CARRIE FISHER

Carrie Fisher suffered a heart attack on a flight from London to L. A. Later, in a hospital, Carrie Fisher, who shot to fame as Princess Leia of "Star Wars" fame, was gone, never regaining consciousness.

An outpouring from the rich and famous was forthcoming, Harrison Ford called her, "brilliant," somebody you and I never heard of said she was"the brightest," while George Lucas pronounced her "extremely smart." Maybe we ought to reexamine those adjectives, just for the record. Let's take a look at the summary of her life and, having done that, you decide if the above nomenclature fits.

HER EARLY YEARS

She smoked marijuana at age 17, used LSD at 21. While filming "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980) and "Return of the Jedi," (1983), she was into cocaine. (We note a drug progression--from marijuana to LSD to cocaine.)

AT HOME WITH CARRIE

On the home front, her husband would daily wonder, "What powder and pills will be sizzling inside her feverish skull today?" Not only that, but also she was subject to wild mood swings accompanied by just as wild indulgences.

By 1981, she was writing, "I was completely crazy . . . I was on drugs, . . losing a lot of weight . . . not sleeping, and I had a seizure on the movie set."

INTO THE AMAZON!

As an evidence of the "I-was-completely-crazy-description," Carrie Fisher visited a spiritual healer in the Amazon and drank a psychic tea to cleanse her spirits. As you would expect, it failed to do the needed cleansing. (Do the brightest, the extremely smart, and brilliant people betake themselves to the Amazon to drink psychic tea,whatever that is, to cleanse themselves of spirits?)

ONE WILD NIGHT AMONG MANY

Then there was the time in 2005, after a night of debauchery, when lobbyist Gregory Stevens died of an overdose in Carrie's home. Regarding all of the above (there's more to come) is this it the behavior of smart, brilliant, and the brightest people to host or even attend a such a night and, as a result someone dies of an overdose?

THE PARTY, THE POLICE

Then, on October 21, 2016, in Italy, came the birthday celebration of Carrie Fisher. It was unusual--it began at 2 AM. (Do the birthday parties of smart, bright, and brilliant people begin at that time?) The party got so loud that neighbors called the police which led Carrie to describe their coming as, "Always the sign of a successful party." (Do smart, brilliant, and bright people describe a successful party that way? Who do you know anyone who's proud the police showed up to quell a disturbance in their home?)

THE REGRETS

Carrie said that she lived with regrets, big-time: she regretted that her daughter had to visit her in a mental hospital and see, firsthand, what she had become. Then, she wrote, "I regret seeing the hurts and disappointments these [drug-fueled] forays put in the eyes of my loved ones."

COME THANKSGIVING

Then, around Thanksgiving time this year, a friend described Carrie as "high as a kite." A month later, she had the heart attack on that airplane headed to L. A. She was 60; her self-induced misery demanded payback.

TRIPLE TRAGEDIES

There is a triple tragedy in this: a life wasted; celebrity friends calling her brilliant, smart, and the brightest; a gullible public believing them. The Bible says different:

"Doing wickedness is like sport to a fool . . ." Proverbs 10:23
". . . it is an abomination to fools to turn away from evil." Proverbs 13:19
 "Fools mock at sin . . ." Proverbs 14:9

The Bible doesn't call Carrie "brilliant," "bright," or "smart." The repeated word in bold type in the above sentences says it all.

But the Bible also says something else: if Carrie Fisher departed this world without Christ, God wept.

FUN AND UNFUN

We, some of us, remember. We remember the fun of school days as Christmas slowly crept closer. We remember teachers who asked us to bring an ornament from home to put on the Christmas tree in the classroom and we brought the best we could find from the old homestead. Everybody did and each of us  pointed with pride to our special decoration we'd put on the tree. It was exciting; it was fun.

Our teacher would decorate the classroom door and inside the room, she would show her creative expertise by making the bulletin boards festive. They were good at it, very good. That was exciting; that was fun.

We remember drawing names in class and keeping the name we'd drawn a secret until the last day of school before the holidays hit. The teacher would instruct us to buy a gift (we weren't exceed a specified monetary limit) for the classmate whose name we'd drawn, bring it to school, and put it under the decorated tree.

In a quirk of Christmas fate, in the third grade, I drew Sue's name and she drew mine. When the last day before the Christmas vacation came (that's what we all called it back then, the "Christmas vacation," we didn't call it, "The Winter Break," or, "The Holidays," nor did we know anything about a "Winter Solstice."), we had the Christmas party, with a Christmas tree right before the Christmas vacation, the party was in class, and we exchanged gifts. It was then we learned the identity of the person who drew our name. It was exiting; it was fun.

And, in class, leading up to the most fun day of the year, we sang Christmas songs. When we got older, our choirs did too. I was excluded from all choirs back then because of a lack of talent which lingers to this day; but it was most enjoyable to go to our high school assembly and hear the choir sing those carols. It was exciting; it was fun.

Then, being at home for the Christmas holidays, that was something else! The traditions, the fudge, the divinity, the pralines, the family friends who would drop by, and everyone of them would be served a special hot, spiced tea my father would have at the ready for one and all. It was Christmas time, and family friends were welcome to come over unannounced. It was exciting; it was fun.

Every family has their own favorite memories of a Christmas past. Some child, now an adult, remembers hearing reindeer on the roof on Christmas Eve night. Another remembers how his parents let him read Luke 2 to the family, maybe by candlelight. It was exciting; it was fun.

During the Christmas holidays, families would get in their cars at night and start the traditional  "seeing the lights." We'd drive around the residential areas and see all the yards and houses decorated for the season--the lights, the manger scenes, the snowmen. Some homes would have music tastefully broadcasting from among the decorations. Things were lively then, exciting, and fun.

Radio programs and then television programs would have their special "Christmas Shows," not "Happy Holiday Shows," and even dramas would have a Christmas theme to them. "Specials" would feature Christmas music as talented celebrities would sing and sing some more. Many would end on a serious Christmas note. It was exciting; it was fun.

Back then, there was a Christian consensus that permeated our culture, a culture that grew out of the Bible and Christian doctrine. That didn't mean that everybody was a Christian, but it did mean that there was a Christian agreement back then. And it was that consensus that made those days exciting and fun.

THAT WAS THEN

But today, cultural commentator Dennis Prager asks, where have all the decorations gone?  He notes that not nearly as many yards are decorated for the season. He's right. Today, the commercials on television don't wish us, "Merry Christmas;" they tell us to have "Happy Holidays" instead. Schools get sued over a tree, a carol, or even a classroom door decorated with a Charlie Brown Christmas theme. University administrators instruct students on how to have a diverse, inclusive holiday party, with diverse, inclusive decorations and themes, lest the season be found offensive to some.

Speaking of "offensive," an elementary school in Pennsylvania (whose state motto is, "Virtue, Liberty, and Independence") recently destroyed its 40-year tradition of the children;s performing Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol because of a few parents who decided that they were hurt and offended by the famous last four words in the play.

For four decades, back to when Gerald Ford was President, the children had practiced and produced the play with excitement and enjoying the thrill of acting out the story of Ebeneezer Scrooge, Bob Cratchit, Jacob Morley, and Tiny Tim. But no, the thrill, the joy, and the excitement must stop.

Over the years, secularism has done its work, chipping here, chipping there, until individuals, business, and corporations think twice before daring to say or advertise the words, "Merry Christmas."

What's happening is unfun. Secularism makes everything bland, grey, and dull. Take God out of the society and things turn brown. The color drains. The excitement fades into blah. We see this is any atheistic country you want to name. The secularists are draining excitement and fun from  this time of year that was there.

REMEMBER THE ANNOUNCEMENT?

What did the angel announce 2,000 years ago?

"I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people." 

For those of us who remember, it was and still is "good news of great joy." 

Let's live it up. Let's  it out.

THE POWER OF A TINY HAND

A doctor is performing what will become one of the most riveting surgeries of modern history. He's in surgery at Nashville‘s Vanderbilt University Medical Center. It's August 19, 1999. The surgery that's about to enter history is unique in and of itself: the doctor is operating from an opened womb on Samuel Armas, an unborn baby. If the doctor fails, both the mother and the baby are likely to die.

It is a revolutionary surgery: the doctor will remove the uterus from the mother, open it, perform the surgery on the baby, and return the child to the womb.The diagnostician has recommended an abortion; the mother has steadfastly refused.

But it's not the skill of the doctor nor the drama of the surgery alone that will make this operation the historic one it will become. What will make it famous is the drama that occurred while the surgery was in progress.

As the surgery continues, the yet to be born child reaches out of the uterus and grasps the doctor's finger with his tiny hand. It becomes an iconic moment for the ages because it shows the earliest human interaction ever recorded. (Michael Clancy took the picture of the baby's hand grasping the doctor's finger.)

HOUSE

Later, that famous moment will be recreated on television on a program called "House." The series gets its name from the brilliant but drug addicted and nihilistic Dr. Gregory House. He's sardonic, jaded and cynical, not necessarily the physician you're looking for if you're in the market for a good bedside manner.

In the re-enactment for television, when the baby grasps the finger of Dr. House, the normally unemotional surgeon who recommended abortion in the first place, stands transfixed; he's looking at the human nature of the unborn.

TODAY

Samuel Armas is now 17; he lives in Villa Rica, Georgia. Once Clancy snapped that photo, the photographer who was all for abortion wasn't any longer.

THE POWER UNLEASHED

What a story that is! And that's the point--the power of story. Pro-life advocates have rightly advanced their position by argumentation, reams and reams of it. Debate after debate, demonstration after demonstration, book after book have streamed forth from the pro-life position.

I wonder how many mothers-to-be the pro-life books and debates have convinced. I hope a lot. And then I wonder how many the story of that tiny hand reaching out from the womb has convinced. We have no way of knowing, but that story is indeed a powerful one.

And that's the way it is with the Bible which is the story of God's becoming man in a stable in Bethlehem, born into the human race to seek and to save those who are lost. It's a story told and re-told which never loses its power. It's a story so powerful that the human race around the world celebrates it, even though most don't really understand what they're celebrating.

The Christmas story is so powerful that the mighty forces arrayed against it with their lawsuits, lawyers, and judges have yet to shut it down, even though every year, they get an "A" for effort. It's like they're trying to keep a beach ball underwater; the story keeps bobbing back to the surface every year, year upon year, world without end. Amen.

Churches reenact the story in elaborate and admittedly, sometimes in all too costly settings and detail, movies portray it, and television  depicts it. The creche decorates yard after yard across the land. Families gather on Christmas Eve to re-read Luke's story. For 2,000 years no group, no government has stopped the story.

There's power in that story!

THE TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR WORD

It happened on November 16, 2016, in public, and in a court of law. But let's back up and take a look at the person involved.

Christine Boutin is Christine is a French politician and former housing minister. She's a public official who's on trial and the stakes are high, over $10,000 worth, to be exact. The trial takes place in Paris, France. She's on trial for her language, for using one word in in an interview with the high-brow political magazine Charles in March 2014.

During the interview, she pulled that one word out of the Bible and that's why the firestorm erupted. Her case drew comments from the rank and file, comments like "She hates people," "The Bible has no place in government," and "The Bible is a 2,000 year-old fantasy book." But she made it crystal clear that she hated sin, not sinners because she was one of them. And, it was an interview for a magazine and had nothing to do with passing a law and making something an official government policy. The interviewer had asked for her opinion, and she gave it, but she used THAT word.

It's interesting, isn't it, to think of the offensive words we hear coming into our dens from a TV set and into our hearing from movies, words we'd never let a guest use at our dinner table. It's interesting, isn't it, the words we read on the sports pages of our newspapers, words we'd never let our kids use without correction, but the force of the French government comes down on Christine Boutin for taking a word from the Bible, of all books, and using it during an interview.

So this is where Western Civilization is in Europe and where it's headed in America. Where is Europe, France in particular? A person isn't free to tell people what they don't want to hear. We're seeing this phenomenon on our college campuses--uproars over speakers whose viewpoint students and faculty don't want to hear have their invitations revoked. The students and teachers want only speakers who will preach to the choir and they will disrupt the entire campus to make sure they get such speakers at their graduation ceremonies.

George Orwell said it best: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear." A lot of people didn't want to hear that their candidate lost the election so they formed mobs, went on a rampage, destroyed private property, blocked roads, and attacked the police.

But back to Christine Boutin. She's standing in court of law and on trial because of what? Because, in essence, she quoted the Bible and in the Bible verse she quoted, was THAT word.

RESULT

The result of her trial was that she was found guilty and heavy fines, as stated above were assessed. That will teach her--you don't use that word, and if you do, it better be in private or you'd better whisper it so no on will hear.

I was recently taking a ride with family and a friend we hadn't seen in a while, a young adult who was relating to us an incident which occurred in a nearby town. As she was reporting the incident, she came to a word, not a swear word, not a racially degrading word, but a word. When she said the word in our car, guess what? She lowered her voice. She actually lowered her voice even though she was among long-time friends. It was a word we hear from newscasters, a word we read in books, and in newspapers, yet she lowered her voice.

Then, two weeks later we were eating with a very new acquaintance and having a great time in a public place. During the conversation, this new found-friend was waxing eloquent about some subject (I don't remember what it was) and all of a sudden he used the same word we heard in the car. That perfectly acceptable word used by professors, governors, and senators alike, the same word our other friend had lowered her voice to say. He, too, lowered his voice to a whisper.

What is this? What's going on? It's self-censorship, and this is the lesson of the trial of Christine Boutin: you either censor yourself or we'll do it for you and make you pay.

WHAT WAS THE WORD?

What was the word that landed Boutin in court, found her guilty and imposed the heavy fines? You can look it up. She took the word from Leviticus 18:22. 

CASTRO AND THE WORLD AT WORK

On Saturday November 26, 2016, we awoke to learn that Fidel Castro, age 90, had died during the night.

Castro exploded on the scene in 1959, leading a revolution that would put the Cuban people in his clutches for 49 years. I remember that time; I remember how many of our politicians, journalists, and celebrities praised both him and his cause to the hilt. They were oblivious to the fact that his was a revolution built on deceit and lies, with Castro claiming that he wasn't a communist. But within a year of his becoming Cuba's Prime Minister, he went on television to declare, "I am a Marxist-Leninist."

During the next 49 years, until his retirement in 2008, here's an eye-witness account of what he did to Cuba:

THE TRIALS

"They had started televising trials of counter-revolutionaries. And so we had in Cuba something we'd never seen before -- mass executions of counter-revolutionaries who'd been found guilty in these kangaroo courts. It was right out of the French revolution. People were pulled in, abused, found guilty, and from the court marched out to a firing squad."

THE TELEVISION

"There were some famous newscasters and commentators who were removed from the airwaves ... and some of them ended up in prison camps. The second thing to go was television programs not Cuban in origin; we had a lot of U.S. television dubbed into Spanish. Those disappeared and were replaced with revolutionary content . . . a lot of revolutionary songs being sung, a lot of preaching. Television ceased to be fun."

THE CHILDREN

"After Castro's goons did a similar sweep through the newspapers, it was time to launch their propaganda missiles at the minds of Cuba's children. Vivian said, "One of their favorite ways to find out what people thought about Fidel was to ask kindergartners. My younger sister was a kindergartner."

"One day, my sister came home and exclaimed, 'Fidel is better than Jesus!' In school they had asked the kindergartners to close their eyes and pray to Jesus for ice cream. When they opened their eyes -- nothing. Then they closed their eyes again and prayed to Fidel for ice cream, and ... surprise! Ice cream cups on their desks! I remember my mother's reaction: 'Helado! Que rico!' ['Ice cream! Delicious!'] She totally avoided any other comment for fear of whatever she said making it back to my sister's teacher."

THE CONFISCATIONS

"Our family were business owners; my grandfather had a grocery business. ... One day a commissioner came into my grandfather's building and said, 'This is now property of the revolution.' So my father, uncles, and grandfather just walked away . . . There was no point in any kind of resistance."

THE HEALTHCARE

"Foreigners who visit Cuba, are fed the official line from Castro’s propaganda machine: 'All Cubans are now able to receive excellent healthcare, which is also free.' But the truth is very different. Castro has built excellent health facilities for the use of foreigners, who pay with hard currency for those services.

"Argentinean soccer star Maradona, for example, has traveled several times to Cuba to receive treatment to combat his drug addiction. But Cubans are not even allowed to visit those facilities. Cubans who require medical attention must go to other hospitals, that lack the most minimum requirements needed to take care of their patients.

"In addition, most of these facilities are filthy and patients have to bring their own towels, bed sheets, pillows, or they would have to lay down on dirty bare mattresses stained with blood and other body fluids."

One man, visiting his father in Cuba, needed surgery, and upon entering the hospital for a preparatory exam, found that the surgeon had no paper towels and the examining room was "like Grand Central Station." He beat a hasty retreat, flew out of the country, and had the surgery in America.

Being a physician in Cuba isn't the ticket to driving a BMW: doctors are paid $30-$50 a month.

VAMPIRE

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights reported in 1966 that 166 Cuban prisoners were executed on a single day in May of that year. But before they were killed, they were forced to undergo the forced extraction of an average of seven pints of blood from their bodies. This blood was sold to Communist Vietnam at a rate of $50 per pint. Those who underwent the bloodletting suffered cerebral anemia and a state of unconsciousness and paralysis. But that didn’t stop the executions; the victims were carried on a stretcher to the killing field where they were then shot.

HOW BAD?

When HIV made its appearance in Cuba, those infected were imprisoned in sanitaria; incredibly, life for ordinary Cubans grew so miserable and dire that some young Cubans intentionally contracted HIV, because they had heard that sanitarium prisoners were fed three times a day.

THE BIG PICTURE

  
 In a much too brief summation, we'd say that for 49 years under Castro, people suddenly disappeared, wound up in prison, or were executed for expressing their opinions. Their public schools (like Hitler, Castro outlawed home schooling), so highly praised in America, produced parents who were willing to split their families if it would mean they could get their children out of the country and into America. The money Castro spent on public education came from confiscating all the money people had.

Under Castro, deep poverty persisted — teen prostitution, crumbling houses, food rations. Yet, he lived in splendor while people starved. Political opponents were executed by the thousands by firing squad, or sentenced to decades of hard labor. His own daughter fled the country, wearing a wig and bearing a false passport. She said her father wasn't a dictator: "He's a tyrant."

The president of the Cuba Archive Project claims that Castro killed as many as 78,000 people who were trying to flee Cuba.

BEHOLD THE WORLD AT WORK

The reaction of some world leaders to the death of Castro makes one wonder who they're talking about:

"Today, we offer condolences to Fidel Castro's family, and our thoughts and prayers are with the Cuban people. . . During my presidency, we have worked hard to put the past behind us, pursuing a future in which the relationship between our two countries is defined not by our differences but by the many things that we share as neighbors and friends — bonds of family, culture, commerce, and common humanity." President Obama

"Fidel Castro was a symbol of a whole era of modern world history. He was a wise and strong person who was an inspiring example for all countries and peoples, a sincere and reliable friend of Russia. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia

"Upon receiving the sad news of the passing of your beloved brother, the honorable Fidel Castro, former president of the state council and the government of the Republic of Cuba, I express my sadness to your excellency and all family members of the deceased dignitary, as well as the government and the people in that beloved nation. I offer my prayers for his eternal rest, and I entrust the Cuban people to the maternal intercession of Our Lady of La Caridad del Cobre, patroness of that country." Pope Francis

 "Also at this time of national mourning, I offer the support of the United Nations to work alongside the people of the island. Under Castro, Cuba made advances in the fields of education, literacy and health, also noting that he hopes "Cuba will continue to advance on a path of reform and greater prosperity." U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon

"On behalf of all Canadians, Sophie and I offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and many, many supporters of Mr. Castro. We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader. I know my father was very proud to call him a friend. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of the island nation, although he was a controversial figure.” Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada

[The above remark is similar to saying, "Although John Wilkes Booth was a controversial figure, he will be remembered for his love of the theater."]

 WORLD LEADERS ASIDE, READ THESE COMMENTS

"In many ways, after 1959, the oppressed the world over joined Castro's cause of fighting for freedom & liberation-he changed the world. RIP." Jesse Jackson

“Fidel Castro was a symbol of the struggle for justice in the shadow of empire." Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for President

"Rosalynn and I share our sympathies with the Castro family and the Cuban people on the death of Fidel Castro. We remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country. We wish the Cuban citizens peace and prosperity in the years ahead." Former President Jimmy Carter

"He gave his people better health care and education and will be revered for education and social services and medical care to all of his people.” MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell

"Fidel Castro was a romantic figure when he came into power. We rooted like mad for the guy who was almost like a folk hero to most of us.” MSNBC's Chris Mattews

"Castro was considered, even to this day, the George Washington of his country among those who remain in Cuba.” ABC’s Jim Avila

GEORGE WASHINGTON

In all of my American history classes, I don't remember George Washington's imprisoning and executing a single person who disagreed with him. In my reading of American history, I never ran across to any references where Washington decreed that children pray to him for ice cream or for anything else. Whereas Castro ruthlessly held on to power for 49 years, Washington left the office of President after two terms and became a private citizen, a gentleman farmer.

"During the Revolutionary War, Congress had granted Washington powers equivalent to those of a dictator and he could have easily taken solitary control of the new nation. Indeed, some political factions wanted Washington to become the new nation’s king. His modesty in declining the offer and resigning his military post at the end of the war fortified the republican foundations of the new nation." (From "History") He asked nothing for himself. He did ask Congress for grants of land for his officers.

David Boaz of the Cato Institute wrote of Washington, "He gave up power not once but twice – at the end of the revolutionary war, when he resigned his military commission and returned to Mount Vernon, and again at the end of his second term as president, when he refused entreaties to seek a third term. In doing so, he set a standard for American presidents that lasted until the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose taste for power was stronger than the 150 years of precedent set by Washington.

"Give the last word to Washington’s great adversary, King George III. The king asked his American painter, Benjamin West, what Washington would do after winning independence. West replied, 'They say he will return to his farm.'

“If he does that,” the incredulous monarch said, 'he will be the greatest man in the world.'”

It makes one wonder, "What history of what planet are these people who are praising Castro reading?" But yet, this is the world at work, just another day at the office of a fallen planet which calls evil good and good evil.

Debra Tate, the sister of Sharon Tate who was viciously murdered by the Manson family, said, "There are those who are dark and those who are light. If we fail to identify those who are dark, society collapses."

Fidel Castro was dark and should be identified as such. 

MARK TWAIN THINKS ABOUT THE JEWS

Mark Twain was perplexed and bedeviled to no end when he came to look at the Jews. He wrote eloquently of his bafflement, asking a question at the end which he couldn't answer, but if you have a Bible at the ready, you can.

It's an extended two-paragraph quote, but well worth your time and thought, so . . . read on:

"If statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of stardust lost in the blaze of the Milky way. properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and had done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it.

"The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed; and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”

Hitler who tried to end their immortality would add a hearty "Amen" to Twain's quote, as would other depots and devils from Pharaoh to Haman. One nation after another, one ruler after another, has tried to crush the Jew, but found him uncrushable, impervious to all attacks, propaganda, persecutions, and Ultimate Solutions. Many have tried; all have failed. As Twain said, as only he can do, "The Jew saw them all, beat them all . . ." But was it the Jews alone who saw them all and beat them all?

Twain isn't the only one to look at the Jews and wonder. Nikolai Berdyaev (1874-1948) was a Russian Marxist who broke with the movement after the Russian Revolution and its aftermath. He became a Christian — he had been charged with blasphemy for criticizing the Russian Orthodox Church in 1913 — and went into exile, eventually living in Paris. In The Meaning of History, he explains his departure from Marxism:

"I remember how the materialist interpretation of history, when I attempted in my youth to verify it by applying it to the destinies of peoples, broke down in the case of the Jews, where destiny seemed absolutely inexplicable from the materialistic standpoint… Its survival is a mysterious and wonderful phenomenon demonstrating that the life of this people is governed by a special predetermination, transcending the processes of adaptation expounded by the materialistic interpretation of history. The survival of the Jews, their resistance to destruction, their endurance under absolutely peculiar conditions and the fateful role played by them in history: all these point to the particular and mysterious foundations of their destiny."

Twain can't answer his own question because of his ingrained bent toward naturalism. He, like all materialists wound up at a dead end, wondering, "How?" "Why?"

There's only one Book, just one and only one,  that can answer Twain's query and, on the other hand, there's only one Book that can tell him the one way the Jews can be destroyed. First things first: the answer to, "What is the secret of his immortality?"

The answer? The coming fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3). There must be an Israel to receive the fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants; God's Word stands sure--this guarantees their immortality.

The further answer is in the the last of the writing prophets in the Old Testament: "For I, Jehovah, change not; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." (Malachi 3:6)

But wait. What about the despot's question: "How can I destroy the Jews?" That answer is also in the Bible. Jeremiah 31:35-37:

Thus says the Lord,
Who gives the sun for light by day
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
The Lord of hosts is His name: “If this fixed order departs
From before Me,” declares the Lord,
“Then the offspring of Israel also will cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”

Thus says the Lord,

“If the heavens above can be measured
And the foundations of the earth searched out below,
Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel
For all that they have done,” declares the Lord.

So there it is--God's Word to the anti-Semite is, "If you want to destroy the Jews, then you must first destroy the sun, the moon, and the stars, and only then, according to the promise of God, can the Jews be destroyed." (Arnold Fruchtenbaum) 

The anti-Semite is on the losing side.

WHEN POLITICS IS YOUR LIFE

Her name doesn’t make any difference, and besides, I’m hesitant to give her any more publicity than she already has, so let’s just call her “Lucy.”  

Lucy awoke chipper as could be on Tuesday November 8, knowing that today was gong to be the perfect day she’d been anticipated and working hard for, for 18 months. Lucy said that those were 18 months of laughing, hugging, and spreading the love she had for Hillary Clinton and her message.

Lucy looked forward to that Tuesday evening, an evening she knew she would celebrate for the rest of her life. She knew that later she'd knock back a glass of champagne and begin to construct the story she’d tell her yet-to -be -born -daughter.  She imagined that she would, on that night of nights, get close enough to Hillary Clinton to give her a hug, and whisper, “Thank you.”

LUCY ON THE MOVE

Lucy had been hyperactive the last several weeks of the campaign, going to North Carolina and Colorado to spread the good word. The people she’d talked to as she campaigned had given her hope, and made her feel “downright high.” Yes, tonight, this Tuesday of Tuesdays, was going to be a night in which she would know the thrill of victory, while those she hated would learn the agony of defeat.

Being in New York for the victory party in the especially reserved Javits Center would be the highlight of Lucy’s life, so off she and her boyfriend went for the long-awaited celebration. As she mingled with the assembled joyous, she and they knew great things were to come.

REALITY

But after three hours, it became apparent to Lucy and the joyous that something was going horribly wrong. She began to see the smiling faces around her turn ice cold.

When the vote count from Florida arrived, Lucy touched her face and realized she was crying. She looked at her boyfriend and realized he was having trouble breathing. Her chin felt odd; she was breaking out in hives. Lucy looked at the woman next to her. She was breaking out in hives too.

Crying, she asked her boyfriend, “Can we please go home?”

As they walked home, a friend called to say, “It’s over.” Lucy froze momentarily. They went to a nearby diner, sat down, and ate a bite or two and realized that no one was speaking, no one in the entire place. Silence. Her boyfriend was crying.

Arriving home, Lucy became hysterical. She mumbled incoherently. Finally, when she got control of herself, she lamented: “It wasn’t supposed to go this way,” she kept repeating.

When she woke up on Wednesday, she’d lost her voice; it was squeaky and raw, and her thirty-year old body ached. Wednesday and Thursday, she said, were days of mourning. The entire week, she was numb.

WHAT GIVES?

A thirty-year old adult carrying on that way? Her boyfriend can’t breathe? He’s  crying too? She’s got hives? She’s hysterical? She’s incoherent? Lucy might listen to David Suissa, writing in “The Jewish Journal:” “The truth is, no politician can make you happy.” Or better yet, Lucy needs to listen to the Bible:

“Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the Lord.’”

Then the Bible goes on to describe the life of those who trust in mankind: “For he will be like a bush in the desert . . . in stony wastes in the wilderness, a land of salt without inhabitant.” (Jeremiah 17:5-6) Sounds like where Lucy and her boyfriend were living.

Lucy’s problem is that she’s rejected the Bible and everything in it. And yet, just as in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago, grace is being offered to Lucy: Jesus said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.” The gracious invitation is right there in front of Lucy in the Bible she's rejected and continues to do so.

Trusting in man is a miserable way to live. But that's the way it is when politics is your life.

THE ANTI-TRUMP RIOTS

On November 8, 2016, Donald J. Trump was elected President of the United States. The next day thousands took to the streets in Oakland (6,000), Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, New York (7,000), Chicago, Baltimore, Portland, Philadelphia, Denver, and Atlanta. Thousands blockaded streets, shut down Interstates, smashed car windows with baseball bats, injured policemen, set fires, chanted, displayed placards, some vulgar, others not. 

High school students, walked out of class and marched through downtown Phoenix. High school students in California and Colorado staged the same walk out. A Yale professor canceled midterm exams because of traumatized students. University of Texas students by the hundreds marched through downtown Austin, a few waving the Communist flag. 

A 12-year old girl in Michigan fully expected to wake up and have a President Clinton, and when she woke up, "it was devastating for her,” her dad says. “She had a horrible day." Why would a 12-year old girl be that concerned; she needs to enjoy being a kid.  

The CEO of Grubhub, an online food delivery service, sent a company-wide email suggesting employees who voted for President-elect Donald Trump should resign.

"A professor at University of Michigan postponed an exam after too many students complained about their “very serious” stress. Columbia University postponed midterms . . . a University of Iowa professor canceled classes and a University of Connecticut professor excused class absences — all because their students just absolutely could not function knowing that they’d have to live in a country where their president would not be the president that they wanted.

"And it’s not even just the students — a University of Rochester professor canceled all of his meetings with students the day after the election because he decided he just could not bear to talk about it with them." (National Review)

A group of Hillary Clinton supporters attacked a Chicago man who apparently voted for President-elect Donald Trump, recorded on an online video. One lady became nauseated when she heard the news of her candidate's defeat. One man said that he had the same feeling as when he saw the Twin Towers go down.

"So who's going to assassinate Trump?" came the question on Twitter.

Celebrities chimed in--Chelsea Handler broke down crying on her Netflix talk show on Wednesday night while discussing Hillary Clinton's staggering loss. She began to cry as she explained how she planned to leave the country. '"I want to move to Spain. I really, really want to move to Spain right now," she said. 

Bryan Cranston, Neve Campbell, and Barbara Streisand said they were moving to Canada if their candidate lost the election, but this remains to be seen. Ruth Bader Ginsburg promised us that she would move to New Zealand. Famous people often make that threat (as if anybody cares and and as if Canada would want them; but they don't follow through. We'll see if they keep their word to us.)

Jimmy Kimmel tried to counsel and comfort his late night viewers, just as a grief counselor would--he took them through the five stages of grief, all the way from "Denial" to "Acceptance."The loss of an election is as a death? Yes, read on.

Seth Meyers was moved to tears throughout his opening monologue. As a new father, he said at the top of the show: "I do really feel for the parents who had to explain this to their kids this morning." (How about explaining constitutional government to them?)

Many were so distraught that they couldn't go to work the next morning and took the day off. One man said that he was "terrified," and another said, "I feel unprotected." These are adults we're talking about. (What happened to England's WWII motto, "Keep Calm and Carry On"?)

WHAT'S GOING ON?

All of this is a classic case of anger because of the defeat of their candidate but, at the root is misplaced trust. They trusted their candidate so much that it's the end of the world. If only their candidate had been elected, they would be protected, cared for, fed, and loved. They placed their trust 100% in their candidate and when defeat became apparent, they were inconsolable and angry at the loss of the proposed Utopia their candidate said would come. When their candidate went into the unthinkable jaws of defeat, they had nowhere else to turn, no one else to trust. Their god died a political death. That's why they needed Jimmy Kimmel to lead them through the Five Stages of Grief.

Students trust a candidate for tuition; others trust the candidate for their healthcare, some trust the candidate for food and housing, along with other benefits. When their candidate dies a political death, the person they trusted can't provide for them and they can't handle it. They look to a human being with implicit trust. 

But the reality of all realities is that because of the Fall of man and the curse sin brought into the world, no government, no candidate, no elected candidate is going to "fix it." Never. Never ever. Deal with it.

The Bible warns us against putting our wholesale trust in a man or woman be he (or she) Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, Trump or Clinton to fix it:

Ps. 118:9: It is better to take refuge in the Lord Than to trust in princes.  

Ps. 146:3: Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation [deliverance].

Ps. 40:4: How blessed is the man who has made the Lord his trust, and has not turned to the proud, nor to those who lapse into falsehood.

No matter who runs for office, no matter who wins, no matter who loses, those three texts hold true. 

THE FIVE LETTER DIFFERENCE

In 1960, Presidential campaign historian Theodore H. White observed that “the largest and most important division in American society was that between Protestants and Catholics.” In 1960, anti-Catholicism was not merely an evangelical phenomenon. It was an American phenomenon. Both secularists and Christians, both evangelicals and non-evangelical Protestants, worried about the universal claims of Rome. The prospect of having a Roman Catholic president frightened many. For this reason, John F. Kennedy’s candidacy in1960 caused a major controversy.

Donald Grey Barnhouse, in an article in Eternity Magazine in Oct. 1960, argued that Kennedy's election would be “perilous.”  He wrote, "The issue is simple. The Roman Catholic Church will not allow Kennedy the right to carry out his own desires. They have made it unmistakably clear that Senator Kennedy must be a Roman Catholic first and a United States president second, where the interests of the Church are concerned."

Is that still true, 56 years later?

The Apostle Paul wrote with a strong quill and an even stronger resolve when it came to false teaching. Not only did he refute it and condemn it, but he also used strong language to describe the believer's relationship to such teaching.

As he wrote to a group of believers, he knew their situation: they were enveloped in the trappings of a pagan society; shrines, idols, and temples everywhere; superstition was rife; there were ubiquitous representations of the gods and goddesses in art; their friends, their family, and their neighbors employed curses, incantations, and rituals to get favor from the gods, and then there was the worship of the emperor that united the Empire. Priests examined the intestines of birds to learn the will of the gods; the flight of birds signaled boon or bane.

The Christians were outnumbered, outgunned, and cut off from power.

With his strong quill, Paul begins to write: "Do not become partners with those who do not believe, for what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship does light have with darkness? And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what does a believer share in common with an unbeliever? And what mutual agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God . . ."

Another apostle, the one called, "The Apostle of Love," has a strong quill too. He writes about the false teacher: "Do not receive him into your house and do not give him a greeting." To disobey the injunction was to share in the false teacher’s evil deeds (II Jn. 11).

IS THIS CLEAR?

Dr. Robert Lightner writes, "The biblical teaching seems clear enough. The issue of separation from apostasy is settled for those who claim allegiance to the word of God. The believer’s responsibility is not to fellowship with apostasy. And that is not always easy to do, yet God expects his children to obey."

But what God expects his children to do is sometimes not what they do, as in the case of Charles Colson who was the founder and head of Prison Fellowship Ministries. Mr. Colson gained fame and a prison sentence because of Watergate. He was a power player in the Nixon Administration and was in the inner sanctum. He was so devoted to Nixon that he made that famous (or infamous) statement, "I would walk over my own grandmother to get Nixon re-elected."

Back in the 1990's, Mr. Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, a Roman Catholic priest, decided join hands in the task of world evangelism, so they formed an organization called "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" to fulfill the Great Commission. The mission statement of the ECT was endorsed by some heavy hitters in the Protestant world: J. I. Packer, Max Lucado, Pat Robertson, Os Guiness, Elizabeth Achtemeier, and Bill Bright. In addition, an article in Christianity Today praised the ECT for bringing Protestants and Catholics together.

WAIT. WHAT? 

 Protestants and Catholics together? Together? Good grief! What would Luther say? We know what he would say because he said:

"May God punish you, I say, you shameless, barefaced liar, devil’s mouthpiece, who dares to spit out, before God, before all the angels, before the dear sun, before all the world, your devil’s filth.”
[From Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, pg. 349 of Luther’s Works]

“Even if the Antichrist appears, what greater evil can he do than what you have done and do daily?”
[From Why the Books of Pope Were Burned, pg. 393 of Luther’s Works, Vol. 31]

One thing about Martin L., you knew where he stood.

WHY?

Why is it that Protestants and Roman Catholics can't work together? It's because of one little Latin word: "Sola." The word means "alone." Four Latin letters; five English letters.

When the Roman Church met to condemn Luther's (and the New Testament's) teaching that salvation is by faith alone (sola fides), they published their final word on the matter in January 1547:

"Justification is not based only upon some legal imputation that is extrinsic to man."

"Justification refers to the fact that a man is “made righteous” not the fact that he is only “declared righteous."

"Justification requires good works as a necessary condition."

There it is: faith alone, they say, does not save. Thus, in the end, the Roman Catholic view is clearly an individual merit system for salvation. It cannot be harmonized with Paul’s dichotomy: “If by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 11:6).

LET THE BUYER BEWARE

This is where it gets tricky. Ask the Roman Catholic, "Is a person saved by faith in Christ," and his answer will be, "Oh, my, yes, of course, a person is saved by faith in Christ." (And from his standpoint, he's answering honestly.) But the problem is, the questioner hasn't asked him, "What do you mean by faith?" (The Greek philosopher, Socrates, said, "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.")

For the Roman Catholic, like the lordship salvationist, faith includes works; it's part of his definition of the word. That's what he means by "faith." So, what's happening is that they're talking past each other. That's why the word "alone" is crucial. That's why stating what the gospel is not is so important. The two leave the conversation thinking they're in agreement. The questioner thinks he's found a brother in Christ when he hasn't. Colson would leave the discussion now thinking, "We can cooperate in evangelism."

THERE'S MORE

But that's only one reason that Protestants and Catholics can't and shouldn't work together, and once again, the reason is "Sola." The historic Protestant position has not only been faith alone, but also Sola Scriptura, "Scripture alone." These two words have reference to historic Protestantism's source of authority: the Bible alone, no pope, no priest, no prelate carries such authority.

For Roman Catholicism, the ultimate authority is Scripture plus a mountain of tradition which sits on a level playing field with the Bible. To say it another way, according to Roman Catholicism, the Word of God is the Bible and sacred tradition.

In The Catechism of the Catholic Church, under the heading, "The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture," we read,

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."

The Catechism continues:

"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

"As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

LET THE BUYER BEWARE . . . AGAIN

In our hypothetical conversation between the Protestant and the Roman Catholic, the Protestant asks, "Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God without error in the original manuscripts," the Catholic would answer, "Oh, my, yes, of course." 

As in the above conversation, they're talking past each other because the Protestant has omitted "alone," as in, "Do you believe that the Bible alone is the inerrant Word of God?" Roman Catholicism does not. To them, the Bible AND sacred tradition combine in equal authority to be the Word of God.

Oh, the difference a five letter word makes. Use it. Stand on it. Declare it.

WHAT THEY'RE HIDING FROM US

It's become fashionable in academic and popular circles to castigate Christianity as the cause of multitudinous evils in history. Author after author, professor after professor come forward with hammer and tongs to beat up on Christianity, calling it a force for evil in the world and calling down anathemas upon the faithful.

Gore Vidal (1925-2012), a writer, an intellectual for the people, wrote, "The malice of a true Christian attempting to destroy an opponent is something unique in the world. No other religion ever considered it necessary to destroy others because they did not share the same beliefs. . . No evil ever entered the world quite so vividly or on such a vast scale as Christianity did.” [Strange, he overlooked Islam.]

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011), author, columnist, essayist, orator, religious literary and social critic, as well as a journalist, wrote a best-selling book called, "God is Not Good." He wrote: "We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.”[By the way, Christopher's brother, Peter, is an author in his own right, a committed believer and defender of Christianity, although he has received far less publicity than his brother. What else is new?]

Christopher and Gore (why did his parents name a baby, "Gore?") are only two; there are many others who blame Christianity for innumerable ills loosed upon the world, but those will suffice.

WHOA! WAIT A MINUTE!

Let's examine this charge in depth. Those two and others of their atheistic stripe blame Christianity for the brutality of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, pogroms, wars, and witch hunts, but let's delve deeper.

The Crusades, who instigated those? The Roman Catholic Church did so when Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont called on the princes of Christendom for an armed “pilgrimage” to recover Jerusalem from the Muslims.

From 1000-1500 A. D., "The [Roman Catholic] church's response to loss and decline under Islam was mixed: the cross in one and the sword in the other. The early church had generally condemned war. But the western medieval Roman Church said, "God wills it!"(Don Fanning, Liberty University)

Who was in charge of the Spanish Inquisition? The Roman Catholic Church. Of all things that monstrous institution headquartered in Rome is not, it is not Christian. Martin Luther (1483-1546) referred to the Pope as an anti-Christ because he believed that term appropriate for anyone blocking people from Christ or working against Scripture’s teachings.

OK, BUT WHAT ABOUT CALVIN'S GENEVA?

But what about those witch hunts perpetrated by the New England Puritans? What about Calvin's Geneva burning Michael Servetus at the stake for the heresy of Pelagianism (the denial of original sin), Modalism (an anti-Trinitarian heresy), and Pantheism (a rejection of the fundamental distinction between Creator and creation) in August 1553?

Yes, those tragic events happened, but what's overlooked by Christianity's critics is that not one of them can cite a single New Testament verse that endorses such perversions of the faith. They parade the perversions, not the protocol, of Christianity. 

SPEAKING OF OVERLOOKING

Speaking of overlooking the facts of history, let's go a bit deeper where we see that much about those early day Christians and Christianity has disappeared down the Memory Hole. George Orwell's vision of a totalitarian society in which facts disappeared from public knowledge strikes close to home.

For example, not many know that the pagans who converted to Christianity back in the early days of the church:

1. shared their wealth freely with widows, orphans, the elderly, the unemployed, and the sick.
2. cared for the victims of plagues and other natural disasters while their pagan neighbors fled.
3. ransomed one another from barbarian captors.
4. distributed bread during famines.
5. visited prisoners and miners (the lowest of the low).
6. sometimes sold themselves into slavery to raise money to ransom their brothers in Christ out of prison. (A group of Roman Christians did this.)
7. provided for the burial of the poor.
8. extended hospitality to travelers so they wouldn't have to stay in the dangerous inns of their day.
(Cited by Dr. Carl J. Richard, professor of history at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette)
9. rescued babies from infant abandonment, which was widespread in the first century. Christians looked after these babies, left to die, and changed the culture from a culture of death to a culture of life. (Cf. The Rise of Christianity, Stark, 1996)

I wonder if, in the interest of fairness, Mr. Vidal and Mr. Hitchens included those magnificent deeds anywhere in their books, speeches, and articles. Have you read of such in history books or seen just one of the above nine portrayed in film?

BUT NO

But no, what do we hear instead of the above eight? The press finds a small group of 40 Baptists in Topeka, Kansas, who, in violation of the entire ethic of the New Testament, stages obnoxious, disruptive protests at military funerals (an egregious violation of I Thess. 4:11), and the media, pouncing with glee, placards those pathetic few as representatives of Christianity. All the while, our history books give Paul's legacy which includes the above nine, the abolition of slavery, and the American Revolution (Cf. Twelve Greeks and Romans Who Changed the World) less ink than a classified ad. Let' s call it, "Satanic Censorship."

THE WAY OF THE WORLD

No surprise there. Back in the early days of the church, the powers that be tried to censor the message of the faith (Acts 4:17-18). That's the way of the world, the kosmos, which John says, "Lies cradled in the arms of the wicked one." (I John 5)

LINCOLN'S POCKETS

John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln point blank at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C., on April 14, 1865. In Lincoln’s pockets were two pairs of spectacles, a lens polisher, a pocketknife, a watch fob, a linen handkerchief, a brown leather wallet containing a five-dollar Confederate note and nine newspaper clippings, including several favorable to the president.

They gave those items to his son, Robert Todd, and they became like relics, staying in the Lincoln family for more than seventy years.

HAIL CAESAR!

March 15, 44 B. C.: Julius Caesar suffered 23 stab wounds at the hands of some of the senators of Rome. As he collapsed and died, having pulled his toga over his face, he had in his hand a scroll handed to him on his way to the meeting of the Senate, a scroll he had tried several times to unroll, but was interrupted every time.

Too bad. A man who was privy to the assassination plot had thrust the scroll into Caesar’s hand. Inside was a warning of the coming assassination.

CHILLING STORY

There’s a chilling and dramatic account in the New Testament about a man whose desire is to get a warning to those closest to him. The man can’t do it, but he thinks there’s someone who can, and, in desperation, he pleads his case.  He has turned into something he was not-- a concerned evangelist.

His warning is all about being separated from God forever. The problem is that he already is, and eternally so. But the ones he wants to warn aren’t in his place or condition.

He sees Abraham and Lazarus “afar off,” in a place of bliss and fellowship with God. His suggestion is dramatically desperate: Please, send Lazarus back from the dead to warn my brothers so they don’t end up where I am, in a place that’s real, terrible, and final." He reasons that if a person would be allowed to return from the dead with an important warning about the reality of a place of eternal separation, his brothers would be compelled to listen and would accept the Messiah and escape his fate. 

SOUNDS REASONABLE

To us, that makes sense. We love the dramatic and we know that would have an impact for the good. But would it? History says otherwise. One did come back from the dead and what did the religious leaders do? Did they accept Jesus as their long-awaited Messiah?

No. What did they do? John 10:12 tells us. Take a look at it.

WHY NOT?

But the question remains, why wasn’t the request granted? It was because the man’s loved ones had already been warned by the scrolls which were able to “make them wise unto salvation.” (II Tim. 3:15) They have access to a Bible; they’re literate, as were most back in that day, and Lazarus back from the dead would only say the same thing the Bible says. If they don’t believe the scrolls, they won’t believe him because he and the Bible would deliver the same message of faith alone for salvation.

TWO POCKETS

We might call what we’ve looked at “A Tale of Two Pockets.” In Lincoln’s pockets that dark night at Ford’s Theater were the temporary trivial tidbits of the world. In Caesar’s pocket was a dire warning of doom, but distracted, he never read the scroll. 

Did you know that 90% of the world’s literate population, thanks to dedicated missionaries, now has at least a portion of the Book that’s able to make them wise unto salvation? In America, we’ve had the Bible in our pockets for generations, dating back to colonial days.

But we find too many who are distracted, spending their lives filling their pockets with the temporary trivial tidbits of life. The distractions, innocuous and morally neutral in and of themselves, run the gamut of sports, travel, politics, elections, raising and providing for the kids, you name it, we can be distracted from the Book by it. And the evil half of the supernatural universe is constantly at work snatching away the gospel from them “lest they hear and believe.”

Speaking of pockets, like the commercial asks, “What’s in your pocket?”

WAIT A MINUTE ON THE MURDER OF KITTY GENOVESE

March 13, 1964: Kitty Genovese is walking home in the dark and early hours of the morning. She’s just ended her shift as a bartender in her hometown of Queens, New York. She’s a hundred feet from home when a man named Winston Moseley comes up to her and starts to stab her over and over again.  She carries no weapon to repel the man; it’s dark; she’s alone; soon, she’ll be dead.

Kitty begins to scream, and I mean really scream. She screams so loudly that her calls for help awaken 38 neighbors in her apartment building just across the street. The lights go on in bedroom after bedroom as 38 eyewitnesses rush to their windows to see what in the world is going on. Seeing the lights, Moseley flees as Kitty staggers  from the street into an apartment stairwell.

Minutes later, Moseley returns. He attacks. He stabs her again and again. He kills her. Kitty dies alone.

HOLD ON

Wait. What are the 38 doing? Are some yelling at the attacker? Are some rushing to help her? Are some calling the police?

What would have been a story buried way back in the pages of The New York Times becomes a worldwide sensation as its headlines a few days later announce: “37 WHO SAW MURDER DIDN’T CALL THE POLICE.” Over the years those headlines have triggered books, articles, sermons, sociological studies, and references in TV shows (“Perry Mason,” “SVU” et al.), as actors, one after another say what the ashamed witnesses said in 1964, “I didn’t want to get involved.” NY City and America became tarred with a broad brush as being callous, uncaring, and scared, because, “We didn’t want to get involved.”

WAIT A MINUTE!

Were there 37 or 38 eyewitnesses? First I wrote about the 38 neighbors, then there’s The New York Times' headline back then that reported, “37 WHO SAW A MURDER.”  Which is it?  38? 37?

What people don't know is that the number was changed from 37 to 38 and that change should have told us, “Something’s up.” That change should have caused us to ask, “What’s going on here?” We should have asked, “Wait. How in the world could anyone know what the number was in the first place?” Did some reporter count the windows on that side of the building? But even if someone did count the windows, how would he know how many woke up to come to their windows; how would he know how many were in their rooms at the time to become witnesses? Or maybe someone interviewed the 38 and that's how they knew the count. We would assume so.

NOW YOU TELL US

Something was up back then. We now know The Times’ story of the infamous 38 was fabricated as was their cold and callous indifference that night. It was all a lie. We learn 50 years later that one witness did start yelling at Moseley from his window as the attack was in progress and that was another reason Moseley momentarily fled. Another neighbor did call the police and the police told her, “We’ve received calls. We’re on the way.”  So some of the 38 (or 37) did call the police. Now you tell us.

And to cap it off, Kitty’s best friend in the building heard her screams and rushed down the stairs and out of the building, risking her life, but when she got to the scene, Moseley was gone. She held Kitty in her arms as Kitty bled to death. Yet, the reporter wrote for the world to read, “She died alone.” She didn’t. Now you tell us.

WAIT. WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY?

Why didn’t the editor of the article, Abe Rosenthal, check the facts before tar and feathering the 38 (or 37) and the rest of New York City?  In his answer, decades later, he said, “It [checking the facts] would have ruined the story.” It would have ruined the story? Yes, that’s his answer, 50 years later.

But why didn’t someone else check out the facts and write the truth? CBS news correspondent Mike Wallace answered that question, 50 years too late: “Because it was The New York Times,” he said. One doesn’t check out The Times. Why not? Because it’s The Times.

Fifty years later, Wallace, was asked to comment on why he reported back then, “Why did 38 people fail to act? The answer to that question concerns every one of us who fears perhaps that apathy has become part of our way of life.”

He answered, “Oh, I think to a certain degree it was a media creation. No one investigated the 38. No one followed up on it or anything of that nature.” Wait. A media creation? Can we say, "A media lie"?

Then came the follow-up question: “Do you have any feel for why [no one investigated the 38] which would have been normal with this case or any other case?

Wallace said, “Because it was taken seriously by The New York Times.”

Getting down to the basics, the real reason the editor invented the story is because the lie fit his worldview. In other words, he wanted it to be true. He concocted a story to fit his agenda. 

PAUL NAILED IT

Paul refers to this penchant in man to make the facts fit his agenda. The way he puts it is, ". . . men suppress the truth in unrighteousness." A recent case of suppression of the truth is a book by Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code.

In his work of fiction, Brown writes that the church, in a meeting of over 300 bishops, declared Jesus to be divine in the 4th century by a vote, "and a relatively close one at that." 

Unfortunately the average reader of fiction is as knowledgeable of church history as a fruit fly. The average reader doesn't know that the Council of Nicea (the meeting Brown's character in the book is talking about) was called because the deity of Christ, already established, was under attack by a heretic named Arius. 

This gathering in 325AD was for the purpose of condemning the Arians and did so by reaffirming what the Bible already taught: that Jesus had the very same nature as God.

The meeting wasn't to "vote in" the deity of Christ; it was to declare and reaffirm what was already established doctrine. At the conclusion of the meeting, the members of the council were asked to sign their agreement (not vote) with the biblical teaching that:

“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.”  

In the Da Vinci Code, Brown says the vote was "a relatively close one at that." Relatively close? Relatively close? Brown must have been using magic math to come to the conclusion that his so-called vote was close; those who signed that they agreed with the above statement declaring the deity of Christ numbered 316. Those who opposed it numbered 2. 

If the score of a football game was 316 to 2, who in the world would pronounce it, "A relatively close game"? 

IMPACT

In Britain, The Da Vinci Code is the number one best-seller ever, even beating Harry Potter. Over 40,000,000 people purchased Brown's book. It's been translated into over 40 languages. In 2006, Ron Howard made it into a movie with Tom Hanks. It made 758.2 million dollars.  

Let's call the book and the movie what they were: an attack on the gospel because part of the gospel is that Jesus of Nazareth is God, the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

To suppress the truth, Dan Brown fabricated a situation, a vote, and "a relatively close one at that." Like the reporter on the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964, Brown invented a story to fit his agenda. 

The more things change, the more it's the same old same old.

 

.