What is euthanasia?

On November 22, 1998, CBS's 60 Minutes ran a 14 minute segment that featured
retired pathologist Dr. Jack Kevorkian killing 52 year old ALS suffer Thomas
Youk. It was the top rated program for its time slot, according to Nielsen
ratings. A lethal injection of potassium chloride was administered by
Kevorkian on September 17 in Youk's Michigan home and it was video-taped.
The American Medical Association issued a news release calling Youk's death
"an outrageous violation of medicine's code of ethics." Kevorkian
acknowledged assisting in 130 suicides since December 1990. He has been
prosecuted 10 times, eventually being convicted of taking life in November
of 1998. As a result of Youk's death, Kevorkian was charged with first
degree murder. He stated that what he did could not be considered a "crime
in any society which deems itself enlightened." We will see at the close of
this article exactly how "enlightened" a society is that takes such a
position.

In 1973 the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand. The baby boomers had
cast off all restraints and as a consequence there was a "boom" in unwanted
out-of-wedlock pregnancies. In order to eliminate these unwanted children
and/or cover up the sin of fornication, abortion was legitimized and the
wholesale slaughter of the unborn began. Since that infamous decision by the
high court more than 54 million babies have been destroyed at the hand of
doctors who were willing to cast off their Hippocratic oath in exchange for
the almighty dollar. Little did the Supreme Court realize that their
decision would pave the way for other "bioethical issues" that would follow
in the years to come. On that cold day in January 1973 the value of life
itself was diminished, and the consequences would be far reaching. While
abortion demonstrates a flagrant disrespect for life in the womb, euthanasia
does the same for life outside the womb. If euthanasia is permitted, what
age or physi cal condition shall we allow the cessation of life to take
place? Who is to decide? Politicians? Doctors? Proponents of euthanasia such
as Peter Singer, Princeton University professor of ethics, have entered the
metaphysical realm to seek justification, openly and boldly asserting that
being homo sapiens is not the crucial factor in whether a person should be
allowed to live or be put to death by society. In his words, "It is, rather,
characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make
a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore,
cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other
self-conscious beings" (Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, page 182). Any
rational being knows full well that if such a view is accepted with regard
to infants and/or children, the application at the other end of life's
spectrum is inevitable. Robert Bork, in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah,
made this astute observation:!

The systematic killing of unborn children in huge numbers is part of a
general disregard for human life that has been growing for some time …
It is permissible to kill the unborn human for convenience, it is surely
permissible to kill those thought to be soon to die for the same reason. And
it is inevitable that many who are not in danger of imminent death will be
killed to relieve their families of burdens. Convenience is becoming the
theme of our culture. Humans tend to be inconvenient at both ends of their
lives" (page 172).

So far the advocates for euthanasia have limited their attempts to make
euthanasia to those who are suffering and wish to end their own lives in
some form of "easy death" treatment. Dutch pediatrician Eduard Verhagen,
however, goes beyond the personal approval of killing someone who is
suffering to allowing doctors to make the decision. In an article from
'Catholic World News,' May 2, 2005, this particular doctor suggests that
"Death can be more humane than continued life if (life) involves extreme
suffering." To be more frank, he is suggesting that the doctor is actually
more caring and humane if he takes it upon himself to end a patient's life.
This doctor even admitted to having lethally injected four newborns. I would
not want this man to be my doctor in my declining years of life, would you?

Perhaps it would be good to provide a definition of euthanasia. A synonym
that is being bandied about is "mercy killing." Our English word euthanasia
comes from the Greek words, 'eu' and 'thanatos,' and literally means "good
death." Of course some have blurred the issue by using such euphemisms as
"death with dignity," "right to die," and "mercy killing." But regardless of
the language, the act is the same and the right or wrong of that act must be
measured in the light of God's word. The key word here is "killing." There
is a vast difference between "mercy killing" and allowing someone to die if
that person is already dying. On occasions a patient may request that no
treatment be given that might artificially extend his life. That is not
euthanasia. Some years ago former Surgeon General Everett Koop said, "The
whole thing about euthanasia comes down to one word: motive. If your motive
is to alleviate suffering while a person is going through the throes of
dying, a nd you are using medication that alleviates suffering, even though
it might shorten his life by a few hours, that is not euthanasia. But if you
are giving him a drug intended to shorten his life, then your motivation is
for euthanasia."

One need only to examine the record of King Saul's death to determine the
Bible's view of "mercy killing." David was horrified at the manner in which
an innocent bystander took it upon himself to end Saul's suffering, albeit
at Saul’s request (see 2 Samuel 1:5-6). Job never sought to bring
relief to his suffering by euthanasia, either self inflicted or at the hands
of another. Of course Job's wife is another story for she told Job to "curse
God and die." While she would go the route of euthanasia to alleviate pain,
Job trusted in God.

I will close this week's article with an observation from Henry Farrar,
M.D.:

I did not go to medical school to learn how to kill, In fact, I do not know
one physician who goes to medical school to learn how to kill. Physicians go
to learn how to preserve life. Euthanasia is an obscure word invented to
soften the hammer thud of murder. Supporters of euthanasia, such as Dr. Jack
Kevorkian and today's physicians who follow in the train of Adolf Hitler,
have forgotten their reaons for becoming physicians. God joined together
flesh and spirit and created life, and a man has no right to burst it
asunder. The gradual increase of murders in Nazi Germany started with forced
sterilization in 1933. In 1934 abortion of undesirable unborn children
began. In 1939 euthanasia began for deformed children, then mass killing of
the insane. Mass killing of the Jews began in 1941. Atheistic and
materialistic professors and physicians followed Hitler's program of hate
and murder of those who stood in his way. Will the United States slide down
that same slippery slope to murder of all the useless, socially unproductive
people and the elderly?" (Gospel Advocate, January 1999, page 27).

by Tom Wacaster

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games, the first in a trilogy by Suzanne Collins, is
about a nation divided into twelve districts, under the control of the
Capital. To keep the districts under control, the Capital stages the "Hunger
Games" each year. Each district is to supply a teenage boy and a teenage
girl to compete - to the death. The games have gone on for 75 years.

If morality finds its origins in society, there is nothing wrong
with the Hunger Games. If morality is based on what a society decides is
good or not good, there can be nothing morally wrong with such a
competition. One could not argue that the fight to the death was inherently
wrong if there is no standard of morality outside of society.

That's the problem when people want to say that society
determines what is right and wrong. Homosexuality is right because society
says it's okay. Divorce for any reason is okay because society has grown to
accept it. Adultery is okay because "everyone does it." Evolutionary
anthropologists like to say that all these "mores" we have developed based
on societal standards and what we, as humans, have observed is beneficial
for us.

It does not take long once you get into The Hunger Games to see
that everyone does not approve. Why? Because instinctively we know that
society does not determine what is right and wrong. There is a standard of
morality that is beyond and outside of society. There is a moral law that is
over and regulates even society. That moral law is codified in the New
Testament, the revelation of Jesus Christ. "Do unto others as you would have
them do to you" (Matthew 7:12). That is the most succinct yet comprehensive
moral law in human history.

According to an article in The Washington Times, Suzanne Collins
is a Catholic (March 31, 2012). While we disagree with much of Catholic
teaching, they do recognize that there are moral absolutes and those
absolutes are revealed in the Bible. I would be interested to know if
Collins was intending to send any theological (or political) messages with
her book.

For the thinking audience, she implicitly argued for the Moral
Law Giver - God Almighty.

--Paul Holland

Give and it shall be given unto you

I was in a position to overhear a conversation regarding religion and "going to church" the other day wherein one person was telling another that you couldn't go to church anymore without the subject of "giving" being mentioned in some way. Of course the "giving" being spoken of was referring to the giving or contributing of money. I'm sure that you've heard or been involved in conversations regarding this subject in the past also. It's not a new or unfamiliar statement uttered by some people, is it? I'd like to address this subject of "giving" with you today and offer some thoughts about it for you to consider.

If I were a preacher and deciding to speak on the subject of "giving," which needs to be the topic of a sermon every now and then, I think that I'd offer these thoughts. Let me just start off by citing an oft-used passage pertaining to our subject that's commonly heard in lessons on "giving." Actually we usually only hear the first part of a verse found in Luke 6:38 and that first part is this: "Give and it shall be given unto you...." The rest of the verse is not quoted much of the time, but rest assured, we'll get back to it later.

You've probably also noticed that those eight words are cited almost all the time by radio and television evangelists trying to get their audiences to send them money. And, it's usually accompanied by stories of how someone sent in some money and within a short period of time received some sort of windfall of funds. All because they donated some money to this particular program.

My point here is, that in just about all cases, both from the pulpit of the Church and the media programs, the "giving" relates to money. Posing myself as a preacher and deciding to speak on "giving" here's the way I'd address it and I hope that you don't find my thoughts too radical here.

First off, I'd say to those people, like the person I overheard complaining about hearing about "giving" every time he went to church, I suspect that they don't attend church very often. That perhaps it's just their karma to so seldom be there that they just happen to hear a lesson on "giving." Maybe, if they went more often, they'd hear a lot of other good lessons from the scriptures which they are otherwise missing. I'd try to do this in a loving manner though.

I think the next point of my sermon would be to point out another phrase that's often heard by our fore mentioned speakers and that is "the power of giving." As said earlier, this generally relates to the reaping of some sort of monetary, earthly rewards for having made a contribution. I would take this phrase and talk about things that it relates to other than financial.

I believe that the "power of giving" relates to far more things than money. I believe that the "power of giving" is really more about things such as "time" or "kindness" or doing one's "duty." Couldn't we even relate our "giving" to "praise and honor" to God? Of course we can. The apostle Paul even said so in so many words when he said in 1 Cor. 7:5 that if we don't "give" ourselves to these things we put ourselves in danger of allowing Satan to enter our lives.

In another oft-cited verse relating to "giving" (2 Cor. 9:7) we see these words: "So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver."

And yes, Paul here is referring to the monetary gifts made by the churches of Macedonia toward the "poor saints of Jerusalem" (Rom 15:26) but I think there is more to be learned by Paul's words in 2 Cor. than relates to just money given. Let's just look a some of them.

In the 8^th chapter he tells us that they "first gave their own selves to the Lord" and then they gave their money to Paul. (Vs. 5) Notice in verse 7 that they "abounded in everything, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence." But then notice what else they "abounded" in - "love." I see these things mentioned in verse 7 as being the things which they "first gave their own selves" to towards God.

It's my opinion that it's the "giving" of these things that allowed them to give monetarily with a "cheerful heart." Plus, by their "giving" or "abounding" in the non-monetary things we see in 9:8 that "God is able to make all grace abound" toward them. That they would have "all sufficiency in all things" and "abundance for every good work." That, brethren, is the "power of giving."

In the next point of my lesson, I would switch from The Scriptures for a moment and tell you about some things that science has found out about "giving." And here again, I'm not talking mainly about money "giving." Scientists say that there are certain hormones created in our bodies when we're "giving." These hormones are the ones that bring about the feeling of well-being and increased pleasure. In a nutshell, by "giving" help to others, we're helping ourselves at the same time. Does science's findings go a long way to helping us understand the words of Christ in Acts 20:35 "It is more blessed to give than to receive." I think they do.

At this point of my sermon I'd return to The Scriptures and make another point about "giving" meaning a lot more than just money. The Gospel of Christ is replete with scripture telling Christians that they are "servants." Here's a few that you can look up and verify what I say: Rom. 6:18, 6:22, Eph. 6:6, and Col. 3:22. There are many more, but these should be sufficient to get the point across.

Back to the point - a servant "serves." I'll just use one passage to conclude this point and I find it in Gal. 5:13 where we see that it is "through love that we serve one another." Isn't this what motivated the Macedonians to "give" cheerfully? I'd conclude this point with the thought that "service" to others, done through "love" is what causes God to "abound" blessings to us. And that "service," in it's various forms, is as much a part of "giving," if not more so, than money.

I think that I'd close my lesson by returning to our original scriptural reference, Luke 6:38 and use the last part of the verse to make my final point. Notice how that verse ends: "For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you." I would tie these words to one more verse from 2 Cor. 9 where Paul says that "Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully."

My point: that "giving" is just like "sowing." And this is the rule for all forms of "giving." I would ask my audience two questions in closing this lesson. (1) You're the farmer - how much seed are you planting? And (2) When your period of farming and servitude is over - how do you want your epitaph to read? A "good and faithful servant" OR a "wicked and slothful servant?" It's your call.

Ron Covey

Who was Daniel Boone?

What American isn't a fan of Daniel Boone? This legendary figure helped
open up
the heart of the continent to early settlers of our country. After reading
a
relatively new biography of Boone last year, I have an even greater respect
for
the risks this man took.

Today, while working with a church in London, Kentucky, I spent some spare
time
at Levi Jackson State Park. I spotted a trail that took off into the woods.
Upon closer inspection I learned that this was part of the "Daniel Boone
Trace",
the trail he blazed to lead settlers from North Carolina into Kentucky. In
his
day, the best passage into the new territory was unknown. By following this
path, pioneers stood a better chance of reaching their desired destinations.

I wonder why no one has named a portable navigation device a "Boone"? There
are
numerous times that I've wanted to get somewhere, but don't know the way.
Using
the GPS, I almost never have any trouble getting there. How times have
changed
since Ol' Dan'l hacked his way through wilderness!

A similar challenge confronted the descendants of Jacob (renamed "Israel" by
God) as they headed out of Egypt in search of their new Promised Land.
Where
was this land? How would they get there? Even Moses was not equipped with
the
information needed for that journey.

God had the information, though, and He was there to lead the people. "And
the
Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead the way, and by
night
in a pillar of fire to give them light, so as to go by day and night. He
did
not take away the pillar of cloud by day or the pillar of fire by night from
before the people" (Exodus 13:21,22). Even Daniel Boone didn't offer
personal
escort to every party that traveled the Trace. But God led His people
personally.

Let's now talk about our own journey, the one we're taking right now toward
eternity. If you know anything about the Bible, you know the desired
destination. We want to reach heaven, to be in the very presence of God.
Do
you know the way, however? Not unless you know the One who blazed the
trail.

Here is how the work of Jesus is presented to us: "Therefore, brethren,
having
boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way
which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh" (Hebrews
10:19,20). The trail Jesus opened for us was a painful one for Him. Only
by
His death on the cross could we ever hope to arrive in the presence of God.

To put the idea in its simplest terms we turn to Jesus Himself: "I am the
way,
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John
14:6). If our aim is to find our way to eternal bliss, the challenge is
simple:
We must be in Christ.

And how does one come to be found in Christ? Consider what we're told in
Galatians 3:26,27: "For you are all children of God through faith in Christ
Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
The terms are simple. The trail has been cleared. All who desire to reach
heaven are now able if they are willing to submit to the Lord's authority.

Come to the light God offers! Study His word, the Bible. Worship Him in
spirit
and truth (John 4:24). Get in touch with us if you'd like to discuss these
ideas further.

Timothy Hall

What does the Bible say about capital punishment?

Capital Punishment On May 13, 1981, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Bobby Grant Lambert was walking out of a Safeway supermarket in Houston, Texas. An assailant approached Lambert and put his hand into Lambert's rear pocket. When Lambert resisted, the assailant pulled out a pistol and held it to Lambert's head. Lambert dropped his groceries and the assailant shot him in the chest. As the assailant fled, Lambert stumbled back into the grocery store, where he died. The robber got away with the change from a $100 bill, although police later found $6000 in $100 bills on the victim's body. Graham was arrested, convicted and sentenced to be executed. Hollywood elites took interest in Graham's case, and along with various "rights" advocates, every attempt was made to stop the execution of Graham. Consequently it gook almost 20 years before Graham would be executed by lethal injection. On the evening of July 19, 1976, Gary Gilmore robbed and murdered Max Jensen, a Sinclair gas station employee at 168 East and 800 North in Orem, Utah. The next evening, he robbed and murdered Bennie Bushnell, a motel manager at City Center Inn at 150 West and 300 South in Provo. He murdered these people even though they complied with his demands. As he disposed of the .22 caliber pistol used in both killings, he accidentally shot himself in the hand, leaving a trail of blood from the gun all the way to the service garage where he had left his truck to be repaired shortly before the murder of Bushnell. Michael Simpson witnessed Gilmore hiding the gun in the bushes, seeing the blood and hearing on a police scanner of the shooting at the nearby motel, wrote down Gilmore's license number and called the police. Gilmore was charged with the murders of Bushnell and Jensen, although the latter case never went to trial, apparently because there were no eyewitnesses. Gilmore was tried and convicted, and executed on January 17, 1977 at 8:07 a.m. by firing squad at Utah State Prison in Draper, Utah. Karla Faye Tucker, after having spent the weekend of May 12, 1983 doing drugs with her boyfriend Danny Garret, burglarized the home of Jerry Dean, and in the process played a part in the gruesome murder of Dean. Both Tucker and Garret were tried and sentenced to death in September of that year. The interesting thing about Tucker's imprisonment was her conversion to "Christianity" and her subsequent marriage to her prison minister. She was executed on February 3, 1998. She was the first woman to be executed in Texas since the Civil War. The list of "notable" and "not-so-notable" executions could go on, enough to fill dozens, if not hundreds of bulletin pages this size. Every time an execution takes place those opposed to the punishment lift their voices in horror suggesting that "capital punishment does not work." Of course it would depend upon the motive behind capital punishment as to whether or not it "works." Capital punishment advocates suggest that it is a deterrent, and that the very existence of capital punishment has served as a successful element in reducing crime. It has long been acknowledged that the absence or uncertainty of punishment is an encouragement to do evil. The wise man Solomon tells us that "because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil" (Ecclesiastes 8:11). Those who oppose capital punishment argue that it does not serve as a deterrent. Among the most outspoken are those on death row who scream at the "unfair" and "cruel" judicial system for the situation in which they now find themselves. To this I would make three observations: First, convicted criminals would not be in favor of capital punishment for obvious reasons. Second, the proof of a death penalty deterrent will be found in the many who actually refrained from such violence due to the fear of death. Finally, the death penalty has lost much of its designed force due to the failure of, or capricious manner in its application and administration. Those who oppose capital punishment will often pick up on a case of wrongful conviction to which the death penalty was the attached punishment, and will plead that it is unjust because it takes the life of an innocent person. Of course there are those who plead "cruel and unusual punishment." The one element that so many fail to realize (or choose to forget) is that capital punishment is just that - "punishment." It is the penalty one pays for taking ! the life of another. The late and lamented British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher correctly pointed out, "People who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live. I believe that the death penalty should be used only very rarely, but I believe that noone should go out certain that no matter how cruel, how vicious, how hideous their murder, they themselves will not suffer the death penalty." Whether or not it serves as a successful deterrent is not the issue when it comes to determining the right and wrong of the practice. Even if it could be proven that it has no effect in deterring crime, it should still be administered as punishment to those who take the life of another! Capital punishment was first authorized by God in the days of Noah in Genesis 9:5-6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man." In Exodus 21:12 it is stated, "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." If one responds that these are Old Testament passages and thus not applicable in this situation we would point out that the sacredness of life and capital punishment are clearly taught in the New Testament as well. "Thou shalt not kill" is found five times in the New Testament (Matt. 5:21, 27; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 13:9; James 2:11). By using the familiar commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" in New Testament application it is obvious that some sort of punishment is to be meted out to those who take the life of another. What is that punishment? Paul tells us something about the authority of government in these matters in Romans 13:4: "For he is the minister of god to thee for good. B ut if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." The sword was an instrument of death. If one is going to argue Biblically as to the divine authority for capital punishment he must give careful and serious consideration to these words by Paul. I'll close with this astute quote from Theodore Roosevelt: "As regards capital cases, the trouble is that emotional men and women always see only the individual whose fate is up at the moment, and neither his victim nor the many millions of unknown individuals who would in the long run be harmed by what they ask."

by Tom Wacaster

How many churches lack a full time preacher?

 

 

    I'm reasonably confident that most are familiar with the above statement, knowing it is what God said in Genesis 2:18 concerning Adam.  Though Adam lived in a paradise and was surrounded by many animals, still he was alone.  He was alone because he had no one else like himself with which to associate. God solved the problem by creating woman. 

 

            The principle ingrained in the statement that it is not good that man should be alone, has several applications reaching out beyond the marriage relationship.  For example, it is not good if a man has no friends.  Life is so much more tolerable and meaningful if a man has at least one good friend.  Preachers are notorious for having no friends. Sure we are surrounded by many people, most who treat us well and would come to our rescue if we had a need. Still, a preacher must be "on guard" at every word he speaks knowing that it can be twisted, taken out of context, and used against him if the circumstances are ripe.  We were warned about this in Preaching School, but at the time, I didn't believe it.  Thirty years later - - I believe it.  I know a preacher who was good friends with a non-Christian whom he had grown-up with.  The preacher kept encouraging him to come to his church.  Finally, the man told him, "We're too good of friends for me to start coming to your church."  The more I think about that, the more truth I see in it. While there are some exceptions, the rule is if a preacher has a real friend, it will be another preacher.  If such cannot be found, "burn-out" most likely occurs, and another empty pulpit is added to the already 8,000 pulpits that are void of a fulltime preacher in our Brotherhood.

 

            Also, we can see the wisdom of God in commanding a weekly assembly of those who are of "like precious faith."  Why? Because it is not good that man should be alone.  Assembling with fellow Christians allows us to absorb strength and encouragement from one another.  Failing to associate with fellow Christians could lead us to develop the "Elijah complex," i.e. thinking we are the only real Christian left. "Not forsaking the assembly" has tangent applications that are beneficial beyond what is specifically stated in Hebrews 10:24-25.

 

            There is also a "divine" principle in the statement that "it is not good that man should be alone."  It has to do with the "communion" that Christians take on the first day of every week. The word "communion" should destroy the word "aloneness."  Not only do we have fellowship with one another, but also with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ (1John 1:3).

 

            A good wife is precious;  a good friend is precious;  fellow Christians are precious, and communion with God is precious. Why? Because "it is not good that man should be alone."

 

                                        --Toby Miller

When The Storms Of Life Are Raging

When I preached in Livingston, Alabama, Selman Falls would often lead us in
singing the song, "He Will Hide Me." This M.E. Servoss hymn was in the
Songs of the Church hymnal. Servoss, a woman from Chicago ("Mary
Elizabeth"), was a prolific hymn writer. This was maybe her most notable
hymn. Perhaps no imagery is more graphic in scripture than depicting
troubles as a storm (cf. Psalm 55:8; Proverbs 1:27; Isaiah 25:4-5; 1 Timothy
1:19; etc.). Storms are frightening and damaging. I sat in a hallway with
my head in my lap in Junior High in Franklin, Georgia, during a tornado and
my family and I rode out a hurricane in Virginia in 2003. The unknown of
what the storm will do adds to its ferocity.

I read David McCullough's Johnstown Flood, about the torrential rains that
broke the Little Fork dam and unleashed a calamity of its kind unmatched in
modern, U.S. History. People were completely swept away, crushed by debris,
drowned, and even burned to death. The storms of that late May day in 1889
cost 2,209 people their lives. McCullough tells about Victor Heiser's
incredible survival in this flood. He climbed into a barn just before the
powerful waters blew through the property and he watched the family house
(in which his parents were) instantly demolished. The barn was carried
downstream in such a way that it barely missed whole houses, freight train
cars, barns, and the like before the then sixteen year old Heiser found
refuge with nineteen others in the attic of a two-story brick house
commandeered by the flood. Along the way, he witnessed the deaths of
several not so blessed as he. Heiser made the most of the blessing. He
grew up, became a doctor, and it is estimated that he saved as many as two
million lives through the development of the first effective treatment
against leprosy. He died at the age of 99 in 1972.
Most storm survivors are not as acclaimed and famous as Victor Heiser. So
many have taken hold of the hand which calms the storms and have enjoyed the
Lord's guidance as they weathered their own storms of tragedy, trouble, and
transgression. They reached their end, many of them having aided others to
escape through Christ! Spurgeon and a friend saw a weather vane upon which
were written the words, "God is love." The friend objected, saying, "God's
love is not so fickle and transient. That vane is not correct." To which
Spurgeon replied, "No, friend, you have misunderstood its meaning. It is
correct. It suggests that God is love, which ever way the wind blows."

Donna Dungan, a wonderful Christian lady who has lived along the Gulf Coast
where many fierce storms have blown, wrote a poem to comfort a friend
suffering from an unknown virus that eventually took her life. Her
beautiful words may bring you comfort as you deal with your storms. I close
with it.

Though a fierce storm is raging about you

And you fear there is nothing you can do

There's a place in your heart where He meets you

And in the eye of the storm He carries you through

Don't let go, don't try to leave the eye, or the storm will take you in

Nothing will overtake you while you are holding on to Him

There is a place of peace and rest that is safe from the battles of life

A place in your heart where He will shield you from worry and strife

Our Lord never sleeps nor slumbers while His children are in pain

He alone has the power to hold you up until you are whole again

Oh, please don't let go--just hold on

In the eye of the storm just hold on.

--Neal Pollard

Flight 93 Memorial

Well, another month has come and gone. Actually, it seems like it has flown by. Helps me to better understand the words of Job when he lamented that his "days" were passing "swifter than a weaver's shuttle." (Job 7:6) In down-home parlance, that means "faster than a Chevrolet race car." Well, however you want to picture it, time just sometimes seems to speed by pretty quickly, doesn't it?

Today I'm going to present to you some thoughts as sort of a potpourri of spiritual lessons. A couple of short lessons, each having a spiritual point to them. I hope that you find them beneficial to your soul and my prayer is that they are in approval with God's Way.

As most of you know, my wife and I returned recently from a trip to Washington DC and, as we usually do, took some back roads and visited various parts of our country. One of the places we stopped, actually came upon it by accident as we were headed toward another historical site, was the "Flight 93 Memorial." Refreshing your memory, that was the airline flight that the passengers took over from the 9-11 hijackers and crashed it in the gentle rolling hills of Pennsylvania.

As we tuned off of the highway en route to the memorial I noticed a grove of freshly planted evergreen trees alongside the roadway. As we neared the actual memorial I observed several more groves being planted. I was to learn from the caretaker that this was the first part of what will eventually be 40 groves of 40 trees representing the 40 passengers and crew members who perished on Flight 93. There is a phrase there that reads "A common field one day. A field of honor forever."

I was reminded of another memorial consisting of a grove of trees honoring a group of people also killed by Muslim extremists. In 2005 in Madrid, Spain, terrorists set off a bomb in the train station killing 192 innocent people. Spain has planted a grove of 192 trees to represent those killed by the bombing and they've named it the "Forest Of The Absent."

Here's my spiritual tie in to the memorial trees of these two incidents - to their purpose for being planted in honor of something. There's a beautiful psalm written by David to the glory and honor of God and it's found in 1 Chron. 16. It was to be sung to the people and I can easily see this as a memorial to God. The entirety of the song is seen in verses 8 through 36 but I'd like to point out verse 33 for you to consider: "Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the Lord, because He cometh to judge the earth."

My second short lesson sort of relates to what I said about the passing of time as three days from now, Lord willing, we'll celebrate the 4^th of July, the day that our nation declared it's independence from England. Here's a few thoughts of mine regarding that occasion.

The first line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says that it's "self evident that all men are created equal." What I found interesting about that statement is, that those men who framed and wrote both the Declaration and the Constitution were wealthy individuals. Remember the times in which these documents were written: times of slavery and bondage.

They were actually times wherein many people were not seen as being equal with some others. Not only materially-wise, but in rank or social standing. Recall, there was no democratic nation anywhere then. They were governed by royalty. They certainly did not see the non-royalty class as being equal to them. And the framers of our nation were born and raised in this atmosphere. Yet, they started off by saying that "all men are created equal." I find that amazing.

How could that have occurred? Something this foreign to the thinking and mores of that day? Here's my humble opinion - God! The basis of my belief in this opinion: many documents and letters from those early days speak about their asking for God's guidance in creating this nation. The Dec. of Ind. even has these words written at the end of the declaration: that they "relied on the protection of Divine Providence" in their work.

One of those framers was Benjamin Franklin, an extraordinary individual. In a speech, relative to the establishment of the Constitution, he said these words: "The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men."

There are many other examples that could be cited but time and space preclude the use of them. Back to my opinion: I firmly believe, that by their stated reliance in the direction of "Divine Providence - God" a nation, foreign in nature and commonly held beliefs, was established. One wherein "all are equal." No one has any more or any less rights than their fellow citizens. Am I the only one to see God's hand, His influence if you will, in this endeavor? I hope not.

Psalm 33:12 says "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord..." I believe that our nation started out having our God as our Lord, but I'm afraid that we have, as a nation, left Him. Remember from studies of the Old Testament how Israel was formed as a nation by God and was tremendously blessed by Him. Then recall how they, over a few generations of time, left him to pursue other gods? Do you remember what he said of them? How He referred to them as "a nation void of counsel?" (Deut. 32:28) Are we becoming a nation such as that?

Personally, I'm afraid that we are. It seems like every poll taken regarding Christianity or religious faith shows a smaller percentage of Americans that profess to believe in or follow God. As our nation turns from God it makes me wonder what gods it's turning to. My guess - that we're now "worshiping and serving the creature more than the Creator." (Rom. 1:25) And I think that we're rapidly becoming a "nation void of counsel."

Ron Covey

What the Bible says about fire

The Colorado wildfires are certainly on our minds here in the Front Range.
Tyler King gave an excellent devotional talk last night, giving three ways
we can be resilient and keep our fire burning. Several weeks ago, someone
used an earlier wildfire to allude to James' inspired words about the tongue
being a fire. That set me thinking. It is interesting to see how the Bible
uses the imagery of fire.

Fire refines and fire destroys. Zechariah 13:9 spoke of a third of God's
people refined by the fire of trial and made stronger. Peter speaks of a
faith refined by the fire of testing (1 Pet. 1:7). Yet, Jesus recalls how
the inhabitants of Sodom were destroyed by fire (Lk. 17:29). The fire of
judgment is connected with judgment and destruction (2 Pet. 3:7).
Fire brings comfort and fire brings pain. Peter warmed himself beside
slaves and officers at a fire in the high priest's courtyard (cf. Mk. 14:54;
Jn. 18:18). The natives started a fire on Malta out of kindness to bring
warmth and comfort to those shipwrecked, including Paul (Acts 28:3). In
teaching about eternal punishment, Jesus spoke of a furnace of fire
associated with weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mat. 13:42ff). Jude uses
fire similarly in Jude 7.
Fire gives life and fire brings death. Controlled or prescribed burns
reduce "fuel" for bigger, hotter fires, germinate desirable trees that
renews forests, improves wildlife habitats, improves forage for grazing, and
prepares fields for planting (treesearch.fs.fed.us and bugwood.org). But,
scripture and observation show that uncontrolled, unmanaged fires bring
opposite results (Joel 1:19-20; Ps. 83:14; Jer. 21:14; Js. 3:5).

There are certainly other contrasting uses of fire, in scripture and in
life. As nine major fires blaze throughout the state today, hundreds of
homes are destroyed, lives are threatened, and fears are fueled.
Spiritually, fire can have a positive effect, too. Even the threat of it
can be a deterrent in keeping us faithful. As we witness the fearsome
effects of these physical fires, may we ponder the dichotomous use of fire
in scripture.

Neal Pollard

Fw: Tom's Pen, 06-25-2012, A New Generation of Tobacco Addicts

The war between the tobacco industry and those who are fighting for a
smoke-free society is, once again, in the news. A number of years ago the
tobacco industry lost a major class action law suit on behalf of individuals
who suffered the harmful effects of smoking and/or other tobacco related
health issues. Involved in the lawsuit were health organizations, government
entities, and a number of individuals. As a result the tobacco industry
agreed to pay billions of dollars in health related benefits in order to
ward off a complete defeat [of course the lawyers got the biggest piece of
the pie, but that is a matter for a different article]. Included in the
agreement was the removal of any advertizing that appeals especially to
youth. Also included in the settlement was an agreement that cigarette
packages would need to include wording that was a little more forceful as to
the harmful effects of smoking and chewing tobacco. It would no longer be
acceptable to simply say, "Smoking may be harmful to your health." The legal
settlement would require that the tobacco industry give a more stern and
detailed warning: "Caution: Smoking causes heart disease, stroke, lung
cancer" - or something to that effect. Fast forward to this century. The
latest requirement coming out of Washington among those who are "reputed to
be somewhat" is that pictures of the lungs and other diseased parts of the
body must appear on each pack of cigarettes. Warnings will increasingly
become more forceful in an effort to, hopefully, move us toward a more smoke
free society. Already cities and states are passing stiff regulations
forbidding smoking in public places. California has become the first state
to pass restrictions on smoking in the privacy of one's own home. But the
tobacco industry is not taking this laying down. It ! would appear, however,
that the tobacco industry has, in the words of an old Timex Watch
commercial, "taken a likin' and keeps on tickin'." In return for this new
round of restrictions and package warnings, the tobacco industry will be
allowed to continue to sell their product. We are somewhat naive if we think
the tobacco industry will now ignore the youth. You can be certain that each
generation must be targeted and new customers must be won over in spite of
the obvious ill effects of using tobacco, if the tobacco companies are going
to survive. To be sure, they will find a way. In return, the next generation
will pay the price of its habit, and smokers and non-smokers alike will
continue to suffer from the sale of tobacco on the public market. Take a
look around! We are seeing a new generation of young people picking up the
habit. It is a great mystery to me why teens begin smoking today in view of
the abundant evidence that proves that smoking is harmful to on! e's health.
Do they not care? Do they not know? We are growing a ne w generation of
tobacco addicts right before our noses (no pun intended). In spite of all
the evidence to the contrary, hundreds of teens are picking up the habit
every day! It would appear that over the last couple of decades we have
relaxed our efforts to inform and warn our youth about the dangers of using
tobacco, and peer pressure has introduced many a teen to the habit. The
following statements appear on the Center for Disease Control web site:

(http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/
youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm). These statistics are two years old:

Smoking and smokeless tobacco use are initiated and established primarily
during adolescence. More than 80% of adult smokers begin smoking before 18
years of age. Additionally, adolescent smokeless tobacco users are more
likely than nonusers to become adult cigarette smokers.Youth cigarette use
declined sharply during 1997 - 2003. Since that time, rates have declined
far more slowly.

Youth smokeless tobacco use also declined in the late 1990s and early 2000s,
but an increasing number of U.S. high school students in some subgroups
(such as white males) have reported using smokeless tobacco products in
recent years.

In addition, the CDC makes this staggering observation: "Each day in the
United States, approximately 3,800 young people under 18 years of age smoke
their first cigarette, and an estimated 1,000 youth in that age group become
daily cigarette smokers." Did you catch the word "daily"? Multiply that out;
at the end of one year 1,387,000 new youth under age 18 will be introduced
to the smoking world and a staggering 365,000 will become daily cigarette
smokers! This does not include the use of cigars or chewing tobacco.

A few months back I received my gas bill from ATMOS energy. Included in the
bill was a pamphlet which warned against the danger of carbon monoxide. Most
folks associate carbon monoxide with the emissions that come from the
automobile exhaust. Natural gas, when burned, also emits carbon monoxide,
and hence the need to make sure that gas stoves, ovens, etc. are well
ventilated. I thought it amusing that this safety pamphlet also warned
against cooking on an open grill in an enclosed room, something I don't
recall ever having seen anyone do. Now before you accuse me of being an
environmentalist wacko, or a stock holder in ATMOS, let me assure you that
my reason for bringing up this whole matter goes much deeper than public
relations. Did you know that one of the effects of smoking tobacco is the
input of carbon monoxide into your body? This little pamphlet enlightened me
to the fact that carbon monoxide does its damage by limiting the amount of
oxygen that can be take n into the blood cells. In short, when we breath
carbon monoxide into the body, we deprive our bodies of the life giving
oxygen needed by the brain. Too much carbon monoxide can, in fact, be
deadly. So why in the world would anyone want to voluntarily pick up a habit
that, among other things, endangers their brain by depriving it of oxygen? I
guess one of the puzzling mysteries of life is why the younger generation is
picking up the tobacco habit at such an alarming rate in spite of the
abundance of evidence that such is harmful to the body. I can only conclude
that they are doing so either (1) because they do not believe the evidence,
or (2) they simply do not care. I have been tempted to stop some teenager on
the street, who I observe smoking, and ask them why in the world they want
to smoke. It is a proven fact (and something which the CDC site confirmed)
that if an individual does not pick up the habit of smoking before they are
21, the odds that he will do so ! at all are quite remote. The same might be
said with regard to drinking and drug use. In other words, if the tobacco
industry is going to get someone to use their product, or if the brewing
industry is to gain new customers among the up-coming generation, they MUST
TARGET the young. This they are doing, all denials to the contrary not
withstanding. When examined in the light of God's word the irresistible
conclusion is that smoking is wrong, Wrong, WRONG. The child of God should
put forth every effort to break the habit. With God's help it CAN be done.
Even more, with God's help, it MUST be done.

Tom Wacaster