The following is an account of a "gospel" presentation by one who is a Lordship salvationist:
"After we had talked for a couple
of hours, the young man seemed to be prepared to trust Christ. My friend, no
doubt sensing that, asked him a question: “In
light of all we have talked about this evening, can you think of any reason why you should
not become a Christian tonight?”
"The young man sat for a few
minutes, then looked back at him and replied, “No, I cannot think of any
reason.”
"I was excited by this, but to my
amazement, my friend leaned across the table and said, “Then let me give you
some!”
For the next few minutes, he began
to explain the cost of being a Christian. He talked about the young man’s need to
surrender his whole life, his future, his ambitions, his relationships, his possessions,
and everything he was to God. Only if he was prepared to do this, my friend explained,
could Christ begin to work effectively in his life.
"… My friend then leaned even
further across the table and asked, “Can you still not think of any reason why you
shouldn’t become a Christian tonight?”
"After another moment, the reply
came, “I can think of some now.”
"My friend responded, “In
that case, do not become a Christian until you have dealt with every one of those reasons
and are willing to surrender everything to Christ.”
What a tragic encounter! It was a "gospel" of one work piled on top of another--surrender your life, surrender your future, surrender your ambitions, surrender your relationships, surrender your possessions, and surrender everything you are to God.
Now, really, what unbeliever, dead in trespasses and sins, can do that?
MESSAGE DETERMINES METHOD
One’s view of the gospel and how its saving effects are
appropriated by the sinner will determine not only the message of evangelism proclaimed
but also its methods. The Lordship Salvation presentation of the gospel is necessarily
more involved because of its message. Every Lordship salvationist has his lists and his steps to receiving the free gift of salvation, which render salvation costly.
J. I. Packer, one who advocates just such a message as stated above, said: “In our own presentation of Christ’s gospel, therefore, we need to lay a
similar stress as Christ did on the cost of following Christ, and make sinners face it
soberly before we urge them to respond to the message of free forgiveness.”
Wait a minute. Packer's statement doesn't make sense: let's look at it again. "We need to lay a similar stress . . . on the cost of following Christ, and make sinners face it soberly before we urge them to respond to the message of free forgiveness." First he writes that we need to stress the cost, then he finishes the sentence with "free forgiveness." How can the forgiveness be free if there's a cost to it? "Free" means no cost, doesn't it?
In George Owell's classic novel, "1984," he said that there would come a day when doublethink would hold sway over the minds of people. By doublethink, he meant the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. Packer's statement is an example of doublethink in the church.
Packer's comment illustrates the misunderstanding of Lordship Salvation--it mixes discipleship into the gospel and hence, all the requirements, all the lists that add to Paul's simple declaration of "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."
Christ paid the cost of salvation. The cost the Bible talks about is the cost of following Christ, that is, the cost of discipleship. John 3:16 conditions eternal life on "whosoever believes," not on "whosoever surrenders their life, surrenders their future, surrenders their
ambitions, surrenders their relationships, surrenders their possessions, and
surrenders everything they are to God."
WITHOUT COST
Friday, January 20, 2017
Friday, January 13, 2017
THE STUFF, THE GUFF, AND THE SAND
John 3:16 is the most famous and beloved verse in the Bible, a text memorized around the world wherever the Bible has gone. It rolls from our tongues effortlessly, and rightly so. Adults memorize it as children and never forget it for the rest of their lives. It is one powerful text.
But the problem is that we quote it as a stand alone verse, out there all by its lonesome and we easily forget that it, like all the texts of the Bible, has a context, and, as we say, "Context is king." If we look at it from the standpoint of a stand alone verse, we can become easy pickings for those who come along and say, "The verse says nothing about the death of Christ, nor does it say anything about His resurrection, yet, you say that an essential part of the gospel is that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead, but the verse you quote doesn't even mention those two events, so they must not be part of the gospel."
OH, WE BEG TO DIFFER
Let's go to the context, that is, let's look at John 3:14, just a scant two verses before 3:16: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up." 3:14 is defining how "God gave His only begotten Son." Jesus explains that He's going to be "lifted up," an obvious reference to the cross, as the parallel text in John 12:32-33 confirms: "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die." The death of Christ is right there in the context of 3:16.
The reader of the Gospel of John wouldn't have begun his reading with 3:16. He would have carefully been unrolling the scroll, beginning with what we call 1:1 and kept unrolling it until he came to 3:16, and by then, he would have realized that the book was declaring that Jesus is God (1:1), that Jesus is the lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world (1:29), and that Jesus would be raised from the dead (2:18-22).
Within the context of the scroll, the reader would have known a great deal of important information by the time he unrolled enough of the scroll to read 3:16.
Side one of the contextual coin is that we state what is in in the specific verse and the specific context and that only. We don't import what's not there.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CONTEXTUAL COIN
But the problem is that there's this tendency to add to the context; to import stuff, guff, and sand into the context that just aren't there and we see this done to John 3:16 time and time again.
What does 3:16 say that the reader is to do? "Believe on Him." That's it; faith alone for eternal life. But there are those who add words, all that stuff, guff, and sand to the context.
An author, known worldwide for his gift of description and story-telling is one such person. In his book, 3:16--The Numbers of Hope, Max Lucado takes John 3:16 apart word by word. Yet when his analysis is all said and done, instead of leaving "whosoever believes in Him" alone, he adds the stuff, the guff, and the sand when he explains how we can have eternal life: "We can‟t get on board and not know it. Nor can we get on board and hide it. No stowaways permitted. Christ-followers go public with their belief. We turn from bad behavior to good (repentance). We stop following our passions and salute our new captain (confession). We publicly demonstrate our devotion (baptism). We don't keep our choice a secret."
Into John 3:16, he's added: turning from bad to good behavior, the stopping of the following of our passions, the saluting of our new captain, and the demonstration of our devotion. Or as he says, "repentance," "confession," and "baptism."
Strange, isn't it? John never ever uses the words "repent" or "repentance" in the entire book, yet there it is as a requirement for salvation. Imported into the context are such things as ceremonies (confession and baptism) to observe and good works to do (good behavior).
Beware of the stuff, the guff, and the sand. They change the gospel into a false one, one that has yet to save anyone.
But the problem is that we quote it as a stand alone verse, out there all by its lonesome and we easily forget that it, like all the texts of the Bible, has a context, and, as we say, "Context is king." If we look at it from the standpoint of a stand alone verse, we can become easy pickings for those who come along and say, "The verse says nothing about the death of Christ, nor does it say anything about His resurrection, yet, you say that an essential part of the gospel is that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead, but the verse you quote doesn't even mention those two events, so they must not be part of the gospel."
OH, WE BEG TO DIFFER
Let's go to the context, that is, let's look at John 3:14, just a scant two verses before 3:16: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up." 3:14 is defining how "God gave His only begotten Son." Jesus explains that He's going to be "lifted up," an obvious reference to the cross, as the parallel text in John 12:32-33 confirms: "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die." The death of Christ is right there in the context of 3:16.
The reader of the Gospel of John wouldn't have begun his reading with 3:16. He would have carefully been unrolling the scroll, beginning with what we call 1:1 and kept unrolling it until he came to 3:16, and by then, he would have realized that the book was declaring that Jesus is God (1:1), that Jesus is the lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world (1:29), and that Jesus would be raised from the dead (2:18-22).
Within the context of the scroll, the reader would have known a great deal of important information by the time he unrolled enough of the scroll to read 3:16.
Side one of the contextual coin is that we state what is in in the specific verse and the specific context and that only. We don't import what's not there.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CONTEXTUAL COIN
But the problem is that there's this tendency to add to the context; to import stuff, guff, and sand into the context that just aren't there and we see this done to John 3:16 time and time again.
What does 3:16 say that the reader is to do? "Believe on Him." That's it; faith alone for eternal life. But there are those who add words, all that stuff, guff, and sand to the context.
An author, known worldwide for his gift of description and story-telling is one such person. In his book, 3:16--The Numbers of Hope, Max Lucado takes John 3:16 apart word by word. Yet when his analysis is all said and done, instead of leaving "whosoever believes in Him" alone, he adds the stuff, the guff, and the sand when he explains how we can have eternal life: "We can‟t get on board and not know it. Nor can we get on board and hide it. No stowaways permitted. Christ-followers go public with their belief. We turn from bad behavior to good (repentance). We stop following our passions and salute our new captain (confession). We publicly demonstrate our devotion (baptism). We don't keep our choice a secret."
Into John 3:16, he's added: turning from bad to good behavior, the stopping of the following of our passions, the saluting of our new captain, and the demonstration of our devotion. Or as he says, "repentance," "confession," and "baptism."
Strange, isn't it? John never ever uses the words "repent" or "repentance" in the entire book, yet there it is as a requirement for salvation. Imported into the context are such things as ceremonies (confession and baptism) to observe and good works to do (good behavior).
Beware of the stuff, the guff, and the sand. They change the gospel into a false one, one that has yet to save anyone.
Friday, January 6, 2017
ALL HAIL HALO 3!
It's 2007 and there is Halo 3. For those not in the know, Halo doesn't refer to a shining circle above someone's head in a Michelangelo painting in the Sistine Chapel. If that's what you think, you're a relic of the past and, as they say, "out of it, uncool."
Halo 3 is a video game, and a violent one at that; it can only be sold to those 17 and above. Halo 3 puts the gamer into the world of sniper fire and the thrill of the kill. It's so popular that in 2007, sales surpassed $300,000,000 in less than two weeks. (That would be $349,210,000.87 today.) That's some serious happy cabbage.
Like I said, it's 2007, and we're watching Tim Foster, 12, and Chris Graham, 14, as they sit in front of three TVs, locked in violent virtual combat as they navigate on-screen characters through lethal gun bursts. Tim likes the game: “It’s just fun blowing people up.”
"But wait a minute" you might be thinking, "I thought you said that Halo 3 was rated "M," 17 and up."
Yes, it is, but so what, that doesn't stop an adult or any 17 year-old from buying it for Tim and Chris to play it. As Tim and Chris are playing Halo 3, they're immersed in controlling Master Chief, a tough marine armed to the teeth who battles opponents with missiles, lasers, guns that fire spikes, energy blasters and other fantastical, mythological weapons.
WAIT A MINUTE
Wait a minute. Where are these youths, what parent is allowing this in their hearth and home? Or, are they sneaking an adventure with the "M" rated game of their big brother while Mom and Dad are away?
No. Tim and Chris are with a lot of other boys at their church with their youth minister. As a matter of fact, they're at the Colorado Community Church in Denver, Colorado.
Wait. What? Why?
Let's let the youth minister, Gregg Barbour, tell us what's going on: "They will stay for the Christian message. We want to make it hard for teenagers to go to hell," he says.
These kids aren't alone in 2007; churches all over the place started using Halo 3. In fact, hundreds of churches use Halo games to connect with young people. Again, let's let the churches speak for themselves: the Southern Baptist denomination sent e-mail messages to 50,000 young people about how to share their faith using Halo 3. Among the tips: use the game’s themes as the basis for a discussion about good and evil.
Halo 3 is a video game, and a violent one at that; it can only be sold to those 17 and above. Halo 3 puts the gamer into the world of sniper fire and the thrill of the kill. It's so popular that in 2007, sales surpassed $300,000,000 in less than two weeks. (That would be $349,210,000.87 today.) That's some serious happy cabbage.
Like I said, it's 2007, and we're watching Tim Foster, 12, and Chris Graham, 14, as they sit in front of three TVs, locked in violent virtual combat as they navigate on-screen characters through lethal gun bursts. Tim likes the game: “It’s just fun blowing people up.”
"But wait a minute" you might be thinking, "I thought you said that Halo 3 was rated "M," 17 and up."
Yes, it is, but so what, that doesn't stop an adult or any 17 year-old from buying it for Tim and Chris to play it. As Tim and Chris are playing Halo 3, they're immersed in controlling Master Chief, a tough marine armed to the teeth who battles opponents with missiles, lasers, guns that fire spikes, energy blasters and other fantastical, mythological weapons.
WAIT A MINUTE
Wait a minute. Where are these youths, what parent is allowing this in their hearth and home? Or, are they sneaking an adventure with the "M" rated game of their big brother while Mom and Dad are away?
No. Tim and Chris are with a lot of other boys at their church with their youth minister. As a matter of fact, they're at the Colorado Community Church in Denver, Colorado.
Wait. What? Why?
Let's let the youth minister, Gregg Barbour, tell us what's going on: "They will stay for the Christian message. We want to make it hard for teenagers to go to hell," he says.
These kids aren't alone in 2007; churches all over the place started using Halo 3. In fact, hundreds of churches use Halo games to connect with young people. Again, let's let the churches speak for themselves: the Southern Baptist denomination sent e-mail messages to 50,000 young people about how to share their faith using Halo 3. Among the tips: use the game’s themes as the basis for a discussion about good and evil.
At
Sweetwater Baptist Church in Lawrenceville, Ga., Austin Brown, 16,
said, “We play Halo, take a break and have something to eat, and have a
lesson,” explaining that the pastor tried to draw parallels “between God
and the devil.”
In another defense of Halo 3, as more than one youth minister points out, "They can also play in teams, and that allows communication and fellowship opportunities." Wait. What? Christian fellowship as you're blowing people up and enjoying the thrill of the kill? What is Christian fellowship, anyway?
Let's hear from a parent, this time from the year 2013:
"We have gone to 3 different churches now that have offered these types
of things. The first church had kids playing video games while waiting
for Sunday school to begin. The second church we tried was a friend's
Church. They
said the kids love it and they are growing in their faith. Not only was
the service very uncomfortable, the children's area had video games,
along with 'money' or a rewards system so you could purchase things from
the 'store' they had there.
"After the service, we asked our 6 year-old
what he learned about God, and he couldn't remember a thing, but
insisted he couldn't wait to return to 'buy' more from the 'store.'
"This
past weekend we went to another church. They insisted their children were also growing in
their faith at their new church, and invited us to join them. This
place topped [the others] with the children's entertainment. They had a blow-up
slide, and bounce house, video games, board games, etc!
"After the
service, we asked our son, what he learned. And again he couldn't
remember; he remembered bits of a puppet show, but nothing about God. He
said he wanted to go back because it was 'so fun.'
"I explained to him
that church is for learning about Jesus, and while that can include fun
and games, if he is leaving and can't remember anything, then it's
likely not a place we should return to. I asked him if he wanted to return
because of God or because of the 'fun' and he said it was because it was 'fun.'
"He then said, 'Mom, I think they just have that stuff there to
get people to come to Church!'"
LET'S DISCUSS THIS
There are many things that people discuss concerning Halo 3, things such as the violence, blowing people up, the thrill of the kill. But what's neglected is the fact that the kids aren't really blowing people up and they aren't killing people. It's a fantasy; a game that puts them in a world of virtual reality, that is, "an artificial environment created with software and
presented to the user in such a way that the user suspends belief and
accepts it as a real environment."
And that presents a huge problem for the church. The church is immersing the kids into a fantasy world, a world that doesn't exist and then, the youth minister stops Halo 3, turns off the computer or the TV set and delivers the Christian message which is based in history, reality.
Are they getting the impression that Christ's death, burial, and resurrection are fantasy, just like Halo 3? And how much time are they immersed in fantasy anyway? How much time are they immersed in Christ and Him crucified? And, in their minds, is the entire evening a fun adventure in fantasy worlds?
Are they getting the impression that Christ's death, burial, and resurrection are fantasy, just like Halo 3? And how much time are they immersed in fantasy anyway? How much time are they immersed in Christ and Him crucified? And, in their minds, is the entire evening a fun adventure in fantasy worlds?
Friday, December 30, 2016
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.
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.
Friday, December 23, 2016
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.
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.
Friday, December 16, 2016
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!
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!
Saturday, December 10, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)