Charge him now. Otherwise why have juries and laws about this?
I’ve been hoping to find something like this for a while.
Polly Toynbee writes the following excerpts for the Guardian against the first book in The Chronicles of Narnia.
Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to? Poor child Edmund, to blame for everything, must bear the full weight of a guilt only Christians know how to inflict, with a twisted knife to the heart. Every one of those thorns, the nuns used to tell my mother, is hammered into Jesus’s holy head every day that you don’t eat your greens or say your prayers when you are told. So the resurrected Aslan gives Edmund a long, life-changing talking-to high up on the rocks out of our earshot. When the poor boy comes back down with the sacred lion’s breath upon him he is transformed unrecognisably into a Stepford brother, well and truly purged.
She concludes as follows.
Children are supposed to fall in love with the hypnotic Aslan, though he is not a character: he is pure, raw, awesome power. He is an emblem for everything an atheist objects to in religion. His divine presence is a way to avoid humans taking responsibility for everything here and now on earth, where no one is watching, no one is guiding, no one is judging and there is no other place yet to come. Without an Aslan, there is no one here but ourselves to suffer for our sins, no one to redeem us but ourselves: we are obliged to settle our own disputes and do what we can. We need no holy guide books, only a very human moral compass. Everyone needs ghosts, spirits, marvels and poetic imaginings, but we can do well without an Aslan.
Let us be careful not to overgeneralize, but what Ms. Toynbee writes seems to represent more than her alone. She may not see a distinction between the teachings of present-day Evangelicals and the old Evangelicals of the Sixtheenth Century, but I know that there are differences among the doctrines of atheists. She represents only one point of view. C.S. Lewis probably represented a different atheist point of view before his conversion to Christianity.
Variations in atheist doctrine notwithstanding, I am thankful that Ms. Toynbee has written these words, because they clearly and pointedly express exactly the problem she has with the Christian faith and with Christians. Perhaps she is not far from the Kingdom of God. I pray that she, like Lewis, is drawn into it.
Before his betrayal by Judas, Jesus told his disciples what would happen. To Peter in particular, He said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.” (Luke 22:31–32, NKJV)
Notice that Jesus’ comfort was “but I have prayed for you,” not “but Satan will not be allowed to have you.” In fact, Satan was allowed to have Peter, if only for a time. I’d like to consider what Satan did with Peter during that time.
Before we do, though, let’s address those who inwardly snicker at the first serious mention of Satan or spiritual things, as though they were fairy tales and myths. At this point we will let them depart in peace from us and from Dr. Luther, who earnestly wrote, “He seeks to burst us, who are a part of Christ, and the bond of that Word, with which Christ binds us, asunder. Therefore we should not cease to beware of his snares. Christianity is a continuous struggle, not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, as Eph. 6:12 says. One should not act smugly.” (LW 30:258)
It began when Peter denied being any associate of Jesus, or even knowing Him. He was given three opportunities to confess his Lord before men, and each time Peter chose not to. This denial was not the sifting that Jesus mentioned. It was only the tool by which Satan would gain leverage over Peter. The sifting was not done in an outward or visible way. It was done internally and mentally. Here’s how the evangelist Mark describes it. (14:66-72, NKJV)
Now as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came. And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with Jesus of Nazareth.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are saying.” And he went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed.
And the servant girl saw him again, and began to say to those who stood by, “This is one of them.” But he denied it again.
And a little later those who stood by said to Peter again, “Surely you are one of them; for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows it.” Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know this Man of whom you speak!” A second time the rooster crowed. Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” And when he thought about it, he wept.
The next thing we hear about Peter comes after Jesus rose, about two and a half days later. Mark 16:7, NKJV: “But go, tell His disciples — and Peter — that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.” Notice that there is a distinction between the group called Jesus’ disciples and Peter. This distinction was made not first by Jesus, but by Peter himself in his denial of Jesus. Peter had sworn an oath, “I do not know the man.” That excludes him from being a disciple.
The sifting began with the temptation and the denial, but it did not end there. We are not told what happened during the next 60 hours or so, but things have been written about it.
Many people consider Peter to be the equivalent of a faithless heathen at this time, so that if he had died, he would have been eternally condemned under God’s law without a savior. It’s true that Peter had disavowed Jesus, and that Jesus had earlier taught clearly, “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32–33) Undoubtedly this was on Peter’s mind during those long hours. It would be surprising to find that he enjoyed much rest.
Yet the same Jesus who never said that Satan’s request was denied also said, “But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail.” It may seem extraordinary that Jesus should pray for a disciple, but it’s not. In fact, He does just that in John 17, and not only for his apostles like Peter, but for all who believe on the basis of their teaching. In connection with Peter, His prayer included at least one request, which He revealed to Peter: “that your faith should not fail.”
In fact, Peter was sifted as wheat by Satan. It doesn’t seem too much to believe that Jesus’ prayer was also granted: Peter’s faith did not fail. So then what happened? It’s implied by Jesus’ words, “when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.” Jesus never left Peter, but Peter left Jesus in a sense, for a while. It’s not revealed exactly what this means in relation to Peter’s status as a child of God, except for Jesus’ prayer “that your faith should not fail.”
While Peter was suffering these two and a half days of sifting, Jesus himself experienced the apex of agony under the justice of God against the world’s sin. He would not forsake Peter, so He paid the price: his own innocent life, taken at the hands of the wicked. But pay it He did, and satisfied all of God’s wrath against human sin. During those same hours, Peter was sifted. This sifting is comparable, maybe sometimes identical, to mental illness.
A mental illness can be considered clinically, the way a physical disease or injury may be considered. That is both a strength and a weakness of modern medical science, for while there are treatments to help the mentally ill, its source is not a natural part of creation. The malicious sifting by our spiritual enemy is not taken into account nor even addressed by medically altering the victim’s brain chemistry. Yes, the effects of the sifting can be partly mitigated, but the source of the problem remains.
When mental illness is only considered as a material problem (meaning physical and/or mental), the material treatments available often help in real ways. These can make the difference between coping, and agony or misery. They can allow time for healing to take place. But like all injuries and illnesses, mental illness also has a spiritual dimension.
Illness should not be considered a “spiritual” problem without explanation. Peter had a spiritual problem: denying a connection to Jesus. But that serious sin was also forgivable through Jesus’ death. We can suppose that he experienced what would now be called a mental illness after that, a despairing depression. It would have been like a hole in his existence, a hatred of himself; a sense of shame so deep that the slightest reminder of human failure would pierce his own soul, whether the failure was his or not. It’s a wonder that he did not take the path of Judas, because the thought would have occurred to him. What stopped him? We can only answer by remembering the prayer of Jesus.
Calling Peter’s problem “spiritual” may imply to modern minds that it was imagined, or worse yet: subjective. That would mean that Peter’s spiritual condition or status before God was in jeopardy or worse entirely because of Peter’s own will, words, or actions; that it was all taking place in Peter’s head or heart. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Peter was under attack from the outside, not from the inside.
Peter was being sifted by a malicious will bent on his fall and eternal destruction. But Satan could care less about Peter, except that that Peter was Jesus’ most vocal supporter. Satan wanted to turn him as he had turned Adam and Eve, and so undermine absolutely all the good that God has done. He wanted Peter in hell not for his company, but to be a trophy.
Yes, Peter had a spiritual problem, and that problem has a name: Satan. We all have that problem. Satan is the enemy. He’s a deceiver and a murderer. He wants us to think that there is no hope, that God could never forgive us. He wants us to be overwhelmed by guilt, right after he has led us to the sin that produced it. He wants us to remember only those words of God that condemn sinners, and forget every word of pardon and forgiveness. He wants us to spiral through hopelessness, self-loathing, self-destruction, addiction to behaviors or substances, and many other paths of misery. He’s an expert at managing our influences: keeping away the wholesome while strengthening those that continue or accelerate the spiral. He hand-tailors negative spiritual feedback loops for his victims’ weaknesses, and does all he can to keep them plugged in. That’s the spiritual problem that Peter had.
This fact alone can encourage us as we suffer Satan’s spiritual attacks. 1 Peter 4:15-16 (ESV) says, “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.” And in Dr. Luther’s explanation of this, he writes:
When faith begins, God does not forsake it; He lays the holy cross on our backs to strengthen us and to make faith powerful in us. The holy Gospel is a powerful Word. Therefore it cannot do its work without trials, and only he who tastes it is aware that it has such power. Where suffering and the cross are found, there the Gospel can show and exercise its power. It is a Word of life. Therefore it must exercise all its power in death. In the absence of dying and death it can do nothing, and no one can become aware that it has such power and is stronger than sin and death. Therefore the apostle says “to prove you”; that is, God inflicts no glowing fire or heat—cross and suffering, which make you burn—on you for any other purpose than “to prove you,” whether you also cling to His Word. (LW 30:126)
There’s one important difference between suffering in this kind of spiritual problem and the misery of hell itself. We may think that there’s no hope, no joy, no contentment to be had in the depths of our earthly despair, but we are wrong. This only the simulator of hell, crafted with diabolical intent for each victim. We may not see any hope, joy, or contentment, but it’s all there, just waiting on the other side of our time of sifting. And God’s purpose for that sifting is different from Satan’s. Satan is no more than a tool, and used in a different task than he would like.
Peter’s sifting ended when Jesus dragged a net containing 153 fish to the shore of the Sea of Galilee and Jesus reversed Peter’s threefold denial. “Simon, do you love me more than these?” “Lord, you know all things; You I love you.” (John 21:17, NKJV)
When Peter returned to Jesus, Jesus accepted him with open arms, for when Jesus suffered and died on the cross, it was for sinners like Peter and everyone else under Satan’s attack. All of Peter’s spiraling doubts, self-loathing, and despair, those tendrils of Satan’s influence, found their match in the forgiveness of Peter’s sin. Thereafter, the sifting that Satan had done turned into a blessing. In retrospect, it showed Peter the difference between the chaff and the wheat in his own character.
Those today who suffer the sifting of the enemy in the form of mental illness can take comfort in the fact that it’s limited by our gracious Lord, who has also prayed for us. The time of sifting will end, and God will somehow show it to be a blessing. Until then, all facets of the disease should be addressed, whether material or spiritual. Material treatments are provided through medical doctors and psychological counselors. Modification to behavior, environs, and habit help to limit negative influences and encourage positive ones. It’s important to recognize and remember the spiritual dimension in all of this, because the root problem is our sin coupled with the enemy’s attacks. The only possible solution for such a problem took place on a cross, and there are only three ways that God has promised to deliver its benefits: his word of forgiveness, holy baptism, and the sacrament of the altar. Any treatment strategy that ignores that dimension of the problem is hamstrung from the start.
: Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 30: The Catholic Epistles. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 30, p. 258). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
: Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 30: The Catholic Epistles. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 30, p. 126). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
Imagine a billion-dollar company called Responsible Pet Ownership. Their stated purpose? To provide essential services and education that will improve the lives of pets and their owners. Too many pet owners find themselves overwhelmed with the responsibilities of providing nutritious food, adequate exercise, and the attention that pets need for a quality life. Some of these beleaguered pet owners never asked to have such a responsibility, yet once they do, their lives become encumbered with the expectations of society and the needs of their pets. Puppies or kittens on Christmas morning are certainly cute and cuddly, but after only a month of pet ownership, many of these families struggle, and soon realize that their lives will never be the same.
Responsible Pet Ownership is here to help. When prospective pet owners need assistance to find the right pet for themselves, when they need some training or even supplies to get themselves on the right track, they can turn to Responsible Pet Ownership for the vital support they need.
These services are especially important for pet owners from the lower social classes. They are the ones who find pet ownership most burdensome. In far too many cases, the additional responsibilities of a pet have hindered a poor child or family from escaping the clutches of poverty. Since Responsible Pet Ownership provides essential social services for people in these conditions, the company receives a subsidy from governmental entities. The federal government has subsidized the work of RPO with over half a billion dollars over a year for these services. In this way, Responsible Pet Ownership fills the gaps in service provided by traditional veterinarians.
But the use of tax money invites public scrutiny and much criticism. Some people claim that since more pets are brought into an RPO office than come out, something dishonest must be taking place there. Is the business taking tax money and enriching its leaders without providing the services it claims to provide? Are the services really necessary? Is it providing those services in an ethically acceptable way? There are faith-based organizations that object in principle to the mass euthanization of animals, claiming that this is the true purpose behind Responsible Pet Ownership. Some go as far as claiming that behind closed doors, RPO is a secret partner with other corporate interests, especially pharmaceutical companies. Instead of euthanizing and disposing of the unwanted pets, the claim is made that RPO is selling them alive on a black market, for the purpose of vivisection and experimental drug testing. (Vivisection was promoted in the earlier days of the Progressive movement, inspiring the practices of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.)
In recent years, the pitch of the controversy surrounding Responsible Pet Ownership has risen. Citizen advocacy groups have engineered “sting” operations in which they pose as pharmaceutical company buyers and meet with RPO executives, recording the meetings with hidden cameras. These videos have been published online for the world to see. These groups claim they are doing the public service that the mainstream media ought to be doing. As a result, the traditional media organizations have portrayed their work as muckraking sensationalism, and reported the information as a controversy rather than an exposé. In the minds of those who suspect RPO of unethical practices, this has damaged the reputation of the traditional media, and confirmed their suspicions.
Yet the furor about the ethics at RPO has emboldened former employees to come forward and reveal what has really been happening in their so-called “puppy mills.” According to these former employees, RPO workers have lied to customers, saying that their pets have a terminal illness, or did not survive routine procedures. The company’s justification for this is that the customer will be better off without the burdensome responsibility of pet ownership. Meanwhile, the healthy pets are taken and sold on the black market for experimentation. Those that are not healthy enough for experimentation are sold into the pet food market.
These embarrassing claims have been mostly ignored by RPO media representatives and executives. Instead, the company focuses on how essential their services are for the community, and the good they do for the lower social classes by freeing them from the long-term responsibilities of pet ownership. It also stresses that any pets taken from their home situations of neglect and malnourishment are better off without a lifetime of suffering. Meanwhile, RPO has engaged in an intensive effort to rebuild its brand using social media. It has encouraged a campaign of re-posting memes that say, “I stand for Responsible Pet Ownership.”
When pressed on-camera, the CEO of Responsible Pet Ownership has followed the company line. Off camera, she has expressed frustration. “Look, we are dealing with pets here, but these people are treating us as though our business were based on seducing downtrodden women into physical peril with life-long sorrow and guilt, or killing defenseless human beings! We have our problems, but we’re not that bad.”
Sometimes I have the impression that some of God’s people think they’re doing something for him when they show up for church on Sunday, whether fulfilling an obligation or doing Him a favor. Other times I have the impression that some of God’s people think they have come for a purpose comparable to watching a football game. When the score becomes badly lopsided in the fourth quarter and the result seems certain, it’s fine to spend game time raiding the kitchen for chips or beer. What could you possibly miss?
It’s important for God’s people to realize that He doesn’t need anything from them. You do him no favors by showing up on Sunday, and you have no obligation to turn over 59 minutes, 59 seconds of your precious Sunday morning to Him. He can do just fine without that, thank you very much.
It’s also important to realize that when we come to church expecting to be entertained, diverted, or otherwise “pulled in” to Sunday worship, we’re badly missing the point and depriving ourselves of something much greater and (dare I say it?) far more important that football. You can’t measure eternal life by quarters, or slow it down with time-outs.
So if God doesn’t need you there, and you don’t go for the entertainment value, is there any reason to attend church on Sunday?
Yes. Yes, there is.
First, let me clarify: I’m not saying that God will only give eternal life to those who came to church faithfully on Sunday. A presumable case in point was the penitent thief on the cross. But understand this: God doesn’t give eternal life to people the way a state fair vendor hands over a corn dog.
Lutherans should already understand the term “means of grace” in a common way. These are means by which God imparts His spiritual gifts to us. They involve common, outward, earthly things; even apparently unspiritual things like water, human language, bread, and wine. Anyone not paying attention to what God has said about this stuff should yawn at this point. But those who care more about what He says than about their own ideas of worship should sit up and pay attention. Baptism, the gospel message, and the Lord’s Supper are not idly called means of grace. For us, they are nothing less than the keys to paradise. If someone gave you the keys to a Ferrari or an F22, would you dare to complain about how boring and ordinary they look, or how unlikely it seems that they would really work? Because of what God imparts through them, the means of grace are themselves the most precious thing we can hope to receive on Earth, ever.
That’s what the Sunday service is for. It’s where you get to receive from God such valuable treasure that you can’t even hope to appreciate it properly. The structure of the service, which we call the liturgy, developed organically over centuries of use by God’s people, to address the shifting conditions of the world with the unchanging gifts of God in the means of grace. Those gifts don’t change, because the needs of humanity don’t change. We remain lost sinners without them. We need Jesus. They provide Him to us in the most comprehensive summary form available, right in the Sunday divine service.
We don’t come to church to serve God. He comes to church to serve us, because that’s how sinners receive eternal life. That’s what we mean by the term “Divine Service.”
What do you notice that’s different from present-day American religious conversation when reading Acts 17:16-20? It fairly jumps out at me that the people in Athens wanted to know what Paul had to say. They wanted to hear him. What passes for communication today is not the same. People may not mind if you post something near to your heart on Facebook or Twitter, or even if you try to tell them something that you think they need to hear for their eternal well-being. But will they listen? Will they read? Or will they scroll by in their hurry to find something that they really want to hear?
As it happens, the next verse in Acts explains why things worked out as they did in Athens. “Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.” So Paul gave an impressive and impassioned sermon, and while some of the hearers believed and wanted to know more, many quickly concluded (wrongly) that they had heard enough to know that Paul was not worth any more of their time. Sound familiar?
I’d probably expect a similar reception in today’s university setting, which may be the closest thing we have to Mars Hill in Athens. But in the previous chapter, Paul had much better success in a town called Philippi. There he and his companions brought their message to a place they supposed to be a prayer gathering. Did they think the people there were praying to the living God? Probably not, because it was their first stop in Europe. If Philippi had a synagogue, they would have gone there. At least the synagogue worshippers had the scriptures, but those gathering for prayer in a pagan land would be praying to pagan gods. Or am I missing something? Yet that’s where Paul and company thought to begin speaking about the true God. In other words, they were directly contradicting and correcting their hearer’s deeply-held spiritual views.
And it worked, at least for Lydia and her household. The place they went was outside the city gate at the riverside. One of the things that made this a natural gathering spot would be the riverside itself. I recall somewhere a commentator saying that women would gather in such places to handle the laundry needs of their family. Maybe someone like Lydia would have a slave to do most of the work, but this is speculation. What we see is that it worked.
Is there such a place today? If Lutheran missionaries went to the “place of prayer” in our own American towns and began teaching things contrary to what the people thought was true, how would it go over? It seems that would-be missionaries are under pressure not to contradict what other people believe. Maybe you have felt that pressure yourself.
Or you might say that the present-day gathering place is online. It’s certain many people spend a lot of time there, grazing through a myriad posts but generally consuming nothing. That’s the problem. The message of the Gospel is something that must be presented and consumed. The chief activity with online message board or social media communication is not thoughtful reading, but scanning, scrolling, and maybe reacting emotionally to one or two things. It’s like having an open bag of potato chips on the kitchen counter. By the time dinner rolls around, the bag is somehow empty, and you’re not sure if you’re really hungry anyway.
In a world of incessant scrolling and intensely personalized consumption, how does the Church communicate the Gospel? Thankfully, there is still such a thing as friendship. The most powerful communication is between a Christian and his neighbor. Yet at some point we must cross the invisible line and say something that challenges our heathen neighbor to his toenails. It’s almost certain the Christian will be unfriended. What then?
Whew! After a very busy hiatus, the olde Chicken is once again growing its feathers. We’re still in need of a lot of blog-level configuration, but it’s running.
Just so’s ya know, The Plucked Chicken will only be up during the days when someone turns on the machine. Previously I was isolating the web server with virtual hardware, but that’s no longer necessary. Next step: figure out how to automate Docker when I’m not logged in.
Look for more posts and updates here going forward. I know I will.
Now, can anyone explain why explicit constitutional rights are less important than a right emanating from the penumbra of the constitution in a way detectable only by certain elites? No? Didn’t think so.
I once thought that Facebook was a medium where friends could freely exchange ideas. Later I realized it’s not about exchanging ideas at all, but more about affirming feelings and reinforcing opinions. It seems most people prefer that now, anyway, which accounts for Facebook’s success. Now this. In the world of Generation Snowflake, where people are finally able to insist on their own version of reality and still be considered both mentally and morally sound, it shouldn’t be surprising that Facebook is part of it.
Christians would do well to remember that Facebook is not a public forum, but a corporation. Its highest goal is to please its shareholders, not to serve truth. Its business is advertising, not ensuring the free exchange of ideas and allowing them to stand or fall on their own merit. It will not treat the biblical worldview fairly, but instead will draw Christians into accepting things contrary to the word of God.
Just so you know.
At Christian churches across the United States, it seems that there is a disproportionate number of men and women. I’m no advocate of affirmative action, but this long trend is disturbing. More recently, it struck me not as some failure on the part of the church, but as stations and posts that have been neglected, abandoned, or deserted.
Perhaps churches have a responsibility to serve men better than they have. But that’s not the whole story. The rest of the story, to borrow an appropriate phrase from Paul Harvey, is that Christian men have an equally great responsibility to man their stations. Not only do they have divinely-assigned tasks in the workforce, but also in the home and in the church. Those are the places where God has put them and given them a special, vital role. In some cases, men seem to be more interested in recreation than in any of these things, and in other cases, Christian men have forgotten one or more of these areas of responsibility.
Much has been said and written to criticize the biblically-defined roles of men and women under God’s moral law and the ordering of His Church. Much of this comes from the feminist tradition, especially since the sexual revolution. It seems less concerned about what’s good for men and women, and more concerned about erasing any notion that they are distinct from one another. Perhaps Christian men on the whole have bought into this. Whether or not they have, the fact remains that God has given them a distinct place in the Church, and in general they are going AWOL. Instead, churches are filled with women and children, with very few men. It’s little wonder that the children — especially boys — also drift away from the Church as they get older, since the men who ought to be guiding them are generally not there. It’s no wonder that some women would like to take the place given to men, when that place is mostly empty.
Take a lesson from Tolkien. In The Lord of the Rings, the Shire enjoyed centuries of peace and safety in an otherwise dangerous and hostile world because the Dunedain, the Rangers of the north, worked tirelessly and selflessly to protect its borders, while the men of Gondor stood bravely at their watch against the evil power growing in the east. If those men had not been so faithful and doughty, the Shire and much else that is good and fair would have perished long before the story began.
Or take a lesson from history. Time and time again, men both young and old answered the call from their comfortable homes to defend their loved ones against forces often greater in strength, and in circumstances both dark and grim. It was not a sense of ease or self-preservation that drew them, but love for their wives, their children, their neighbors, their homeland, and their way of life. Many even fought to preserve a place for their faith and the freedom to live by it all week long, raising their children and grandchildren to trust the Word of God. Some failed despite valiant effort, but knowing that the effort alone was worth the risk. Others succeeded, and many of us have enjoyed the benefits of their great efforts. Make no mistake: we are engaged in such a war. Though it may at times be less bloody, the stakes are higher and more lasting.
Or take a lesson from Holy Scripture. Ephesians 6:4: “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.” And Luke 12:35-36: “Let your waist be girded and your lamps burning; and you yourselves be like men who wait for their master, when he will return from the wedding, that when he comes and knocks they may open to him immediately.” In too many churches and Christian homes, the lamps are dim. If they burn still, then all too often it is to the credit of faithful women who have taken up the fight not only for themselves, but in place of their missing husbands and fathers.
We men should pray that God would forgive our disregard for things that are more important than our own comfort and recreation, and help us to once again assume our places as guards and sentinels on the walls of Zion. Will you be a man or a child? We need to lead our families to church weekly, and especially in the seasons when the Church celebrates the person and work of Christ. We need to lead our churches in keeping their priorities straight and advancing the mission with which the Church has been entrusted. None should be more eager for prayer and repentance, or better examples of the same. None should be better students of God’s Word, or more motivated teachers in word and deed.
May God forgive our faint hearts and supply what we lack, that His church, our families, and houses may be blessed. Christ is our example, and His mercy is our reason.