I am sure you have heard it too.  “God wouldn’t want me to be unhappy.”

              We have completely misunderstood the purpose of God when we think our happiness here has anything to do with it.  If it is possible, I believe he wants it so, but if it isn’t, if I have gotten myself into a fix that cannot be unraveled, if my being miserable in this life will accomplish his purpose, I know which matters more to him.  He is in the position to see the end, while I am stuck here seeing only the here and now and, far too often, neither learning from the past nor considering the future.  God knows what is best, and what is best is eternal salvation—the next life, not this one. 

              God has been saying this for thousands of years, but just like the ones who did not want to hear what Jesus had to say about his kingdom, we don’t want to hear what God has had to say about our physical lives. 

              Think of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others who suffered long and hard to accomplish their missions.  Think of Josiah who, because of his diligence in restoring the worship of Jehovah among his people, was given the reward of an early death—he would not have to see their punishment.  Think of John the Baptist who lived a short life precisely because God wanted it that way.  He had accomplished what was necessary—preaching repentance and preparing the people for the Messiah.  That mattered more than living a long, “happy” life.   He even came to realize it when he told his disciples, “He must increase and I must decrease.”  In this case, his “decrease” meant he had to be removed so the conflict, and even the jealousy, between his disciples and Jesus’ disciples would disappear.  Imagine what that would have done to God’s plan.  God used the machinations of a wicked woman to do it, but his purpose was accomplished, and John, the greatest ever born at the time (Matt 11:11), never had a normal “happy” life. 

              When did Paul say that David died?  Not after he got old and had lived a full life, but after “serving the purpose of the Lord,” Acts 13:36.  That’s what he was here for, and nothing else.  If you could talk to him now, I bet you he would say that the sorrows he bore were well worth it. 

              Paul makes a distinction between walking “in the flesh” and “according to the flesh,” 2 Cor 10:2,3.  He talks about people who make decisions “according to the flesh,” 1:17; he mentions those who live their entire lives not as people interested in their spiritual lives, but only in their physical lives, 1 Cor 3:1-3.  We may have to live as physical beings, but God expects us to keep our minds on the spiritual not the physical; on his purpose, not our selfish aims; on the eternal, not the temporal. 

              It is not my plans that matter.  Do I think that because I was only a Eunice I had no hand in the salvation of the souls Timothy’s preaching produced?  Do I think that because I was a Zebedee I had nothing to do with what my sons accomplished for the kingdom?  Those two people certainly fulfilled an important part of God’s plan.  To have tried to have been something other than they were because of their own selfish ambitions would have been to second guess God’s plan.

              Sometimes we don’t get what we want.  Sometimes God does want us to be unhappy in this life, if it means the salvation of souls.  Yes, he does mean for some to remain unmarried if they have ruined their chances for a scriptural marriage.  Yes, he does mean for some to remain in miserable marriages as long as possible.  Yes, he does mean for some to remain celibate if their “natural” tendency is to gravitate toward a sinful relationship.  Yes, he does mean for some to spend years of their lives paying society for their crimes even though they have repented.  Yes, he does mean for us to give up our life plans for the sake of his Eternal Plan.  Yes, he does mean for us to suffer illness and die, to be victims of accidents and calamities and perish, “for time and chance happen to all.”  If I think being happy in this life on this earth is the aim, I have missed the point of my existence altogether. 

              So whether or not I become blind in this life, whether you live long or die early, whether your marriage is good or bad, whether you feel fulfilled in your chosen occupation, none of those is the issue.  The question is, what can I do for God?  What can I do for others?  What can I do to ensure my own soul’s salvation?  Until I can accept God’s plan for me with joy, especially when it is something I do not want and had not planned on, I am not yet living the attitude “thy will be done.”
 
For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living, Rom 14:7-9.
 
Dene Ward

On August 7, 1882, in Tug Creek, West Virginia, the most famous feud in American history began when Ellison Hatfield, wounded in a fight with Tolbert Pharmer and Randolph McCoy, died two days later.  However, the seeds of the feud go back to a dispute over a pig in 1879, and some say even to conflicts over sides in the Civil War.  The feud lasted until 1891, eventually involving state officials and militias in both Kentucky and West Virginia.

              The History Channel recently devoted a mini-series to the subject.  I nearly fell out of my chair when it depicted both families coming out of a meetinghouse with “TUG CREEK CHURCH OF CHRIST” painted over the front door.  I think that may be the most shameful thing about the whole affair, and the worst publicity the church ever received.  Here were people who claimed to be New Testament Christians, yet who not only argued with one another for years, but fought and killed each other as well. 

              I suppose I have always considered James’ admonition in chapter 4 to be a hyperbole.  What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. Surely Christians do not act that way.  But here is historical proof that they do.

              The thing we must realize is this:  we are no better when we argue with one another, when we divide over things that do not matter, and when we refuse to speak or even sit on the same side of the meetinghouse because of our selfish grievances.  No, we do not kill, but we do the same damage to the gospel, and thus to the Lord.

              Paul appealed to the Corinthians by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that there should be no divisions among them.  That means “by Christ’s’ authority,” and with reverence for him.  It means in gratitude for the mercy his name has brought us.  It means if we have any regard for Christ at all, then nothing should divide us but a concern for truth.  Jesus himself said that our unity would testify to the world that God had truly sent him.  What does it say about us when we think our own petty concerns are more important than those things?

              Our concern for unity should be utmost.  Pursue peace, Paul said in Rom 14:19.  Don’t just be satisfied if it happens to come along.  Be eager to keep the peace, he exhorted in Eph 4:3.  If that isn’t enough motivation consider this—God won’t be with us if we do not live in peace with one another, 2 Cor 13:11. 

              Peace doesn’t just mean we aren’t fighting and killing one another.  It means we are of “the same mind and the same spirit,” 1 Cor 1:10.  It means we count the other more important than ourselves, Phil 2:3.  It means we seek not to please ourselves, but our neighbor, For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me," Rom 15:3.  It means we are willing to be wronged rather than demean the name of Christ to the world, 1 Cor 6:7.

              A feud among the Lord’s people is nothing to be proud of.  We can think back to that famous feud, of the many lives lost, and shake our heads with dismay.  Now think of the souls lost too.  Some of those people may not have died physically during those years, but far more died spiritually.  It is one example of our forbears that we do not want to follow.
 
May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. Romans 15:5-7
 
Dene Ward
 

Man has been using tents since the dawn of civilization.  The oldest one found was in Moldava, a mammoth skin draped around mammoth bones.  Mammoth—that's the Ice Age, people.

             How did they make those ancient tents waterproof?  With animal fat, which made for a very stinky domicile.  Teepees and yurts were the next phase, and they were still stinky.  Finally nylon was invented in the 1930s and that became the material of choice for a long time.

              You can find all sorts of patents on tents, each claiming to be the next big step in comfort, ease in assembly, portability, size, whatever it is you want.  For this topic I chose the patent that was published on August 4, 1959 because of this phrase:  the said tent was "quite capable of standing up to any weather even without anchoring or reinforcement."  Remember that for a few minutes.

              Our first tent was a Camel dome.  The box said 10 x 12, which I never really understood since it was a hexagon.  It said “sleeps 6” so we thought two adults and two small children would fit just fine.  We learned to look at the fine print.  A diagram did indeed show six sleeping bags fitting in the tent floor—like sardines in a can, and the sleeping bags like mummy wrappings.  The only place even I could stand up straight was the direct center of the tent, where you could never stand because of the sleeping bags covering the floor, so you always stood bent over.

              Before long, the boys received a smaller dome as a gift and Keith and I had the larger one to ourselves.  Now that we are alone, and camp “in style” as our boys accuse, we have a 16 x 10.  A queen-size air mattress fits nicely and we can still stand up in more than one place inside.

              But tents are not houses.  The paper-thin walls mean you hear your neighbors all too well, and they would be absolutely no protection from wild animals.  So far we have only had to deal with raccoons, but if a bear came along we might be in trouble.

              Those walls also mean that in cold weather you are going to be cold too.  We have learned that with a waterproof rainfly overhead, we can plug in a small space heater and raise the temperature as much as 15 degrees inside—but when the temperature outside is 30, that’s not a lot of relief.

              Usually our tents are dry, but on our last trip we were suddenly leaking.  When we got home we found out why.  The seam sealer tape had come loose.  Rainwater simply rolled down the fly till it found a place where the tape hung unfastened.  Then it dripped through--on the floor, on the boxes we were trying to keep dry, and on our bed.  So much for "standing up to any weather," as that 1959 patent claimed.  As comfortable and advanced as they make them these days, there is no confusing a tent with a house.

              The Bible has a whole lot to say about tents.  Abraham and Sarah were called away from a comfortable home in a large city to live in tents for the rest of their lives.  Though God promised them their descendants would someday own that land, they never owned one acre of it.  But one of the tests of their faith was those very tents they lived in.  Did they really believe God enough to stay in them?  Yes, they did, the Hebrew writer makes it plain.  They understood perfectly the temporary nature of those tents and the promise they stood for, Heb 11:8-16.

              The Israelites lived in tents for 40 years.  Their tents were punishment for a lack of faith. Yet even after they finally received their Promised Land, God insisted they remember those tents during the harvest feasts, to remind them who had given them the land and the bounty it produced, Lev 23:42,43.  But the people refused, until once again they were punished for refusing to rely on God. That feast was not observed until the return from captivity.  And all the assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and lived in the booths, for from the days of Jeshua the son of Nun to that day the people of Israel had not done so. And there was very great rejoicing. Neh 8:17. 

              Paul calls our bodies tents in 1 Cor 15.  As amazing as the human body is because of its Creator, it is still a fragile thing compared to the immortal body we hope to receive.  We are often too wrapped up in the physical life those tents represent to remember that.  It seems like a long life.  It seems like everything that happens here is important.  It even seems like we can take care of ourselves.  WE make the living that feeds us and houses us and clothes these bodies.  We live on the retirement WE have carefully put away for the future.  Just like Israel we forget who really supplies our needs. 

              On several occasions I have wakened in the middle of the night on a camping trip to a storm blowing outside.  The wind billows the sides of the tent and the rain pours as if someone had upended huge buckets over our heads.  The lightning flashes and you suddenly wish you hadn’t so carefully chosen the shady spot under the big tree. 

              Once, in the middle of one of those storms, I suddenly heard a loud crack followed by a WHUMP!  The next morning, we crawled out of the tent and saw a huge limb lying on the ground about thirty feet away.  If that limb had fallen on our tent, we might not have survived it.  A tent would certainly not have stopped its fall.

              What are you trusting in today, the feeble tents of this life, or the house that God will give you?  A mortal body that, no matter how diligently you care for it, will eventually decay, or a celestial body that will last for eternity?  The things that "tent" can do for you, or the protection that God’s house provides?  From the beginning, God has meant a tent to symbolize instability and transience.  He has always meant us to trust him to someday supply us with a permanent home, one we will share with him.  Tents, even the Tabernacle itself, have always symbolized a glorious promise.

              Don’t choose a tent when God has something so much better waiting for you.
 
For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, 2 Cor 5:1.\
 
Dene Ward

Apollos deserves far more attention than we ever give him.  Even when we do notice him, we seem to notice less important things and miss the greater examples.

              Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, mighty in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John, Acts 18:24,25.

              So let’s get the obvious out of the way. Apollos was a great speaker.  This was in a day when rhetoric was an esteemed art studied in detail.  People came great distances to listen to gifted speakers, regardless the subject.  It was a high form of entertainment, like going to the opera or the symphony.  Great speakers were stars, the celebrities of the day.

              Luke also tells us he was from Alexandria, the seat of ancient learning.  Alexandria boasted both a university and a great library.  The Septuagint was translated in Alexandria by seventy great Jewish scholars.  There can be no question that Apollos was a highly educated man.  Yet this talented, educated man, who was probably well known, had an amazing humility.

              Just imagine approaching one of today’s celebrities.  You are, in his mind, a no one.  Why should he care what you think, especially if you told him you could teach him something about his craft?

              Aquila and Priscilla, a couple of blue collar workers of average education, dared to approach a highly educated man with great skill in a prestigious art, a virtuoso of sorts and celebrity of the day, and tell him he was not completely informed on the subject he spoke about.  What did Apollos do?  Did he shrug them off?  Did he puff out his chest in injured pride and say, “How dare you little peons think you can teach me anything?”  No, he listened.  Then he considered what they said.  And ultimately, he accepted it and changed his teaching.  Think of the humility it took for a man of his stature to act this way.

              Now add this to the mix:  In the Bible people are usually mentioned in order of importance.  That’s why you read “Shem, Ham, and Japheth,” even when one can prove that Shem was not Noah’s eldest son.  He was the most important one, though, the one through whom Christ came.  Notice the shift in the names in the following verses.
 
While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Acts 13:2.
He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. 13:7.
Now Paul and his companions set sail from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem, 13:13.
And after the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas…, 13:43.
And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. 13:46.
 
As Paul became more and more important, he took Barnabas’s place at the head of the line.  We are told Paul [they called] Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.  14:12.
 
              In Acts 18, we see:  but when Priscilla and Aquila heard [Apollos], they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately, Acts 18:26.  Priscilla, in private and in the company of her husband, evidently took a far more active part in this teaching than simply sitting next to her husband nodding her head in agreement.  Her name is first.  Yet still, Apollos, a Jewish scholar, listened.  How could this man be so amenable to being told he was wrong, and by such unpretentious people, one of whom was a woman? 

              Luke also tells us Apollos was “fervent in spirit” and “mighty in the scriptures.”  Perhaps that is the key to humility.  Here was a man who understood due to his great knowledge of God’s word and his strong feelings about it that in God’s eyes he was no different than a lower class, less educated couple, and that saving his soul was far more important than saving face. 

              Maybe if we have trouble facing correction, our humility is lacking because of a weak spirit and poor scriptural knowledge.  Becoming angry with someone who approaches us, who dares to say we might be wrong about something or need further study on a topic, or simply refusing to listen because “there is no way that person can know more than I do,” might just tell tales about our spiritual situation.  Rather than putting the correctors “in their place,” it shows exactly how low our place is in God’s eyes.  He will only exalt the humble.
 
Whoever heeds instruction is on the path of life, but he who rejects reproof leads others astray, Prov 10:17.
 
Dene Ward

Croquet has a long and unsure history as a game.  The things we do know even seem to be in dispute.  Sometime in the early 1850s, a woman named Mary Workman-MacNaghten, whose father was a baronet in Ireland, went to a London toy maker named Isaac Spratt, and asked him to make a croquet set.  Her family had played the game long before she was born "by tradition," which means no written set of rules, using mallets made by local carpenters.  Her brother eventually wrote down the rules they used.  Spratt made some sets and printed out those rules.  He registered his creation with the Stationers' Company in 1856, but the copyright form gives the date as August 2, 1853, plenty of time for Lewis Carroll to make the game even more famous in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

              When our boys were in middle school we gave them a croquet set.  At first they seemed a little disappointed—croquet?  How boring.  Then we actually started playing and they discovered strategy, like whacking your opponent completely out of bounds with one of your free shots.  Now that was fun.

              We have settled down to annual games during the holidays whenever we get together.  It is the perfect way to let the turkey digest, and we usually wind up playing two or three times.  But that time of year means a less than clear playing field on what is already a rollercoaster lawn.  Our yard, you see, isn’t exactly a lawn.  It’s an old watermelon field, and though the rows have settled somewhat after thirty years, we still have low spots, gopher holes, ant hills, and armadillo mounds.  But in the fall we also have sycamore leaves the size of paper plates, pine cones, piles of Spanish moss, and cast off twigs from the windy fronts that come through every few days between October and March.  You cannot keep it cleaned up if you want to do something besides yard work with your life.  So when you swing your mallet, no matter how carefully you have aimed, you never really know where your ball will end up.  We call it “ultimate croquet.”  Anyone who is used to a tabletop green lawn would be easy pickings for one of us—even me, the perennial loser.

              All those “hazards” make for an interesting game of croquet, but let me tell you something.  I have learned the hard way that an interesting life is not that great.  I have dug ditches in a flooding rainstorm, cowered over my children during a tornado, prayed all night during a hurricane, climbed out of a totaled car, followed an ambulance all the way to the hospital, hugged a seizing baby in my lap as we drove ninety down country roads to the doctor’s office, bandaged bullet wounds, hauled drinking water and bath water for a month, signed my life away before experimental surgeries—well, you get the picture. Give me dull and routine any day. 

              Dull and routine is exactly what Paul told Timothy to pray for.  I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim 2:1-5. 

              Did you catch that?  Pray that our leaders will do what is necessary for us to have a “tranquil and quiet life” so that all men can “come to a knowledge of the truth.”  God’s ministers cannot preach the gospel in a country where everyone is in hiding or running in terror from the enemy, where you never have enough security to sit down with a man and discuss something spiritual for an hour or so, where you wonder how you will feed your family that night, let alone the next day.  The Pax Romana was one of the reasons the gospel could spread—peace in the known world.  That along with the ease of travel because every country was part of the same empire and a worldwide language made the first century “the fullness of times” predicted in the prophets.

              I don’t have much sympathy for people who are easily bored, who seem to think that life must always be exciting or it isn’t worth living.  I am here to tell you that excitement isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.  And God gave us plenty to do during those dull, routine times.  It’s called serving others and spreading the Word.  If you want some excitement, try that.  It’s even better than Ultimate Croquet.
 
Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, 1 Thes 4:9-11.
 
Dene Ward

I recently taught a class in which the various tenets of a major religious philosophy came up for discussion.  After a lengthy explanation of only one of those items, one of the class members said to me, “It must take a theologian to make something that is so simple so complicated.”  The more I thought about it, the more I agreed with her.  Just a little common sense makes them all sound ridiculous.

           Have you heard that we are all born in sin, totally depraved and unable to do anything good?  Yes, I can take some passages out of context and completely apart from the rest of the teaching of scriptures and make them say anything I want them to say too.  So?  Common sense makes it plain that this is a ploy to blame our sins on God.  After all, He is the one who made us, who created us the way He did.

            Now just exactly how did God create man?  He made us in his own image!  Now tell me I am completely and totally depraved and unable to do anything good.  That is not only ridiculous, but patently irreverent and probably sacrilegious as well, if I am indeed made in the image of God.

            But that doctrine does do this for me:  it takes the blame off of me when I sin.  It makes my sins completely and utterly God’s fault for making me that way.  Let me know if you are willing to be the one who stands before Him and tries out that excuse.

            The Bible teaches that there was a time when I was without sin, Rom 7:9.  What could that possibly be but childhood, before I was unable to recognize a consciousness of sin?  At that point, “Sin revived and I died [spiritually].”  So much for “born in sin.”

            Then there are passages galore that tell us that sinning is our choice.  “Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies,” Rom 6:12.  “God is faithful and will not allow you to be tempted beyond your ability but will with the temptation provide the way of escape,” 1 Cor 10:13.  “Resist the devil and he will flee from you,” James 4:7.  My class easily came up with a dozen more telling us that sin is not inevitable for the Christian, the one who now has the help of Christ, that he now has a choice.  That means we do not have to sin--the blame is ours, not God’s, not the church’s, not our parents’, not society’s—not even Adam’s.

            And it certainly makes wonderful and obvious sense that someone created in the image of God was not only created “very good,” Gen 1:31, but also has the power to choose between right and wrong.  The problem comes not because we have no choice, but when we make the wrong choice.  You have to work pretty hard to complicate that.
 
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, Gen 1:26.
Behold, this only have I found: that God made man upright, Eccl 7:29.
"'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.'” Acts 17:28.
Put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness, Eph 4:24.
 
Dene Ward
 

Today's post is by guest writer Keith Ward.

I like guns. I have always liked guns. I suppose a lot of that started with all the western movies and TV shows I saw as a kid.
 
I have never been able to have as many guns as I wanted. But, I can read about them. Despite having qualified in the Marine Corps, my knowledge of guns, ballistics, bullets, revolver vs automatic, holster types and advantages, etc. was miniscule. I began reading gun magazines. I did not understand all that I read. I did not really know enough on most topics to separate the wheat from the chaff among the articles I read. I just read and read and somehow I learned a few things. Some magazines never say anything negative about any firearm. They are “owned” by their advertisers—they are mostly useless. The better ones give a balanced view and mention problems without losing advertisers by calling products junk.

I found that much of what I thought I knew was foolishness, fostered by movies and oft repeated myths.

I read every article whether the subject interested me or not. I found that a lot of them were useful to understanding something I did want to learn about and I became interested in a few new subjects too.

I changed a lot of my views and gave up some cherished opinions.

I now can talk intelligently about most gun subjects; sometimes, people even come to me for information.

Now, why couldn't someone do that with the Bible? (Saw that one coming, didn’t you?) I know some who have done so with no formal program of study. They just wanted to learn and read until they did. One whose highest education is H.S. converses intelligently about theologies and Bible customs and Greek words, etc. The other does the same and is married to me. Will you become one??
 
As for you, son of man, your people who talk together about you by the walls and at the doors of the houses, say to one another, each to his brother, `Come, and hear what the word is that comes forth from the LORD.' And they come to you as people come, and they sit before you as my people, and they hear what you say but they will not do it; for with their lips they show much love, but their heart is set on their gain. And, lo, you are to them like one who sings love songs with a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument, for they hear what you say, but they will not do it. (Ezek 33:30-32)
 
​Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away. (Luke 8:18)
 
Keith Ward

The last time we went to visit, four year old Judah made up a game.  He had a pile of "buddies" (mainly stuffed animals) out in the family room and picked up two.  These he carefully carried behind his back as he walked across the floor.  As he reached what must have been a predetermined point in his little mind, he suddenly dropped the two buddies, one at a time. 

              "Drop one, drop two," he said.  Then he turned around and looked.  Number two was placed in a "keep" pile, while number one was discarded across the room.  Then he picked up two more and did it again.  Before long he had two piles, each half the size of the one he began with.  Then he started the process all over again with the "keep" pile, adding yet more to the discard pile and leaving a smaller "keep" pile.  He did this several times until he had finally whittled it down to two buddies.  When he finished, he looked at the buddy who had "won" the game—the final "drop two" buddy.  He was not entirely pleased, so he gathered all the buddies from both piles together and started over again.

              This time, instead of carrying the buddies behind his back where, I suppose, he couldn't always remember which hand held what, he carried them in front of him.  He could see exactly who he was dropping when.  Occasionally he even hesitated before deciding which to drop first, the buddy which would then be discarded altogether.  Because he could see what he was doing, he was happy with the end result, which was Lucky the Tiger, his favorite.  Obviously, he had rigged the game.

              I began thinking about how he had made his choices.  If one was his brother's buddy and the other was his, his brother's was the first to go to the discard pile.  If one were a newer buddy, and the other an old favorite, the newer one fell victim to "Drop one."  Once he had culled it down to only his old favorites, life became a little more difficult.  In fact, the third time through the game, Leo the blankie actually displaced Lucky the Tiger.

              Now let's put feet on this little story.  Do we ever do the same thing?  Yes, we adults have been known to determine Truth not by what the scripture says but by who says it.  Did Brother Big Name Preacher say this, or some poor old nobody you never heard of?  Did my best friend in the congregation take this side and the guy I can hardly tolerate take the other?  Is this the view my blood family takes while someone I am not related to takes that one?

              Or maybe we make our choices based on how it affects us.  Would this view mean I need to admit wrong and change my life and that other one leave me to live as I want to?  Would it mean that my parents died in sin and I just can't bear to think such a thing?  Would it mean I need to disfellowship my good friends?  Would it mean my children are no longer considered faithful Christians, so I just won't consider the possibility that this scripture actually means that at all.  I've known more than one preacher whose views on divorce and remarriage changed when family was suddenly involved.  Honestly considering the scriptures with rational, logical thought had nothing to do with it.

              Our first allegiance is supposed to be to God and His revealed Word, not family, not best friends, not famous people or those with more wealth or status.  We are not four years old.  We are supposed to have matured enough to make the hard decisions regardless the fallout.  "Drop one, drop two" is not a meaningless game with God.  He watches who and what you drop and why.  He knows how to play the game too, and He will not let His love for sinners influence His decisions about who to drop first if they refuse the Truth.
 
​Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matt 10:37)
​If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)
 
Dene Ward         

I am often amused by our insistence on certain words to the point that we are willing to make them a test of fellowship, while making up our own words and phrases which can be found nowhere in the scriptures.  In fact, the thing we are describing often has scriptural phrases that we steadfastly avoid.  By imposing our words on the concept we often miss connections that had a profound impact on the people who first heard them. 

              I grew up hearing the phrase “rolled forward.”  Imagine my surprise when I checked half a dozen translations and could not find that phrase in any of them.  Because we understand that “the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin,” someone created this phrase to try to explain how sin was dealt with under the Old Covenant.  Why do we do that when the scriptures explain things plainly enough?

              Thus shall he do with the bullock; as he did with the bullock of the sin-offering, so shall he do with this; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven, Lev 4:20.
              And all the fat thereof shall he burn upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin, and he shall be forgiven, 4:26.
              And the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savor unto Jehovah; and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven, 4:31.
              And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned, and he shall be forgiven, 4:35.
              And he shall offer the second for a burnt-offering, according to the ordinance; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin which he hath sinned, and he shall be forgiven, 5:10.
              And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things, and he shall be forgiven, 5:13
              And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass-offering, and he shall be forgiven, 5:16.
              And the priest shall make atonement for him concerning the thing wherein he erred unwittingly and knew it not, and he shall be forgiven, 5:18.

              Funny how I grew up thinking the word “forgiven” was found nowhere in the Old Testament.  Guess what?  I found it well over a dozen times before I decided that was enough for me to understand that those people were forgiven, just not forgiven the way we are.  They understood that, too, without someone thinking he had to improve on God’s words with a manmade phrase. 

               For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered?... But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year, Heb 10:1-3. 

               Those worshippers understood that forgiveness in their time would not last forever, that every year God would once again remember them.  And not only did he remember the sins of the past year for which they had offered sacrifices, he also remembered the year before that, and the year before that, and the years and years before that.  Every year that weight grew heavier and heavier on every soul.   

             That made the promise of the New Covenant much more precious.  Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;… But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people… for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more. Jer 31:31-34. 

              Now forgiveness would include forgetting. That weight of guilt would be lifted forever.  If there were no other spiritual blessing under the New Covenant, that one alone would make serving God worthwhile.  How often do we completely miss the importance of that blessing by refusing to use the words the Holy Spirit did?

              It is not that we cannot comprehend an Old Covenant forgiveness that does not forget.  We have a habit of practicing that very thing. We practice Old Covenant forgiveness when we say we forgive yet every time a certain person’s name comes up we say things like, “I’ll never forget what he did to me.”  The remembrance of their sins against us gives us away.

              Jesus told his disciples they were to expect the same forgiveness from God that they gave to others.  His blood of the New Covenant has power beyond the power those Old Covenant people experienced.  But New Covenant forgiveness only works on us when we practice New Covenant forgiveness to others.
 
Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Col 3:12,13.
 
Dene Ward
 
 

Let me just say it from the start.  Shame on me.  I never thought about some of these things until they directly affected me and mine.  I am horrified, and apologize profusely to any Christian anywhere who has a physical disability for my previous lack of consideration and compassion, for being so completely oblivious.  Now I understand what you have been living with for years, and I hope this will help atone for some of my cluelessness.  I think, though, that this is common.  Until you have a problem yourself, you have no idea what people are living with and the things we take for granted.

              On July 26, 1990, The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed.  For the first time people with disabilities were recognized as a minority with rights.  For all the time before, their lack of education and employment was treated as simply a result of their disability and therefore unavoidable, something the disabled had to live with, just as they had to live with being blind or deaf or paralyzed or any of a host of other disabilities.  It began as far back as 1973 with the passage of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which banned discrimination on the basis of disability and only culminated in the ADA. 

                Churches everywhere in this country have conformed to the Americans with Disabilities Act.  We now have handicap bathroom stalls and parking places, and ramps to at least one door.  I can’t help but wonder, though, if we would have done those things if the law hadn’t forced it on us.  I wonder because of all the evidence I see otherwise.

              I am proposing a new law for congregations everywhere:  the Christians with Disabilities Act.  It wouldn’t cost a penny.  All it would cost is a little inconvenience here and there, and maybe a little time and effort in changing bad habits.
             
Article One—Prayer:  All prayers should be prayed in front of the congregation (not in the pews) and behind a microphone.  People will always say, “But I talk loudly enough.”  Listen carefully:  No one speaks loudly enough without artificial amplification for someone with a true hearing disability to hear and be able “to say the amen” (1 Cor 14:16).  (No, dear brother, not even you!)  In fact, in trying to speak “louder” the clarity is often lost, and that can be even worse.
              It is also important that hearing disabled people be able to see not just your face, but your lips.  Many of them count on lip reading, some subconsciously, in order to help fill in the gaps their poor hearing leaves.  Therefore, speakers must stand where they can be seen, not wander around among the assembled, and those praying must keep their heads up and pointed toward the audience.  God is more likely to send you to hell for being unkind and inconsiderate of a disabled brother than he is for not bowing your head.
 
Article Two—Power point:  You may only use a power point presentation if you also verbalize everything that is on the screen for the vision impaired.
              Many times I have been scrambling to find the song after the songleader started because he neglected to mention the number: “It’s on the power point.” 
              My brothers and sisters have learned some new songs and some new verses to songs that I still do not know because I have never seen them.  They were only put on the power point.  Any extra verses or new songs that are sung with any amount of regularity should be printed out and made available, not just for the vision impaired in the congregation, but for any similarly afflicted visitors who need them as well.
              In addition, preachers and teachers should be aware that anything on the power point that is important will be completely missed by those who cannot see it.  “I would go over all the verses, but you can see them up there.”  No, I can’t, and there are others just like me who won't speak up.
 
              This “act” is obviously incomplete—there isn’t a law on record this short.  I could have added things like the length of time we ask people to stand or the number of times we expect them to get up and down, something extremely difficult for the elderly, but I can only relate to the disabilities my family and I have, which is the whole point.  We must actively seek the needs of the disabled so they can participate in the public worship with us as much as possible.  That does not mean they should not be realistic.  Being disabled by very definition means there will be some limitations they (including me) just have to accept, but we do not want to be like the rulers in Jesus’ day who told them all to go away. “There are six other days in the week.  Why mess up our Sabbath?” (Luke 13:14) 

              We are supposed to be trying to reach the lost.  Do we only want the healthy lost?  The more we reach, the more disabled we will have among us, and the more we will need to make some changes—perhaps even people signing the sermons and Bible classes, and a few Braille songbooks and Bibles on hand to pass out.  Of all people, Christians should be compassionate and willing to bend for the sake of those “bruised reeds” among us, (Matt 12:20).

              Jesus went to the disabled and diseased; he didn’t avoid them (Matt 11:3-6).  Yes, his healing them validated his claims and made people more apt to listen, but evidently it “offended” some people too.  Could it be because those disabilities symbolized a greater disability that everyone has—sin and death?  What if Jesus had ignored that disability the way we ignore the physical ones?
 
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing. Luke 4:18-21
 
Dene Ward