The Es of Entertainment -- Introduction

What kinds of movies, television, music, novels, games, etc. can a Christian enjoy, and still be honoring to God?  No other issue has been the source of more friction between Christians in our media-soaked, pleasure-worshipping society, and no other issue has given rise to as many legalistic rules in an attempt to keep us from being “contaminated by the world.”  Some Christians say we should avoid movies altogether, others say only G-rated ones are acceptable.  Some say no secular music is good to listen to, others add “Christian contemporary” as a taboo because it sounds too much like what unbelievers are producing.  On every issue in this general category, there are many examples of Christians who are far too “loose” in their practice, but on the other hand many over-react to the dangers of modern media by going “beyond what is written,” and are therefore susceptible to all the dangers described in this book.  So how can we understand this issue in a way that avoids the extremes and maintains a biblical balance?

First, we need to understand that the Bible offers very few specific rules about this issue, if any, and therefore we should not expect to find easy answers that apply to everyone.  It is mostly an individual matter of “the heart”—a term which in the Bible means our “inner man,” where we think, desire, worship, and make choices (“mind” and “will” are aspects of the heart).[1]  In Mark 7:18-21 Jesus says that “whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,…that which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.”  He then goes on to say evil comes “from within, out of the heart.”  What we take into our eyes and ears can certainly tempt or influence us, as we will discuss, but it cannot necessarily cause us to sin.  So the response of our hearts to what we see and hear is the ultimate issue in morality.  This is very important to understand, in order to avoid legalism in this matter.  An activity that might be wrong for one person might be right for another, depending on what is happening in their hearts.

Some Christians, either in creed or merely in practice, advocate a rejection of any kind of artistic expression and enjoyment.  But that approach is clearly inconsistent with Scripture.  As T. M. Moore points out,

Anyone who reads the Bible, paying careful attention not only to the words of the text but also the forms of God’s revelation, will be struck by the widespread and varied use of the arts for communicating God’s purposes and will. The Old and New Testaments alike make abundant use of the arts: visual arts (the Tabernacle and Temple and all their decorations, the pillar of memorial stones on the banks of the Jordan); musical arts (psalms and spiritual songs); literary arts (story-telling, poetry, perhaps even drama, all kinds of metaphors and images); and a wide variety of abstract and visionary art forms (the first chapters of Ezekiel and Revelation, for example).[2]

We could add to that list the fact that the apostle Paul seems to have enjoyed reading the Greek poets, because he quoted from them in his message on Mars Hill in Acts 17:28.  And to mention a different but related issue, he also seems to have been a spectator at the Greek Olympics and other sporting events of his time, because he makes frequent reference to them in his letters (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:24-27; Heb. 12:1-2).[3]

So there is nothing inherently wrong with any of the art forms that people enjoy today, and there is nothing wrong with enjoying them, even as “mere entertainment.”  This is important to discuss because some Christians point out that the Bible does not mention “entertainment,” and therefore infer that it is somehow a questionable concept.  But of course the Bible does not mention pizza or toothbrushes either, and that does not make those things bad.  And the Bible does contain the idea of entertainment, if not the word itself.  One of the themes of the book of Ecclesiastes, for instance, is that God wants you to “enjoy life” (Eccl. 9:9) when it is centered on Him.  He tells us to “eat, drink, and be merry” several times in the book (5:18, 8:15, 9:7), and says that you should “follow the impulses of your heart and the desires of your eyes” (11:9).

The reference to eating and drinking is especially helpful in understanding how God wants us to enjoy ourselves (in moderation, of course).  Some of the food and drink He has given us, and some of the eating and drinking we do, are merely for utilitarian purposes, to nourish our bodies.  But beyond that He has blessed us with enjoyable food and drink, and we partake sometimes merely for the pure pleasure of it, not simply to keep ourselves alive.  And this is according to His design—just as He has designed the arts for our enjoyment, as well as for our edification.

Most Christians will admit that modern forms of entertainment are not sinful in themselves, and that they can be used by believers for godly purposes.  But many have a problem with anything produced by unbelievers, because it almost always contains ideas that are contrary to God’s Word and depictions of behavior that God has forbidden.  Plus unbelieving artists often live very ungodly lifestyles.  We must remember, however, that unbelievers can indeed produce things that are acceptable and helpful to Christians.  This is obvious in the scientific realm, of course, because we benefit from the medical and technological skills of unbelievers all the time.  But it is also true in the realm of the arts, as evidenced by Paul’s use of the work of Greek poets, which I mentioned above.  Most Christians can appreciate the music of Mozart and Tchaikovsky, for example, even though one was a libertine and the other a homosexual.  So why can we not enjoy the good work of modern-day artists, even though they may not be godly themselves?

The book of Ecclesiastes is again helpful in this regard, because it says that to His people God “has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, while to the sinner He has given the task of gathering and collecting so that he may give to one who is good in God’s sight” (Eccl. 2:26).  The abilities that unbelievers have, including their cinematic, musical, and literary skills, have been given to them by God so that they can produce art that can be beneficial and enjoyable to Christians.  This does not mean that all the art or entertainment produced by the world is for Christians to enjoy, but it is certainly reasonable to assume that some of it is.

Those who tell believers to stay away from various forms of “worldly entertainment,” however, often quote the Bible to support their point of view.  So it might be helpful to look at a representative example, and examine the scriptural reasoning that is frequently used by such teachers.  The following is an excerpt from Dale Kuiper’s booklet The Christian and Entertainment:

That movie attendance and television viewing are out of bounds for the Christian, are incompatible with the godly walk of those who are called to be saints, is clear beyond any dispute.  Is it not true that movies and television exalt that which is base and depraved, and debase that which is exalted and good?  Is it not true that watching the entertainment of the world, its sexual presentations, its violence and bloodshed, its blasphemies against the holy God, makes a person guilty of the sin described in Romans 1:32, “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them”?  Psalm 101, which I encourage you to read right now, is a psalm of David, the man after God’s own heart.  He says, “I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.  I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes.  I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.”  And a little later in the psalm, “I will not know a wicked person.”  Although he may be tempted, were he alive today, David would not attend movies nor watch television![4]

First of all, it is certainly true that the popular arts are often motivated by wicked intentions and filled with sinful content.  That is why Christians need to be careful and discerning, as I will explain later in this chapter.  But do either of the passages mentioned by Kuiper demand that we abstain from all such “worldly entertainment”?  Let’s take a closer look at the two passages he quotes.

Romans 1:32.  Kuiper asks, “Is it not true that watching the entertainment of the world…makes a person guilty of the sin described in Romans 1:32?”  The answer is no—not necessarily.  Notice that verse says that we are sinning if we commit the sins described in the previous verses, or if we “have pleasure in them that do them” (or “give hearty approval to those who practice them,” as the NASB says).  It is not merely “watching” those things that is wrong, but approving of them.  And is it not possible to observe someone’s sin without approving of his sin?  Certainly it is; God Himself does it all the time!  Likewise, I can watch a movie or listen to some music that has wrong ideas in it, or wrong behavior depicted in it, without rejoicing in that evil.  In fact, I can honestly say that in most such cases I am appalled by the objectionable content and wish it was not in there!  Sometimes I end up hating the sin more when I see or hear it in the modern media—especially when I am reminded of the consequences of that sin. 

So if Romans 1:32 proves anything about the issue of godliness in entertainment, it proves that it is primarily a matter of the heart.  Whether we mimic the sin of the world, and whether we like it, is the issue according to the apostle Paul.

Psalm 101.  Does this passage indicate that David would never watch movies or television, if he was alive today?  Only a woodenly literal or biased reading of the text would yield such an idea.  I know that many Christians have quoted verse 3 (“I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes”) as a reason for avoiding the popular arts, but I am afraid they are quoting it out of context.  That statement does not mean that David would never look at anything evil, any more than “I will know no evil” in verse 4 means that he refused to learn about his enemy, or would not talk to an unsaved person.  Likewise, when David says in verse 6 that his “eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land,” he doesn’t mean that he will be literally gazing at them.  It is an expression that means he will approve of them, support them, pray for them, etc.  In the same way, “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes” is understood by its literary imagery and its surrounding context.  The rest of the verse says, “I hate the work of those who fall away; it shall not fasten its grip on me.”  So David is saying that he will not look upon evil with approval or pleasure—though his words do provide a warning that pertains to what we allow ourselves to look upon.  Charles Spurgeon, in his Treasury of David, captures the sense of the verse well:

“I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes.”  I will neither delight in it, aim at it, nor endure it.  If I have wickedness brought before me by others I will turn away from it, I will not gaze upon it with pleasure.  The Psalmist is very sweeping in his resolve…no wicked thing:  not only shall it not dwell in his heart, but not even before his eyes, for what fascinates the eye is very apt to gain admission into the heart, even as Eve’s apple first pleased her sight, and then prevailed over her mind and hand.[5]

So Christians are wise to be very careful about what they take in through their eyes, and discerning about the truth and error depicted in movies and television (more later on this).  But to say that we can never observe evil behavior without remaining holy is going beyond what is written in Psalm 101, or any other passage in the Scriptures.

Again, the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart.  Remember two of the passages we have learned about earlier in this book, both of which are related to issues like this, and both of which indicate the ultimate importance of what goes on inside of us:

One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike.  Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind.  He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God….So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God. (Rom. 14:5-12)

Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God. (1 Cor. 4:5)

Kuiper says in his booklet, “Every man will be judged according to his work, and according to his play.”  That is certainly true, but notice the basis of judgment mentioned in those verses:  When it comes to issues not directly addressed in the Scriptures, God will be looking primarily at the reasons and responses of the heart.  And since what goes on inside of us is the most important factor in issues like entertainment, we simply cannot make hard and fast rules that every Christian must follow.  But though the Bible lacks such precepts, it is filled with principles that can lead each individual toward greater godliness, and away from the dangers posed by the modern media.  The following posts will explain seven of the most important and helpful principles to apply to this part of our lives, which I call "the Es of Entertainment."  (If you would like to read all of them at once, see Chapter 9 of my book Who Are You to Judge?)

---

[1] One of my seminary professors referred to the heart as the “mission control center” of our being.  It represents the immaterial part of man, with special emphasis on the fact that it is the source of our “thoughts and intentions” (Gen. 6:5, cf. Prov. 4:23 and 23:7).

[2] T. M. Moore, “Why Art Matters,” article on the BreakPoint website, posted February 27, 2004.

[3] Most of what I say in this chapter could also be applied to a Christian’s involvement in sports, another issue that is sometimes the occasion for judging and legalism (Kuiper is an example).  If you would like to consider that issue further, I recommend an article by Dr. Lee Smith entitled “Sports—A Biblical Perspective,” which is posted on his church’s website at www.randolphefree.org. 

[4] Dale Kuiper, The Christian and Entertainment is posted on the web at www.prca.org in the articles section.  Kuiper is a minister in the Protestant Reformed Church.

[5] Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, Volume II (Peabody, MA: Hendriksen Publishers, n.d.), p. 240.

A Review of The Israel of God, by O. Palmer Robertson

I remember hearing one of my seminary professors say that before too long, the church would reach a virtual consensus about eschatology (the doctrine of the end times).  He was thinking that most Christians would end up believing his particular view, which was dispensational premillennialism.

Not if more people read this book…

O. Palmer Robertson has taught in seminaries and Bible schools around the world for many years, and at the time of this publication was on the faculties of Knox Seminary and the African Bible College.  He previously wrote a number of fine works that I have appreciated and learned much from.  These include The Final Word and The Christ of the Covenants.  But in my opinion he outdid himself with this one—it has become one of my favorite books.

Since I finally reached some conclusions about my eschatological views after years of consideration, I have been frequently met with “What planet are you from?” stares when I have suggested that the Jews returning to their homeland in 1948 has nothing to do with Bible prophecy, nor can that group of people even be considered the “Israel” that is talked about in the Bible.  The “Israel” for whom God has future plans is not an ethnic, geo-political nation, but a worldwide group of believers made up of all races, etc. etc.  And the funny looks turn into frowns…

Well here is a book that I can wholeheartedly recommend as an explanation for why I say those odd things (odd today, in the spiritual climate of America—but they would not have been odd throughout most of church history).  Robertson tackles the quite broad (but also quite crucial) issue of “Who or what is Israel?” in masterful exegetical fashion.  That’s right, I said exegetical—which may be surprising to those who have been told that “covenant theologians” and “amillennialists” base their beliefs mostly on systematic considerations.

Not so with Robertson.  As in his other writings, he is concerned first and foremost with what the text of Scripture teaches.  So in between a skillful introduction (quoting Bill Clinton as an advocate of the other view is a stroke of genius!) and a clear-as-crystal concluding chapter with twelve carefully-worded propositions, the book is crammed with extensive discussions of the biblical passages about the land, the temple rituals, the kingdom of God, and so forth.  His lengthy expositions of Hebrews 7 and Romans 11 alone are worth the price of the book (to quote one of the endorsers, because he’s right).

I won’t rehearse Robertson’s arguments and conclusions here, because he has communicated them so well in the book, but I will simply encourage you to read it, whether you think you will agree or disagree with him in the end (I know it’s probably too much to ask everyone to have an open mind).  If you do end up disagreeing, you should at least feel the force of his arguments and make sure that you are arguing against the real teaching of “covenant theologians,” and not just some superficial caricature of what they believe.  (And along those lines, I should add that Robertson is very irenic.  It seems to me that he would be a tough opponent to hate, if his writing style is any indication of his personality.)

To leave you with a taste of what you’ll encounter in this excellent book, here are a few interesting excerpts, starting with the aforementioned quote by Bill Clinton:

“If you abandon Israel [the current nation in the Middle East], God will never forgive you… It is God’s will that Israel, the biblical home of the people of Israel, continue now and forever.”  So spoke the President of the United States in a speech delivered before the Israeli Knesset assembled in Jerusalem. (p. 1)

The holiness of the land is inescapably related to the fact that the holy God dwelt there.  As has been stated, “Because Yawheh was near to it, his own holiness radiated through its boundaries.”  It is not that the land itself possessed some special sacredness in and of itself.  As a matter of fact, the phrase “holy land” apparently is used only twice in the whole of Scripture, and in each case the word land must be supplied by inference (Ps. 78:54; Zech. 2:12).  In other words, the holiness of the land is derived from the presence of the holy God.  But once his person has been removed, as is implied by the withdrawal of the Shekinah in the days before the captivity of Jerusalem, the land is no longer holy and so becomes subject to human devastation. (p. 11)

The disciples must have understood that the Gentiles had a place in the messianic kingdom.  But they had the greatest difficulty comprehending the “mystery” that the “Gentiles” would be in every way equal with the Jews as “heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 3:6).  It is this equality of possession of the kingdom-promises by Jews and Gentiles that still today is most difficult for the church to grasp.  While virtually every believer is ready to acknowledge that the Gentile has a place in the messianic kingdom, many have difficulty accepting the equality of Gentiles with Jews in the possession of the promises. (pp. 136-137)

The idea of a middle phase in the coming of the kingdom, during which, for a thousand years, Christ physically subdues his enemies from an earthly throne located in Jerusalem, would be sadly anticlimactic in the experience of the Christian.  Already the believer is seated with him in the heavenly places.  Already he experiences the richness of life in the Spirit.  Already he is aware that Christ rules over all the nations.  Already he communes in prayer with the resurrected and reigning Christ.  What then would be the advantage of an earthly throne from which Christ would subdue his enemies, and to which the believer would have to come for a special audience with his Lord?  In other words, the present state of blessing for the believer is already so rich that nothing less than the consummate state would be “worthy to be its sequel.” (p. 164)

[Reviewer’s note:  If you would like to read an extensive discussion of the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16, ask for a copy of my exegetical article on the topic.]

Some Thoughts on Ed Welch, Jay Adams, and "The Flesh"

I'm teaching through the book of Romans for the first time this year, and have reached Chapter 7, so I went back and revisited an article by Ed Welch that I had read many years ago about Paul's use of the term "flesh" (Greek sarx).  In the article Welch criticizes Jay Adams' understanding of that term, and by extension his whole approach to counseling.  You can find the article here.

I didn't follow up and read any other discussions about the article or the issues, but just had a few thoughts to share after considering Welch's. 

First, it seems that Welch and Adams, or at least their followers, have polarized as a result of this and other disagreements, and I think that is unfortunate because they are both right about many things.  For instance, Adams' definition of "flesh" as "the body wrongly habituated" helpfully reminds us of the clear scriptural fact that the physical body plays an important role in our sinful behavior.  This simply cannot be denied when you look at Paul's language in Romans 7, where the use of terms like "body" and "members" make it impossible to eliminate the physical from his meaning.  In other words, "the flesh" or "living according to the flesh" clearly has something to do with the physical body.  But on the other hand, Welch is right in pointing out that to locate the flesh only in the physical body is a mistake of interpretation that can lead to problems in counseling method.  And Welch is particularly helpful in pointing out harmful tendencies in counseling that is too behavioristic (though I question whether such problems arise primarily from Adams' view of the flesh, as Welch implies).

The tendencies to err on the side of "behaviorism" are probably more due to the personality, experience, and giftedness of the counselor himself, as are the tendencies to err on the side of "heartism," which is the mistake of focusing too exclusively on what is happening internally and not providing enough practical help for the putting off and putting on of new behavior (which in a cyclical fashion actually affects the heart itself, according to Matthew 6:21 and other passages).

Speaking of personality, experience, and giftedness, it seems to me that Welch and Adams are different in all of those, by God's sovereign providence, and that's another reason they as well as their followers should be learning from each other rather than polarizing against one another (see 1 Corinthians 12). 

Another thought I have after reading Welch's article is that his alternative definition of sarx is at least as problematic, and maybe more so, than the one he's criticizing.  He actually proposes that in Romans 7:14-25 may be speaking of a past experience, even though Paul uses the present tense consistently in the passage, deliberately switching from the past tense he used in the preceding autobiographical section.  And Welch's idea that "the flesh" refers to a Jewish community ideal is as novel as the view he criticizes for being too novel.  It is also proven wrong by the fact that Paul says "in my flesh" rather than "in the flesh" in verse 18, and speaks of it being at work "in my members" (twice in verse 23).

I think Welch's best contribution to the meaning of sarx is when he says that we don't have to locate it somewhere inside of us (or outside of us, for that matter).  I agree with this, because I think "the flesh" is not a material thing but a spiritual principle that we can "walk in" or "live according to" when we listen to the lies of the devil and trust them rather than God's Word.  It's hard to reduce such a principle to a brief definition, as commentators immemorial have found, but my best shot at this time, to play off the main subject of this article, would be to say that the flesh is "the heart and body wrongly habituated," or "the principle of sin that remains influential in both our hearts and our bodies."

Like I said, I think that Welch and Adams are both right in many ways, and that they and their followers can learn from one another.  And we all need to do so, because "the flesh" ensures that we all will continue to be wrong in many ways, and therefore in constant need of that continued learning.

Won't Be Quittin' My Day Job

My son Calvin graduated from High School last night, and the parents were allowed to say a few words.  Here's what I had to share:

Calvin has always been very unique.  He's the only child of seven to have black hair, so I've often referred to him as "the black sheep of the family."  (Usually that's only been a reference to his hair, but there have been some times...)  Because he's so unique, I knew he'd wanted something different for this occasion, and I also knew he'd probably like nothing better than for me to make a fool of myself in front of everybody.  So since he likes rap, I wrote one about him.  This is the first time I've ever done this, and I plan for it to be the last, but here it is.  (Then I added to Calvin, "If you don't like it, your mom wrote it.")

From the time he arrived with a shock of black hair
Till the time had arrived when he’s standin’ up there

He’s been one of a kind, the rarest of breeds
In the race of unique, always takin’ the lead

Obsessions started early with a water-logged youth
Woulda put ‘im for adoption if he wasn’t so cute

We’d find 'im with a hose, or sittin’ in the sink
He would jump into a pool or lake without so much a think

He cutely called it “Lalo” when he’d wetly be at play
Became a little monster when we tried to take it away

One idol to another, as he grew into a man
Endless games and sleep don’t fit a parent's plan

But we’re thankful now he’s older, by the grace the gospel brings
That his passion and obsession have been turned ta higher things

He’s still the only black sheep and unique in every way
And we’re Godfidant this snowflake will be more than just a flake

With his personality and his heart of mercy too
He’ll be used by Jesus Christ in his makin’ all things new 

The Christmas Spirit (a short story in the Dickens tradition, by Dave Swavely)

Show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.   Hebrews 13:2

 

       Since we had been left alone, each winter seemed colder and longer than the one before.  The Carolina mountains were not the easiest place for a mother to raise two children by herself, but it was the home we had made.  Of course I had thought about moving away from the weather after Joe deserted us, but this was the only life I had known, and I was fearful of trying to make my way in another.

             So I did the best I could.  And God knows I did the best I could trying to hide my hurt, and the anger that seethed inside of me toward my husband.  But even after five years, it was still very alive, and Harrison had eventually picked it up from me.  His twelve-year-old mind did not understand much more than the simple fact that daddy had left, but his feelings seemed every bit as strong as mine.  I caught him cursing his father when he had to brave the snow to get wood for the stove, or when he was cleaning the remains of a fire and preparing a new one. 

             Sometimes, when it came time for this chore, he would just sit in a chair or on the floor, silently refusing to do it.  Out of sympathy for his state of mind, I would do it for him, wishing that he would be able to forgive Joe and move on.  But as I stumbled through the biting cold on my way to and from the woodpile, I would find myself cursing too.  So in that way, and in many others, we had to live with a man who was not living here anymore.

             And then, on one cold night during the holiday season, on the same date that he had left, Joe came back.  Not the same Joe that had left us, however, but someone—or something—different.

             Harrison and I were at the table, making paper ornaments for the Christmas tree, when we heard what sounded like a knock on the door.  We weren’t sure because of the crackle of the fire, and the wind whipping outside, so we sat still and listened for another.  When it came, I headed for the window to see who it was, while Harrison asked if he should get the gun.  I squinted my eyes at him and told him no, then peeked out the window. 

       In front of the door was a large shape that I didn’t recognize, but something inside told me it was okay.  For some reason I felt a strange peace about opening the door.  So I did, and was greeted by a huge man in a long, fur-collared coat.  He was pressing the ends of his long curly hair against the top of his ears in an attempt to protect them from the bitter wind, but was smiling nonetheless.

       “Good evening, ma’am,” he bellowed in a deep voice.  “I know that we are strangers to you, and perhaps my companion here is a stranger of the worst sort, but we would be very grateful if you let us in.”  This speech seemed to have been prepared, and he went on.  “You know the Good Book says to show hospitality to strangers, because you might be entertaining angels unawares.” 

       He winked at me, very obviously.

       “Your companion?” I asked, glancing back at Harrison to make sure he hadn’t gone for the gun.

       “Yes,” said the big man, gesturing to his left and behind.  But then he spun around when he noticed no one was there.  “Oh, I’m sorry,” he added with a nervous laugh.  “You can understand why he would be hesitant.  Wait a moment.”

       He trotted back toward a pickup truck that was parked a hundred feet from the house, but was hard to see in the darkness.  Then he redirected himself toward the woodpile when he caught sight of another man, who was coming from there with his arms full of kindling.  I couldn’t recognize the smaller form in the dark, but again something inside told me that it was safe to let these two in.  So I retreated back to the table, sat down in a chair, and brought Harrison near me, wrapping my arms around him.

       Momentarily the big man appeared in the doorway, furiously wiping his shoes on the rug and shaking the snowflakes out of his mop of hair.

            “Thank you,” he said merrily.  “I hope you’ll have an open mind.”

            Then he moved further into the house, and I gasped as his companion stepped into view.  It was Joe, but it wasn’t Joe.  The man looked like my husband, but he was cleaner, healthier.  Sort of like a better-bred brother, although Joe had never had one.  I watched as he wiped his feet off carefully (something Joe would never have done), and then quietly carried the wood over to the stove, where he proceeded to improve the fire.

            “Words may be difficult for him,” the big man said, taking a seat near us without being offered one.  I began to be worried that the wooden chair might collapse under his great bulk.

            Staring at the man working on the fire, Harrison suddenly squirmed out of my arms and ran into his bedroom.

            “Excuse me,” I said, and moved after my son.

            “Tell him that I’m a minister,” the round man said.  “Maybe that will help him feel better.”

            “Oh,” I said, and nodded.

            I went into the bedroom, and closed the door behind me.

     
            “Is that dad?” Harrison asked immediately.

            “I think something strange may be happening,” I answered.  “You know how you learned about angels in Sunday School?”  He nodded.  “Well, that man—he’s a minister, by the way—he said something about entertaining angels when he was at the door.  Maybe this is a test for us, or a way for us to put this all behind us…”

            “You think dad is an angel?” the boy asked, then added quickly:  “Is he dead?”

            “I don’t know what has happened to your father, but that man seems different than your father.  I lived with him for years, I should know.  So I think maybe it’s an angel, made to look like Daddy.”

            “Can they do that?”

            “Well, we know angels can take on human form, so I guess they could take on the form of a particular human.”

            “Weird,” the twelve-year-old said, rolling his eyes.

            “Maybe this is God’s way of helping us to forgive him,” I offered.  “So we can move on with our lives.”

            “Okay,” he said, his mouth still hanging open.  “Who’s the fat guy?”

            “I don’t know, maybe he is some kind of special pastor, who works with angels.”

            “Okay,” said the boy again.

            “So let’s go out there.  Whatever it is, we’ll face it together.”

            “Should we wake up JoJo?” Harrison asked.

            “No, she wouldn’t understand.”

            “Mom, I don’t think I understand.”

            “Let’s just let her sleep.”

            “Okay.”

            We returned to the main room and the same position we were in before.  The man who looked like Joe was now seated next to the fat man, but his head was in his hands and it looked like he was crying.  It amazed me that an angel could be so human, but it convinced me more than ever that this was not Joe.  I couldn’t remember ever seeing my husband cry.

            “Well, this is a special night,” the big man said, glancing around at the tree and other Christmas decorations.

            “Why is that?” I said cautiously.

            “Well, this is the night that the spirits of a Christmas past will be exorcised.  At least we hope so.” 

            So that's the idea, I thought to myself.  We need to forgive this creature masquerading as my husband, so we can put it all behind us.

            “What should I say to it?” I asked.  “I mean, to him.”

            The merry man looked at me askew, but said, “Well, he has to say something to you first.”  He then bopped the distraught man on the shoulder with his hand.

            “Joe” looked up, wiping tears from his eyes, and asked us for forgiveness.  Something else my husband had never done.  Despite myself, I started getting choked up.  I knew this wasn’t Joe, but it looked so much like him, and I had so often dreamed of hearing those words…

            “So now we say, ‘I forgive you?” I asked the curly-haired man, who looked at me funny again.

            “No, now you forgive him from your heart.  And you should also say it to him.”

            “Oh, so you’re saying that we actually need to forgive Joe, and not just act it out with…him,” I said, gesturing to the angel.  Now the man adjusted his colossal body in the seat, looking as irritated as such a jolly person could be.

            “Of course you need to forgive Joe—“ he started to say, but was interrupted by the other man.

            “Lauren, Harry, I know that this is hard—“ he said, but then he was interrupted too.

            “I don’t like being called Harry anymore,” the boy said.  “My father called me that.”

            At this the smaller visitor returned his head to his hands, and started sobbing again.

            “Well, this is going well,” the fat man said.  “Where is your little one?  Perhaps she can break the ice, or bridge the gap, or make the peace, or… whatever!  Where is she?”

            “Josephine is sleeping in her room,” I said.  “I don’t think she needs to be a part of this.”

            “Of course she does,” said the big man.  “She just might be your only hope, because she hasn’t been tainted by the hate and bitterness in this house.  In fact, I imagine this is the reason why God made her like He did.”

            “She was also the reason that Joe left,” I spat, resenting his reference to how my daughter was made. 

            “Right,” he said, pointing at me and smiling in a way that disarmed my aggression.  “And Joe is very sorry for all that.  Aren’t you, Joe?” 

            The other man nodded his head, which was still buried in his hands.

            I was now more confused than before, but before I could ask any more questions, we all noticed JoJo standing in the doorway to her bedroom, rubbing her eyes.  She was a beautiful blond-haired Downs Syndrome child, ten years old going on three.  Her father had left us when she was five, largely because his selfish heart couldn’t stand the thought of taking care of her for the rest of his life.

            JoJo stumbled across the room toward her Mama, but when her eyes cleared she caught sight of the smaller visitor, and stopped in her tracks.  Then she yelled “Dadda!”and ran straight into his arms.     

            I stood to my feet, saying “That’s not your Dadda, Jo.”

            The fat man stood also.  “What do you mean that’s not her Dadda?”

            “It’s my Dadda!” the little girl yelped, hugging the crying man.

            “Is that her Dadda?” I asked the big man.

            “Of course it’s her Dadda,” he said with a condescending frown.  “Who did you think it was?”

            “I thought he was…an angel,” I said.

            “An ang—“ the man started, then pursed his lips, raised his eyebrows, and started laughing.  He sat back down on the chair, and the whole thing shook violently as he continued to be amused, well beyond propriety.  Finally he calmed down, and said, “He’s no angel, sweetheart.  But he is a new man.”

            “I reached the end of myself, Lauren,” Joe said, recovered from his despondency by the embraces of his little girl, who knew no bitterness toward him, nor unforgiveness.  “I ended up in a homeless shelter, with no one in the world and nowhere to go.  This is the short version, of course, but I found the Lord there.”

            “Actually, the Lord found him,” the other man corrected my husband, nodding and knitting his brow like it was a very important point.

            “I knew I had to come back, to make things right,” Joe continued.  “But I felt so bad, I didn’t think I could face you.”  He snuggled with JoJo again, to refresh his courage.  “That’s when I met the minister here.  He was there at the shelter one day, and we talked about my situation.  He encouraged me to come back, and even told me he would drive me up here in his truck.  I don’t know if I could have done it without him.”

            “Well, I just wanted to help him make it here to ask for forgiveness,” the big man said to me, and to Harrison.  “But I also wanted to be here to help you to forgive him.”  He stared intently at us, as though waiting for an answer.

            “I do,” I said finally.  “We do.”  I looked at my son, who nodded soberly, realizing as I did that we should have done this long before.

            “Well, it won’t be easy to keep that promise,” the curly-haired stranger said. “But you can do it.”  Then he rose and moved toward the door, and before Joe and I could even talk about what was happening, we were seeing him off.  He refused our offers to stay, saying that he had other people to see before the holidays were over.

            He even left his truck for us to keep, insisting that he would not need it.  He walked off up the road into the darkness, holding his hair against his ears, but smiling despite the cold.

 

Are not all angels ministering spirits, sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?  Hebrews 1:14

 

 

Halloween is...Reformation Day?!

Many people don't know when Halloween started, or how it developed (I'm not sure myself).  But even fewer know that one of the most momentous events in history happened on October 31.

On that day in 1517 A.D., a German monk named Martin Luther nailed his "95 Theses," or propositions, to a church door in Wittenburg.  This event kicked off the religious, cultural, and political movement called the Reformation, which some historians say impacted the course of the world more than any other event since the life and death of Jesus Christ himself.

The Reformation wasn’t really about breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope, though that did end up happening in many places as a result.  The original “Reformers” didn’t want to destroy the Catholic Church, they wanted to reform it.  But what the Reformation was about, more than anything, was a re-discovery of the Bible's teaching about "salvation by faith alone,” and that is something that should be of interest to everyone, regardless of religious background or affiliation.

You see, the Bible says (over and over again) that we all need to be "saved."  This is because "all of us have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and "the payment for sin is death" (Romans 6:23).  Most of the people who lived at the time of the Reformation believed that God was real, and that one day He would judge the world.  (This was before we became so impressed with ourselves, that we now think we can explain everything without referencing God.) 

Because they knew that they would have to stand before God one day, the people of the Middle Ages were looking for a way to be sure that God would accept them, rather than condemning them in His righteous anger against evil.  And the conventional wisdom of the day was that they had to become righteous by performing religious works, which they hoped would be good enough for a perfect Deity.  They thought He would forgive their sins if they did enough "church stuff."

What Martin Luther, and the other Reformers discovered, was that the Bible says "no one can be saved by works" (Galatians 2:16), because none of us can be perfect, and none of us can wipe away the sins we have committed, no matter how hard we might try.  So the only way to be saved is to trust in Jesus Christ, who did live a perfect life, then died on the cross to pay the penalty we owe and rose from the dead as our representative.  He lived for us and died instead of us, so that God could freely forgive us, but still exercise His perfect justice. 

When we place our trust in Jesus as our Savior, and in gratitude commit ourselves to serve Him as our Lord, God declares us to be forgiven and perfect in His sight, because of what Christ did.  He treats us with nothing but love, as if we had never done anything wrong!  And even the bad things that happen to us will work together for our good in the end (Romans 8:28).  This is the good news, or "the gospel," which is the message of the whole Bible, and one that everyone needs to hear (whether we want to or not!).

If you are interested in learning more about this, or anything related to spiritual issues, I encourage you to contact or visit a church that believes the Bible and teaches the truths that were rediscovered in the Reformation.  I'm sure they'd love to meet you and help you in any way they can...I know our church would, if you're anywhere near Malvern, PA.

 

Happy Halloween!  And Happy Reformation Day!!