, encouraged, and sustained by collaborating state and federal governments.  That power has been displayed in many ways over many years, and sometimes it has been quite ugly.  (Of course, the same can be said regarding the abuse of governmental authority.)  Riots and murders have occasionally been the by-product of union power gone bad.  And now, one of the fruits of the power of unions in Wisconsin is their major contribution to the bankruptcy of the entire state.  They have demanded high wages and retirement benefits and health benefits for so many years that they have virtually extorted those benefits from the state's tax payers even to the point of robbing the very last penny from the state coffers. 

At least, that appears to be the issue.  Goliath demands more and more sustenance, while David states repeatedly, "The cupboard is bare."  But what makes matters worse is Goliath refuses to accept the fact that he has emptied his own storehouse.  He wants what he wants, and he's big and powerful enough to be a real threat.  So Goliath lumbers over to Madison, shouting insults at David 24/7, demanding his "basic human right" to continue to take money from an empty piggy bank.  But David holds his ground against the behemoth because he is the authority.

It has been reported numerous times in the media that Wisconsin was the first state to allow collective bargaining for government workers beginning in 1959. I realize this sounds obvious, but states and nations have the authority to grant their citizens certain rights.  This is where all our rights come from, humanly speaking.  On the federal level, American citizens enjoy the rights granted to them by Congress as they have been delineated in the Bill of Rights.  Governments grant rights.

Since this is true, then the reverse is also true: Governments can retract the rights they have granted.  This is because governments are given the authority to grant or withhold rights by a yet greater authority than themselves: God.

[13:1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. [6] For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. [7] Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13:1-7 ESV)

Governments and their authority are ultimately from God.  Consequently, Paul begins this passage by saying all people individually (but Christians in particular) are responsible to God to be subject to the governing authorities.  However, what the labor unions are doing in Wisconsin is organizing large groups of people, tens of thousands, both from within and outside the state, to collectively rebel against the governing authorities.  They are, as a group, not simply in rebellion against the governor or the Republicans or the laws of the state, but ultimately they are in rebellion against God Himself.  

Everyone realizes there are times when men should rebel en masse against evil governmental regimes such as the Nazis under Adolph Hitler and others, as we have seen in recent days in the Middle East, when the government ceases to be God's servant for the good of the people.  The great difficulty comes in knowing when such a rebellion is justified.  

But in spite of union caricatures of Governor Walker as being equal to Hitler, such is just not the case.  In the minds of union workers nearly everywhere, the fundamental doctrine that has been inculcated over many decades is the belief that personal rights (and the more, the better) are inherently good and men have a right to rebel against authority in order to secure their demands.  This is because, in their minds, governmental authority (or any authority, such as the authority of one's boss at the plant or one's parents at home) is inherently oppressive and evil.  It seems they would prefer anarchy over authority, if the authority refuses to honor their state-granted "inalienable human rights".  Certain teenagers come to mind.

As Christians, we are sternly warned throughout the Scriptures of one of the greatest enemies of God's people: false teachers.  The most common caricature of them is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.  The books of 2 Peter and Jude have nothing but very bad things to say about them.  On one occasion, we are told the blackest darkness of Hell is reserved for them. Among the many characteristics of false teachers we read of in the Bible, one that is quite prominent is their hatred for authority: 

Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. (Jude 1:8 ESV)   

. . . [T]he Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 

 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. (2 Peter 2:9-10 ESV)

It is rather frightening to think that multitudes of protesters at the capital in Wisconsin have hatred of authority in common with some of the greatest enemies of God and His people.

When the behemoth Goliath went out to slay the insignificant pipsqueak David, he had no idea he was going into battle against someone who had the authority of God Almighty behind him.  We all realize that just like David in his own personal imperfections and weaknesses, even the best governments are flawed and are capable of great evil.  Nevertheless, there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 

Goliath lost the battle with David because he unwittingly went up against Omnipotence.  Modern day unions seem to have rebellion against authority as their mission in order to indulge their lust and greed for more and more of other people's money.  Once the unions were granted their "inalienable" right to collectively bargain for seemingly endless tax payer funding by the government back in 1959, as we are seeing very clearly today in Wisconsin, it is no easy task to rescind that right even when fiscal circumstances demand it.  Goliath has gotten used to getting whatever he wants and bullying anyone who would oppose him.  But now, because of his absolute faith in his own strength, in his blindness he may be trying to bully God.  That could eventually result in a very, very bad day for the unions if they do not quickly learn that submission to authority is the wiser move. 

My brother, Larry, asked me to participate in the funeral service in Irmo, SC.  I agreed, with a certain amount of fear and trembling.  No doubt I would be addressing a much larger crowd than I’m used to.  Most gatherings that meet the definition of “crowd” are larger than I’m accustomed to.  There were approximately 250 people gathered to pay their respects, and not a few were standing in the back of the church.  I was nervous and emotional, a bad combination when you’re the main speaker.  

Larry and Sandra had a favorite song from their high school years back in the sixties which Larry asked to be played during the service: I Only Have Eyes For You.  That sent me over the edge.  Thinking about their love for one another, their 40-ish years of marriage, and the fact that he would never see her in this life again, moved me to tears rather quickly.   

After a couple of false starts, I was finally able to speak.  Here is an excerpt from my introduction:

Back in November, our extended family gathered to celebrate my mother’s birthday.  We all surprised her by showing up for church and sitting with her.  After the service, we all took my Mom and Dad out for dinner.  

At that dinner, I sat beside Sandra.  It was the first time I had seen her since long before her transplant surgery, but I had been following her progress from a distance through email and phone calls with Larry.  I was quite pleased to sit with her and see how well she was doing.  At one point, I leaned over and with some hesitation, I said to her, 

“I don’t want to upset you at all, but I do want to tell you how glad I am to be here celebrating Momma’s birthday.  I am very happy that the Lord has done such a wonderful work in you.”  She and I both wept, I gave her a hug, and she expressed her gratitude to God for His kindness to her.  I said, “I am very glad I didn’t have to come here for a funeral.”

It is common for us to say, “You never know what a day may bring.”  Sandra’s quick decline from what so many thought was a miraculously successful recovery from liver transplant surgery, caught everyone by surprise.  We thought she was out of the proverbial woods.  Everyone rejoiced over her new hope for many more years with her family and her three precious grandsons.  But it was not to be.

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”—  yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.  Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.”  As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.  So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.  (James 4:13-17 ESV)

For us to make plans and have expectations of future exploits is quite normal.  But to do so while neglecting the fact that God reigns over our days and has numbered them all, is boastful arrogance.  I'm not suggesting that was the case with my brother and his wife.  Actually, I'm certain that was not the case.  But many people completely disregard the reality that God is the one who rules over our lives, not us.

Not acknowledging God’s sovereign hand over my life is sin.  That is what James is saying here.  For me to say, “I will do this and that, and I will go here and there, etc.” without a conscious recognition that my plans and purposes and will are always subject to God’s will, smacks of intolerable pride.  And every once in a while, we are rudely awakened to the reality that God’s will trumps ours by the unexpected death of someone we love.

In years gone by, it was common practice among many Christians to use the abbreviation “D.V.” in correspondence, books, or anything that spoke of possible future events.  My good friend, Rev. Carl Derk, introduced me to this in an email he sent me several years ago.  I don't think I can find that email, so here is a quote from Arthur Pink’s Studies in the Scriptures for December of 1948 as an example:

“So many have written to tell of the help and blessing received from the “Prayers of the Apostles” articles that we have decided to prolong them throughout 1949, D.V.” 1

“D.V.” stands for the two Latin words, “Deo volente,” meaning “God willing.”  We may want to consider reviving the use of this handy little shortcut.  These two letters indicate a humble willingness to recognize God’s sovereignty over our lives, and our submission to His will over our own.  It is an acknowledgement that we truly don’t know what tomorrow or the next hour or the next year may bring.  

I had no intention of performing Sandra’s funeral service last weekend.  But obviously, I am not in charge of my own life.  To many people, that sounds like a fearful thing.  People talk about the danger of losing control over their lives, but no one controls their own life.  Everyone is subject to forces and influences outside themselves.  Everything is ultimately subject to the will of God.  The Christian would have it no other way.  

“Although the sovereignty of God is universal and absolute, it is not the sovereignty of blind power. It is coupled with infinite wisdom, holiness and love.  And this doctrine, when properly understood, is a most comforting and reassuring one.  Who would not prefer to have his affairs in the hands of a God of infinite power, wisdom, holiness and love, rather than to have them left to fate, or chance, or irrevocable natural law, or to short-sighted and perverted self?  Those who reject God's sovereignty should consider what alternatives they have left.” 2

What other options do we have, if God is not sovereign over the days of our lives?  Who else would we want to be in charge of the circumstances in which we find ourselves?  “Short-sighted and perverted self”?  

While Larry and Sandra and everyone else who knew her, were all convinced the Lord had granted her deliverance from certain death by means of a liver transplant, and like King Hezekiah (2Kings 20), she had been granted many more years of life, it was not to be.  The Sovereign God over all things determined she would live from February 5, 1949 until the morning of January 26, 2011.  This was “according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11 ESV).  All things.  Every life and every death.  And we would have it no other way.

So, Lord willing, I intend to spend the rest of this week preparing for this Sunday’s message from Isaiah 58 and 59.  Of course, that is subject to change.  Because I’m not in charge of my own life.  I really don’t know what tomorrow may bring.  But I do know it is a wise and powerful and loving God who will take me through tomorrow and all my days as He deems best.  And that is fine with me.

Larry, may the Lord bless you in the days ahead as you learn to live without Sandra.  May He grant you the grace to sustain you in your loneliness, and may He teach you wondrous things about Himself, and about yourself, that you would not know any other way.

"Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother.” 1

The Anti-Defamation League on Tuesday called Bentley's remarks shocking.  "His comments are not only offensive, but also raise serious questions as to whether non-Christians can expect to receive equal treatment during his tenure as governor," said Bill Nigut, the ADL's regional director. 2

"Does it mean that those who according to him are not saved are less important than those who are saved?  Does he want those of us who do not belong to the Christian faith to adopt his faith?  That should be toned down.  That's not what we need.  If he means that, I hope he changes it.  We don't want evangelical politicians.  They can be whatever in their private life." 3

“It’s enough to look at the bombing at a Coptic church in Alexandria, Egypt, on New Year’s Day that left 23 dead, or the brutal siege on St. George Chaldean Church, a Catholic church in Baghdad that killed more than 50.” 4

From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.  Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (2 Corinthians 5:16-17 ESV)

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28 ESV)

So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”  Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. (John 10:24-26 ESV)

The day is no longer fast approaching, it has arrived.  Christians are now faced with open hostility for our necessary biblical belief that there is but one means of salvation: through the life, sacrificial and substitutionary death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Jesus said He gave His life for His sheep.  He did not give His life for the goats.  On that great and final day, He will separate one from the other, as a shepherd separates the sheep (Christians) from the goats (non-Christians).  The sheep will enter into their heavenly inheritance.  The goats will join the Devil and his angels in the lake of fire.  And that’s it.  Two distinct groups of people.  (See Matthew 25:31-46).

Undoubtedly, there will be many in hell whose self-righteous sensitivities will be eternally offended because Jesus excluded them from His holy and blissful Heaven even while they continue in unrepentant rebellion against Him.  But that is the truth of the matter, and this is what biblical Christians believe.  There are those who belong to the brotherhood of faith in Christ, and then there is everyone else.  Why is that offensive to people who want no part with Christ, or Christians, or Christianity anyway?

If you’re not part of this most blessed brotherhood already, don’t you want a Savior?  Because it’s not so much about the brotherhood, but about Christ.  The invitation is given, much like Governor Bentley put it.  If you aren’t already a brother or a sister, we invite you to come and join us.  Repent of your sins, trust in the Lord Jesus as your only hope of salvation, and join us in our journey to glory.  We’d be delighted to have you in our family!  But don’t be offended if we actually recognize the fact that you want no part with Christ or us.

So, for those of you who are desperately trying to retain and/or reclaim the "Reason for the Season" out there in the culture, I'd encourage you to give up that fight.  It is a waste of time and energy and sometimes money.  Here's my suggestion: Cut the apron strings and let Christmas go.  Let the world have it.  I am confident you will not miss it.

Here's why I say that: Suppose you and I were to go out on the street in any sizable town in America and we began asking "the man on the street" if he is celebrating Christmas this year.  For the sake of simplicity, we could target people carrying wrapped packages or wearing a ridiculous red Santa Claus ski hat with a fuzzy white ball at the end of it.  That would help weed out the politically correct Christ-o-phobes who can't bring themselves to use the word "Christmas" for fear of offending an atheist or a Rastafarian somewhere.

Then we could ask our victims to explain their celebration of the Christmas season.  "Exactly what is it that you celebrate at Christmas?"  Undoubtedly, we would get answers that involve everything from wishing for peace on earth to observing good will toward men by buying presents and drinking and eating a bit too much.  Surely some would say, "It's all about family!"  I heard that one today.  Others of a more biblical persuasion would tell us it is the birthday of Jesus.

In other words, even among those brave souls who actually use "Christmas" terminology or who claim to be Evangelical Christians, very many would have a weak grasp on just how Christmas ought to be celebrated.  Some of the more pious will incorporate a church service and listening to Christmas carols into their celebrations.  But those things would be incorporated into Christmas.  They would not be the centerpieces of a Christmas celebration.  Christmas is seldom PRIMARILY about Christ.  Jesus has to be incorporated into Christmas somewhere under the Christmas tree among the Christmas presents.

So we need to stop trying to incorporate Jesus into something that is inherently non-Christian in spite of the fact it is still referred to by many as Christmas.  The tree isn't a Christian tree, the purchase of presents isn't (usually) a Christian activity, and the Christian songs sung at Christmas are always forced to compete with Bing Crosby and Elvis.

So here's a novel idea: Let's start our celebration all over.  We'll call it Incarnation Day.  (Not to be confused with re-incarnation.)  Incarnation Day is the day when Christians celebrate the coming of Christ into the world, when the Word became flesh, when Immanuel (literally "God with us") was born.

Trees and presents and Santa Claus and yule logs and reindeer and Elvis and Frosty and the Grinch and bad fruit cake and last-minute sales of your favorite stocking stuffers are all about Christmas.  Let it go.  Just let it go.  Or at the very least, explain to your children that none of that stuff has anything to do with God or Jesus or the Bible.  If you want to continue to pretend with your children that there is a nearly omniscient being that lives at the North Pole and visits all the children in the world (or at least the good children) once a year on the night of the 25th of December with presents to reward them for their good behavior, then just go ahead tell them it's pretend.  It's all "make believe".  And that's fine!  They will be just as happy to hear that, they will be just as happy to get all the booty, and you won't need to lie about it any more.  :-)

But let's stop confusing all of that with the second person of the Trinity entering the world by means of a virgin to save His people from their sins.  How could we possibly confuse those two things?  Why would Christians bother continuing to pretend that Christmas is about the Incarnation?  Let's go ahead and separate the two things.  That is Christmas, this is the Incarnation.  Christians celebrate the Incarnation of the Christ child.  If we were to do that, the fantasy could remain fantasy and be understood as such, and the reality of Christ could be presented as the truth that it is.

Wouldn't our children be better off?  OK, here's Santa Claus over here.  Then there's Jesus over here.  They are not the same.  One is fake, the other is very, very real.  But the real is infinitely more fantastic than the fake ever was!  What wondrous things we should draw our children's attention to!  Angels and shepherds and kings and wise men and a virgin and her husband and a Savior.  A baby is God.  A woman has a child because God made her pregnant.  A king was so jealous of the baby that he tried to kill him.  And on and on and on it goes.  But it's all real!  It's all true!  And Jesus came into the world as a baby to eventually go to the cross to save all who believe in Him from their sins.

What greater gift could we give our children than the truth of the Gospel at Christmas, aka Incarnation Day?

Wednesday was her day to close up shop, lock the doors, and turn out the lights.  She never got that far in her duties that day.  After she had seen the last octogenarian out the door, she began her end-of-day routine.  But the doors were never locked, the lights were not turned off, and Peggy never left the building.  Thus the phone call Thursday morning.

Peggy's boss, co-worker and friend, Gail, arrived Thursday morning at 7:30 and found Peggy on the floor.  She had had a massive stroke the day before and had been lying there for nearly 15 hours.  Emergency services were called, Peggy was rushed to the hospital, but the damage was done.  While the doctors worked valiantly to retrieve her from Death, it was not to be.  Our kind-hearted friend departed this life yesterday morning.  She was 58 years old.

I've only known Peggy for a few years.  For reasons I won't delve into, she said on more than one occasion that she and my wife were "unlikely friends".  They were such good friends that when a job opening became available at the Center, she encouraged Sharon to apply for it.  Consequently, they worked side by side helping their elderly friends for six months and thoroughly enjoyed it.  They also made frequent trips over the mountain to shop in the Amish and Mennonite stores in Belleville and to have lunch together.  I was never invited on these girly excursions so I haven't been in on their conversations.  But Sharon tells me she and Peggy never spent time together without the conversation eventually turning to spiritual things.  Peggy was always happy and eager to talk with Sharon or anyone else about her God and her Savior.  

During the past week, Peggy was in our home.  Her visits here were a common occurrence.  She might join us for our Sunday night Bible Study, or our Thursday night prayer meeting, or she might just stop by for a social visit (often right around supper time).  But Peggy regularly spent time at our house, we enjoyed her company, and it is evident she enjoyed ours as well.  She and Sharon were best friends.

Wednesday, she was caring for needy people.  Saturday, she was pronounced brain dead.  How does such a thing happen?  She was just here a few days ago!  How is it possible she is gone?  She was only 58 years old.  But now our sister and good friend has departed to Paradise.

Sometimes, I tell people I prefer funerals over weddings.  There is a very logical reason for this.  If I perform a wedding, I feel a great burden of responsibility for the couple being married.  I worry about whether their marriage will last, whether they will persevere in their love for one another, or if they will succumb to the curse of selfishness and fail because of "irreconcilable differences" in a few years.  I feel responsible for their future marital success.

But I have none of those worries at a funeral.  The deceased is just that.  There's nothing to be done for them now, no need to worry about the success or failure of their future.  That future has already been decided and my only responsibility is to minister to the family in their loss and grief.

However, I'd really prefer not to be performing Peggy's funeral in a few days.  I'd much prefer to have her at our dining room table, talking quietly with Sharon about whatever they talked about, and it usually involved something biblical.  In 18 years of ministry, this is the first time someone under my pastoral care has died.  And there was no warning.  No time to talk with her about her own death, no time to pray with her and reassure her one last time about the certainty of eternal life in Christ.  No time to weep with her or to hug her with a proper, tearful good-bye.  She was here, now she's gone.  We won't be having supper together this week.  She and Sharon won't enjoy making beaded bracelets for each other and exclaiming over them together any more.  And I won't hear her speak of how wonderful the Lord Jesus is because He has answered her prayers yet again.  I'm really going to miss my dear sister Peg.

Tonight, I canceled our Sunday evening Bible discussion.  It has been a couple of long, emotional days, and neither Sharon nor I was in the mood to "entertain" our good friends around our table, especially since one of the chairs would not have Peggy in it.  Instead, I listened to a sermon by Pastor Andrew Quigley of Airdrie Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland.  I had never heard of him before, and in the kind providence of God I just "stumbled" upon his message.  The title of his sermon was Coping With Death  (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1280791810).  Quite timely, and quite helpful for me.  I'd strongly encourage you to listen to it.

Pastor Quigley spoke about the death of Jacob and the mourning that accompanied it.  One comment he made which surprised me was that more Scripture is dedicated to the death of Jacob than any other biblical character except the Lord Himself.  Jacob's death was a huge event in the history of Israel!  And so was their mourning.

Not only is it okay to mourn the death of a Christian, but it is good and right to do so.  The one occasion when we read of Jesus weeping is at the death of His friend Lazarus, and that, in spite of the knowledge that He would soon, apparently within a few minutes, raise him from the dead!  Jesus wept over the death of someone He loved.  In fact, we're commanded to mourn: Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. (Romans 12:15 ESV)  

However, we're also given these words through the apostle Paul: But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. (1 Thessalonians 4:13 ESV)  Paul does not instruct us to rejoice in the home-going of our Christian sister and not grieve.  There are many who would tell us we should be glad and not sorrowful when a Christian dies.  After all, they have departed this life, their troubles are over, they are in the presence of the Lord in Paradise!  Why would we cry over such a thing?  We should rejoice!

Jesus didn't.  Joseph and his brothers, and all of Egypt didn't rejoice over the death of Jacob.  The Thessalonians didn't rejoice over the deaths of their believing loved ones.  And neither should we.  But we do not grieve like unbelievers who are hopeless in the face of death.  On the contrary, we grieve and mourn and weep and cry, and we hope.  We hope in Christ who will raise the dead.  Our sure confidence is in the promise of the Lord Jesus to reunite us some day with our brethren who have "fallen asleep" (i.e. who have died).

There is no doubt I will weep with those who weep during this week's funeral service.  But, I'm also confident that I'll see Peggy again someday and she will be the same Peggy I knew just last week.  But not exactly the same.  Here's how The London Baptist Confession of 1689 (and, more importantly, the Bible) explains it: 

The bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corruption; but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness, are received into paradise, where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.

At the last day, such of the saints as are found alive, shall not sleep, but be changed; and all the dead shall be raised up with the selfsame bodies, and none other; although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever. 

The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour; the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honour, and be made conformable to his own glorious body.  (http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc31.html)

Peggy has been received into Paradise where she is with her beloved Savior, waiting for the full redemption of her body on the day when Christ raises the dead.  Until that glorious day, we will remember our sister and friend Peggy Rossman, and the great blessing she was to us, to our church family, and to many others.  Thank you, Lord, for bringing her into our lives and for allowing us to enjoy her friendship for a brief time.  And thank you for the real hope we have of seeing You, and her, again.