The Glory of God

Originally written July 2004

There is an incredible verse in Ezekiel that says, "So was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord." (Ezekiel 1:28) This is such an incredible verse.

Imagine knowing about someone who you really want to meet. It could be the president or an actor or a Nobel prize winner. Some might be honored to have a statue of that person to remind them of their character or their fame. That statue would undoubtedly cast a shadow on the wall. The verse in Ezekiel is showing us an appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. Of course, a shadow of a statue of a major world leader is not much to speak about. However, the appearing glimmer of God's glory is remarkable.

This verse tells much about who God is. We are not seeing the fullness of God in this chapter. We are only seeing His glory, no, a likeness of His glory. Well, actually, the appearance of the likeness of His glory. We aren't seeing God in this verse but we are realizing that just a shadow, just a glimpse of a part of who God is is really more than we can see at one time.

Not too long ago I was doing a project in Ecuador. We were able to see many volcanoes in all of their splendor while in country. While there, someone said, "It would be fun to try and climb that mountain in a day, but it is even more awesome that I know the God who created that mountain in a day." Some of the people in Ecuador worship nature and they find their gods in the flowers and in the mountains. How much better to worship the God who created the flowers and the sun and the mountains. I don't worship the appearance or the shadow of some likeness. I worship the God whose shadow is too holy to gaze upon.

Meditation, Music, and the Psalms

What kind of songs do you want to sing to God?

There are a wide variety of songs being sung in today's churches and I hope to provide some comments on the kind of songs I believe are not only culturally appealing but most importantly are God honoring.

To begin with, there are the "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs that have sappy, emotional, and disturbingly gender specific kinds of lyrics. Just read these lyrics:

Let me know the kisses of your mouth
Let me feel your embrace
Let me smell the fragrance of your touch
Let me see your lovely face

My favorite was the one that people used to sing that said "Your love is extravagant. Your friendship, mmm, intimate." I always hated that "mmm" part. Like I'm supposed to smack my lips and rub my tummy or something. To me, these kinds of songs are disturbing because any time one gender enjoys singing a song and the other gender deplores it, you are putting to much emphasis on sex and not on spirit. God never said He was a male or a female, He said He is spirit and those of us who want to worship Him should do so in spirit and in truth.

The next kind of music employs words such as Thee, Thy, Thine, Thou, and Ebenezer. Most of these songs have great theological meaning if you know the Hebrew meaning for El Shaddai or happen to be a King James Only kind of person. Again, most of these songs have great meaning and can often be brought back in to circulation to tie in the ancient church with the modern church or to spend a couple of minutes teaching on the beauty of music. However, these songs, though they had their day in the sun, are generally low on cultural understanding and relevance though they may be high on celebrating and teaching about God.  These songs can still be used, but I hope they are used sparingly and only when you've got some time to explain what it's even talking about.

Finally, there are the Psalms. Oh, I'm sure there are dozens of other categories: punk rock worship, cowboy music, and even death metal, but I believe the Psalms are still our best model for music in the church. There are Psalms of lament, there are Psalms of gratitude, there are Psalms of despair. But all of them are human. They celebrate that God is God and we are not and that we need Him, we love Him, we worship Him. Not that we have to sing songs that don't rhyme because we are just taking the words straight from a Psalm and putting it to music (though there are some really good ones out there). Instead, the intent of the Psalms is what I want to see more of (or sing more of) when I am at church. I want the song to speak FOR me and that's what happens when I read a Psalm. 

The intent of the Psalms (in my mind) is meditation. When we have music in the church it should really be musical meditation. There is celebratory meditation and even soulful declarations of our need for a Savior. The words shouldn't make me embarassed that I'm talking about entering some bed chamber of some king but that I love God and am loved by Him. We need some manly music, some "satisfy my soul and destroy my enemies" kind of meditation like David would have written.

I really like a lot of different music but when it comes to worshiping corporately with my church family I want the music to speak for me. I want to be able to ponder reflectively on the words and rejoice that God hears my cry. 

Faith Propositions

What do I really believe? Here are a couple of one sentence propositions for you to mull over. I will try to keep each explanation clear and concise. However, I realize this will make each proposition open to much critique. If you think any argument is shallow or needs better articulation, please let me know.

Proposition #1 - Religion is man-made.
It seems that most people desire to connect with the divine. The problem is that most people believe we should "make our own path" and not force our beliefs on others. This opens the door for religions to spring up from virtually every corner. Some choose established religions, others create their own from scratch. In the end, they make God in their own image rather than believing that we were created in His. Each religion will have to stand on its own merit, but since religion is "man's attempt to get to God", I find myself very untrusting of religion.

Proposition #2 - Some religions must be false.
Thanks to the philosophical "Law of Non-Contradiction" not every religion can be true. In a broad sense, there are basically only three kinds of religions: those that believe there is no god, those that believe in one God, and those that believe in many gods. Not all of those worldviews can be admissible. Even without exploring the evidence for or against each of those concepts (atheism, monotheism, polytheism), we must immediately ascertain that two of them are false.

Proposition #3 - Assuming there is only one God, only three major world religions stand out (and they all were started by Abraham, arguably).
Without trying to convince anyone that there is only one God, I only want to argue here that there are only three great monotheistic traditions and they originated from the same person. The oldest of these is Judaism, but even within Judaism there is a prophecy of a Messiah that will come (some prophecies even place the coming of the Messiah on or near the year of the birth of Jesus Christ and put him in Bethlehem, born of a virgin, from the line of Judah, Jesse, David, Benjamin, and Abraham...hundreds of other prophecies point to Jesus as the Messiah).
Christianity is the second of the great monotheistic traditions and teaches that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Jesus teaches that He didn't come to fulfill the beliefs of the Jews, not to abolish it. Jesus teaches that He is the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father but through Him.
Mohammed was supposedly the final prophet and he recorded the Koran hundreds of years after Jesus (and thousands of years after Abraham). Most of his story conflicts with the older Jewish and Christian texts and textually the stories are not consistent with any of the teachings of the previous "prophets". At least with Judaism and Christianity there is internal consistency even if Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. So, Judaism is fulfilled in Jesus and Islam is inconsistent with the historical, theological, and internal reliability of Scripture. Christianity emerges as the greatest monotheistic religion ever, both in adherents and in believability.

Proposition #4 - Jesus is revered as a great prophet (at the very least) by more than half of the world's population.
Even if monotheism is rejected and Christianity (as a religion) is rejected, one cannot ignore the influence of the historical Jesus. Gandhi, a global Hindu leader, once said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Muslims believe Jesus was a great prophet on the same level as Mohammed, they just believe that Mohammed came last. Jews also believe Jesus to have been a great Teacher. Christians obviously believe Jesus to be much more, but the fact remains, many people believe Jesus to be an important figure in their faith.

Proposition #5 - Jesus is central to only one world "religion" but would prefer to think of it as a relationship, not a religion.
Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God. It is His life they try to emulate. However, humans are only humans so Christians are susceptible to impurity and mistakes. Jesus was fully human, but He has also always been and will always be, God. Therefore, Christians actually believe Christianity is the only God-made religion and Jesus is the only one who could have created a legitimate "religion" (or way, path, journey, etc.) worthy of humans to follow. Many people view religions to be many paths to the same God. The problem is, this portrays God as very passive and humans as having to work to get to God some time in the future. Christianity, on the other hand, believes God to be an active God who has made it possible for us to know Him now through faith and not works.

Proposition #6 - The only way to know God in this life and the next is to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

These propositions are not meant to be a complete argument for Christianity. Instead, it is meant to provoke thought and conversation. Feel free to challenge me in any of these propositions.

The Power of Abusive Speech

Originally written April 2004

I have been in seminary for a couple of years and I have been around many conservative, evangelical Christians who actually have no problem with certain words. Granted, they don't go around saying them often, but they see no problem with the s*word, the d*word, the f*word, etc. Basically, those who I have talked to about this have given three reasons they don't have a problem saying these words.

1) These are merely words that only have a meaning that society puts on them and in different societies there would be nothing wrong with them. For example, Americans have no problem with the word bloody. In Great Britain, on the other hand, this is just as bad as the f*word. In Great Britain, pissing means drinking, but in America this is a vulgar term for going to the bathroom. The list of societal words is long, but you get the idea.
2) Many people have said to me that they see no problem with the s*word because there is no rule in Scripture that that is a word we should not use. There are many words that are considered "curse" words that really are not preached against in the Bible.
3) As Christians, we are free in Christ and if we are among other Christians then there should be no problem with these words.

I believe this topic is an important one for 3 reasons:
1) Our very existence is because of the spoken word.
2) Jesus is the Word and He was with God from the beginning.
3) The Bible warns us of abusive language

I want to answer each of the disagreements that my Christian brothers and sisters have had with me on this issue. First of all, the argument that these words are not wrong because they are determined by society. There are a lot of missionaries who spend years studying a culture so that they do not damage their witness by the use of a wrong word or doing an obscene (to that culture) gesture. Just because society makes the rules doesn't mean we are free to go against them and use objectionable language because what's in a word? Words are very powerful, and even if it isn't an objectionable word like the s*word, they can still do damage. Telling someone they are stupid can do a lot of harm.

It is humorous, but depressing to me that my Christian brothers can make this argument when secular TV stations and movie rating systems are the ones bleeping out words or giving a warning not to take certain people to see these movies. Why do we let a lost world determine standards and then we go and watch something or even go so far as to say something that even lost people say is objectionable. At that point we have submitted to their measure of morals and we have failed to live up even to that standard. The Bible tells us to, "Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person." (Colossians 4:6) We are also told to, "Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe." (I Timothy 4:12) Are we setting an example when we let these words come out of our mouth.

Secondly, people have said, there is no s*word commandment in the Bible, but they fail to realize that we are to "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer." (Psalm 19:14) If we are disciples of Christ then we would want only the words that He would have us say come out of our mouth. A taste of what the words of God are like are found in Psalm 12:6, which says, "The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times." Maybe they aren't so bad, but are they pure?

Finally, we are free in Christ so words mean nothing, right? Wrong! "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1) And, "you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh." (Galatians 5:13) Don't use freedom as a "get out of jail free" card. We are told to be an example and we are told to be pure in our thoughts and words.

From the creation of the world God has placed a special emphasis on the spoken word. We were created by it. We are comforted by it. We are confronted by it. Sometimes we are cursed by it. Even Peter, Jesus' disciple, when he wanted to prove that there was absolutely NO alignment between him and that Jesus fellow, used curse words to reject his Lord. "Then he began to curse and swear, 'I do not know the man!' And immediately a rooster crowed." (Matthew 26:74) If that weren't enough, the Bible tells us that, "by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12:37) If there is a question about whether it is right or wrong to say a certain word, just don't say it. Our reputation as the light-bearers in this world is on the line and you are destroying it with your careless word. Why else would Paul exhort Timothy in this way, "In all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, 8 sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us. There is power in speech, let's use it wisely.

Here are some verses in scripture that I find helpful when thinking about God's will for our speech:
Ge 1:3; Le 19:12; Ps 12:6; Ps 19:14; Ps 59:12; Pr 4:5; Pr 4:24; Pr 10:19; Pr 17:20; Pr 19:1; Pr 26:2; Ec 5:6; Ec 6:11; Ec 12:11; Isa 29:13; Isa 50:4; Isa 59:13; Jer 7:9; Ho 10:4; Mt 5:22; Mt 12:36; Mt 12:37; Mt 24:35; Mt 26:74; Mt 27:44; Mr 14:71; Lu 9:26; Ro 3:4; 1Co 2:13; Eph 5:6; Col 3:8; Col 4:6; 1Th 4:18; 1Ti 4:12; 1Ti 6:4; Tit 2:6-8; Jas 3:9; Jas 5:12

Loving God

Originally written August 15, 2005

I wish I could love God more than He loves me because He deserves it and I don't. He deserves more love, yet receives less. I deserve less love, but I get more. Rather, God deserves limitless love and He gets very little, I deserve no love, but God gives me His with no limits. That's what makes Him God. He can give unconditionally and without end and I cannot.

He is God because I don't deserve His love but He gives it anyway. I am not God because He does deserve my love but I can't give it unconditionally. He loves when we deserve His wrath and we hate in the midst of His love. I need His love, He wants my love.

Why has Western Science come so far?

I am reading a book entitled Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship by Lesslie Newbigin. It is extremely academic, but I am finding it very interesting (I guess maybe I'm kind of academic to some extent). To give you a clue as to how academic this book is, on the very first page he uses the term moral opprobrium...hmmm...but, there is one thought that he has raised that I thought I might comment on.

He writes that "science has developed in Europe in a way that has far outstripped the work of ancient Greek, Egyptian, and Indian science because it was willing to take as its starting point affirmations rooted in the biblical revelation of God as creator and redeemer." I was recently in the largest Hindu temple in America when I last visited Chicago. It is a beautiful temple made entirely of marble. In the temple it is very interesting because they have a large hallway that is like a propaganda hall. There are large wall hangings that share the basics of Hinduism and the achievements of Hinduism. Everything is written in English because clearly they are wanting to paint Hinduism in a good light. It was interesting to see that they have a different perspective on who the "Father of Medicine" was, for example. They have a Hindu inventing or discovering just about everything but thousands of years before the West.

So, has Western science "outstripped" Eastern science? Has the West far exceeded the knowledge and discovery of the West? I don't know. I'm reading about this for the first time from Newbigin. The most interesting thing to realize is that Newbigin is true that Western science began from the starting point of God as Creator and Redeemer. Sadly, our culture has turned its back on the very One who was the inspiration for all of our current advancement and achievement. We have come a long way from the first and second centuries. We have come so far that science is now rejecting God. Science in the West began with a belief that God is there, but in the end it has placed all of its confidence in itself and has declared God to be dead. It is ironic that science owes everything to the very One it denies.

What is a Church Planter?

After three years of planting churches in Boston, I am discovering more and more that I don't know what I am. Church planters have to be evangelists, shepherds, teachers, entrepreneurs, fundraisers, visionaries, counselors, disciplers, mentors, coaches, researchers, cultural apologists, theologians, friends, motivators, time managers, administrators, students, networkers, and servants. I may think of some more and just republish this post with the new additions.

Some days (like today), I am overwhelmed by my responsibility. Today, however, I met with a small group of pastors for the first time to begin holding each other accountable specifically for personal evangelism. Ultimately, we have been called ambassadors for Christ as though God were making an appeal to the world THROUGH US that the world might be reconciled to God. In view of all the other things that I have to do in a typical week, I can never forget that I am here (just like all believers) to make known the good news about Jesus Christ and reveal the story of God in the hearts and lives of the people I interact with.

Church planting is a daunting task, but when it boils down to what God requires of all believers, we should be following Christ every day. I'm sure I can accomplish my administrative responsibilities in a couple of hours a day and leave the rest of the day for personal study and personal relationships. Those are the important things.

Are UN or are you out?

Originally written December 18, 2005 and I still agree with myself...somewhat. Enjoy.

Did the US wage a legitimate war in Iraq when we invaded in 2003? Were we right to invade when later we discovered Iraq did not, in fact, have any weapons of mass destruction? Have the 2,154 to-date American deaths in Iraq been in vain? Were they reckless and irresponsible or were they righteous and necessary?

These are questions that America has been asking since the first American casualty in Iraq. The questions we should be asking might go more like this:

Were there UN sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein for nearly 12 years? Did he systematically reject them? Did Hussein reject the UN's Oil for Food offer? Did he expel UN weapon's inspectors in 1998? Was he trying to resupply his military with smuggled weapons from Russia and France? Had he ever used weapons of mass destruction?

On December 16th, 1998, in a speech to the American people, President Clinton explained his use of force against Iraq:
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

He also said, "Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites ... If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past."

"In halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region."

By 2002, the situation in Iraq had deteriorated further. The United States was conducting a war on terror and operating at a heightened threat level. Iraq was blocking all inspections that would allow the UN to conclude that there were, or were not, any WMD's. Our President took an oath that he would defend the American people from all threats both foreign and domestic and in a post 9/11 world he thought it imperative to address a very real, a very clear, a very present danger in Iraq.

Saddam was given 12 years to comply with UN sanctions. Resolution 1441, adopted by the UN in November 2002, revealed that "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." What serious consequences was the UN talking about? After 12 years of telling Iraq that they better comply, the threat of force was the only serious consequence that was available to them. The UN wasn't willing to enforce its own sanctions. The President even went before the UN to plead with them to take a more aggressive stance on the situation in Iraq especially in a post 9/11 world.

Since the UN was unwilling to back President Bush in the War on Terror, Bush decided to do the hard, but the right thing. He declared war on Iraq. He couldn't wait 12 more years for conclusive proof to come in that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction. He couldn't wait 12 more years for the UN to see the light that Saddam viewed the UN inspectors as spies and he didn't want them in his country and would never comply even when his country was falling apart. With a small coalition of countries backing the US, President Bush declared war on Saddam.

Saddam was literally holding his own people ransom with the demand that we revoke all sanctions on his country. He was letting them starve when there had never been any sanctions on food. He was letting them die of diseases when there had never been any sanctions on medical supplies. He was crying foul to the UN because "1.5 million have died because of the sanctions" and when the UN started to weaken, President Bush and the American people punished the despotic dictator. We called him to task for what he was doing. When no one else would do what was right, we did and we should be proud of doing the right thing. The families of the soldiers who have lost their lives should be praised for their noble sacrifice.

Were we justified? Well, we brought down a ruthless dictator. We brought democracy to the Iraqi people. 70% of the Iraqi people voted in the national elections. Iraqi forces are slowly becoming an efficient fighting force. There have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9.11.2001. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found, but graves of mass destruction were. So do we stay the course and honor those who gave their lives in the pursuit of freedom and democracy and the war on terror? Or should we withdraw our troops because it's harder than we thought it would be, thereby effectively disparaging the sacrifices that have been made thus far?

The President's answer is final. We are fighting this war and we are winning. The UN can't share in the victory because they pulled out when it came to decisive action. What about you? Are you in or are you out? I think it's time we showed some unity in our country and get behind the effort to end terror and, as a bonus, bring freedom and democracy to a formerly oppressed people in the Middle East.

HR 1592

The House voted yesterday in favor of H.R. 1592. 237 voted in favor of the bill while 180 voted against. The bill would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the list of groups protected by the federal hate crimes bill. The bill sounds inocuous enough, but in reality it would regulate what people say about homosexuality. It would essentially put a limitation on our freedom of speech to teach from the Bible that homosexuality is morally wrong from God's perspective. There is similar legislation working it's way through the Senate and if it's approved President Bush says he will veto the bill.

Here are some quotes from people opposing the bill.

Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the true intent of the bill was "to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality." If you read the Bible in a certain way, he told his broadcast listeners, "you may be guilty of committing a 'thought crime."'

The White House issued a "Statement of Administration Policy" shortly before the vote indicating that President Bush might veto the legislation, if it passes the Senate and is sent to his desk.
"The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics such as race, color, religion, or national origin," the statement said. "However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

"This unconstitutional bill would effectively give the federal government authority to punish American citizens for 'thought crimes' — a concept that has Big Brother written all over it. There are already state and local laws on the books that punish violent crime against any and all Americans," said Boehner, R-Ohio.

"Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "Under this bill justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim." “For example, criminals who kill a homosexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, a member of the military, a child, a senior citizen or any other person,” he said. “All victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law.”

The White House said state and local criminal laws already cover the new crimes defined under the bill and there was "no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement."

What do you think about this issue?

Mawiage, That Bwessed Awangement

Here is a post of mine that was originally written May 2004 on my other blog. I am discontinuing my other blog so over the next few months I will be randomly selecting the best of those posts to revive here on my main blog. Hope you enjoy.

The Princess Bride is my favorite movie of all time. One of the best scenes is when Buttercup is being forced to marry Prince Humperdink (I love the names) against her will. She really loves Westley but he has not come to her rescue. So Buttercup and Humperdink approach the altar as the organ plays. In the majesty and glory of the church the robed clergy turns and faces the bride and groom to embark upon a flowery speech about "wuv - twue wuv". His speech impediment is so out of place in such a majestic, awesome setting that it gets me rolling on the floor every time I see it.

Yesterday, May 17th 2004, was an historic day in our nation's history. The Commonwealth of Massachussetts established legality for same-sex marriages. This is the first state to legalize such unions and it won't be the last unless something is done on a national level. Hundreds of homosexual couples exchanged wedding vows with the full support of the state (and many churches -ie the Unitarian Universalist and others).

Buttercup and Humperdink's wedding proved to be a sham that is really funny. The tragedy that has occurred in Massachussetts is far from humorous. President Bush said, "The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges." I believe people need to understand that the judicial branch does not define marriage. In effect, the judicial branch broke several state and national laws so that they could make their own law that fits their agenda. This is a complete usurpation of the Republican form of government in our country. The legislature signs laws into existence. A "few activist judges" have effectively changed the law to advance the homosexual cause.

Not only is it important for us to understand the violations the judicial system in Massachussetts committed, it is also important for us to understand that even the legislative branch did not come up with the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage is found in Genesis 2:24 which says, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." Throughout the Bible God tells us what a marriage should look like. No matter what the legislature, judiciary or the executive branches decide about this issue. Marriage will always be between a man and a woman.

If two men or two women want to be recognized by the state as a valid couple, don't call it a marriage. For that matter, if more than two men or two women (like in Utah) want to get married, don't call it a marriage. If these two people feel some kind of sexual need for each other and certain levels of intimacy, don't call it love. If two men or two women want to adopt a child, don't call it a family. If a congregation chooses to reject the claims of Christ and the Truth that is found in God's Word and prostitute itself to the opinions of this world, then don't call it a CHURCH. And, if we as a nation wan't God to bless us but we want to turn to our wicked ways instead of from them, then don't call this a Christian nation.

Prince Humperdink tried to rush through the ceremony because he was getting nervous that the hero would come in and save his true love. When Buttercup and Westley are reunited she confesses, "I got married, I didn't want to but it all happened so fast." Westley says, "It didn't happen. Did you say, 'I do'?" She says, "No, we sort of skipped through that part." "Then it never happened."

So many people view the church as a failure because we have sold ourselves to the world. You can't look to the church as the example of moral purity anymore. Our divorce rate is just as high as the world's. Our view of marriage is not as pure as it once was. No wonder we have come to a point where marriage is coming to mean so many things and nothing all at the same time. The Lord will soon come for His True Love and He will purify His Bride. I wonder how many in the church right now will be ready for His coming? Will we be a part of a sham marriage to the world or will we keep ourselves pure and holy in His sight? God's plan for marriage, for family, for church, for relationships is perfect. It is a dweam within a dweam.