A QUEER CAUSE CARRIES THE DAY IN CANADA

Red Deer Life, May 13^th, 2012; Red Deer Advocate, May 20^th, 2012. I haven’t watched a beauty pageant since about a dozen years ago (which is not long enough.) Does anyone believe that a beauty contestant is the most beautiful woman in the region she represents? Every time you go downtown, in the city or town or even village you live in, you see a woman more beautiful than the one you just saw on television. Contestants for pageants are determined by the whims and fancies of a few persons. As whims and fancies evolve to suit the ‘progressive’ values of our society, it is certain that pageants must eventually become circuses. Eating disorders and plastic surgeries are just as likely to win you a crown today as natural beauty and fitness. It won’t be long before a completely manufactured woman (like a man made to look like one) will win, not just compete in, a major beauty pageant. Queer causes must prevail in societies wherein the politically correct crowd always wins the ear of persons in charge.

It is a short step from calling this queer (word used in the original sense) contestant ‘hot’ (which some men have done) to confessing a homosexual proclivity. This queer contestant is nothing but a man. And I am glad that a pageant makes itself look ridiculous by its own political correctness. Now men may compete alongside women. They just have to look the part they are pretending to be. I do not see this ‘transgendered’ person competing in a pageant for women as a victory for men, though, for normal men would never push for a chance to compete among women. But it is a victory for those of us who want pageants to implode through bombs of their own making. If queer agendas go much farther, beauty pageants will become pageants about nothing specific, and shows lacking direction and focus are not likely to survive for long.

What if this contestant became born again by the power of God? What could he (I refuse to call him she) conscientiously do but live the celibate life of a eunuch? What could he do but bewail his fate, as Jephthah’s daughter did (though we doubt that he would have cause to bewail his virginity.) It is a sad pickle he has gotten himself into. There will be (mark my words) no happy lifetime partnership for him.

‘Beauty is vain,’ the Bible says (Proverbs 31.30.) It is an empty possession and pursuit. This includes all outward beauty, be it natural or manufactured. It is a remarkable fact, and totally in line with what we should expect, that Jesus, when he came to save, possessed ‘no beauty that we should desire him’ (Isaiah 53.2) He who came to save the soul would not be hindered through attracting sinners to his looks. We are not to trust in our own beauty (Ezekiel 16.15), nor even in the physical beauty of Jesus (as many do through depictions of him, which is idolatry.) We are to trust in what is naturally repulsive to us: the shed blood of a Man who was not pretty to look upon but who was the beauty of holiness incarnate.

“Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Corinthians 15.50.) Beauty that is made of flesh and blood comes to corruption, and cannot inherit Bliss Above. We must be justified through Christ’s blood (Romans 5.9.) Blood is gory; but blood that saves is beautiful. To trust in Jesus’ blood is to trust in his death for your sins. Once that is done, your sins are washed away, and the gate of heaven must open up for you, and you must gain access to a pageantry fit for those who have been made ‘meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light’ (Colossians 1.12.) 

A BEAST AND A BABE

Red Deer Advocate, March 2^nd, 2012. What strikes the eye as we survey this sorrowful piece of news? Lots of love and concern for a beast, but not one affectionate word about the babe killed by it! This is not just the fault of whoever wrote the article, though he is to blame. The parents of the dead babe are no doubt blameworthy as well. The family pet, they are anxious to inform us, was put down under careful, professional supervision!

Immoderate love for ‘family pets’ is a widespread phenomenon: offers from across Canada to save the beast that just killed the newborn baby! Yes, that would make a nice pet over by the fireplace! He just mauled the defenseless infant to death, so let’s adopt him, poor thing!

Through lust for luxuries and mindless entertainment the people of this country have become increasingly ignorant of the Bible. Because of this, their behaviors and affections have become disordered. Basic distinctions are no longer regarded, if known at all; indeed, they scarcely apply.

The Bible will always set you right on the basics of life. It will do so on this present phenomenon of loving family pets. It would do every child well, if, long before the family pet dies, he has been informed that the pet should be liked but not loved, and that the pet is a lower animal form: what the Bible commonly calls a ‘beast.’ Anything less than wrath and outrage toward a beast that kills, maims, disfigures, or even bites a babe is unacceptable, unbiblical, cold, and unloving to humanity.

Both man and beast are liable to death (Ecclesiastes 3.19.) God waters the beasts of the earth (Psalm 104.11.) He feeds them too (Psalm 147.9.) None of this needs proof from the Bible. Experience soon teaches us these things. But while man is allowed dominion over all beasts (Genesis 1.26), he is commanded to especially care for certain of them, like those that do him service. “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn” (Deuteronomy 25.4.) And man has it in him to care for his beast (Proverbs 12.10.) Observe, though, that in this proverb, the regard a righteous man has for his beast is only mentioned to set that low affection in contrast with how cruel wicked men are. And observe, too, that the command to feed the working ox is written down with a higher purpose in mind: as a reminder to sustain the laboring minister of God’s Church (1 Timothy 5.18.) Not to say that comedy pulpiteers ought to be supported, mind you, but only the few ministers who minister the knowledge and wisdom of God to God’s people.

Dogs, by nature, are beasts, nothing more, no matter how cute and ‘smart’ some of them are. To love a pet as a family member is to set a creature possessing life and sense (the wherewithal to smell, see, and hear) on the same level as a creature possessing life, sense, and reason (the ability to contemplate and make logical distinctions.) It is a foolish error, and a repugnant one. Once your beast kills your babe, the wellbeing of your beast is no longer an issue to be concerned with. I remember when people were more sensible, not extraordinarily noble or moral, but more sensible than what is now the norm. The neighbor’s dog bit the face of the owner’s daughter back in 1975 or so. That dog ceased to be the ‘family pet’ the moment that happened. The dad (or it might have been the son) promptly took the dog out back and shot him dead. The family soon learned that a family pet is a beast whose rights are nothing but temporary, precarious privileges.

Whatever animates the dog or beast is of a lower order than what animates man. “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward [not necessarily up into heaven], and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth” (Ecclesiastes 3.21.) Too many people know too little of the difference between man and beast. We know this at least and for sure: dogs are beasts, not humans. Now if that man deserves to die who sheds the blood of man (Genesis 9.6), is it reasonable to extend compassion to a ravaging beast? We need to distinguish between man and beast, love and like, and right and wrong. Babes and beasts are not created alike; they are not to be treated alike. Biting dogs need to be put down without delay and without mercy. Who knows, maybe this dog had bitten before. Maybe danger signs were seen but ignored. More carefulness would have preserved the baby’s life. We can say at least that. If you’re going to have a beast and a babe at the same time in the same house, then it should go without saying that the beast that you choose to have as your ‘family pet’ should be too small to pose a danger to the babe. 

THE CONGREGATION OF SAINTS

Red Deer Life, February 19^th, 2012.  In Psalm 106.16 we read, “They envied Moses also in the camp, and Aaron the saint of the LORD.” Here is one of the only verses in the Bible where one man of God seems to be singled out beside another as a saint. The apparent distinction seems to agree with the distinction that Roman Catholics believe exists between one Christian and another. One is a Christian, it is believed; but this other one is a saint. I’m not saying that any Roman Catholic believes that Aaron is being singled out as a saint in this verse, over and above what Moses was. I’m just saying that this verse is the closest thing I can find in the Bible to support a distinction of saint and non-saint among the people of God. If this is a ‘straw man’ situation, then it is for a good cause: to show that even in the verse in which a man of God seems to be singled out as a saint beside his fellow man of God, there is really no such distinction to be found there, but only an appearance without substance, which is what Roman Catholic sainthood is.

Aaron is not elevated here as if he were greater and holier than Moses. It is not being implied that Aaron is a saint, while Moses is not. Aaron’s priesthood is being singled out in this instance, for he was especially set apart to minister sacrifices to God. Those who are even vaguely familiar with the history of these two men know that Moses, because of the superior degree of his virtues, far exceeded Aaron in the estimation of God. It would be odd for anyone to contest this. Probably no one has. Moses was singled out by God as the meekest man alive. This was done during the event of Aaron’s rebellion for authority over Moses (Numbers 12.3.) Both Moses and Aaron were saints of God. It will surprise most Roman Catholics, no doubt, to know that saints, whole congregations of them, lived in Old Testament times, even a thousand years and more, before a pope existed to canonize any! “Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, his praise in the congregation of saints” (Psalm 149.1.) And then, the New Testament shows that saints are not just people, here and there, canonized through the word of a pope. Salute ‘every’ saint, says the apostle Paul, before closing his letter to the Philippian church (Philippians 4.21.) In the next verse, he sends a salutation from the saints on his end. Many saints, I think, before any pope came into being! And many more saints than the popes all put together have canonized! If any person canonized by a pope is a saint, it is not by virtue of the pope’s declaration, but coincidental with what God has caused. The fact that saints existed before popes came into being should convince anyone, if anything will, that it takes no pope to make a saint.

The definition of a saint is ‘awful thing’: something inspiring awe. Why is that? Because the person called a saint is something? No, but because God has made something out of a sinner. A saint is a sinner saved by the power of God. To be transferred from the kingdom of darkness into that of light is an awful thing. The saint inspires awe, also, because of the change in his character and views. Regeneration from God causes him to have a change of heart on moral issues, like abortion, fornication, and gender roles. Many liberals are awestruck, are they not, when a fellow liberal suddenly turns against abortion on account of a turn toward God? This change of thought happens through the knowledge of God’s Book that the newly minted saint has become eager to learn about. The saints are people of whom it is said, “that keep the commandments of God” (Revelation 14.12.) Genuine faith in Jesus has this effect. Yes, they still sin, but on large issues like life, they become quite dogmatic and stubborn, don’t they? Upon regeneration and because of their active trust in the Redeemer of their souls, the saints of God are people who search the Scriptures for news of heritage, direction, and comfort. They soon learn, and become righteously opinionated about ‘the faith which was once delivered unto the saints’ (Jude 3.) Since that faith respects life, saints become so steadfast on that important point as to inspire awe. But a pope-made saint (if one could be found alive) might be just as jealous for his opinion on an issue like that. So let’s examine sainthood a little more closely.

It is well known that Roman Catholics, including the priests, are ignorant of the Bible’s contents. Read about one of the ‘saints’ canonized by a pope and see if you can find much biblical knowledge in that biography. You will find much confusion, heresy, and superstition. For instance, how many of the pope’s ‘saints’ would know enough of the Bible to be able to connect saints and prayer in a biblical fashion practically? Are saints to be prayed to? What Roman Catholic would say no to this question that the Bible gives such a simple and clear answer to? Far from being the ones to be prayed to, saints are to be prayed for! The apostle Paul would have us ‘watching…with all perseverance and supplication for all saints’ (Ephesians 6.18.) ‘All’ saints need prayer, even saints who are apostles, for in the very next breath Paul says, ‘and for me.’ It is the ‘prayers of all saints’ that are offered on the golden altar before the throne, not ‘prayers to all saints made by the pope’ (Revelation 8.3.) If any of this conflicts with what the Apocrypha says, then a choice must be made between that and Revelation. But in truth, what Roman Catholic would even know where to turn in the Apocrypha to substantiate his beliefs? You see, saints are people who find out about what they say they believe; and they do research in order to determine, to their satisfaction, what books ought to be considered canonical.

Saints are those people of God who, out of zeal, desire to know their roots and offshoots. They desire to know how saints have fared since the close of God’s canon. Beside Revelation, Church history sits on their most treasured shelf. Roman Catholicism might be considered, until diligent inquiry is made, as the number one denomination and the only one holy enough and good enough to possess or make saints. Most Roman Catholics have heard of the Reformation and the Roman Catholic inquisitions that prompted it. But how many pursue the matter in order to find out the extent of, and the reasons for, these persecutions? The diligent seeker of religious truth will bore into history and find out. When he does, especially if his ancestry is Roman Catholic, he will be struck by the fact that the persecution of true saints was authorized by Roman Catholic hierarchy, and that such cruel edicts were widespread centuries before the 16^th century Reformation came to be.

“In brief, the various bloody assaults, to which the united Vallensic and Albigensic Church of the Cottian Alps was exposed, from an early part of the thirteenth century down to the latter part of the seventeenth century, comprising a term of nearly five hundred years, amount in number to about twenty-six, and consequently average about five in each century, or about one in every twenty years” (George Stanley Faber, The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, 1836, p. 252.)

The next quote (by the same author from the same book) shows what the persecuted thought of their persecutors and their Roman Catholic Church: “WHEREVER they went, the Albigenses, with no light hand, denounced alike the unscriptural errors and the personal profligacy of the Popish Clergy: while the Roman Church itself they pertinaciously stigmatized, as the blood-thirsty Harlot of the Apocalypse, or as the Synagogue of Satanic Apostacy to which the Papal Man of Sin, Antichrist ruling over Antichristianism, enacted the part of a head and ringleader” (p. 135.) That the Roman Catholic Church is the ‘blood-thirsty Harlot of the Apocalypse’ was not just the opinion of 16^th century Reformers.

You may be a saint (not one made by the pope, but a real one) and still so new to your studies that you have not walked away from whatever follies and blasphemies (like prayers to Mary and Masses for the dead) that the pope authorizes. The Scriptures teach sainthood to be something other than a distinction declared by the pope. This fact, all by itself, ought to make a Roman Catholic reconsider whether his Church is true. If the pope’s word is truth, then the Roman Church is true, and your chance of becoming a saint hinges on the whim of the pope. But the Bible shows that sainthood depends not on the pope, and so your chance of becoming a saint depends on whether God will do a secret regenerative act upon your heart or not.

Far from a Church that makes saints, the Roman Catholic Church is, if not ‘the’ woman in this passage, then at least ‘a woman’ who is ‘drunken with the blood of the saints’ (Revelation 17.6.) Her adherence to unbiblical beliefs instigated her history of bloody persecution. The saints of God have had to exercise patience for their reward: the end of persecution, which means ‘rest from her labours’ (Revelation 14.) Patience is made necessary by persecution; and Roman Catholicism’s persecution of saints is chief among all persecutions that have been unleashed in Christ’s name.

Imagine having died in 1680, like the woman in the article, then having to wait in the grave and purgatory until 1884 for the process of sainthood to begin, having to wait again until 1943 for the declaration of ‘venerable’ to happen, and then having to wait yet again until 1980 for ‘beatification’ to occur, which finally leads to your sainthood in 2012! Saints, according to the Bible, go through none of this, but are saints even before they die! “Salute every saint in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4.21.) You do not salute the dead, but the living. And far from having to rely on dubious claims of miracles being wrought by you in order to your being considered for the honor (“it has been claimed that her scars disappeared upon her death…sick people who attended her funeral were healed”), you can be a saint whose scars turn quickly to worse decay upon your death, for miracles are not required of saints (‘are all workers of miracles,’ 1 Corinthians 12.29.) Saints, by virtue of faith in the scars of Christ, have the promise of a resurrected, spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15.44.) Their bodies can retain scars until that Day comes. Their sainthood does not depend on scars being said to disappear upon death; much less does it depend upon any pope!

BREAKING FORTH HALF-BAKED

Break Forth Fall Newsletter, 2013. There will be no Break Forth in 2014 (not that I care or would ever go to one.) Why the suspension? Damage control for some scandal that is ready to break out? Maybe—time will soon tell.

The fake smiles and the pop music pictures in the newsletter tell the tale of lukewarm worship well enough. The content of the letter tells us the rest of the story: the lukewarm doctrine and the associate sins. And that is the subject of, and the reason for, this article.

In the letter we are told that a miracle has happened to the benefit of this ministry called Break Forth. A ministry center has been purchased ‘at far below market value’ through the generosity of a Christian businessman. What is a miracle? Have you ever stopped to think about that? An axe head floating (2 Kings 6.6.) can be called a miracle because such a thing demands more than a natural explanation. It is an event that seems contrary to nature and that is above nature. It is an event that cannot be explained outside the special interruption of God. Being given a cut-rate on a piece of property does not come close to qualifying as a miracle. No marvelous wonder was necessary to make this happen. People do favors for a variety of reasons every day. Or God might have prompted someone to reduce the price of a property. But even if he had prompted someone to give the property away, that would be no miracle. Making water into wine, this is miraculous. Healing a man born blind, that is a miracle. If receiving this or that for less than the usual price may be termed a miracle, then a miracle happens every time someone buys something on special at the supermarket!   

Why do ministry leaders throw around the word ‘miracle’ so promiscuously? It usually has something to do with money. Yes, the love of mammon is usually the cause of making miracles into everyday events, which of course obliterates the distinctive features of miracles entirely. If any event may be termed a miracle, then miracles are not miraculous. This purchase of property is said to be a miracle in order to convince us to participate in the next miracle. What miracle would that be? The miracle of helping pay the balance of the remaining debt! What a miracle! Yes, you and I may become modern-day Elijahs just by contributing to this cause in a financial way! Asking us to participate in this miracle would be like Jesus asking for fermented grapes in the making of wine! But so what? O blessed participation in a dumbed-down miracle!—a tailor-made miracle for anyone with money in the pocket! Why is the word ‘miracle’ so loosely used among folks today? Is it not because of ministry leaders and their love of money?

Arlen and Elsa Salte have ’68 combined years’ of ministerial experience to their credit. That many years, and so little respect for something as divinely connected as a miracle? That many years, and they resort to a paraphrase of the Bible to quote and prove from? Why do they quote the NLT version of the Bible? It is because that version has the word ‘miracles’ in the verse they want to use. Does the NLT properly translate the verse they quote? Who cares? It has the word ‘miracles’ in it, which steers the verse in the direction of Arlen’s and Elsa’s design.

Liberal theology (by which I mean: a too liberal use of divine terminology) is always intertwined with various classes of sins, perhaps especially with those sins that fall under the classification of pride. Here is what I mean. From the letter: “Please ask God if He would have you partner with us. Then, fill out the reply card below and send your gift in the enclosed envelope.” So if we ask God for an answer as to whether we should support Arlen and Elsa in their cause, then his answer must come back in the affirmative! Arlen and Elsa know it. What a miracle to know God that well! What presumption! And then, after being so presumptuous, Arlen and Elsa have the nerve to follow up with, ‘In Christ.’ Should Christians presume that presumptuous people who use the word ‘miracle’ in the most promiscuous fashion for soliciting funds are ‘in Christ’ with them? I will not presume. I will not be so presumptuous as to believe such a thing. Presumptuous liars deserve to be doubted.

Lukewarm worship, lukewarm doctrine, and lukewarm sins, considered together, constitute a half-baked ministry. Unless a miracle of grace (or something approaching thereto) occurs in the souls of Arlen and Elsa, Break Forth, when it resumes, will break forth afresh down its crooked, worldly course, as half-baked as it ever has.

THE INCREASE OF GAY AGGRESSION

Red Deer Advocate, December 24^th, 2011. Gay activists cry intolerance, gay bashing, or, as in this instance, ‘abuse,’ at every opportunity, even when no violence is done to them, even when nothing is done against them but verbal opposition to their ways and views. They will not be content until they force the institutions they hate to celebrate what those institutions, by nature, are ordained to be against: sin. Imagine a real minister of God’s word crying to have his office and sermon accepted in a gay bathhouse. There would be no tolerance of that! Yet churches are expected to accept gays into church, to allow them offices there, and to listen to their perverted versions of peace, love, and truth! Double standards are alive as ever in societies that have condemned male chauvinism in favor of what is politically correct!

Now if New Testament rules dictate that fornication be not tolerated in the churches of God, it is logical to assume that fornication of the least natural sort be not tolerated for sure, which may be inferred from the anti-homosexual passage in Romans 1.

The illegitimate minister will grasp at anything to have his lifestyle tolerated and celebrated by those who are commanded to condemn it. That homosexuality is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments is no proof that churches ought to accept it. That the lifestyle is condemned by the apostle Paul is proof enough that churches ought never to condone it in their midst. “God gave them [LGBTQ] up to vile affections” (Romans 1.26.) Are we to believe that what God gave up as vile the churches are to accept? This verse, even partially quoted, is proof that gays and their sinful associates are not to be tolerated, understood, appreciated, or celebrated by Christians of God’s holy Church. This is not to say that repenting gays be not accepted. That is a different matter. Evangelical repentance by a gay person implies a turning from the gay lifestyle and from sin in general and a turning toward what the Bible teaches, which includes the rejection of gay persons who are not repenting. Gay persons who come repenting should be accepted.

Whatever else the Church on Strayer stands for, its billboard message is a good saying. The more churches and Christians speak out against what they are being forced to revel in, the more they are being true disciples who imitate the apostle Paul and the Scriptures at large, and the less ground will be gained by the corrupters of good morals: the increasingly militant, strange, and bizarre LGBTQ crowd.

THE ULTIMATE PRESUMPTION

Red Deer Life, February 9^th, 2009. To presume is to take something as granted. The ultimate presumption is to presume that God will bless.

Was there a revival at this Nazarene church just as announced? No, there were meetings. A revival we would have heard something about.

Almost five years have rolled by since this ‘revivalist’ had his ‘revival’ meetings at the First Church of the Nazarene in Red Deer. Was it a famous revival? Do people talk about it today as a great outpouring of yesteryear by the Holy Ghost? I don’t think so. More likely, there is no distinctive memory of it among those who attended. How different that is from the effects of a real revival. Hear what an Episcopal minister had to say, even twenty years after the event, about revival striking his community in South Carolina through the preaching of Daniel Baker in 1831: “Such was the pervading influence of the religious principle upon the whole aspect of society, that it cast it into the gospel mold and stamped it with its own holy features…For twenty years past there has been a higher moral and religious tone, and a more intelligent and consistent profession of Christianity maintained in that little town than in any other which the writer has visited in Europe or America” (Douglas Kelly, Preachers with Power, 23.) 

A revival happens when God decides to shew mercy to sinners, not when a sinner says a revival will take place. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” says God (Romans 9.15.) Does that sound like God will respond to man’s predicting a revival? There is God’s answer to people announcing a revival: ‘I will have mercy on whom I will.’ That hardly sounds like the God that a pastor like Murray Kumm would speak for!

This church of the Nazarene (if it were true to its name) would know what the Nazarene’s position on revival is: “The wind bloweth where it listeth…so is every one that is born of the Spirit” (John 3.8.) The Spirit of blessing blows where it pleases him to blow. He does not obey man’s presumptuous announcement. So there is Jesus’ own word on the matter.

When you see an ad like this put out by a church, do not wonder if it’s worth your while to attend its ‘revival’ meetings. It is a great sin against God to presume he will save en masse just because a pastor predicted he would. Better to take no part in affairs like that. When someone calls himself a ‘revivalist,’ do not presume that a revival will take place through his preaching. There is no such thing as a ‘revivalist.’ One would have to be God in order to know when and where a revival will occur. The man who calls himself a ‘revivalist’ is attempting to stand in the place of God. We should be surprised that the Holy Spirit does not strike dead the man who presumes that a revival will happen through his preaching.

Notice that these pastors who announce what God is going to do usually predict a work of mercy from him. The word of God is about more than God shewing mercy, though. “Whom he will he hardeneth” (Romans 9.18.) That is the word of God too. Since God reserves the right to do one thing or another, it is just as possible that he will harden instead of shew mercy, is it not? We have many ‘revivalists.’ If we had something like biblical balance in force, would we not have ‘hardeners’ as well? Where are all the ‘hardeners’? God might harden as well as shew mercy, so where are they?

These ‘revivalists’ remind me of those false prophets who were always prophesying good things in Old Testament times. One has to wonder about all the ‘decisions’ they feel responsible for bringing to town. My guess is that the genuine dollars they walk away with number more than the genuine decisions they leave behind.

Whoever you are, saved or unsaved, know this: You are not bound to support a ‘revivalist’ or a church that welcomes one. Keep your money; save your time; do not presume. Say with David, “Who can tell whether God will be gracious….?” (2 Samuel 12.22.) Begin there, and rest assured that that will be less presumptuous in spirit than any ‘revivalist’ is. Do not run after revivals and ‘revivalists.’ Run after Christ by knowing all you can about him, by receiving all his teachings, and by obeying all his commands. You may be visited, then, with a merciful revival of your own. But never presume. Never do that. Presumptuous persons get no revival as long as they presume, not for themselves nor for anyone else.

DESPERATE PUBLISHING

Red Deer Advocate, May 7^th, 2011. There are several ways we could go if we were to deal with the article that this front-page picture points to. Jenna is the young woman to the right; her surviving twin, Marissa, is on the left. Jenna was a single mom who got in with the wrong crowd, the article says. She went from smoking pot to using meth, which lifestyle likely led to her premature death. So there is a sermon of sin leading to greater sin, and of sin’s ultimate issue: death. Don’t sleep around; don’t do drugs; sin is your enemy; determine to have Jesus for your Saviour.

Our subject, however, is in how this newspaper used the murder of a young woman to further its cause to sell more papers. Whether Laura Tester, the woman responsible for the article, is also responsible for pasting the misleading picture that makes fun of murder, I do not know. But it does say just above the article that she is part of the Advocate Staff.

Now look at this picture. What you immediately discern from it and the caption above is that here are two girls naughtily whispering about a young mom that has been murdered. They seem to be whispering about the murder as if murder is something one should snicker about. Don’t miss what’s going on here. This newspaper got some picture of the murdered mom with her sister, then pasted that on the front page, making it look as if the girls are snickering about murder, when one of the girls just happens to be the one that got murdered! And why did the paper do this? We all know that evil maneuvers like this are done to boost sales and to make money. Do you think that the murdered mom would approve of having it appear as if she thought so little of murder that she would snicker with her twin sister about her own?

This is the kind of obscene trickery that newspaper staff will resort to in order to sell more copies of some two-bit newspaper! It’s a pity that the murdered woman’s family did not sue this paper for all it’s worth! The Bible is not silent on sin, no matter what kind it is. “Yea, they are greedy dogs, which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter” (Isaiah 56.11.) Are not newspaper staff shepherds of a sort? Do they not lead us into the news of the day? Then this quote from Isaiah is close enough to the mark. Is there no special punishment from the LORD regarding sins committed for the sole purpose of making money? Take heed, Red Deer Advocate, and especially the person responsible for this shady piece of business. “He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house” (Proverbs 15.27.) The LORD will repay anyone who dares to gain from making murder into something fun to gossip about! Today’s ministers think ‘repent’ is an outdated word that sinners do not understand. If the word is not understood, why do sinners hate hearing it so much? “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3.19.) Christ has suffered for the sins of all who choose to repent. There’s the gospel, Calvinist style. If a person may be forgiven the sin of murder (and he certainly may), then how much more may a person be forgiven for making fun of it?

Why don't the pastors in my city tackle a public sin like this? Because they are uncaring, clueless, clued out, or cowards. 

GAY PRIDE PROGRESS IN REDNECK CITY

Red Deer Express, August 14^th, 2013. Gay pride in a redneck city seems like a queer idea and a perfect storm. But it’s just a queer idea. While I’m not in favor of promoting violence against queer persons, it would be encouraging if rednecks would at least frown upon queer associations. Is it still permissible to frown at those who celebrate what to God is an abomination? If the queers have their way, even frowning at them will be outlawed. Notice the progression. They get a proclamation from the mayor. Next, according to event organizer, Kristol Gallivan, they must ‘come up with bylaws’ (end of article, not pasted in here.) There was no resistance to their gay pride fruit float. But tolerance must be forced. That is the way queers operate. They call themselves queer, but they don’t want to be called queer. The laws protect them, but they want bylaws too. They are tolerated, but they whine about intolerance. Why?

Queers don’t want to feel like exceptions in the crowd. They want to feel at ease walking hand in hand. They want open kisses without criticism. They want to flaunt their Heinz 57 lifestyles like Texan women do their hair. By suppressing an already tolerant community, they hope to gain enough courage to do it all. If they could get away with it, many of them would, I think, go so far as to coerce non-queers into queer participation. From where do I get a notion like that? I get it from inspired history and human psychology. Modern queers are in harmony of spirit with the queers of old. “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them” (Genesis 19.5.) Queers, deep down, want proof of allegiance by mutual participation. Thanks to God, there are fewer of them than there are of us. The record from Genesis is not surprising in light of human psychology. What do drunks want but everyone to join in? What do drug addicts want but addicted friends? What do fornicators want but open marriages? What is peer pressure but a kind of force? You are a queer thinker if you believe that queers don’t want everyone to dip into their lifestyles. Such promiscuous participation would go a long way toward making them feel that their abominable acts are okay. Then they would not second-guess their queer gestures in public. Then they would handhold, kiss, pet, and set new standards in public for everyone.

Thankfully, a proclamation from the mayor, a reception in a bar, a multi-faith service sanction, and an unobstructed fruit float is not a forceful enough foursome to coerce intimate knowledge of queerdom. The queers who pounded on Lot’s door were unsuccessful against the angels of God. And their modern partners in crime, we should pray, will be unsuccessful due to God’s grace unto salvation. May gay pride progress regress by God’s regenerative act upon gay sinners. This ought to be our prayer if we believe that fire and brimstone, if it doesn’t get you here, will get you Hereafter. That goes for queers, rednecks, and every sinner in between. Jesus may have walked among every kind of sinner. But he participated in no kind of sin. Unlike our mayor, he did not honor sin with a proclamation. He faced it head on with a denunciation: “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4.17.) That sounds as intolerant as the edict in Leviticus 18.22.

Forget about pushing for bylaws to conform society to sin. Non-conformity to God’s law calls for the bylaw of repentance. Repent, turn to Jesus for justification and forgiveness, and join the Higher Society of Heaven. Join the angels of God who resisted gay aggression.

THE DARKNESS OF MODERN ART

Red Deer Express, July 31^st, 2013. A fabrication may be classified as ‘modern art’ when what it represents is not discernible. As indiscernible as this object is, we are told that it represents ‘a guardian or comforting presence.’ That we have to be told this confirms that the representation may not be discerned by a look. Who, not knowing what this object is given to represent, would guess that it represents something like comfort? The fact that one would have to guess is proof that its appearance represents nothing specific to reasonable persons. This object could represent a hundred things to a hundred lookers: an ancient telephone, a gas pump, a torture chamber, a gum ball machine, the entrance to a root cellar, and ninety-five other things chosen almost at random. Why comfort the hungry man by bringing him food? Why not just sit him down by the comforting Onisama instead? The claim that the object represents a great fruit that the practice of virtue produces (comfort) is an insult. Yes, the claim that one may be comforted by a hunk of metal whose form represents nothing distinct should be insulting to every thinking person.

A piece of art, even poorly done, may communicate a sense of comfort so long as the object is discernible. A painting of a man rescuing a lamb, though poorly executed, might remind a Christian of the Shepherd of the sheep. That would be comforting. However, an object that looks like an invention by a mad scientist is not comforting at all, even after we are told that it should be. After looking at it, we have to declare that we feel nothing but cold indifference or even contempt from this hulking enigma.

An object does not have to be formed according to an existing pattern in order to be art, though that is the safest, and Scriptural, rule. But it must at least be suggestive of something specific. Otherwise, it will appear, to reasonable eyes and minds, like a work of madness.

A person might guess that this object is a stand-in for an ancient type of catapult. But it isn’t. And it can’t be shown to operate like one. “And he made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal” (2 Chronicles 26.15.) If an object cannot pass for a work of art, then maybe it can pass for a cunning invention that can fulfill some purpose. But the Onisama is neither art nor a cunning invention. It is not made after a pattern and neither does it have a purpose. It can suggest nothing definite to anyone. And yet we are supposed to congratulate the maker of it, shake his hand instead of our head, buy his metal monstrosity, and place it in a public space as if everyone walking by it will be blessed by its comforting aura!

Modern art is the outworking of the modern mind. The minds emerging out of our teaching institutions have been indoctrinated to dismiss or undervalue the principles of truth, beauty, and goodness. So, according to unprincipled modern art, you may have an object that points to no pattern for its source, that reflects no beauty, that is suggestive of nothing in particular, and that has no good purpose to exist. People will call the object a work of art and the maker of it an artist, even if the ‘sculpture’ consists of pieces of metal welded together in such a way as to perplex the onlooker instead of enlighten him.

The Onisama is a dark piece of work that represents the darkness of an art world that is ages behind the darkest epochs of human history. Look at the drawings in catacombs, or those in caves from a distant stone age, and you will see art in greater advance than backwards modern art is. Great darkness has fallen, by degrees, upon our institutes of learning. This endarkening is increasing year by year.

Before it was revealed to Abram that his people would, after many years of affliction, emerge from the darkness of Egypt, ‘an horror of great darkness fell upon him’ (Genesis 15.12.) Unless modern art becomes ‘an horror of great darkness’ to our teachers and artists, no long road toward light can be expected for the art world. An ever-deepening descent into darkness may be predicted if this horror does not fall from above. Abram’s people would not be released until the ‘iniquity of the Amorites’ was full (verse 16.) Many iniquities, I think, have yet to happen before our Western cup is full. Modern art represents a dark culture that cannot, and will not, see the light.

***My letter to the editor about the Onisama was published in the local paper. Here is a copy of that.***

August 2^nd 2013

Red Deer Express

Letters to the Editor

Re: ‘Red Deer’s Identity Crisis.’

Dear Editor:

Red Deer residents have been appealed to for ideas about what makes their city unique. We should address, first, what should not make Red Deer unique.

We should not be unique by having too many ‘ghosts’ about town. Many of them have not the significant history required to justify their existence. The unqualified ghosts ought to be uplifted from their present haunts and repatriated to their originators.

There is another way in which Red Deer should not be unique. The ‘Onisama’ sculpture is supposed to “represent a guardian or comforting presence.” It may be a comforting presence to the one who made it. But (with apologies to the builder) if a person were to look at it without knowing what it is meant to signify, would he find this piece of bulk comforting to the eye? It looks like an iron maiden, a slot machine, and a battleaxe, none of which conjure up comforting thoughts. Imagine breaking your leg beside this thing. Would you feel any comfort from its presence? It looks more like a torture device than a guardian. Many of us would like to see these modern art projects removed and then parked in the back yards of their builders.

Many of these ‘ghosts,’ and probably all of these modern art pieces, make Red Deer appear corny and eccentric. Let’s not let Red Deer continue down this road of eccentric uniqueness. Let’s be unique in some other way.

THE PERIL OF SELF-REFORMATION

Red Deer Advocate, August 13^th, 2011. The apocalyptic look that descended upon Manhattan on 9/11 is so stamped on our memory that it is difficult to imagine a recovery there. But, believe it or not, this picture was taken after 9/11, not before. Over a decade has passed since that modern day of infamy in New York City. And business has begun to move on as it was doing when terror stopped New Yorkers in their tracks.

To rebuild and get moving again is good. Do not mistake me for being critical of that. And some of these folks in the picture may have gotten right with God since 9/11 just as they promised to do. I do not dispute the possibility.

But most persons who made promises in their moment of fear are back to “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” (Matthew 24.38.) This newspaper picture is an apt figure of this biblical text. There is nothing wrong with eating, drinking, and marrying. What Jesus teaches by the saying is that most people continue in this world, in spite of warnings to repent, with nothing but worldly objects in view; and in the end, because of that shortsightedness, they miss the kingdom of God and the glories to come, just as the multitudes in Noah’s day missed the boat and perished.

Now do not misunderstand what I say. I’m not saying that the terror strikes were a good thing. These acts of terror were evil, and the guilty parties deserve nothing but merciless justice. The culprits responsible who are still alive still deserve the full force of the law, and they should be found and put to death. What I am saying is that every single calamity, whether it be a terror strike or a natural disaster, should be taken by those yet alive as a warning to repent of their sins. This is what Jesus meant when he said, “except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13.3.) Not all persons will perish by the same kind of blow. But anyone might perish suddenly without warning. That is the meaning. Jesus warns sinners to beware of perishing everlastingly.  

Naturally (or it may be more correct to say in some cases, supernaturally), many persons, when in the midst of a terrifying event, make promises. I have heard of two sorts of promises made by persons deeply touched by the terrible event we call 9/11. A few may have promised to get right with God and may have since been saved. I don’t remember hearing that promise being made, however. So I leave that alone. (1) Some have made promises to themselves to improve. (2) Others have made promises to God to live better lives. Let us suppose the best, and interpret ‘improvement’ and ‘better living’ to have meant moral progress by these persons. And let us suppose that some moral progress has been achieved by them. Moral progress by self-effort is self-reformation. This makes the world a better place. And it is better for the world to have self-reformation than degradation. But self-reformation falls short of getting right with God; and all persons who pursue this route will come short of entering God’s glory. They must, if they die still self-reforming, enter an eternity of misery instead. Therefore something better than self-reformation should be desired and promised.  

Because God demands perfection from all who desire heaven, and no man can become perfect by his own efforts, something more than self-reformation is required before eternal security can be granted. Man needs a fundamental change by God. He needs regeneration, not reformation. Reformation in the form of sanctification is acceptable; but this can only take place upon a basis of regeneration. “Ye must be born again,” says Jesus Christ. Regeneration (a change wrought upon the heart by the Holy Spirit) is a must, or a sinner cannot, and will not, be saved. Moral progress may be worth something to you right now; but it will count for nothing with God at the Pearly Gates.

Most of us have made promises to ourselves and to God; and we have utterly failed to fulfill these promises. We cannot live up to our promises; God can live up to his. The wise thing to do, then, is to lay hold of some promise by God. It says in John 3.16 that whoever believes on the Son of God has everlasting life. So the promise of God is that if you trust the Son, everlasting life is yours. The regeneration that you need will be taken care of so long as you believe on Jesus Christ. But how do you believe? Do not focus on your faith, or belief, or trust (all three are one and the same.) Focus on the proper object of faith: Jesus Christ and him crucified. You do this by Bible study, prayer, and close attention to godly writings (like those by C. H. Spurgeon or John Bunyan.) These are the means of grace available to you in order to your desired faith. You must unite to Jesus by the bond of faith; that must be your goal. Then, if by faith in Christ crucified for your sins, you lay hold of God’s promise of everlasting life, your eternal welfare will be secured. When death comes, maybe suddenly, maybe gradually, be ready, by faith in Christ and the promise of God that is annexed to it. Apply every means of grace at your disposal. Your promises will ultimately come short. Self-reformation will end in peril. What you need is a promise from God.