Part of Jesus' message to the church in Sardis says, "Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels." [Revelation 3:4-5, ESV]
On the surface this appears about as straightforward as any passage in the book of Revelation can be. However, to those who hold to the doctrine of "once saved, always saved," it is troublesome. This is a message to the church -- saved people who have been added to the body by the Lord. Yet Jesus says Sardis has "a few . . . who have not soiled their garments." He promises the one who conquers (or overcomes) that He will never blot his name out of the book of life.
But what about those who have been saved, but who do not overcome? Their garments are soiled. Will they walk with the Lord in white? Are they worthy?
I've been reading John Walvoord's The Revelation of Jesus Christ to get a better understanding of the premillennialist perspective on the whole book of Revelation. Revelation 3:4-5 gives difficulties to Walvoord and others who share his views. He at least admits the issue by writing, "This verse has troubled expositors in view of other promises of the Scripture which seem to indicate that a person who has once received Jesus Christ as Saviour is forever secure in his salvation. How then can his name be blotted out of the book of life?" (82). Dr. Walvoord (1910-2002) was a respected scholar and long-time president of Dallas Theological Seminary. However, he had obvious doctrinal biases and interpreted the Bible through those lens.
Listen to the way he handled Revelation 3:4-5: "To make the continuance of our salvation depend upon works . . . is gross failure to comprehend that salvation is by grace alone. If it depended upon the believer's perseverance, the name would not have been written there in the first place. . . . [S]ome have considered the book of life not as the roll of those who are saved but rather a list of those for whom Christ died, that is, all humanity who have possessed physical life. As they come to maturity and are faced with the responsibility of accepting or rejecting Christ, their names are blotted out if they fail to receive Jesus Christ as Saviour; whereas those who do accept Christ as Saviour are confirmed in their position in the book of life, and their names are confessed before the Father and the heavenly angels" (82).
I don't know if this writer was so thoroughly blinded to the truth that he really did not know how he was treating the text or if he was being intellectually dishonest by refusing to admit that this text teaches something which contradicts one of his pet doctrines.
Read the whole of the letter to Sardis [Revelation 3:1-6] and see that this was a dead church. Some were not yet dead, but were about to die. They were warned to wake up or the Lord would come like a thief against them. This sad condition described the church in general, but it did not apply to every individual. Some had not soiled their garments. They were worthy to walk with the Lord in white. Their names would not be blotted from the book of life.
It is not explicitly stated what will happen to the others in Sardis. But if those who had not soiled their garments would not have their names erased from the book, what does that imply about those who had soiled their garments? If they did not repent, their names were removed from the book of life. Couple that with Revelation 20:15, "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Dr. Walvoord did a great disservice to his readers by giving those who were not living as faithful Christians a false sense of security about the eternal condition of their souls.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
How We Dress at Church
My wife and I had dinner with one of our elders and his wife last night. During the conversation, he asked me what I thought about him wearing biker clothes to worship services. Once or twice a year, he attends Harley events on Sunday afternoons and since he lives about 30 minutes out in the country, he comes to worship dressed to go on to the biker rally. I'm talking about studded leather jacket, head rag, the whole deal (he does take off the headgear before worship begins). I answered his question quickly and truthfully, "It doesn't bother me a bit."
The casual style of dress here in northwest Washington is different from the way I was brought up. As a child I lived on a farm in north Alabama. Customary attire for farmers in the 1950s and 1960s was overalls. In my world, that is the way men dressed Mondays through Saturdays. On Sundays, they wore suits and ties -- at least the ones who went to church did. As a teenager, I moved to a working-class suburban neighborhood. Overalls were traded for blue or khaki Dickies' work clothes, but otherwise the same rules applied. Men wore work clothes through the week and suit and tie to church on Sunday.
Now that has all changed in many places. Churches who value the tradition of having the Lord's Supper served by men wearing ties often struggle to find enough participants. Churches which don't impose that dress requirement frequently feature people in tee shirts or shirt tails hanging out. I can't say that I've seen communion served by anyone in biker garb, but it's not out of the question.
This reflects changing attitudes about dress in our culture. Business people are clothed much less formally than a generation ago, and not just on "Casual Fridays." Even President Bush is often seen without a tie. Can anyone imagine Richard Nixon making a speech without wearing a tie? It's a different world.
Personally, I'm still a traditionalist at heart. I'm still a suit-and-tie guy, at least for Sunday morning worship. I think it looks better -- but I recognize that is just my opinion.
It is always dangerous when we start taking our opinions and making them mandatory for other Christians. I don't always agree with Ray Hawk, but I do say a hearty "Amen" to a recent post in his blog on this subject. When our emphasis on how people dress makes guests and newcomers feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, the approach quickly starts to do more harm than good. Here's the heart-of-the-matter question: If people are coming to worship services not dressed "appropriately," would you rather they come dressed "inappropriately" or not come at all?
That is not a hard question for anyone who cares about souls.
The casual style of dress here in northwest Washington is different from the way I was brought up. As a child I lived on a farm in north Alabama. Customary attire for farmers in the 1950s and 1960s was overalls. In my world, that is the way men dressed Mondays through Saturdays. On Sundays, they wore suits and ties -- at least the ones who went to church did. As a teenager, I moved to a working-class suburban neighborhood. Overalls were traded for blue or khaki Dickies' work clothes, but otherwise the same rules applied. Men wore work clothes through the week and suit and tie to church on Sunday.
Now that has all changed in many places. Churches who value the tradition of having the Lord's Supper served by men wearing ties often struggle to find enough participants. Churches which don't impose that dress requirement frequently feature people in tee shirts or shirt tails hanging out. I can't say that I've seen communion served by anyone in biker garb, but it's not out of the question.
This reflects changing attitudes about dress in our culture. Business people are clothed much less formally than a generation ago, and not just on "Casual Fridays." Even President Bush is often seen without a tie. Can anyone imagine Richard Nixon making a speech without wearing a tie? It's a different world.
Personally, I'm still a traditionalist at heart. I'm still a suit-and-tie guy, at least for Sunday morning worship. I think it looks better -- but I recognize that is just my opinion.
It is always dangerous when we start taking our opinions and making them mandatory for other Christians. I don't always agree with Ray Hawk, but I do say a hearty "Amen" to a recent post in his blog on this subject. When our emphasis on how people dress makes guests and newcomers feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, the approach quickly starts to do more harm than good. Here's the heart-of-the-matter question: If people are coming to worship services not dressed "appropriately," would you rather they come dressed "inappropriately" or not come at all?
That is not a hard question for anyone who cares about souls.
Monday, April 28, 2008
More on Miley
One of my first posts in this new blog dealt with image problems faced by 15 year old superstar Miley Cyrus. Those problems have gotten worse with Vanity Fair's publication of a very salacious photograph of her. Richard Mansel describes the photo in his blog today.
I want to speak to a broader subject: the need for solid parental guidance not just for Miley but for all young women as they grow to adulthood. For the last year, news reports have unfolded the sad stories of Lindsay Lohan and Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears. Those young women all started out as wholesome personalities. Britney was a Mouseketeer in the 1990s version of The Mickey Mouse Club. Her younger sister Jamie Lynn also played the role of Zoey in the Disney Channel series Zoey 101. Lindsay Lohan came on the scene in 1998 in a remake of The Parent Trap. She played the twins role Haley Mills originated in the 1961 classic movie. Five years later, she repeated Jodie Foster's role in Freaky Friday. This all goes to say that at one time, these young women were looked upon as wholesome girls who were acting as good role models for our daughters and granddaughters. All three of these young actresses' fall from grace has been amply chronicled so I do not need to repeat the sordid details. The question now is whether Miley Cyrus is headed down the same unfortunate road. Recent evidence indicates that she may be.
The hope for Miley has been that she apparently comes from a more stable family situation and that is extremely important in the upbringing of any adolescent. If anyone understands the uncertainties of fame, it ought to be Miley's dad, Billy Ray. He seemed to come out of nowhere to instant fame as the singer of "Achy, Breaky Heart." Billy Ray Cyrus has continued a solid career as a singer and actor, but his fame has never again approached the zenith of the Achy Breaky days. He should be able to speak from experience in advising his daughter how to handle white hot fame and the inevitable cooling off that comes afterwards. Billy Ray and his wife Tish have been married since shortly after Miley's birth in 1992. They have two younger children as well as three other children from previous relationships. By all accounts, they have formed their blended family into a tight supportive unit which could be expected to give Miley direction and encouragement to make good choices about her lifestyle as she matures into adulthood.
Having acknowledged that, I'm disappointed that, according to Vanity Fair, both parents were present at the photo shoot and signed off on the picture which the magazine published of their daughter. The assumption behind the apologies being offered today seems to be that Miley is an innocent fifteen-year-old who was duped into posing for the picture because she lacked good judgment. The presence of her parents on the set when the photograph was made argues against that idea. One blogger speculates that the whole controversy is contrived to remake Miley's image into more of a grown up so she can appeal to an older demographic than the pre-teens who make up the majority of Hannah Montana fans.
It is a difficult thing to guide daughters through the transformation from girls into women. I am the father of two sons and no daughters so I cannot speak from firsthand experience. However comparing the job of parenting sons with what I have observed with others' daughters, I believe bringing up sons is easier. Girls who are brought up with a strong spiritual base and a genuine love for the Lord and desire to follow His will in their lives have a great advantage. Even then, they can face a strong pressure to fit into the expectations of the world around them.
A critical part of that upbringing is helping our young children to understand that the celebrities they like -- whether singers, actors, sports stars, whomever -- are people who are going to make mistakes and do things that are wrong. There are celebrities who genuinely try to live godly lives, but they are few and far between. Our fourteen and fifteen year old girls need to understand clearly "Just because Jamie Lynn Spears got pregnant doesn't mean it's OK for me to do that" and "Just because Britney or Lindsay or Miley dresses trashy doesn't mean I should."
When I think about the challenges facing parents today, it kinda makes me glad that my sons are grown and that I don't have any thirteen year olds running around the house just itching to "grow up" with all that entails.
Final Disclosure: I am not the expert on these young women's careers that this piece makes me appear. Thanks the Internet Movie Data Base for a lot of useful information.
Update -- The New York Times website carries an interesting article on how parents are reacting to the "Miley scandal" on Tuesday, April 29.
I want to speak to a broader subject: the need for solid parental guidance not just for Miley but for all young women as they grow to adulthood. For the last year, news reports have unfolded the sad stories of Lindsay Lohan and Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears. Those young women all started out as wholesome personalities. Britney was a Mouseketeer in the 1990s version of The Mickey Mouse Club. Her younger sister Jamie Lynn also played the role of Zoey in the Disney Channel series Zoey 101. Lindsay Lohan came on the scene in 1998 in a remake of The Parent Trap. She played the twins role Haley Mills originated in the 1961 classic movie. Five years later, she repeated Jodie Foster's role in Freaky Friday. This all goes to say that at one time, these young women were looked upon as wholesome girls who were acting as good role models for our daughters and granddaughters. All three of these young actresses' fall from grace has been amply chronicled so I do not need to repeat the sordid details. The question now is whether Miley Cyrus is headed down the same unfortunate road. Recent evidence indicates that she may be.
The hope for Miley has been that she apparently comes from a more stable family situation and that is extremely important in the upbringing of any adolescent. If anyone understands the uncertainties of fame, it ought to be Miley's dad, Billy Ray. He seemed to come out of nowhere to instant fame as the singer of "Achy, Breaky Heart." Billy Ray Cyrus has continued a solid career as a singer and actor, but his fame has never again approached the zenith of the Achy Breaky days. He should be able to speak from experience in advising his daughter how to handle white hot fame and the inevitable cooling off that comes afterwards. Billy Ray and his wife Tish have been married since shortly after Miley's birth in 1992. They have two younger children as well as three other children from previous relationships. By all accounts, they have formed their blended family into a tight supportive unit which could be expected to give Miley direction and encouragement to make good choices about her lifestyle as she matures into adulthood.
Having acknowledged that, I'm disappointed that, according to Vanity Fair, both parents were present at the photo shoot and signed off on the picture which the magazine published of their daughter. The assumption behind the apologies being offered today seems to be that Miley is an innocent fifteen-year-old who was duped into posing for the picture because she lacked good judgment. The presence of her parents on the set when the photograph was made argues against that idea. One blogger speculates that the whole controversy is contrived to remake Miley's image into more of a grown up so she can appeal to an older demographic than the pre-teens who make up the majority of Hannah Montana fans.
It is a difficult thing to guide daughters through the transformation from girls into women. I am the father of two sons and no daughters so I cannot speak from firsthand experience. However comparing the job of parenting sons with what I have observed with others' daughters, I believe bringing up sons is easier. Girls who are brought up with a strong spiritual base and a genuine love for the Lord and desire to follow His will in their lives have a great advantage. Even then, they can face a strong pressure to fit into the expectations of the world around them.
A critical part of that upbringing is helping our young children to understand that the celebrities they like -- whether singers, actors, sports stars, whomever -- are people who are going to make mistakes and do things that are wrong. There are celebrities who genuinely try to live godly lives, but they are few and far between. Our fourteen and fifteen year old girls need to understand clearly "Just because Jamie Lynn Spears got pregnant doesn't mean it's OK for me to do that" and "Just because Britney or Lindsay or Miley dresses trashy doesn't mean I should."
When I think about the challenges facing parents today, it kinda makes me glad that my sons are grown and that I don't have any thirteen year olds running around the house just itching to "grow up" with all that entails.
Final Disclosure: I am not the expert on these young women's careers that this piece makes me appear. Thanks the Internet Movie Data Base for a lot of useful information.
Update -- The New York Times website carries an interesting article on how parents are reacting to the "Miley scandal" on Tuesday, April 29.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Mixed Message From the "Musicians"
My local newspaper (The Skagit Valley Herald of Mount Vernon, Washington) gives big play in its Religion section today to an AP article about Atlanta DJ Corey "CoCo Brother" Condrey who uses well-known rappers to give "gospel" testimony to their fans. His radio program has featured celebrities from the Hip-Hop world such as Ludacris, 50 Cent, Kanye West, Bone Crusher and others.
Before going any further, let me disclose the fact that this almost 55 year-old white guy is not, has never been, and never will be a fan of Hip Hop or Rap music. In fact, it's a stretch for me to use the word "music" in connection with this stuff. However, I understand that not everyone has that insight. Hard as it is for me to imagine, there are plenty of people who actually like this particular kind of vocal pollution. So I get the idea -- Mr. Condrey is trying to attract his young, hip audience to his understanding of "gospel truth" by the use of celebrity spokesmen. There is nothing new about that approach.
What's different is the apparent hypocrisy of people who make their living by "singing" such violent and filthy lyrics suddenly beginning to talk about Christ and loving one another. The article cites a minister named Orlando Bethel who says "youth shouldn't be taught about God by rappers such as [Yung] Joc who is currently facing a felony charge of carrying a concealed weapon. . . ." It seems that Mr. Bethel has the audacity to think that people ought to practice what they preach.
Not everyone agrees. Black Entertainment Television personality Dr. Bobby Jones responds, "I think it's very narrow-minded for someone to categorize another one's relationship with their spirituality. . . . Who are we to say what's right or wrong about what somebody develops? It doesn't matter if five minutes ago someone sang about the love of their life in a very intimate position, then the next five their [sic] talking about their love of Jesus Christ." Apparently this gentleman sees a total moral disconnect between how a person acts one minute and how he acts the next minute.
For a number of years, people have disputed that the lordship of Christ has anything at all to do with salvation. Get saved, then continue to act any old way you want! Apparently, Jones fits right in with that way of thinking.
However, the Bible does not take that position. There is a passage in the book of James which seems particularly appropriate to the idea of foul-mouthed rappers telling people to let God into their lives -"But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?" [James 3:8-11]
Understand, of course, that I have no objection to people telling others the truth of the Bible. In order to have credibility, though, it is necessary to get one's own house in order first. As Jesus said in Matthew 7:5, "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
Before going any further, let me disclose the fact that this almost 55 year-old white guy is not, has never been, and never will be a fan of Hip Hop or Rap music. In fact, it's a stretch for me to use the word "music" in connection with this stuff. However, I understand that not everyone has that insight. Hard as it is for me to imagine, there are plenty of people who actually like this particular kind of vocal pollution. So I get the idea -- Mr. Condrey is trying to attract his young, hip audience to his understanding of "gospel truth" by the use of celebrity spokesmen. There is nothing new about that approach.
What's different is the apparent hypocrisy of people who make their living by "singing" such violent and filthy lyrics suddenly beginning to talk about Christ and loving one another. The article cites a minister named Orlando Bethel who says "youth shouldn't be taught about God by rappers such as [Yung] Joc who is currently facing a felony charge of carrying a concealed weapon. . . ." It seems that Mr. Bethel has the audacity to think that people ought to practice what they preach.
Not everyone agrees. Black Entertainment Television personality Dr. Bobby Jones responds, "I think it's very narrow-minded for someone to categorize another one's relationship with their spirituality. . . . Who are we to say what's right or wrong about what somebody develops? It doesn't matter if five minutes ago someone sang about the love of their life in a very intimate position, then the next five their [sic] talking about their love of Jesus Christ." Apparently this gentleman sees a total moral disconnect between how a person acts one minute and how he acts the next minute.
For a number of years, people have disputed that the lordship of Christ has anything at all to do with salvation. Get saved, then continue to act any old way you want! Apparently, Jones fits right in with that way of thinking.
However, the Bible does not take that position. There is a passage in the book of James which seems particularly appropriate to the idea of foul-mouthed rappers telling people to let God into their lives -"But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?" [James 3:8-11]
Understand, of course, that I have no objection to people telling others the truth of the Bible. In order to have credibility, though, it is necessary to get one's own house in order first. As Jesus said in Matthew 7:5, "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
Miley Cyrus, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton
What do the world's most popular fifteen year old and the two Democratic presidential candidates have in common?
At least three things:
(1) You can't turn on television without seeing their faces. The never-ending Democratic primary season is almost certain now to continue on until June or later after Mrs. Clinton's Pennsylvania victory this week. Miley Cyrus is HANNAH MONTANA -- what more need I say, especially if you happen to be anywhere near a pre-teen girl.
(2) All of them are taking in a lot of money. Obama has been setting all kinds of political fundraising records. Mrs. Clinton's campaign claims to have taken in ten million dollars in new contributions in the 24 hours following her Keystone State triumph. Young Ms. Cyrus signed a lucrative book deal to write her life story. That presumes of course that a fifteen year old has lived enough life to have something to write about.
(3) All of them have some "image problems" which ought to concern them.
Obama's association with controversial Chicago preacher Jeremiah Wright coupled with his secretly-recorded San Francisco comments about bitter lower-income voters clinging to religion, guns, and biases against people different from them have given ample opportunity for his political opponents to cast him as an out-of-touch elitist. Then he went bowling and racked up -- what was it, 37? -- that didn't help his image as a "man of the people." Most of the experts seem to think he has his party nomination sewed up, but these hits to his image may come back to haunt him in the general election this fall.
Hillary Clinton has her own issues with the electorate. I doubt I'm the only voter who wasn't very impressed with her "good ole boy" stunt of drinking beer and whisky in an Indiana bar. The ability to hold her likker isn't high on my list of priorities for qualities I look for in a President. This isn't her only problem. Polls show that a majority of voters think she is untruthful and untrustworthy. Her "sniper fire in Bosnia" story didn't help her image in that department. Wouldn't it be nice to have another George Washington in the Presidency -- you know, the type of person who "never told a lie." Apparently, Hillary won't fill that bill.
Young Ms. Cyrus has another kind of image problem. It seems that several risque pictures of her in various states of immodesty have been posted to the Internet. No, I'm not going to provide you with links to them; you'll have to search them out for yourself if you want to see them. The pictures aren't pornographic. They don't involve nudity. They are, however, something different from the wholesome image Miley, her parents, and the Disney Company have been trying to project of her. Ms. Cyrus and her managers need to take into account the fact that a significant portion of her fan base are young people whose tastes in music and television can be controlled by concerned parents. If parents don't see Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana as a suitable role model for their daughters, they can "just say no" and her popularity will take quite a dive.
We aren't going to have perfect presidential candidates and we aren't going to have perfect fifteen-year-old superstars. They are all human and they will all make mistakes. It isn't too much, though, to hope for people in the limelight who care about doing right and who genuinely want to present a positive image to the American public.
Too many times in recent years, we've been let down by those who raised our hopes and expectations that they would be different and somehow better than the ordinary.
At least three things:
(1) You can't turn on television without seeing their faces. The never-ending Democratic primary season is almost certain now to continue on until June or later after Mrs. Clinton's Pennsylvania victory this week. Miley Cyrus is HANNAH MONTANA -- what more need I say, especially if you happen to be anywhere near a pre-teen girl.
(2) All of them are taking in a lot of money. Obama has been setting all kinds of political fundraising records. Mrs. Clinton's campaign claims to have taken in ten million dollars in new contributions in the 24 hours following her Keystone State triumph. Young Ms. Cyrus signed a lucrative book deal to write her life story. That presumes of course that a fifteen year old has lived enough life to have something to write about.
(3) All of them have some "image problems" which ought to concern them.
Obama's association with controversial Chicago preacher Jeremiah Wright coupled with his secretly-recorded San Francisco comments about bitter lower-income voters clinging to religion, guns, and biases against people different from them have given ample opportunity for his political opponents to cast him as an out-of-touch elitist. Then he went bowling and racked up -- what was it, 37? -- that didn't help his image as a "man of the people." Most of the experts seem to think he has his party nomination sewed up, but these hits to his image may come back to haunt him in the general election this fall.
Hillary Clinton has her own issues with the electorate. I doubt I'm the only voter who wasn't very impressed with her "good ole boy" stunt of drinking beer and whisky in an Indiana bar. The ability to hold her likker isn't high on my list of priorities for qualities I look for in a President. This isn't her only problem. Polls show that a majority of voters think she is untruthful and untrustworthy. Her "sniper fire in Bosnia" story didn't help her image in that department. Wouldn't it be nice to have another George Washington in the Presidency -- you know, the type of person who "never told a lie." Apparently, Hillary won't fill that bill.
Young Ms. Cyrus has another kind of image problem. It seems that several risque pictures of her in various states of immodesty have been posted to the Internet. No, I'm not going to provide you with links to them; you'll have to search them out for yourself if you want to see them. The pictures aren't pornographic. They don't involve nudity. They are, however, something different from the wholesome image Miley, her parents, and the Disney Company have been trying to project of her. Ms. Cyrus and her managers need to take into account the fact that a significant portion of her fan base are young people whose tastes in music and television can be controlled by concerned parents. If parents don't see Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana as a suitable role model for their daughters, they can "just say no" and her popularity will take quite a dive.
We aren't going to have perfect presidential candidates and we aren't going to have perfect fifteen-year-old superstars. They are all human and they will all make mistakes. It isn't too much, though, to hope for people in the limelight who care about doing right and who genuinely want to present a positive image to the American public.
Too many times in recent years, we've been let down by those who raised our hopes and expectations that they would be different and somehow better than the ordinary.
Learning from the Comics Page
I always try to look at the Comics page in each morning's newspaper. More often than not, the jokes in comic strips are groaners. The soap opera strips don't interest me much so I just pass them over without reading them. Every once in a while, though, a comic has either a gag that makes me laugh out loud or one of those startlingly clear moments when I think, "How true that is!"
The long-running Family Circus often teaches some gentle but important lessons in its little circle on the page. Take the April 24 version, for instance. Dolly and one of her brothers are sitting at a table with coloring books open before them. Grandma is holding a box of crayons as she says, "Crayons can teach us a good lesson . . . they're different colors, have strange names, but all learn to live together in the same box." That doesn't need much commentary since it's point is obvious and needed because we humans have a long way to go before we learn that lesson.
On the same Comics page yesterday, I burst out laughing when I read Non Sequitur. This is a new strip to me since I moved to the Northwest. As far as I can tell it doesn't have any regular characters, but just offers a one-shot gag each day.
Yesterday's strip showed a street corner scene in front of the Metropolis Cafe. A policeman is writing a ticket to give to Superman. A nearby sign declares: "WARNING: LAWS OF PHYSICS STRICTLY ENFORCED." Who does Superman think he is anyway flying faster than a speeding bullet? Doesn't he know that is a violation of the laws of physics? Maybe you need a weird sense of humor (which I have) to enjoy that, but I thought it was hilarious.
It also teaches us an important spiritual lesson if we draw the application. The world is filled with people who, spiritually speaking, think they are Superman. That is, they don't seem to understand that God's laws apply to them. And God's laws will also be strictly enforced on Judgment Day. We will all give account of ourselves to God (Romans 14:12). We will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10). People who deny that inevitable spiritual reality will find that on that Day their "super powers" have abandoned them. When it is too late, every knee will bow at the name of Jesus and every tongue will confess that He is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11).
The notion of Superman being ticketed for breaking the laws of physics might be funny, but meeting the Lord in judgment will be no laughing matter for those who have gone through life thinking that God's rules don't apply to them.
The long-running Family Circus often teaches some gentle but important lessons in its little circle on the page. Take the April 24 version, for instance. Dolly and one of her brothers are sitting at a table with coloring books open before them. Grandma is holding a box of crayons as she says, "Crayons can teach us a good lesson . . . they're different colors, have strange names, but all learn to live together in the same box." That doesn't need much commentary since it's point is obvious and needed because we humans have a long way to go before we learn that lesson.
On the same Comics page yesterday, I burst out laughing when I read Non Sequitur. This is a new strip to me since I moved to the Northwest. As far as I can tell it doesn't have any regular characters, but just offers a one-shot gag each day.
Yesterday's strip showed a street corner scene in front of the Metropolis Cafe. A policeman is writing a ticket to give to Superman. A nearby sign declares: "WARNING: LAWS OF PHYSICS STRICTLY ENFORCED." Who does Superman think he is anyway flying faster than a speeding bullet? Doesn't he know that is a violation of the laws of physics? Maybe you need a weird sense of humor (which I have) to enjoy that, but I thought it was hilarious.
It also teaches us an important spiritual lesson if we draw the application. The world is filled with people who, spiritually speaking, think they are Superman. That is, they don't seem to understand that God's laws apply to them. And God's laws will also be strictly enforced on Judgment Day. We will all give account of ourselves to God (Romans 14:12). We will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10). People who deny that inevitable spiritual reality will find that on that Day their "super powers" have abandoned them. When it is too late, every knee will bow at the name of Jesus and every tongue will confess that He is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11).
The notion of Superman being ticketed for breaking the laws of physics might be funny, but meeting the Lord in judgment will be no laughing matter for those who have gone through life thinking that God's rules don't apply to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
