Facing Up to The Shame

Few Christians can have been untouched by the recent high profile fall from grace of Ted Haggard. pastor of one of the largest churches in the USA and president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Haggard was exposed as being involved with a male prostitute in a sex and drugs scandal. The following article was posted by Dr Carl Wieland and very aptly addresses the issue.

Photo: Ted Haggard arguing
with Richard Dawkins

The Haggard tragedy



‘Christianity must be wrong because of all the hypocrites in the church!’




by Carl Wieland
9 November 2006

When any significant Christian leader falls from grace in a major, public way, to say that it’s painful for God’s people is an understatement. The recent scandal involving Ted Haggard has reverberated around the globe. It is in many ways perhaps the most disastrous of such episodes that many of us have observed in our Christian lifetimes, involving as it did one of the most powerful and prominent evangelicals in the world. This man was not only the pastor of a huge church, he was the head of the largest association of evangelicals in America, and hence the world. He apparently had the ear of the White House, too, with weekly phone conferences with the President.

The facts need no repeating. Especially painful to contemplate is the video being shown widely on the net, where aggressively atheistic Darwinist Richard Dawkins interviews Ted Haggard, who is seen staunchly arguing with Dawkins against evolution (obviously recorded before these sad revelations).

Some have already asked us, perhaps before thinking it through in much depth, questions like: ‘Your ministry has been saying that much of the decline in our culture, including the vocal “gay agenda”, is due to the evolutionization of society. But here is Ted Haggard, while perhaps a bit equivocal in public about the age of the earth, up there attacking evolution with the best of them. And now this. What does that tell you?’

Actually, nothing much more than the obvious; that in a fallen world full of fallible, sinful people, what people do, and what they say, don’t, unfortunately, always correlate well. Of course, it is precisely this, the perception of massive hypocrisy, that has caused much of the shock and hurt, and has made the Christian community in general so much more vulnerable to criticism. If a leading atheist had done what Haggard did, it would have caused barely a ripple. But someone who was making a strong and persistent public stand, on behalf of millions of other believers, and on behalf of God’s Word, against ‘gay marriage’ and other forms of homosexual sin, and then engages in such practices himself … that is a different story.
Hypocrisy, Pharisees and Jesus

However, it is a logical fallacy to conclude from this that the message that Haggard brought on behalf of evangelicals is somehow discredited. Or to allow it to be watered down in the embarrassment of it all. Jesus reserved some of his strongest criticism for the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. But he in no way condemned the righteousness that they stood for in public. Matthew 23:1–3 records:

‘Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practise and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.’

Thus the charge of hypocrisy was not an attack on the morality they preached but on their failure to live up to it. He actually told his followers to be even more righteous than them (Matthew 5:20).

In fact, the very pain of hypocritical actions in a preacher has something to do with our innate recognition that something intrinsically good has been debased and let down by his failure to meet the standard that he proclaimed. Hence the saying, ‘Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.’ It stands to reason that saying the right thing and doing the wrong thing is better than saying AND doing the wrong thing.

Indeed, what would have happened if Haggard had come out of the closet on his own and bashed the church for repressing gay sexuality? Judging by its record of lauding gay bishops, the generally anti-Christian media would be hailing Haggard as a brave maverick who had boldly thrown off the chains of organized religion to embrace self-actualization. We would hear very little of his hypocrisy of not following the book he claimed to believe in, or of betrayal of his family. About the only thing that the media seems to have against Haggard is that he now seems to be repentant, spoke out against homosexuality while practising it, and has not resiled from that.
Consistent with the Bible

But there is good news in all of this for the Bible-believer, in that the Christ and the Christianity of the Bible remain unblemished and, in a sense, vindicated.

Today we are in the era of big movements, big projects and big-name leaders, the risky ‘celebrity model’ as Nancy Pearcey’s classic book Total Truth describes it. To fulfil His purposes, God does not need any of us or indeed any of our man-made institutions—but He does want us to do as the prophet Micah (6:8) said—to ‘do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with [our] God’.

“ The very pain of hypocritical actions in a preacher has something to do with our innate recognition that something intrinsically good has been debased. ”
A robust worldview based on Scripture should make us quite skeptical in the face of human fallibility, and not blindly put our trust in man—including ‘big names’ in Christendom. Jeremiah reminds us: (17:9): ‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?’ He is talking about the human heart in general—including yours and mine. Psalm 118:8–9 says: ‘It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes [i.e. big names in public esteem].’

Inconsistency in the professed followers of the Word, even the most vocal, is always going to be with us. As the late evangelical philosopher Francis Schaeffer reminded those who pointed to Christian failings, when those who profess the name of Christ do base things, they are being inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings and standards, which remain good, pure, noble and worthwhile. (Regardless of whether they are believers backsliding, or ‘tares’—only God knows the difference as a rule—the impact is the same.)

On the other hand, consistent evolutionism gives no basis for calling anything ‘good’ at all (or ‘evil’ for that matter). When a committed evolutionist like Hitler carried out his pledge to serve mankind by struggling against weaker, inferior ‘races’, he was utterly wrong, but he was being totally consistent to the standard he proclaimed. No-one can call him a hypocrite. In fact, within his own worldview, it is hard to call him immoral (by what standard can we judge him, if we are nothing other than rearranged pond scum, the outcome of eons of struggle, with the strong wiping out the weak?).

Many have tried to claim that our emphasis on the link between social decay and departure from belief in divine creation means that we think evolutionists are immoral, and creationists moral, end of argument. But this is a caricature—see Evolution and Social Evil, and the explanation of the moral argument in this feedback. An individual evolutionist may lead an outwardly very moral life, maybe even more so than some creationists. But that does not alter the fact that on the whole, society will become (and has become) less moral, moving away from biblical absolutes as it realizes that consistent evolutionary thinking leaves no logical, objective basis for morality.

Why should anything be called good or bad? Who says? By what standard? Without God, everything is up for grabs. Indeed, Haggard’s opponent in the documentary exchange, Richard Dawkins, agreed elsewhere that evolution ‘leads to a moral vacuum … in which their best impulses have no basis in nature’. He scoffs at the idea of righteous indignation and retribution against child murderers and other vile criminals, claiming that it is as irrational as Basil Fawlty1 beating his car. And of course, in the evolutionary mindset, there is certainly no need for the salvation Christianity offers, as without any Adam, there is therefore no original sin. Many evolutionists profess to be ‘people of faith’—but faith in what? How can we know anything at all about God, unless He has chosen to give us a trustworthy revelation? And if we can’t trust that revelation (the Bible) to be reliable in one area (e.g. science/history) how can it be trusted elsewhere (cf. Jesus’ saying to Nicodemus: ‘If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?’ (John 3:12))? This is why the message of the authority of the Bible, from cover to cover, is more important than ever in this day, despite (perhaps even because of) the transgressions of those claiming to champion it.
An evolutionized culture increases the likelihood of these things

Knowing that someone is publicly committed to the authority of the Bible in all things (including creation) will not give a waterproof insurance policy that he/she will never be engaged in something that opposes that very authority—for the same reason that all of us sin (Romans 7:15–24, 1 John 1:8).

There is also some chance that a person who has fallen from grace may not be a believer at all, but a ‘tare’ (Matthew 13:24–30). He/she may have chosen to ‘go along’ and ‘play the game’ because it is such a great career opportunity, or for the fame or adulation, etc.

For all we know, Haggard, like the late evangelist Charles Templeton (who renounced his professed faith entirely), may have developed personal doubts about the reliability of the Bible because of the persistent evolutionary indoctrination of our age. Such doubts would make giving in to temptations just that little bit easier to justify.

Even if not, and Haggard never ceased to believe in the truth and authority of the Bible, there is no doubt that the changes in the culture itself, brought about by its general movement away from biblical absolutes, have made it more ‘respectable’ and somehow easier for even believers in those absolutes to give in to temptations to sin, which bombard them from every angle. Those bombardments themselves have increased in proportion to the retreat of Christian influence in culture in general. Even 30 years ago it would have been much more difficult to find the means to engage in such sin. Laws against wrongdoing (as well as general societal disapproval) certainly increase the difficulty and shame of sinful acts (Romans 13).

There is more, too, that needs to be said in relation to the link between moral decline and evolution—and the importance of repeatedly stressing that link. It is an obvious fact (one that no amount of sinning by any professed creationists can affect) that no-one who stands for the authority of the Bible in the area of six-day creation will simultaneously be found lobbying for the diminution of biblical authority in other areas, such as the ordination of homosexual clergy, for example. Those in the clergy, or in the pews, who defend such things as this will never be found defending the Genesis record of creation as factual and historical. On the other hand, if someone is defending the six-day creation record of the Bible, then whatever their private inconsistencies, they are making a public stand for the authority of the Bible in the area where it is perhaps the most unpopular. By default/definition, then, in other areas, such as legislative attempts to undermine public respect for Christian morality, etc., they will be standing for biblical authority, too, at least in public. And that cannot be a bad thing.

One needs to remember that all of the advances in society which we look back on with favour—the abolition of slavery and child labour, as well as hospitals (care for the sick), prison and orphanage reform—even the blossoming of science and technology itself, have all come about directly from the light of the Gospel being allowed to permeate the culture, despite the failings of individual believers.
Putting sin in perspective

Ted Haggard’s departure from his post is of course appropriate. Scripture throughout condemns homosexual activity as one symptom of sinful lusts, in turn arising from a rejection of God (Romans 1:20–32), This is largely because it violates the created design of marriage as a man and a woman, endorsed by Christ Himself (Matthew 19:3–6, citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24). And a sexual sin is especially serious because it is ‘against one’s own body’ (1 Corinthians 6:18), and can often be ‘a sin that leads to death’ (1 John 5:16).

All the same, we also do well to consider that it is not the only sin in the book, and it is not the ‘unforgivable sin’ either. The Bible calls homosexual behaviour an ‘abomination’; but the same word (Hebrew תועבה / תעבה to‘ebah) is also applied to a proud look and a lying tongue, for example (Proverbs 6:16–19). Such sins are not exactly absent from the church in general, including those in the eminent corridors of ‘Christian power’, but it is unlikely that their practitioners will suffer public disgrace.

In fact the whole gospel message—the good news about redemption from sin, depends on lovingly telling people the bad news that they are sinners! In such a context, Paul first sharply condemns certain sinful acts, including but not highlighting homosexual acts, in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Many people find it easy to mentally skip over the bit about greed, or slander, because it’s too close to home. But Paul doesn’t stop there! He goes on to say in the very next verse:

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
link http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4753

An Overwhelming Judgement!

Everything seemed so normal. Nobody expected it. Then it happened. In the space of a few hours a whole world was doomed. The great flood came, as Noah had prophesied and God had warned. But no one except Noah and his family paid any heed. God had made a way to escape. It involved Noah hearing and believing God - that is acting on the basis of what God said.
The Bible says another great and final judgement is coming. How prepared are you? Here is what CH Spurgeon had to say in this evenings devotion.

"And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away: so
shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
-- Matthew 24:39

Universal was the doom, neither rich nor poor escaped: the learned and
the illiterate, the admired and the abhorred, the religious and the
profane, the old and the young, all sank in one common ruin. Some had
doubtless ridiculed the patriarch-where now their merry jests? Others
had threatened him for his zeal which they counted madness-where now
their boastings and hard speeches? The critic who judged the old man's
work is drowned in the same sea which covers his sneering companions.
Those who spoke patronizingly of the good man's fidelity to his
convictions, but shared not in them, have sunk to rise no more, and the
workers who for pay helped to build the wondrous ark, are all lost
also. The flood swept them all away, and made no single exception. Even
so, out of Christ, final destruction is sure to every man of woman
born; no rank, possession, or character, shall suffice to save a single
soul who has not believed in the Lord Jesus. My soul, behold this
wide-spread judgment and tremble at it.

How marvellous the general apathy! they were all eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage, till the awful morning dawned. There
was not one wise man upon earth out of the ark. Folly duped the whole
race, folly as to self-preservation-the most foolish of all follies.
Folly in doubting the most true God-the most malignant of fooleries.
Strange, my soul, is it not? All men are negligent of their souls till
grace gives them reason, then they leave their madness and act like
rational beings, but not till then.

All, blessed be God, were safe in the ark, no ruin entered there. From
the huge elephant down to the tiny mouse all were safe. The timid hare
was equally secure with the courageous lion, the helpless cony as safe
as the laborious ox. All are safe in Jesus. My soul, art thou in him?

Inconvenient Truth?

We live in the Post Modern Age -so we are told. Truth is relative."It's all a matter of perspective." We cannot be absolutely sure about anything-except that there are no absolutes! How different and encouraging a picture we get from Scripture. The God Who is Himself truth has come to us in Jesus. It is a fact. He has given us the truth in His Word. What do we do with it? It is to be believed , lived , fellowshipped in and shared! The following from Spurgeon's "Morning and Evening" says it a lot better than I can.

"For the truths sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with
us for ever."
-- 2:John 2

Once let the truth of God obtain an entrance into the human heart and
subdue the whole man unto itself, no power human or infernal can
dislodge it. We entertain it not as a guest but as the master of the
house-this is a Christian necessity, he is no Christian who doth not
thus believe. Those who feel the vital power of the gospel, and know
the might of the Holy Ghost as he opens, applies, and seals the Lord's
Word, would sooner be torn to pieces than be rent away from the gospel
of their salvation. What a thousand mercies are wrapped up in the
assurance that the truth will be with us for ever; will be our living
support, our dying comfort, our rising song, our eternal glory; this is
Christian privilege, without it our faith were little worth. Some
truths we outgrow and leave behind, for they are but rudiments and
lessons for beginners, but we cannot thus deal with Divine truth, for
though it is sweet food for babes, it is in the highest sense strong
meat for men. The truth that we are sinners is painfully with us to
humble and make us watchful; the more blessed truth that whosoever
believeth on the Lord Jesus shall be saved, abides with us as our hope
and joy. Experience, so far from loosening our hold of the doctrines of
grace, has knit us to them more and more firmly; our grounds and
motives for believing are now more strong, more numerous than ever, and
we have reason to expect that it will be so till in death we clasp the
Saviour in our arms.

Wherever this abiding love of truth can be discovered, we are bound to
exercise our love. No narrow circle can contain our gracious
sympathies, wide as the election of grace must be our communion of
heart. Much of error may be mingled with truth received, let us war
with the error but still love the brother for the measure of truth
which we see in him; above all let us love and spread the truth
ourselves.

Our Servant King

We have been called the "me" generation. In truth however the Bible says that every generation is the "me " generation. The amazing truth that the Bible teaches us that God has come to serve those who refuse to serve Him or each other. Christianity is the ultimate counter cultural movement. Yet even Christians can -and do- drift back to the "me first" default of our sinful nature. In Christ's amazing gesture at the Last Supper -on the eve of Calvary - we have a startling and poignant reminder of what we ought to be about. Here is Surgeons thoughts from this evenings devotional. Read, be challenged, think and change!


"He began to wash the disciples' feet."
-- John 13:5

The Lord Jesus loves his people so much, that every day he is still
doing for them much that is analogous to washing their soiled feet.
Their poorest actions he accepts; their deepest sorrow he feels; their
slenderest wish he hears, and their every transgression he forgives. He
is still their servant as well as their Friend and Master. He not only
performs majestic deeds for them, as wearing the mitre on his brow, and
the precious jewels glittering on his breastplate, and standing up to
plead for them, but humbly, patiently, he yet goes about among his
people with the basin and the towel. He does this when he puts away
from us day by day our constant infirmities and sins. Last night, when
you bowed the knee, you mournfully confessed that much of your conduct
was not worthy of your profession; and even tonight, you must mourn
afresh that you have fallen again into the selfsame folly and sin from
which special grace delivered you long ago; and yet Jesus will have
great patience with you; he will hear your confession of sin; he will
say, "I will, be thou clean"; he will again apply the blood of
sprinkling, and speak peace to your conscience, and remove every spot.
It is a great act of eternal love when Christ once for all absolves the
sinner, and puts him into the family of God; but what condescending
patience there is when the Saviour with much long-suffering bears the
oft recurring follies of his wayward disciple; day by day, and hour by
hour, washing away the multiplied transgressions of his erring but yet
beloved child! To dry up a flood of rebellion is something marvellous,
but to endure the constant dropping of repeated offences-to bear with a
perpetual trying of patience, this is divine indeed! While we find
comfort and peace in our Lord's daily cleansing, its legitimate
influence upon us will be to increase our watchfulness, and quicken our
desire for holiness. Is it so?

The Dangerous Deception of Unbelief.

Have you ever just crumbled? I mean after fighting the fight for what seems forever you just feel it's no use going on? David felt like that. He felt that his enemy's persistent relentless hounding of him must end in his defeat. He was wrong! So are we when we give in to this temptation. Why? Because we factor out the most vital ingredient of all; the promises of God . Here is what Spurgeon had to say . It is taken from his "Morning & Evening " devotional.

"And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by
the hand of Saul."
1: Samuel 27:1

The thought of David's heart at this time was a false thought, because
he certainly had no ground for thinking that God's anointing him by
Samuel was intended to be left as an empty unmeaning act. On no one
occasion had the Lord deserted his servant; he had been placed in
perilous positions very often, but not one instance had occurred in
which divine interposition had not delivered him. The trials to which
he had been exposed had been varied; they had not assumed one form
only, but many-yet in every case he who sent the trial had also
graciously ordained a way of escape. David could not put his finger
upon any entry in his diary, and say of it, "Here is evidence that the
Lord will forsake me," for the entire tenor of his past life proved the
very reverse. He should have argued from what God had done for him,
that God would be his defender still. But is it not just in the same
way that we doubt God's help? Is it not mistrust without a cause? Have
we ever had the shadow of a reason to doubt our Father's goodness? Have
not his lovingkindnesses been marvellous? Has he once failed to justify
our trust? Ah, no! our God has not left us at any time. We have had
dark nights, but the star of love has shone forth amid the blackness;
we have been in stern conflicts, but over our head he has held aloft
the shield of our defence. We have gone through many trials, but never
to our detriment, always to our advantage; and the conclusion from our
past experience is, that he who has been with us in six troubles, will
not forsake us in the seventh. What we have known of our faithful God,
proves that he will keep us to the end. Let us not, then, reason
contrary to evidence. How can we ever be so ungenerous as to doubt our
God? Lord, throw down the Jezebel of our unbelief, and let the dogs
devour it.

An Intolerant "Tolerance"?

The problem with tolerating all views is that it does not work in practice. This is clearly seen when the views of a vocal but powerful lobby seeks to assert itself against mainstream opinion. The only way it can succeed is by the suppression of dissent- even if that dissent is the age old orthodoxy of the very society that is allowing the minority view in the first place.
As postmodernism canonises all views as equally valid, the only views which cannot be accepted are those such as Christianity that make exclusive truth claims.
The following artice from the Daily Mail gives an interesting and frightening case in point.

A law that turns sexual tolerance into tyranny

By MELANIE PHILLIPS, Daily Mail 19th June 2006


Would anyone ever have imagined that one day it would become illegal in Britain to teach children to follow precepts laid down in the Bible?

Or that a priest, a rabbi or an imam might fall foul of the law by refusing to bless a sexual union between same-sex couples?

Yet that appears to be precisely what may happen as a result of new regulations soon to be introduced by the Government - and all under the rubric, would you believe, of producing a more tolerant and free society.

The Government has just finished consulting on new draft regulations under the Equality Act that would make it illegal to refuse to provide goods or services to anyone on the grounds of sexual orientation. The ostensible aim of these provisions is to end discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals. No one should support irrational and bigoted prejudice against these or any other minorities.

But one of the unforeseen side-effects of anti-discrimination laws is the way they have turned our very understanding of prejudice and discrimination inside-out. Starting with the entirely laudable objective of eradicating discrimination against minorities, they have been transformed instead into a weapon promoting discrimination against both majority and minority religious faiths.

It should go without saying that gay people and other sexual minorities should be free to practice their sexuality without being picked on in any way. What they do in private should be of concern to no one else. But equally, others must be free to voice disapproval of their lifestyles, particularly where this is a key element of religious faith. For like it or not (and this is, of course, an issue which is currently tearing the Church of England apart) the belief that homosexual behaviour is wrong is a tenet that is fundamental to Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Impossible

The new regulations, however, would make it impossible for Christians, Jews and Muslims to continue to live according to this belief.

This is because, although religious faiths gained an exemption under the Equality Act itself, which otherwise would have threatened to outlaw the promotion of religion altogether, no such exemption has been granted over the issue of sexual orientation - which also covers sexual behaviour.

So church schools, for example, are protesting that they will no longer be permitted to teach in sex education or RE lessons that homosexuality is at odds with the teachings of the Bible. They might have to comply with parental demands that there should be lessons promoting gay issues - for example, by taking part in the recent 'Lesbian, Bi-sexual Gay and Transsexual History Month'.

Remember the epic battle over Clause 28, the law which forbade the promotion of homosexuality in schools and which was eventually repealed, in a notable triumph for the gay rights lobby? Well, these new regulations would be a Clause 28 in reverse. They would compel the promotion of homosexuality in schools - and forbid the promotion of Christian or other religious beliefs on the matter.

Lawyers say that the regulations would mean churches, mosques or synagogues would be breaking the law if they refused to hire out their halls for gay civil partnership ceremonies. Clergymen would be compelled to bless 'gay marriages' on pain of breaking the law. It might even become illegal for a priest to refuse to give communion to someone on the grounds that they were a practicing gay or lesbian.

In other words, it would become an act of illegality to put into practice a cardinal tenet of religious faith, including the Christianity that is the established faith of this country and which underpins its values and lies at the very core of its identity.

We have therefore exchanged one deep intolerance for another. Behaviour that was once considered socially unacceptable and even illegal must now be promoted as an acceptable lifestyle choice, and anyone who disagrees is to fall foul of the law instead.

Yes, gays and other sexual minorities should have full equality before the law. But that means they should not be treated aggressively or unfairly by being singled out for different treatment in areas of life where they are playing the same part as everyone else.

But the equality argument breaks down when it insists that everyone is entitled to receive precisely the same treatment despite the fact that their lifestyles may be radically different. This is not equality, but what might be called 'identicality', or the enforcement of sameness even where circumstances are not the same at all.

Far from being fair, this is both fundamentally unfair and socially destructive. By insisting that sexual minorities are treated in an identical fashion to the majority, mainstream values are knocked off their perch.

That is why the antidiscrimination agenda is actually a weapon aimed squarely at the bedrock values of this society.

That is the problem with the gay rights programme. It does not preach tolerance for gays; instead, it stands for the destruction of the very notion that heterosexuality is the norm.

That is why 'gay marriage' or civil union represents such a threat to our society. Under the attractive guise of promoting equality, it actually represents an attempt to undermine the special status in our society of a permanent, faithful sexual union between a man and a woman.

And that is why David Cameron's reported views are so disappointing. In a speech this week, Mr Cameron - who once again wrapped himself in the mantle of family man yesterday and spoke of finding new ways to support family life - is expected to say he would give gay couples the same rights as heterosexuals, including the same tax perks for civil partnerships as there are for marriage.

Mr Cameron wants to convey the message that the Tories are no longer prejudiced against gay people. Nor should they be. But is supporting a policy that undermines family life the best way to go about this? Is he really saying that gay partnerships are the same in value as heterosexual marriage? Is he really saying that two gay men raising children is equivalent in value to a mother and father raising their own?

What would he say, for example, about the former chairman of the South Yorkshire Family Panel, who resigned because he was told he had to approve the same-sex adoption of children? He sought a compromise under which he would adjudicate only on cases of heterosexual adoption, but was refused.

He is now suing the Lord Chancellor's department, arguing that his right to act on his conscience and his religious beliefs have been infringed.

His case perfectly illustrates the grotesque situation we are now in, where under the guise of preventing discrimination, the state is actually enforcing discrimination against someone who merely wants to provide children with the healthiest environment in which to grow up.

The equality agenda is presented as ushering in a new era of tolerance and equality. But this is not so. Instead, it has elevated the rights of sexual minorities above the rights of religious believers.

This is because it is a specific attempt to secularise our society. Religious belief is thus relabelled as prejudice and duly outlawed.

But religious freedom and freedom of conscience are crucial to a liberal society. Once, religious wars took them away. Now they are being stamped out by secular law - and with them goes the bedrock of our liberty.

The Emergent "Bible"

I came across this today and I thought it so relevant that I needed to share it. It deals with how the emergent movement just might treat the difficult passages of scripture-laugh and weep!

The Emergent Elijah
by David Green

I found this wonderful article web-surfing the other day. There is much truth in David Green's words about Mr. McLaren's emergent philosophy. I highly commend it to you. -Steve


What if the Emergent Church crowd could re-write some of the “mean” parts of the Bible? What would it look like? The following is an account from the story of Elijah & the prophets of Baal. Much of the narrative is from actual things Brian McLaren has written in his books (McLaren is one of the main advocates of the “emergents”).

Elijah said to Ahab, "You have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and you have followed Baal. Although I don't agree with that decision, I can't condemn it. After all, no one has all the truth. I understand that Israel has some truth and so does the religion of Baal. We're all seekers of ultimate truth. Therefore, let us unite with the prophets of Baal. Now then send and gather to me all Israel at Mount Carmel, together with 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of the Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table. And let us all have a conversation" (I Kings 18:18-19).

So Ahab sent a message among all the sons of Israel, and brought the prophets together at Mount Carmel. And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will we hesitate between two opinions? Forever, I say! The Lord might be God, or Baal might be God. We all have our own personal opinion as to who God is, but let's face it: We might be wrong. So let us be open to Baal. Remember, Judge not lest ye be judged!" But the people did not answer him a word (I Kings 18:20-21).

Then Elijah said to the people, "I alone am left a prophet of the Lord, but Baal's prophets are 450 men. I'm not saying this proves that Baal is the true God, but it is a powerful argument for Baal, wouldn't you agree? So let's be open to what the prophets of Baal have to teach us.” (I Kings 18:22).

"Now ---- it, I know that some of you have proposed that we put Baal to the test and see if either Baal or Yahweh will give us a sign from heaven. But this is wrong. Even if fire came down from heaven, that wouldn't prove anything. If we thought that fire proved that Yahweh was the true God, we would be arrogant. Our certainty would be based on evidence that could easily be explained by natural phenomenon. So instead of having the arrogance of certainty, let us instead have a humble conversation and unite in the unity of love with the prophets of Baal." And all the people answered Elijah and said, "That is a good idea" (I Kings 18:23-24).

So Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "We respect your beliefs, prophets of Baal. We Israelites do not have absolute certainty about the God of Israel. In truth, we might be wrong. We're only relatively certain that we're onto something when we worship Yahweh. Therefore we don't judge you when you call out to Baal or when you cut yourselves with swords and lances until blood gushes out. Additionally, we don't believe that Yahweh is at war with Baal. God has not called his followers to gain victory or to triumph over his enemies. Yahweh does not want us to conquer the hearts of men through evangelism. "Conquest" is a trait of evil, white, European, male Christianity. We're above and beyond such mean-spirited hurtfulness" (I Kings 18:25-29).

Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come near to me." So all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the Lord, which had been torn down. And Elijah took the same number stones as there are world religions, and he said, "To the prophets of Baal and to all sincere worshipers of deities, we unite with you in true love and unity. The lion is lying down with the lamb. Amen?" (I Kings 18:30-39).

Then Elijah said to the people, "Shake hands with the prophets of Baal. Hug them as your spiritual brothers”. So they hugged them; and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and made them members of his church. (I Kings 18:40).

A Wretch like Me!

Billions are being spent by education and social services to lift our self esteem. It is worse than futile. it is positively harmful! God's Word says that it is in admitting that we are sinners that the door to salvation opens. 1John 1:9 tells us: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." John Newton humbly described himself in Amazing Grace as "a wretch like me". He could have been talking about any of us . Instead of creating a generation of self righteous pharisees do we not need to return to a healthy biblical view of self. The Bible reminds us who we really are. But it is Good News. God meets us as we really are but he refuses to leave us as we are. Here is what CH Spurgeon had to say in this mornings reading from "Morning & Evening".

June 6, Morning

"Behold, I am vile." Job 40:4

One cheering word, poor lost sinner, for thee! You think you must not come to God because you are vile. Now, there is not a saint living on earth but has been made to feel that he is vile. If Job, and Isaiah, and Paul were all obliged to say "I am vile", oh, poor sinner, wilt thou be ashamed to join in the same confession? If divine grace does not eradicate all sin from the believer, how dost thou hope to do it thyself? And if God loves his people while they are yet vile, dost thou think thy vileness will prevent his loving thee? Believe on Jesus, thou outcast of the world's society! Jesus calls thee, and such as thou art.

"Not the righteous, not the righteous;
Sinners, Jesus came to call."

Even now say, "Thou hast died for sinners; I am a sinner, Lord Jesus, sprinkle thy blood on me;" if thou wilt confess thy sin thou shalt find pardon. If, now, with all thy heart, thou wilt say, "I am vile, wash me", thou shalt be washed now. If the Holy Spirit shall enable thee from thy heart to cry

"Just as I am, without one plea
But that thy blood was shed for me,
And that thou bidd'st me come to thee,
O Lamb of God, I come!"

thou shalt rise from reading this morning's portion with all thy sins pardoned; and though thou didst wake this morning with every sin that man hath ever committed on thy head, thou shalt rest tonight accepted in the Beloved; though once degraded with the rags of sin, thou shalt be adorned with a robe of righteousness, and appear white as the angels are. For "now", mark it, "Now is the accepted time." If thou "believest on him who justifieth the ungodly thou art saved." Oh! may the Holy Spirit give thee saving faith in him who receives the vilest.

Mr A has made us face some uncomfortable facts

I don't know if Mary Leland of the Sunday Independent has ever read the Biblical proverb "Train up a child in the way it should go and when it is old it will not depart from it" Proverbs 22:6. Her article in this weeks edition however is sober reading for a society that thinks it can have "Sexual Freedom" and protect it's children along the way. Here it is

"We are all guilty of the sexualisation of our young children"



I SIMPLY can't get too worked up about it. In fact, I can't get worked up about it at all, this hysterical fusillade of abuse at the Government, the judiciary, the courts and anyone else at all in the wake of last week's Supreme Court ruling on the offence of carnal knowledge of a minor.

In the first place, I couldn't get outraged because the legal issue was no sooner identified than it was lost in a welter of scatter-gun abuse. Here was a matter which had to be defined before it could be interpreted, and in neither case was the Irish public well served by its media. It's true that the Supreme Court's decision is a complex argument simplified to its most austere significance: Section 1 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1935, under which it is an offence to have sex with a girl under 15, has been declared unconstitutional from its origin and as a result was not translated into law and therefore - cutting to the quick - did not, and does not, exist. So anyone convicted under that section was wrongfully convicted and wrongfully detained. A bad law has been struck down.

Does this mean that our streets will shortly be steaming with men rampant with lust for teenage virgins, or indeed, for even younger girls? It does not. When will we have a little bit of common sense? Or a little bit of self-respect? But even if such were the case, I believe that we would have no one to blame but ourselves. I speak now in my David Cameron alter ego; like the Tory leader I have been made more and more aware of our own willing sexualisation of children, especially of girls.

I speak as the stunned old bat flapping about in Eason's, asking out loud why on earth young well-dressed and well-spoken mothers should be purchasing for their first-year daughters school stationery loudly decorated with Bunny Girl images, paying over money which goes to Hugh Hefner, colluding in a commercial enterprise which glamorises prostitution and runs on the organised exploitation of women.

I have seen pre-teen girls wearing clothes with logos which would shame a hooker skipping happily alongside their parents. With (and even without) the warm weather, 10- and 12-year olds strut about the country in jeans and shorts sheared down to the pubic bone. Skirts as short as peplums swivel around adolescent backsides, swirling with an invitation which must never be accepted. To buy the daily paper, to buy a school copybook, is to run a pornographic gauntlet of magazines placed within easy reach of today's well-fed pre-teens. For many, even the daily paper itself - one UK tabloid is owned by a known pornographer - offers sexual titillation as casually as a cup of breakfast coffee. We are running "say no" programmes in our schools, and dressing our children like little whores.

We tolerate - we even encourage - the notion of ordinary life as a supermarket of sex. Everything is on

'We are dressing our children like little whores'

display. How can we pretend that this means that everything is not for sale or for stealing? With so much young flesh polished and put out on show how can we imagine that there won't be someone, somewhere, sometime unable to resist the allure?

It's not that we should insist on burkas for our youngsters, but we should insist on some restraint, or some sense of what is appropriate to age and occasion. We are slow to insist on anything now - except on the faults of others and the imperatives of reparation. A Dublin computer technician has been convicted of possession of child pornography of stunning depravity, depicting the suffering, fear and degradation of children as young as two. Do we ask ourselves - where does this come from? Who are these children? And above all, how is the appetite for such material and such gratification aroused in the first place?

This is the dark and dangerous side of a healthy sexual nature. We ignore it because it interferes with our comforting ideas of sex as funny, warming, satisfying and more or less readily available. And for most of us, it is all of those things, with the exception of the last. But to tolerate sex as commonplace and indiscriminate is to invite trouble. Which is what we have, although not quite as we imagine it to be.

The trouble, the real trouble, lies not with the law or the Supreme Court or even Mr 'A' and his like, but with ourselves. It is what we accept as normal which defines the limits both to the law and to our lives. It is our responsibility, and no one else's, to make those definitions both protective and demonstrable, clearly understood by our children and by those who come in contact with them, and endorsed rather than invented by the laws of the land.

Mary Leland

Pacifism is not an option!

Well that got your attention. Of course one of the areas that Christians have genuinely disagreed over is whether or not we can legitimately bear arms. One war however is not optional. You see this war takes place inside of us and pacifism is treason. That war is the war between "the flesh and the spirit". It is the unavoidable conflict between what God would have me be and what I otherwise would be apart from Him . This war is not optional for any true believer. Here is what CH Spurgeon had to say in his " Morning & Evening " for this morning.

"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit
against the flesh."
-- Galatians 5:17

In every believer's heart there is a constant struggle between the old
nature and the new. The old nature is very active, and loses no
opportunity of plying all the weapons of its deadly armoury against
newborn grace; while on the other hand, the new nature is ever on the
watch to resist and destroy its enemy. Grace within us will employ
prayer, and faith, and hope, and love, to cast out the evil; it takes
unto it the "whole armour of God," and wrestles earnestly. These two
opposing natures will never cease to struggle so long as we are in this
world. The battle of "Christian" with "Apollyon" lasted three hours,
but the battle of Christian with himself lasted all the way from the
Wicket Gate in the river Jordan. The enemy is so securely entrenched
within us that he can never be driven out while we are in this body:
but although we are closely beset, and often in sore conflict, we have
an Almighty helper, even Jesus, the Captain of our salvation, who is
ever with us, and who assures us that we shall eventually come off more
than conquerors through him. With such assistance the new-born nature
is more than a match for its foes. Are you fighting with the adversary
to-day? Are Satan, the world, and the flesh, all against you? Be not
discouraged nor dismayed. Fight on! For God himself is with you;
Jehovah Nissi is your banner, and Jehovah Rophi is the healer of your
wounds. Fear not, you shall overcome, for who can defeat Omnipotence?
Fight on, "looking unto Jesus"; and though long and stern be the
conflict, sweet will be the victory, and glorious the promised reward.

"From strength to strength go on;
Wrestle, and fight, and pray,
Tread all the powers of darkness down,
And win the well-fought day."

What is Worship?

A search of Google brought up 93, 900,00 answers for this question. Obviously a lot of people have contributed sites etc on the topic of worship!
The great 16th century reformer John Calvin had much to say about worship. Here is an extract from his tract of 1544 titled
"The Necessity of Reforming the Church." Read and be challenged!

The rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunction of him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we would have him to approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with utmost strictness, must be carefully observed. For there is a twofold reason why the Lord, in condemning and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to his own voice. First, it tends greatly to establish his authority that we do not follow our own pleasure, but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions. Justly, therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert his full right of dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes us to do, and at once reject all human devices which are at variance with his command. Justly, too, does he in express terms, define our limits, that we may not, by fabricating perverse modes of worship, provoke his anger against us.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie.

"It's only a little sin!"

How often have we heard this! Let's be honest how often have we told ourselves this excuse. Just as our life is made up of "little" incidents and little choices, so our spiritual downfall is made up of a mountain of "little " sins. In this mornings reading CH Spurgeon graphically illustrates the danger of the "little foxes" that destroy the vineyard.

"Take us the foxes, the little foxes that spoil the vines." Song of Solomon 2:15

A little thorn may cause much suffering. A little cloud may hide the sun. Little foxes spoil the vines; and little sins do mischief to the tender heart. These little sins burrow in the soul, and make it so full of that which is hateful to Christ, that he will hold no comfortable fellowship and communion with us. A great sin cannot destroy a Christian, but a little sin can make him miserable. Jesus will not walk with his people unless they drive out every known sin. He says, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." Some Christians very seldom enjoy their Saviour's presence. How is this? Surely it must be an affliction for a tender child to be separated from his father. Art thou a child of God, and yet satisfied to go on without seeing thy Father's face? What! thou the spouse of Christ, and yet content without his company! Surely, thou hast fallen into a sad state, for the chaste spouse of Christ mourns like a dove without her mate, when he has left her. Ask, then, the question, what has driven Christ from thee? He hides his face behind the wall of thy sins. That wall may be built up of little pebbles, as easily as of great stones. The sea is made of drops; the rocks are made of grains: and the sea which divides thee from Christ may be filled with the drops of thy little sins; and the rock which has well nigh wrecked thy barque, may have been made by the daily working of the coral insects of thy little sins. If thou wouldst live with Christ, and walk with Christ, and see Christ, and have fellowship with Christ, take heed of "the little foxes that spoil the vines, for our vines have tender grapes." Jesus invites you to go with him and take them. He will surely, like Samson, take the foxes at once and easily. Go with him to the hunting.

Yet More Da Vinci Code.....

Trying to summarise the Da Vinci Code question can be difficult. The following article from Christianity Today is really helpful. Read it and think about it. Do follow up to the Christianity Today site for a wide range of views on contemporary Christian issues.

5 Big Questions from The Da Vinci Code
A brief guide.
by Christianity Today magazine Associate Editor Collin Hansen



Download this article as a Free One-Page Guide to hand out and discuss with your family and friends.
Already an international publishing sensation, The Da Vinci Code now is a feature film directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks. The compelling story written by Dan Brown blurs the line between fact and fiction, so moviegoers have joined readers wondering about the origins and legitimacy of orthodox Christianity. This guide offers brief answers to five important questions.

1. Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene?
No. Mary Magdalene was certainly close to Jesus. She wept at Jesus' tomb (John 20). Jesus even entrusted her to return and tell the disciples about his resurrection. But we have no reason to believe they were married. Brown says that Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper reveals the secret. He writes that the figure to Jesus' right, traditionally known as the apostle John, is actually Mary. Not true. Artists often gave characters feminine features to portray youth. John was the youngest of the disciples.

Brown correctly observes that few Jewish men of Jesus' day did not marry. But why, then, did the apostle Paul, himself celibate, not mention Jesus and Mary when he argued that apostles could marry (1 Cor. 9:5)?

2. What about these alternative gospels that aren't in the New Testament?
It's true that the Bible did not arrive as a "fax from heaven," as Brown writes. The New Testament canon in its current form was first formally attested in 367. Nevertheless, church leaders applied important standards when compiling the Bible. Authors of accepted writings needed to have walked and talked with Jesus, or at least with his leading disciples. Their teaching could not contradict what other apostles had written, and their documents must have been accepted by the entire church, from Jerusalem to Rome. Church leaders considered earlier letters and reports more credible than later documents. Finally, they prayed and trusted the Holy Spirit to guide their decisions.

The so-called Gnostic gospels, many discovered just last century, did not meet these criteria. Many appeared much later than the Bible and were dubiously attributed to major Christian leaders. Their teachings contrasted with what apostles like Paul had written. For example, many Gnostic writings argued that Jesus did not appear in the flesh, because flesh is evil, or they rejected the Old Testament.

3. Were there really competing Christianities during the early church?
Yes—in the sense there were many disputes about the nature of Jesus. And the church has done its best to vanquish challengers to orthodoxy. Once the church decided against the Gnostic writings, they gathered and burned all the Gnostic manuscripts they could find.

Later church councils convened to discuss other threats to Christian orthodoxy. Constantine, the first Roman emperor to make Christianity legal, called the most important of these meetings in 325. Leaders from around the Christian world gathered in Nicea, where they debated Arianism, which taught that God created Jesus. Brown writes that Constantine called this council so he could introduce a new divine Jesus on par with the Father. On the contrary, documents from before Nicea show that most followers of Jesus already called him LORD, the Yahweh of the Old Testament. The church leaders at Nicea rejected Arianism and affirmed that God and Jesus existed together from the beginning in the Trinity. This council produced the first drafts of what became the Nicene Creed, a landmark explanation of Christian belief.

4. What is Opus Dei?
A conservative religious group within the Roman Catholic Church. Opus Dei urges priests andlaypeoplee to strenuously pursue sanctification through everyday discipline. The group has taken criticism for its conservative views, zeal, and secretive practices. There is no evidence that Opus Dei has resorted to murder; nor has the Vatican entrusted Opus Dei to violently guard the church's deepest secrets, as Dan Brown claims in The Da Vinci Code.

5. Does the Priory of Sion really exist?
Yes, but not as described by Brown. Researchers suspect that members of the real-life Priory of Sion, founded in 1956, forged documents that placed major historical figures—such as Isaac Newton and Leonard da Vinci—in an ancient secret society. There is no evidence for this group beyond dubious documents. Any story relating this group to a dynasty begun by Jesus and Mary Magdalene is a fanciful work of fiction.

Collin Hansen is associate editor of Christianity Today (www.christianitytoday.com). For more Christianity Today coverage, visit www.ChristianityToday.com/go/DaVinci

THE DA VINCI CODE?

Love it or loath it it certainly is a phenomenon! I'm referring of course to the "Da Vinci Code" It's publishers are boasting that it will outsell the Bible- well maybe in an airport bookstore for a few weeks- let's see how it's doing 100 years from now! Perhaps the question Christians need to ask is why IS it so popular! After all the story line is mediocre at best. What is unique is that by combining airport fiction,supposed facts and a deadly religious conspiracy spanning centuries some button is activated! It seems to me that there are at least two discernible forces at work: Firstly there is Man's innate hostility to the simple truth of the gospel. As believers we must take seriously the declaration of Scripture : "The natural mind is hostile to God" Rom 8:7 The willingness to believe any attack on the gospel - no matter how transparently false and obviously motivated by money is a sober testimony to our total depravity!
Secondly a willingness to ascribe to Roman Catholicism murderous capacity to suppress truth. The fact of course is that for centuries Rome did indeed use lethal force to suppress all her enemies orthodox and heretical alike. Brown has tapped into a rich subterranean vein of anticlericalism and anticatholicsm that is shared with different emphasis in both continental Europe and North America. The fact that he has for what ever reason conflated Christian orthodoxy and Roman abuse of power is unfortunate. The results have been interesting . I purchased a DVD - produced by a mainline evangelical group in the US challenging the Da Vinci Code. Before long it was obvious that as well as Evangelical worthies like Chuck Missler the DVD also featured an extreme Roman Catholic apologist. He used the opportunity to undermine the evangelical case for the non canonicity of the Apochrapha! Also the DVD stated that Opus Dei was a similar organisation to the Navigators- just getting together to promote discipleship! For those who don't know Opus Dei is a conservative Roman Catholic Society deeply committed to all the Tridentine anti evangelical doctrines of Rome. And though Dan Brown makes some silly mistakes in his portrayal of the Society he is correct in that they do promote and practice corporal "mortification" -including self flagellation. Not quite the Navigators after all!
In our reaction to the Da Vinci Code we need to be careful who we endorse on the way! My enemy's enemy may not be my friend! Wisdom is indeed called for. If you are interested in following through the Biblical Christian answers to the Da Vinci Code, the following site is great! http://www.rbcdavincicode.org/

The "Amazing Grace" of answered prayer!

Sometimes we wonder when our prayers are not answered the way we think they should be. This morning's reading from CH Spurgeon reverses this way of thinking. Given the reality of our lack of spirituality -especially when we pray- the wonder of grace is that God should answer any of our prayers at all!
Every blessing

May 24, Morning

"Blessed be God, which hath not turned away my prayer." Psalm 66:20

In looking back upon the character of our prayers, if we do it honestly, we shall be filled with wonder that God has ever answered them. There may be some who think their prayers worthy of acceptance--as the Pharisee did; but the true Christian, in a more enlightened retrospect, weeps over his prayers, and if he could retrace his steps he would desire to pray more earnestly. Remember, Christian, how cold thy prayers have been. When in thy closet thou shouldst have wrestled as Jacob did; but instead thereof, thy petitions have been faint and few--far removed from that humble, believing, persevering faith, which cries, "I will not let thee go except thou bless me." Yet, wonderful to say, God has heard these cold prayers of thine, and not only heard, but answered them. Reflect also, how infrequent have been thy prayers, unless thou hast been in trouble, and then thou hast gone often to the mercy seat: but when deliverance has come, where has been thy constant supplication? Yet, notwithstanding thou hast ceased to pray as once thou didst, God has not ceased to bless. When thou hast neglected the mercy seat, God has not deserted it, but the bright light of the Shekinah has always been visible between the wings of the cherubim. Oh! it is marvellous that the Lord should regard those intermittent spasms of importunity which come and go with our necessities. What a God is he thus to hear the prayers of those who come to him when they have pressing wants, but neglect him when they have received a mercy; who approach him when they are forced to come, but who almost forget to address him when mercies are plentiful and sorrows are few. Let his gracious kindness in hearing such prayers touch our hearts, so that we may henceforth be found "Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit."

Well done!

This is Daniel our youngest boy-and Chasity of course - his fiance. He has just graduated from Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College. He and Chasity plan to go on to William Carey College in Hattiesburg Mississippi for further study. They plan to marry in December so please do pray for them both as they plan to serve the Lord together. Well done to you both!

Getting started...

Well this is a first..for me at least! I want to use this blog to put up anything that I think will be helpful to those who either know God are are really looking. It will include my own thoughts.. stuff from sites I really like and a few classics from great Christian teachers and writers of the past.
I will also comment on current events inside and outside the church from a Biblical perspective. What really will make this worthwhile is feedback from YOU! Well there's the invitation..
Let me get things going with a quote from "Morning & Evening" by CH Spurgeon the great 19th Cenury English Baptist - the "Prince of Preachers" He is trying to get us to have an eternal perspective- but he can say it much better than me!
"Afterward." Hebrews 12:11

How happy are tried Christians, afterwards. No calm more deep than that which succeeds a storm. Who has not rejoiced in clear shinings after rain? Victorious banquets are for well exercised soldiers. After killing the lion we eat the honey; after climbing the Hill Difficulty, we sit down in the arbour to rest; after traversing the Valley of Humiliation, after fighting with Apollyon, the shining one appears, with the healing branch from the tree of life. Our sorrows, like the passing keels of the vessels upon the sea, leave a silver line of holy light behind them "afterwards." It is peace, sweet, deep peace, which follows the horrible turmoil which once reigned in our tormented, guilty souls. See, then, the happy estate of a Christian! He has his best things last, and he therefore in this world receives his worst things first. But even his worst things are "afterward" good things, harsh ploughings yielding joyful harvests. Even now he grows rich by his losses, he rises by his falls, he lives by dying, and becomes full by being emptied; if, then, his grievous afflictions yield him so much peaceable fruit in this life, what shall be the full vintage of joy "afterwards" in heaven? If his dark nights are as bright as the world's days, what shall his days be? If even his starlight is more splendid than the sun, what must his sunlight be? If he can sing in a dungeon, how sweetly will he sing in heaven! If he can praise the Lord in the fires, how will he extol him before the eternal throne! If evil be good to him now, what will the overflowing goodness of God be to him then? Oh, blessed "afterward!" Who would not be a Christian? Who would not bear the present cross for the crown which cometh afterwards? But herein is work for patience, for the rest is not for today, nor the triumph for the present, but "afterward." Wait, O soul, and let patience have her perfect work.
"Morning & Evening "May 18th
God bless