When Abortion Collides with Totalitarianism

Note: Dr. Mohler has once again brought to our attention some startling news. Here in the U.S. where having children is a gift and personal freedom of choice, over in China there is a limit.

When I read this story I thought to myself (looking at China from the U.S.), “how awful it must be to have to live under such a totalitarian government.” But then I thought, “I wander what the person living in China must be thinking about us?” Here they are scrambling to have kids – boys especially, and over here we abort on the average of 1.4 million unborn babies a year. I wander what the average Chinese family with such restrictions placed on them think about how we abuse our freedoms over here?

Perhaps one day, God will take away much of the freedoms we have been enjoying and place the citizens of this great nation in a bondage type situation. After all, when gifts are not properly steward, the Sovereign One Himself will in due course step in and severely begin to bring limits on a nation that has forgotten about the sanctity of life.

When Abortion Collides with Totalitarianism

Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

The vast nation of China remains under the control of one of the few surviving Communist regimes on the planet. Over the last two decades, that regime has redefined Communist economic theory, allowing private capital and a consumer market to emerge alongside state control and ownership. Nevertheless, the totalitarian nature of the regime reaches even into the most intimate dimensions of life. The most insidious example of this totalitarian impulse is China's infamous "one child only" policy.

The policy limits most Chinese couples to only one child. Reports of forced abortions and sterilizations abound. Couples in rural areas with a girl as their only child may apply for permission for a second child, in hopes of a boy.

The preference for boys is overwhelming in the Chinese culture, and especially in rural areas. The urgent desire for sons has led to two horrifying developments -- the abortion of girls and the abduction of boys. The abortion of baby girls is now a well-established fact. The abduction of boys in China is less known in the West, but it is now attracting attention. As The New York Times reported April 4, 2009, "Although some are sold to buyers in Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam, most of the boys are purchased domestically by families desperate for a male heir, parents of abducted children and some law enforcement officials who have investigated the matter say."

The mentality behind the preference for boys is reflected in this comment made to the paper by a man who paid $3,500 for an abducted 5-year-old boy: “A girl is just not as good as a son. . . . It doesn’t matter how much money you have. If you don’t have a son, you are not as good as other people who have one.” The abduction of boys, usually very young, is now "a thriving business," according to the Times.

A clearer picture of the practice of aborting girl babies is also now available, thanks to the British Medical Journal. The picture is nothing less than horrifying. The arrival of ultrasound technology has made the identification of fetal gender a deadly reality for unborn baby girls. They are aborted by the millions.

The demographics are reported in stark terms:

In 2005 males under the age of 20 exceeded females by more than 32 million in China, and more than 1.1 million excess births of boys occurred. China will see very high and steadily worsening sex ratios in the reproductive age group over the next two decades.

In other words, the problem of the gender imbalance has now reached the point that there is, practically speaking, no way to do anything about the present generation. Millions of Chinese young men will have no opportunity to marry. The sociological impact is beyond imagination.

The British study points to a phenomenon known as the "at least one son practice." Many Chinese couples will do just about whatever it takes to have a son. If their first child is a girl and the couple receives permission for a second child, the report makes clear that the abortion of a baby girl at that point is exceedingly likely.

Consider this:

[T]he steady rise in sex ratios across the birth cohorts since 1986 mirrors the increasing availability of ultrasonography over that period. The first ultrasound machines were used in the early 1980s; they reached county hospitals by the late 1980s and then rural townships by the mid-1990s. Since then, ultrasonography has been very cheap and available even to the rural poor. Termination of pregnancy is also very available, in line with the one child policy.

As William Saletan of Slate.com explains, "It's a terrible convergence of ancient prejudice with modern totalitarianism. Girls are culturally and economically devalued; the government uses powerful financial levers to prevent you from having another child; therefore, to make sure you can have a boy, you abort the girl you're carrying."

Though sex-selection abortions are officially illegal in China, the totalitarian regime has made abortion a centerpiece of its "one child only" policy. Ultrasound machines and abortion clinics are available virtually everywhere in China -- and both are put to deadly use.

Here we see abortion and totalitarianism hand in hand, resulting in the deaths of millions of baby girls and the abduction of at least thousands of young boys. When human life is devalued and abortion is state policy, the Culture of Death is institutionalized. When the "one child policy" and an ancient and ingrained preference for boys are combined, the womb becomes a deadly place to be a girl.

Hate Crimes Legislation Draws Criticism from Christian Groups

Note: Recently here in Hawaii, we celebrated a victory over HB 4444. Now get ready to possibly mourn (for the souls of men). If the bill below passes, although we will still have traditional marriages, the outcome will be as if we did not.

If we have a Christian who is gay and is by-passed for some church leadership position such as, “Music Director,” “Pastor,” “Children’s Ark Assistant or Helper, or any number of positions in the church. Such could be visualized as a hate crime discriminating against a person’s sexual orientation.

Preaching or mentioning the topic of Sodomy and saying such biblical terms as “abomination,” “sin,” “unnatural,” and “acts against nature,” would be forbidden from the pulpit. Here we are not talking about legislation on a local level like was with HB 4444, but on a national level which will involve all 50 states.

Washington knows that 2010, there is a great possibility that many Democrats will be ousted and replaced by Republicans. Therefore, they are moving fast on all fronts, trying to get done as much as possible and put into law.

If such a law is passed, don’t be dismayed. With every set back that comes from the hand of Satan, comes with it enormous opportunities from the heart of God. Do not become dismayed. And do not become doomsayers! Instead, be committed all the more to Christ and be creative in your witness and outreach. History teaches that the church flourishes all the more when it is persecuted and severely tested.

Do not be dismayed!

Hate Crimes Legislation Draws Criticism from Christian Groups
Thursday, April 23, 2009
By Ryan Byrnes

(CNSNews.com) - The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday is expected to pass federal hate-crimes legislation, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of federally protected classes.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 would allow the federal government to intervene in state and local legal matters when crimes "motivated by race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation" are committed.

The bill allows the federal government to intervene on the state and local level when hate crimes occure -- allowing the U.S. government to prosecute hate crimes as federal crimes with enhanced penalties.

Under the legislation, “the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution” of any crime motivated by prejudice.

Proponents of the bill, including Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), an openly homosexual member of Congress, say it gives homosexuals the same protection from discrimination granted to those who are harassed because of their race, ethnicity or religion.

“The law already increases penalties for crimes motivated by hatred in several categories, so the absence of protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people is particularly egregious,” Frank said in a statement.

“This bill remedies that gap in a responsible way, fully respectful of constitutional rights and I look forward to it being passed and signed by a president who is committed to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

But several religious liberties groups oppose the measure, saying it is unnecessary and would limit free speech and potentially leave religious figures that speak against homosexuality open to prosecution.

“Violent crime is already illegal and there are already penalties available – a gradient of penalties based on severity,” said Matt Barber, director of cultural policy for Liberty Counsel, a religious rights organization.

“What’s more,” he said, “every American currently, regardless of their sexual preference, is guaranteed the same equal protection under the law.”

What hate-crimes laws do, Barber said, is “take the focus off the crime itself and instead puts the focus on the opinion of the alleged perpetrator.”

“It becomes a thought crime and not a hate crime,” he told CNSNews.com.

Thanks to hate-crimes laws in Canada and in the European Union, Christian groups have already become targets for hate-speech prosecution, Barber pointed out.

“Hate-crimes legislation (in other countries), which is basically identical to the proposed U.S. legislation for all intents and purposes, has turned out to be the precursor to even more oppressive hate-speech legislation, which directly squashes any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle or even affirmatively promoting traditional sexual morality,” he added.

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, agreed, saying the legal framework that the bill establishes will virtually guarantee the eventual prosecution of religious leaders who speak against homosexuality.

“H.R. 1913 broadly defines ‘intimidation,’” Lafferty said. “A pastor’s sermon could be considered ‘hate speech’ under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any sexual orientation. The pastor could be prosecuted for ‘conspiracy to commit a hate crime.’ ”

Lafferty told CNSNews.com that during committee markup of identical legislation in 2007, one of the bill’s cosponsors, Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), admitted that the hate-crime legislation would not exempt a pastor from prosecution in that scenario.

The bill, meanwhile, appropriates $5 million in additional funding for Fiscal Year 2010 and 2011 to go to state and local law enforcement to prosecute hate crimes. A jurisdiction cannot receive a grant in excess of $100,000 for any one-year period.

Congress is expected to swiftly pass the bill, which is sponsored by Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.).

President Barack Obama, who co-sponsored hate-crimes legislation as a U.S. senator, is expected to sign the bill into law, if it reaches his desk.

Is Same-Sex Marriage Inevitable?

Note: "The institution of marriage is so central to human society and, at the same time, so central to Christian theology that it is almost impossible to calculate the magnitude of this challenge. This is a deeply troubling and sobering moment” – Mohler.

The moral landscape under our feet is shifting to the left at breath-taking speed. Soon other states will adopt some version of same-sex marriage. As this occurs, those states that have not done so will feel the pressure of being alone. Just imagine if Hawaii is one of the few states that refuses to give in to same-sex marriages. Let’s say that 48 states have done so, leaving Hawaii and one other state still believing in traditional marriage. The enormous political and social pressure on the small state of Hawaii ruled decades by Democrats will have to give in to such pressures – it is inevitable.

Now this does not mean we throw our hands in the air and stop fighting for what is right. We must keep battling with every ounce in us the war to save what God established long ago – that marriage is only between one man and one women, PERIOD!

But as time goes on, watch for other states to buckle to the pressure. Each state of the union that does cave in will be another nail in the coffin which will eventually doom the state of Hawaii. The moral landscape of our nation is sliding from under our feet toward relativism. Some distant time in the future, we will all understand by experience what that phrase we often come to in the Book of Judges really means, “Everyone did what they thought was right in their own eyes” (Jud. 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). How can such a thing occur? Just as there was a lack of spiritual leadership in Israel at the time of Judges, so it is now.

TIME -- Is Same-Sex Marriage Inevitable?

Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

The past two weeks have brought new cogency to a question many have been asking for some time -- Is the legalization of same-sex marriage now inevitable?

The question may not make sense to those who focus only on the fact that, as of last November, no less than 26 states had adopted constitutional amendments or similar measures prohibiting same-sex marriage. But while big news was made last November when Florida and Arizona adopted constitutional amendments defending marriage and the voters of California approved Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the news since has been disheartening, to say the least.

In the course of the last two weeks, Iowa's state Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry, and that the state has not right to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. In Vermont, the state's legislature was able to override a veto from the Governor in order to become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage by legislative, rather than by judicial means. The District of Columbia's governing council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and in New York the Governor announced in advance that he would sign legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, if such a measure should reach his desk.

The Iowa decision is singularly ominous in terms of its legal argument. The Iowa court was unanimous in the ruling, ordering the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples by the fall. The court also argued that the only real opposition to same-sex marriage is moral opposition based in religion, and the court's opinion is decidedly hostile to those religious arguments.

The Vermont development represents a massive shift in the same-sex marriage debate. It is beyond debate that a legislatively enacted provision for same-sex marriage is a far cry from a judicially imposed mandate. Same-sex marriage advocates are shopping other legislatures -- particularly in New England -- to find other opportunities.

The move by the District of Columbia allows for Congress to intervene, and many same-sex marriage advocates hope that some member of Congress will -- thus potentially throwing the issue back before entire Congress. This past week, a same-sex couple filed a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA], charging that it violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

When Michael A. Lindenberger of TIME magazine asked me how I read the situation, I spoke of my sense that something big was changing in terms of momentum and direction. As he reports:

The sense that something big is happening has been felt by the other side of the battle too. "The momentum seems to be now on the side of those pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriage," the Rev. Albert Mohler told TIME on Wednesday. "The Vermont and Iowa developments seem to signal the fact that, as many of us have sensed for some time, the legalization of same-sex marriage is taking on a sense of inevitability." Mohler is president of the nation's flagship Southern Baptist seminary in Louisville, Ky., and one of America's most respected Evangelical thinkers.

This sense of inevitability is not new, but it is newly urgent. It seems that this society has adopted a radically different understanding of marriage and sexual morality from that common just a couple of decades ago. Even where same-sex marriage has been (thus far) effectively opposed, it may well turn out that the underlying opposition is thinner than hoped.

One additional dimension of concern is the fact that an entire system of laws and regulations and moral customs -- first established to protect citizens from racial discrimination -- is already in place in the event that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is ruled to be equally abhorrent. The logic of same-sex marriage is the logic of a legal and moral revolution . . . but this revolution is already well underway. Those of us who must oppose same-sex marriage are fooling ourselves if we do not understand that this logic is already well embedded in contemporary arguments.

More from TIME:

The implications for society are enormous. "We are watching the moral and social landscape of the nation be transformed before our eyes," Mohler said. "The institution of marriage is so central to human society and, at the same time, so central to Christian theology that it is almost impossible to calculate the magnitude of this challenge. This is a deeply troubling and sobering moment."

Indeed, it is virtually impossible to calculate the moral significance of the redefinition of marriage. I am indeed deeply troubled and sober minded.

But I am not ready to throw in the towel. As Michael Lindenberger reported:

"I am not giving up on this issue, nor assuming that the debate is over," Mohler told TIME. "Clearly, it is not. Yet I do sense that the ground is moving under our feet."

There is much for us to do, and one crucial responsibility is to frame arguments that make the significance of this issue more evident to the public.

Do you not feel it too -- the moral landscape moving under our feet?

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN

Note: Here is an article that will make the hair in the back of your head stand up! If you have been following what has been taking place on the internet, the question of Obama’s citizenship is growing in momentum. People want to know whether or not the man is legit.

The article below was written before the General Elections. Nevertheless, it has a lot of scary ramifications that are mind-boggling.

One thing you will note in the article is this: If Obama at some stage during his presidency is found out to be a fraud, it would be virtually impossible to remove him from office. Too much has already been done by him. Too many laws have been enacted. Too many deals and promises with other nations have already been made. The risk of civil war would be a too realistic. With Congress and the Senate supporting him, if he is found out to be a “usurper,” then the other branches of our government will be in serious danger of disintegration. For they not only supported him, but they looked the other way and failed to protect the American people from a serious national threat to our country.

Maybe that’s why Obama has tried to do so much in such a short amount of time since being elected as president. The more he gets done, the less likely it will be that he can be removed from office even if it is found out that he is not legit. The consequences will be too grave and serious. The article clearly states, Obama cannot be impeached! Why? Because you cannot impeach someone who is not the president. You have to remove him by force. And to do this, would mean the possibility of civil unrest.

Of course, all this can easily pass if he simply reveals his true birth certificate and end all the speculations. But he refuses to do so. Could it be that he has something to hide? And could it be that we have a first rate inner infiltration to the highest office in our government? Someone not only with socialistic ideologies, but also strong Muslim favortism. We could be in for a very rough ride. We may see sometime soon, a major portion of our Constitution simply ignored for a less extreme and unfavorable outcome.

I have edited and shorted the article below because it is long and technical in its original form. However, you can read the original by going to www.newswithviews.com

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders.

The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?

If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

What are some of those consequences?

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:
[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper, Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them.



One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact.

Does Your Pastor Believe in God?

Note: “The theological self-destruction of the church never starts with a pastor who doesn't even believe in the existence of God. It begins with denials of one doctrine here, another there. Before long, the unwillingness of the church to call its churches and ministers to account leads to further theological concessions. The cowardice of church bureaucrats opens the door to any and all theological aberrations. The next thing you know, there is an atheist in the pulpit” – Albert Mohler.

Can you imagine a pastor serving while being an atheist? Come on now. And on top of that, the denomination refusing to do anything about it because it would involve having to look into meaning of words and concepts which in the end amount to little to nothing.

It is one thing to have an atheist attending church, it is another thing to have one serving as the pastor of a church. And the people of the church as well as the denomination are apparently okay with it.

How did all this happen? A denial of the teaching of doctrine – one doctrine at a time until you have an atheist in the pulpit.

Does Your Pastor Believe in God?
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

A news report from the Netherlands points to a form of theological insanity that is spreading far beyond the Dutch. Ecumenical News International reports that church authorities in the Netherlands have decided not to take action against a Dutch pastor who openly declares himself to be an atheist.

The pastor, Klaas Hendrikse, serves a congregation of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands. In 2007 he published a book described as a "manifesto of an atheist pastor." In the book Hendrikse argues for the non-existence of God, but he insists that does believe in God as a concept.

As Ecumenical News International reports:

In his book, Hendrikse recounts how his conviction that God does not exist has become stronger over the years.

"The non-existence of God is for me not an obstacle but a precondition to believing in God. I am an atheist believer," Hendrikse writes in the book. "God is for me not a being but a word for what can happen between people. Someone says to you, for example, 'I will not abandon you', and then makes those words come true. It would be perfectly alright to call that [relationship] God."

While this kind of theological language may be shocking, it is not all that uncommon. For years, many theologians have been moving away from realist conceptions of theology to various forms of non-realism. In classical terms, anti-realist theologians can actually be atheists, for they do not believe that God actually or necessarily exists. They do, however, find "God" to be a useful concept.

Janet Martin Soskice defines theological realists as "those who, while aware of the inability of any theological formulation to catch the divine realities, none the less accept that there are divine realities that theologians, however ham-fistedly, are trying to catch."

That definition is incredible helpful, for it serves to remind us that there are, on the other hand, some theologians who believe that there is no divine reality at all. Evidently, there are some pastors who also believe that there is no God, but there is a concept of God that we can use.

Most Christians would be shocked and scandalized to know that a pastor would be an atheist -- and intend to remain as pastor. But in the doctrinally disarmed world of many denominations, the service of an atheist as pastor is not only conceivable but actual. In one sense, Klass Hendrikse is merely more open about his atheism than many others. Indeed, many liberal Protestants believe that God is, in the end, an intellectual concept that may add meaning to life -- not a living self-existent deity who rules over all.

In Klass Hendrikse's case, his congregation belongs to two denominational groups. Neither denominational body was willing to bring Pastor Hendrikse to a church trial or disciplinary process.

In announcing the decision not to discipline Hendrikse, the church told the congregation by letter that a disciplinary process would amount to "a protracted discussion about the meanings of words that in the end will produce little clarity."

Such is the world of liberal Protestantism. The service of a preacher who does not even believe in God is preferable to "a protracted discussion about the meanings of words that in the end will produce little clarity." Of course, the lack of clarity is the church's own fault. It is not as if the issues are not sufficiently clear. A denomination that will not require its pastors to believe that God exists is a denomination that has reached the very bottom of the well in terms of theological insanity. According to the news report, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands claims that its own laws prevent the denomination from taking any action against a serving pastor.

The theological self-destruction of the church never starts with a pastor who doesn't even believe in the existence of God. It begins with denials of one doctrine here, another there. Before long, the unwillingness of the church to call its churches and ministers to account leads to further theological concessions. The cowardice of church bureaucrats opens the door to any and all theological aberrations. The next thing you know, there is an atheist in the pulpit.

A church afraid of "a protracted discussion about the meanings of words that in the end will produce little clarity" is itself the guilty party in that lack of clarity. The church bears the responsibility to make the issues clear and to defend the faith -- otherwise it isn't a church at all.

The Dutch have become famous worldwide for their liberal approach to assisted suicide and euthanasia. In this case we see something new -- the suicide of a church.

He Said-She Said: Unmarried and Vacationing Together

Note: “Oftentimes I can justify my intentions as pure and honorable, yet when I am honest with myself (and with the Lord) I sometimes fall short. I find some of my decisions are made from a more self-serving perspective rather than one of selflessness” – Authors’ quote.

I love articles that get right to the issues, don’t you? Some issues such as singles of the opposite sex “Vacationing Together” are not specifically found in the bible. You won’t find a specific bible passages that homes in on such things.

So it’s up to the communicator and bible expositor to take biblical principles and connect them to real life issues of the present day. The article below asks some very good questions.

One question I ask couples who are flirting with such things is this: If you were to marry the one you are in loved with now, would you expect him or her to behave differently than when you were both single? The most common answer is “of course I would!” My next question is “But why?”

Let me give an example. Let’s suppose my present wife and I took vacations together while we were single. We discussed how it may affect what others may think; we also discussed how it was really none of their business. It was something between us and God – The Lord knows. And of course, we discussed how we need to keep what we do as private as possible. No one should get wind of what we were doing.

Now that we’re married, let’s say that my wife was asked to go on vacation with another man – married or unmarried, it doesn’t matter. It was said to be a business trip and vacation combined.

How would I feel about that? If I am honest with myself, I would say, “No way, man!” But why the sudden change of heart? I’ll tell you why? Two reasons:

First, I know what happened between my wife and I when we went on vacations together – before we got married. Oh yeah, we may not have had sex, but I know how close we got at times. In fact, we may have done other things that stopped short of having sex that involved “oneness” between a man and woman. We gave the impression to others that everything is okay. We got it all handled. It’s cool.

You see, it would bother me because I know that what we did and how we did it wasn’t right. That’s why I would object to it as a married man. I have personal knowledge of what occurred and how it took place. And because it happened to “us” it would very likely happen to “them.”

Would I encourage my daughter to go on vacations alone with her boyfriend? No, I wouldn’t. But why is it okay for me and not for others?

Second, when someone single goes on vacations with someone from the opposite sex, both couples are looking on the – watch this – “inside out.” The emphasis on the “inside” is about “us,” how “we” feel and what “we” think is right.

But if I reject my wife and daughter from doing so, what changed? My point of view changed. You see, now instead of looking at things from the “inside out” – “our” or “my” point of view. I begin to see things from the “outside in” or from the point of view of “others.”

This is what the authors in the article below are saying. We need to see things from the “outside in” which means we need to see how “others” will process the information. Just put yourself in their shoes regarding your wife or daughter. You will then begin to understand how it is easy to live a double-minded life. One standard for me as I view things from the “inside out,” and another standard for me as I view essentially the same situations from the “outside in.”

Read this article and don’t just think about the issue of vacationing together – although this is what the article tends to deal with. Think about anything that is “questionable” that could cause someone viewing what you are doing from the “outside in.” If you were to be standing in that person’s shoes getting wind on what you are doing or what you had just done, would you have similar thoughts?

He Said-She Said: Unmarried and Vacationing Together
Cliff Young & Laura MacCorkle

QUESTION: Is it okay for an unmarried man and woman to go on vacation together?

HE SAID: Everything is permissible—but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible – but not everything is constructive (1 Corinthians 10:23).

This passage falls into a section of 1 Corinthians sometimes labeled, “The Believer’s Freedom.” I often hear it used to rationalize or refute one’s actions. Even though Paul spoke this to the Corinthians in regards to eating, this verse can also shed light upon the question of vacationing with an unmarried person of the opposite sex.

Paul seems to be saying in one breath, “Do anything you want, it is okay,” yet in another, “That may not be such a good idea.” Our initial belief or opinion often dictates which statement we put more emphasis on.

A younger (or less mature) person may receive this counsel, focus on the former part, and use it to justify their actions. An adult (or mature believer) should focus on the latter, taking the time to consider the ramifications of their decisions and ensure their actions are both beneficial and constructive.

In answering your question, I have to ask a series of my own questions:

What is the ultimate purpose, intent, and expectation for vacationing with this single person of the opposite sex?
Your honest reply to this may answer your own question.

Oftentimes I can justify my intentions as pure and honorable, yet when I am honest with myself (and with the Lord) I sometimes fall short. I find some of my decisions are made from a more self-serving perspective rather than one of selflessness.

Have you discussed your purpose and expectations with the one you are considering traveling with? Has the other person shared with you his or her reasons for wanting to go? Don’t assume anything, communicating intent and desire is essential before taking a trip. Honest communication is the foundation of any friendship or relationship.

Is the other person your significant other?

If he or she is, how would you feel if your future spouse went on a vacation alone with another person whom he or she was dating at the time? Would that impact your impression of him or her?
Even if you both believe you have found your “soul mate” in one another, boundaries must be established, not only if you travel together, but also for anytime you are alone. Successful relationships have pre-determined boundaries.

If this is just a friend, do you desire the person to become your significant other?

If so, your answer to my first question may have already answered yours.

If you have a friendship with someone with hopes of growing it into a relationship, there is no reason for you to travel alone with that person. If things were to develop into a relationship during the vacation, will you be able to communicate honestly, establish boundaries and be accountable in the heat of the moment? Chances are, probably not.

Why aren’t others asked to go along?

If you want to be totally alone with an unmarried person of the opposite sex on vacation, significant other or not, it would be safe to say there are probably more good reasons you shouldn’t be doing it rather than reasons you should.

I have taken a number of vacations with groups of singles. On some of the trips, I had interest in another person going and other times not. In every instance though, I always made sure we would be accountable to others and have boundaries during the trip.

Paul shares with us one more thing to think about in his next statement.

Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others (1 Corinthians 10:24).

As a long-time single, it’s easy to think of my own wants, needs and desires first. However as a follower of Christ, Paul says I shouldn’t be seeking my own good, but the good of others. I need to consider how my actions may negatively influence or impact the thoughts and actions of those around me before making a decision.

Will vacationing with another single of the opposite sex sway those around you? Will it give a younger believer the approval to do the same? How would your vacation affect your witness to others?

In any case, there is not a biblical or moral definitive “Okay” or “Not Okay” for traveling with an unmarried person of the opposite sex. However, Paul challenges us in these verses to make our decisions and actions beneficial, constructive and with the good of others in mind.

Can you do this ... honestly?

SHE SAID: Technically, there is nothing wrong with an unmarried man vacationing together with an unmarried woman.

But, as a believer, how are we to live? Technically or biblically? Technically stays on the surface and relies on what we know to be true (and however Satan may be deceiving us and or how we are distorting what we think is truth). Biblically goes much deeper (to the heart) and relies on what God says is Truth.

My interpretation of living biblically is living in a manner that is pleasing to the Lord and headed toward holiness; it goes much further than living technically. And if you want to live biblically, then you must search the Bible, apply it to all areas of your life and be open to the refining work of the Holy Spirit in and through you.

Getting to the heart of the matter (literally), first examine your motivation. What is your purpose of vacationing alone with someone else? For the sake of my answer and for its brevity, I will assume that you are attracted to one another and want to enjoy travelling to a destination together as romantic partners.

Now, considering that there is attraction and that you are interested in one another for more than friendship, then know that there will be temptation involved. And if you are planning on keeping yourself pure until marriage (meaning you do not want to engage in premarital sex), then you are putting yourself into a situation where you will be tempted. It’s not a matter of if, but when it will happen while you’re on vacation (James 1:13-15).

Before you even go there, make sure you test your actions (Galatians 6:4a). What are your desires? Are they God-honoring or self-gratifying? Also, know in advance that you will reap what you sow (Galatians 6:7-8). So, if you don’t sow wisely, then there’s not going to be a good outcome.

If you are committed to maintaining purity, then it would be good for you to reflect on 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6a before deciding whether to vacation together and consider whether this could be a situation in which you will be tempted and not able to control yourself:

It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him.

Another important point to consider is how your actions will be perceived by others. If someone you know—say a younger brother or sister in Christ—hears that you have vacationed alone with another unmarried person of the opposite sex, what will they think? (And quite honestly, what would you think?)

In today’s day and age, it is automatically assumed that you will be sharing a hotel room and are sleeping together—even if you are not. Perception is reality. So could this interpretation cause someone to become confused and reject Christianity because of your example? It’s something to think about. As a believer, you are ultimately held responsible for your actions and how they impact others.

Ponder “The Believer’s Freedom” passage in 1 Corinthians 10:23-33:

“Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake—the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom, be judged by another’s conscience” If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

Before you make your final decision of whether or not to vacation together, may I advise you to please spend some considerable time in prayer.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death (Proverbs 14:12).

Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7b).

Ask God to search your heart and reveal anything that is not clean or pure or glorifying to him (Psalm 51). Know that he has given us his Word to help us and for our own good (even though it may just seem like rules, rules, rules!). Like a good parent, our heavenly Father loves us and has set up perimeters to protect us and to keep us from falling into harmful and hurtful life situations.

One final suggestion: if you do decide to vacation together, consider doing so with a group of friends or with family members (who are also committed to pursuing holiness) so that you may keep each other accountable, safeguard your actions and promote good choices while you are away from home.

Discussing the Evidence for the Resurrection with Josh McDowell

Note: "Without the historical resurrection of Jesus, the Christian faith is a mere placebo” – Josh McDowell.

Josh McDowell, who is also known for his infamous book, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict,” has co-authored what he terms as a “definitive” book on the resurrection of Christ, detailing the evidence for it and showing how it relates to the Christian life. Below is a short interview that Josh had with Kelly Matthews. Go to the following website: www.josh.org/risen.

Readers can find a free, six-page downloadable Evidence of the Resurrection pamphlet online. It contains a condensed explanation of the evidences put forth in the book.

Discussing the Evidence for the Resurrection with Josh McDowell

By Kelley Mathews

Editor's Note: Josh McDowell took some time out of his travels last week to talk with Crosswalk about his new book, Evidence for the Resurrection: What It Means for Your Relationship with God. This new resource (Regal Publishers, 2009) follows in the tradition of McDowell’s previous books, using facts and logic to argue for the reality of, in this case, Christ’s bodily resurrection.

"The resurrection of Jesus Christ and Christianity stand or fall together. One cannot be true without the other," Josh McDowell and his coauthor, son Sean, assert early in the book, Evidence for the Resurrection: What It Means for Your Relationship with God. "Without the historical resurrection of Jesus, the Christian faith is a mere placebo."

Dividing the book into three sections, the authors explore the compelling evidences and reasons for the reality of the Resurrection in the third and final portion. The first two sections address the questions: "Why did humanity need the Resurrection to begin with?" and "What does the Resurrection mean to me personally?" In these chapters, the authors connect life's hard questions—about pain, struggle, disappointment, death—with God's miraculous answer in Jesus the risen Savior. Mature believers may be tempted to skip over these chapters and dive into the third section, but those interested in effectively dialoguing with unbelievers about Jesus should resist the temptation, and instead read carefully.

During our conversation last week, Josh sat on an airport lobby floor, keeping our phone appointment despite a cancelled flight and skewed schedule. “How does believing in Christ’s resurrection change our perspective on life?” I asked.

“If the Resurrection isn't true, then it really doesn't influence our life. Everything that Christ lived and died for is dependent on the Resurrection. First Corinthians 15 says our faith is worthless if he died in vain. Many believe it to be true because they want it to be true, but they don’t have the conviction that it is true. That’s why I wanted to do a definitive book on the Resurrection—to help believers understand that this event actually happened.

"The implications of it are, first, the forgiveness of sin. If Christ died for forgiveness of sin, that would not be true if he did not rise from the dead. We would still have been lost in our sin. So I have the confidence in knowing that because the Resurrection is true, I am forgiven. Christ offered his sacrifice, and God the Father accepted it.

"Secondly, if Christ were not raised from the dead, no one or anything gives us hope of eternity. If he was raised from the dead, then that means if he lives we shall live also.

"It's one thing to believe that; it’s another thing to have the conviction that it is true. A belief is assent to something; conviction is not only assent to something but knowing why you assent to it and experience it in your life."

The book walks readers through God's original intent for relationship with us when He created humanity in His image, how sin damaged His plan, and God's solution for restoring relationship with men and women. It discusses how the hope of the Resurrection not only applies to the afterlife but to our current sufferings and trials. The Church that expresses her Resurrection life in the world has the potential, and the obligation, to push back at the despair and loneliness so prevalent in society. Because we serve a risen Savior, we can share hope, healing, love, and mercy. But to do that effectively, the authors argue, we must ourselves be convinced that the Resurrection actually happened.

I asked Josh what he considered the strongest evidence of the resurrection that Christians might share with unbelieving family and friends this Easter. His answer surprised me.

"I'd give my testimony—how I came to know Christ and why I trust Him; then I’d share why I believe that the Bible is true and trustworthy, and then I’d point out the Resurrection. What convinced people of the Resurrection back then [when it happened] is not the empty tomb. What convinced people at that time were his appearances—I believe that’s the strongest evidence. When Paul said that He appeared to over 500 at one time and told the critics, 'Look, the majority of them are alive!'—he put his entire life and reputation on the line."

Easter and My Struggle with the Brutality of God's Plan

Note: “The case could be made that it (crucifixion) makes God not much different from Molech, Baal or any of the other false deities that required human sacrifice to satisfy their uncontrollable rage” – W. Jacobsen.

There’s something about the crucifixion that seems unfair. And if you think about it long and hard enough, you may reach that conclusion yourself. If you do, you will not be alone. It is unfair. Thank God! Fairness would demand every one of us dying for our own sins and spending eternity in hell. But God, in His unfairness, revealed two things: He gave us what we did not deserve (grace), so He would not give to us what we do deserve (wrath through mercy). We deserved His WRATH, but in His mercy, we the guilty did not get it – Jesus, the innocent did; moreover we did not deserve His love and forgiveness, but God gave it to us because Jesus satisfied the righteous demands of God for the payment of sin. Sounds unfair? It is. Thank God it is. The crucifixion was unfair to Jesus who was falsely accused. It was unfair to Mary who watched her innocent son die on the cross. But there again reveals the love of God for each of us. The unfairness did not result in man’s punishment, but with Jesus’ punishment for us and of the Father’s hurt and pain in releasing His Son to be crucified. In other words, what was unfair only affected the Trinity, but we got the better bargain. Thank God that He was unfair to His Son so that He would be fair and loving to us.

Easter and My Struggle with the Brutality of God's Plan
Wayne Jacobsen

Something about the story made me cringe every time I heard it, and since I grew up a Baptist, I heard it a lot: To satisfy His need for justice and His demand for holiness, God sentenced His own Son to death in the brutal agony of a crucifixion as punishment for the failures and excesses of humanity.

Don't get me wrong. I want as much mercy as I can get. If someone else wants to take a punishment I deserve and I get off scot free, I'm fine with that. But what does this narrative force us to conclude about the nature of God?

As we approach Easter, the crucifixion story most often told paints God as an angry, blood-thirsty deity whose appetite for vengeance can only be satisfied by the death of an innocent—the most compassionate and gracious human that ever lived. Am I the only one who struggles with that? The case could be made that it makes God not much different from Molech, Baal or any of the other false deities that required human sacrifice to sate their uncontrollable rage.

We wouldn’t think this story an act of love from anyone else. If you offend me, and the only way I can forgive you is to satisfy my need for justice by directing the full force of my anger for you onto my own son by beating him to death, you probably wouldn't think me worth knowing. You certainly wouldn't think of me as loving. And this solution ostensibly comes from the God who asks us as mere humans to forgive others without seeking vengeance. Is He demanding that we be more gracious than He is?

Many of the Old Testament writers did look forward to the cross as a sacrifice that would satisfy God, and they used the language of punishment to explain it. But the New Testament writers looking back through the redemption of the cross saw it very differently. They didn't see it as the act of an angry God seeking restitution, but the self-giving of a loving God to rescue broken humanity.

Their picture of the cross does not present God as a brutalizing tyrant expending His anger on an innocent victim, but as a loving Father who took the devastation of our failures and held it in the consuming power of His love until sin was destroyed and a portal opened for us to re-engage a trusting relationship with the God of the universe. The New Testament writers saw the cross not as a sacrifice God needed in order to love us, but one we needed to be reconciled to Him.

One of my best friends died of melanoma almost two years ago. Doctors tried to destroy the cancer with the most aggressive chemotherapy they could pour into his body. In the end, it wasn't enough. The dose needed to kill his melanoma would have killed him first. That was God's dilemma in wanting to rescue us. The passion He had to cure our sin would overwhelm us before the work was done. Only God Himself could endure the regimen of healing our brokenness demanded.

So He took our place. He embraced our disease by becoming sin itself, and then drank the antidote that would consume sin in His own body. This is substitutionary atonement. He took our place because He was the only one that could endure the cure for our sin. God’s purpose in the cross was not to defend His holiness by punishing Jesus instead of us, but to destroy sin in the only vessel that could hold it until—in God's passion—sin was destroyed.

Perhaps we need to rethink the crucifixion in line with those early believers. God was not there brutalizing His Son as retribution for our failures; He was loving us through the Son in a way that would set us free to know Him and transform us to be like Him.

Now that's a God worth knowing.

Imprisoned Joy

Note: “Now, I need to give you a warning before you leave."

“A warning?” Andrew eyed Pablo cautiously.

"Here it is: The more joyful you get, the more you'll want to die," said Pablo.

Andrew stared blankly. That didn't make any sense -- A quote from the story below

Have you been missing something that Jesus promised to give you? Something called, “Joy?” If so, it is not because Jesus has not been keeping His promise. There are other factors involved and it most likely has to do with you.

Here is a wonderful story about how to reclaim the joy of the Lord and get it back into your life. If you are at work, I wouldn’t read this now. But I would print it and take it home, or read it during your lunch break – but read it you must! This story will make you smile, make you want to repent, make you more thankful and appreciative, and it will make you want to fall in love with Jesus all over again. Enjoy!

Imprisoned Joy, Part 1
by George Halitzka

Author's Note: I should admit right now that I'm lousy at joy. There are other spiritual habits that come far easier to me. I repent with the best of them, and I never have a shortage of prayer requests. Sometimes, I'm even moved to tears when I think about Jesus' Passion. But joy is a scarce commodity in my life.

So as you read this narrative, keep in mind that I'm a lot more like Andrew, the guy who's bored with life, than Pablo, who's got the joy market cornered. I'm better at writing about joy than I am at living it.

Nonetheless, I think Pablo has some good advice on the subject, because many of his thoughts come straight from Philippians. That letter is the Apostle Paul's graduate-level course in "the joy of the Lord."

So if you're like me and feel sometimes that good things have passed you by, class is now in session. Join Pablo and his student Andrew for "Imprisoned Joy."
- GH

* * *
Andrew Baxter sat in his car in the parking lot, wondering if he should bother getting out.

I'm just a little burned out, he repeated to himself. I'll be fine. Don't even know why I'm here. Not for the first time, he considered putting his key back in the ignition and driving away.

But on the other hand, he'd just driven 118 miles without stopping. Tyler had really thought he should see this guy waiting inside ... and on a more practical note, his bladder was about to burst.

That decided it. Andrew opened his car door to the biting wintry air and jogged towards a squat cinder-block building, praying they had a visitor's restroom.

The whole ridiculous journey had really begun several Thursdays ago, when Andrew (somewhat reluctantly) had revealed a prayer request to his small group. "I've been feeling kind of 'down' lately," he said hesitantly. "I'm not depressed or anything; I guess I'm just ... bored. I mean, my boss is still a jerk, but I have a job. Me and Autumn broke up almost four months ago. I'm over her, mostly. Sometimes I worry about the recession and stuff ... but there's nothing wrong. I just feel ... blah."

Actually, Andrew could think of several adjectives besides "blah." He was dutifully going through the motions of life, and couldn't remember the last time he'd felt honestly happy. He needed a vacation, or a girlfriend, or a new job, or ... something.

Actually, that was the problem. What did he need? Somehow, he suspected none of those remedies would help.

Andrew intended his prayer request to be just one more item on a list; something one of the guys would mumble to God at the end of small group. Praying about this weird dullness might not help, but it couldn't hurt.

Unfortunately, Tyler, one of the guys, had seized on his request like a dog on steak. He battered Andrew with questions: Was he serving anywhere? Was he thankful for what he had? How were his friendships?

Andrew hadn't known how to respond — mostly he tried to dissuade Tyler from this sudden interest in his spiritual life. They hardly even knew each other: This small group was just six random guys from the singles ministry, and they'd only been meeting a few months. But somehow, when everyone was grabbing their coats and headed for the door, Tyler cornered him.

"Hey man, I'm sorry about all those questions," Tyler said.

"No biggie," said Andrew. He put his hand on the doorknob. "Seeya next week?"

"Listen, I know somebody who might help you out," said Tyler. "I went to see him one time, when I was — bored. Like you."

"I appreciate you thinkin' of me and everything." Andrew tried to smile. "But I don't need counseling —"

"He's no counselor," laughed Tyler. "He's down at Fairview Correctional."
Andrew eyed him warily. "So he's, like, a prison guard?"

"Nope. Dope dealer from Cleveland doing life without parole," said Tyler casually.

"My pastor set me up to see him."

Andrew forgot about leaving for a minute and just stared at Tyler. Was this guy serious? Was he actually trying to send Andrew to visit a felon in Fairview — as a cure for boredom?

Yes, that's exactly what Tyler was trying to do. Yet the more Andrew heard about Pablo Gozo, this convicted crack salesman, the more he was intrigued. Pablo had been behind bars 15 years, ever since he shot two buyers and an undercover cop during a drug deal. Pablo met Jesus in jail, and now — at least the way Tyler told it — he maintained such a cheerful outlook that even the guards sought his advice.

"He knows he's never getting out," said Tyler. "He's stuck in a seven-by-twelve box for life. And he's one of the most joyful guys you'll ever meet." Tyler told stories of Pablo's positive attitude until Andrew — quite against his will — found himself intrigued.

His better judgment told him this was a fool's errand, but he still called the prison. Seeing somebody worse off than me should cheer me up, he thought wryly. And didn't Jesus say to visit prisoners?

So a month later, as Andrew jogged towards the prison "welcome center" in hopes of a bathroom and his scheduled meeting with a felon, he couldn't help shaking his head at the whole unlikely chain of events. This was either going to be a remarkable day in his life ... or an utter waste of time.

* * *

Andrew felt something like a prisoner himself — or a character on Law and Order — as he passed through a metal detector and into the bare institutional building. A grim-looking guard examined his ID while Andrew nervously glanced around, eyes resting on a sign warning him against bringing weapons into prison.

After a short wait, a guard ushered Andrew into a large bare room full of small tables, already occupied with other guests and inmates. Another grim-looking guard directed him to the table where Pablo Gozo sat waiting.

Pablo fit the movie image of a jailbird, with a blue prison uniform covering bulging arms and copious tattoos. His salt-and-pepper goatee and heavy brows over downcast eyes gave a vaguely ominous impression. Andrew wished this joyful character would crack a smile. But as he approached the table and sat down nervously, he noticed something even more remarkable than a smile: Hard-boiled Pablo seemed to be silently crying.

"Uh ... are you OK?" asked Andrew, not knowing what else to say.

"I'm sorry, brother," said Pablo. He unabashedly reached up a hand to brush away the tears. "Today's my anniversary, you know."

"You're married?"

"No — thank God! No, 15 years ago was my crime."

"But you're — I mean...." Andrew wasn't sure if he should call it crying. "Y'know, your eyes are watering."

"Tears of joy, brother," said Pablo. "Why should God choose me? Why should I find grace?"

Why should God choose him? To be honest, that thought had been bugging Andrew on his long drive. It was all well and good for Pablo to be joyful, he thought. But what about the three people he shot? What about the addicts who bought drugs from him to mess up their lives; were they joyful? Andrew didn't want to be judgmental, but the fact is this guy was doing life without parole for a reason. Maybe Pablo should have a little less joy and a little more ... sorrow, or something. Maybe these tears were a good thing.

"Me, a kid from the barrio who joined the Latin Kings; sold drugs and shot three people," said Pablo, as though making Andrew's point for him. "Why should God give me grace?"

"Yeah, what about the people you shot?" said Andrew abruptly.

Suddenly, Andrew realized he'd blurted that question aloud. Instinctively, he looked over to make sure a guard was still standing nearby. But Pablo wasn't angry — instead, he lowered his head and nodded quietly.

"I asked their forgiveness," said Pablo. "I wrote to the two men I shot; the ones trying to buy drugs. The doctors patched them up and they're OK." Pablo shook his head sadly. "Neither one wrote back. They're still addicts."

Well, at least he tried, thought Andrew. But he pressed again: "What about the undercover cop? What happened to him?"

"He's in a wheelchair; can't walk," Pablo confessed miserably. "My bullet hit the man's spine."

Andrew felt a sudden surge of anger. Pablo Gozo was whole while the man he shot was a paraplegic, yet he claimed to be "joyful." It didn't seem right.

Pablo continued quietly. "My lawyer, he got in touch with Officer Gonzalez. I send him all the money I make from my job here. It isn't much." Pablo shook his head ashamedly.

Andrew felt a little ashamed himself. Should he really be dredging up Pablo's dirty laundry? But after all, it isn't this guy's fault the three men aren't dead, Andrew thought. Maybe a little guilt is good for his joyful soul.

Then Andrew noticed a huge guard, a big black man who seemed about as wide as he was tall without an ounce of fat on his frame, step away from his place along the wall. He walked over to the table where Pablo and Andrew were sitting. "Hey man, why don't you stop disrespectin' Pablo till you know what you're talkin' about?" he said.

"Sorry ... officer," said Andrew awkwardly. Even the guards are on his side, he thought.

"Deonte, he's fine," said Pablo to the guard.

"You don't know what you're talkin' about," the guard insisted to Andrew. "Officer Gonzalez, the cop Pablo shot, he came down here to visit this man. And you know what Pablo did? He got on his knees — his knees — and begged the man to forgive him. I never saw anything like it in 23 years here."

"Deonte, that's enough —" broke in Pablo. But the guard continued:

"Turned out that Officer Gonzalez knew Jesus too. 'Please stop sending money from your job. I have disability; you need it more in here,' he said. Told Pablo he forgave him. But while Pablo was down on the floor by the man's wheelchair —"

"Deonte, don't —" said Pablo.

"This young man needs to know!" said the guard forcefully, pointing a beefy finger at Andrew. "Pablo Gozo got down at the foot of this man's wheelchair. Then he took a bowl and towel and washed his feet. Gonzalez got all embarrassed; asked why he was doin' it. Pablo said, 'He who has been forgiven much, loves much.'

"Do you know Luke 7, young man?" asked the guard. "That's where a hooker was so thankful for grace that she got down and washed her Savior's feet. That's what Pablo Gozo did for this man. You know who sat back and judged the prostitute? A Pharisee, young man. You think about that."1

"I ... didn't know," stammered Andrew.

Deonte the Guard stepped back to his place along the wall, shaking his head. Pablo was visibly embarrassed. "I'm sorry, Andrew. He means well...."
Andrew's eyes studied the floor. "I really didn't know...."

"You're right, Brother," said Pablo earnestly. "How could I repay my debt to that man? Or Jesus? That's why I cry. He who has been forgiven much loves much." Pablo wiped away more tears from his eyes.

But Andrew hardly noticed; he was caught in his own thoughts. He knew the rest of the verse Pablo was quoting: "He who has been forgiven little, loves little."

He felt suddenly ashamed for questioning Pablo Gozo. After all, when was the last time he, Andrew, had been moved to tears over God's grace? Or washed anybody's feet?

Never — that's when.

* * *

Andrew expected the conversation to take a turn for the awkward. But instead, Pablo immediately changed the subject. He started to ask questions about Andrew's life.

Andrew found himself retelling stories of collegiate pranks (Pablo was curious about dorm life; he'd never been on a university campus) and even grade school hijinks (both men got their first detentions for making armpit noises in class).

Andrew began to feel inexplicably encouraged just from talking to Pablo. Anyone can be a good talker, he reflected, but Pablo's a good listener.

In the midst of telling a story about his sister, Andrew suddenly stopped. He realized Pablo was laughing just as hard as he'd been crying only minutes before.
"Is something wrong, brother?" asked Pablo. "Go ahead; tell me about your sister."

Andrew struggled to put his thought into words. "Well ... a minute ago, you were crying. About — what you did, and God's forgiveness and everything. But now —"

"Now I'm laughing," prompted Pablo.

"Yeah. I mean, how —"

"Do you think Jesus is up there dwelling on my past?" asked Pablo.

"Well, no —"

"Then why should I?" Pablo smiled broadly. "Grace is about remembering so you can forget."

Remembering so you can forget. "So remembering is — like, remembering what you got saved from —"

" — And forgetting is moving on, because Jesus already has."

It struck Andrew that he — and most of the people he knew — were very bad at balancing those ideas.

"But speaking of forgetting," continued Pablo, "it seems like we've been talking a lot about the past. What about now, brother? How are you doing today?"

This is what Andrew had come to discuss, yet he was strangely reluctant to broach the subject. For a few minutes, he'd forgotten about the dullness and actually enjoyed himself. Still, he took a breath and plunged into his account of the past months, from his crummy job to his breakup and everything in between. Finally, when Andrew ran out of steam, Pablo leaned back in his chair and nodded quietly.

"I feel bad dumping this on you," said Andrew. "I mean, you have enough to worry about, being — locked up and everything...."

"But I have the joy of the Lord, brother!" exclaimed Pablo. "These walls don't hold me in."

"Sure," said Andrew. "But don't you get — depressed and stuff?"

"I have bad days," said Pablo. "Of course I do. But that's not where I live."

Andrew nodded uncertainly. He admired Pablo's attitude, but hadn't the faintest idea how he did it.

"Wouldn't you say if a man can be joyful in prison, he could be joyful anywhere?" Pablo asked.

"Yeah," agreed Andrew. "I mean, that's why I came —"

"Well, I'm not the man to learn from," said Pablo.

"What? I thought —"

"I'm just a student. When I first got here, I slept as much as I could. Hardly left my cell; sometimes didn't even eat. Thought life was over. And this was after I met Jesus, brother."

Andrew was confused. Had he driven two hours to learn that Pablo couldn't teach him anything about joy?

"Then I discovered an amazing little book," explained Pablo, with mounting intensity. "Taught me everything. It was written by a man with a past as dark as mine, doing hard time in a filthy cell with chains on his wrists. My namesake."

"You mean Paul?" said Andrew.

"You ever tried Philippians?" Pablo asked.
Andrew nodded. "Yeah. I mean, my small group studied it a couple months ago —"

"That's not what I asked," said Pablo. "Anybody can study it. Have you tried it?"

"What?"

"It's Paul's prescription," said Pablo. "Better than Prozac, brother. Oh, Prozac helps people who are really depressed; thank God for it. But people like you and me, brother? People who are 'bored'? We need to take a big dose of Philippians. Less side effects."

"I told you, I've read it —"

"So? Tell me how it changed your life." Pablo waited expectantly.

Andrew stuttered and stammered for a moment, but found he couldn't think of a single thing that was different since he read Paul's epistle. In fact, he could hardly remember anything from the study at all.

"Let me tell you how it changed me," said Pablo. "Paul gave us so many reasons for joy in that little book ... it sounds like you missed them. Are you ready for Joy 101?"

"Should I, like, take notes?" asked Andrew.

"No!" said Pablo vehemently. "You already 'studied'; see how much good it did you.

Don't take notes, brother. Try it. Live it."

"OK, I'll ... try," said Andrew, a bit offended.

"That's all God expects," said Pablo.

* * *

The inmate sat up and leaned over the table, staring intently at Andrew. "We already talked about one of Paul's keys to joy. Do you remember what it was?"

Andrew shook his head, confused. Clearly, he'd missed something.

"Trusting in Christ alone, brother!" said Pablo. "Confidence that He's all you need."

"He's the only one who can save me. I know —"

"That's the problem — you know," reprimanded Pablo. "I didn't ask you to tell me what you know; I care about what you live. See, we have an easier time with this one here on the inside."

"You mean ... it's easier to trust God in prison?"

"Much easier. Let me ask you a question: Why are you going to heaven?"

"Because of Jesus. He's my, y'know, 'Savior and Lord.'"

"Good answer. Now, here's another one: Why are you a good Christian?"

"I don't know ... I go to church and small group? I don't, like, drink and stuff ... I don't know; what kind of question is that?"

"A lousy one," affirmed Pablo. "Because the question should be, 'Why am I such a horrible Christian?' That's why it's easier on the inside. We know we're horrible Christians."

It started to click in Andrew's brain. "Because if you're here, you already know you're a sinner."

"Right! The Apostle Paul knew, brother. He threw Christians in jail. He was an accessory to murder. He was a horrible Christian. But it's harder for you on the outside — compared to those heathens at work, you're a great person! Somewhere deep inside, you think Jesus loves you because you're a pretty righteous guy."

"No, I don't —" protested Andrew.

"Then why did you come in here doing your best impression of a Pharisee?" asked Pablo.

Andrew looked down at the table and managed to shrug weakly.

"In here we know, brother," said Pablo gently. "We know we have nothing to bring to God. What would I say? 'Lord, wasn't I a good dope pusher? You like the way I capped that cop?' I know my only hope is Jesus. If He didn't die for me, I'm through."2

"I guess ... I mean, I'm sorry. About my little Pharisee act."
Pablo grinned. "You think I would throw stones for a little sin like that? I got you beat. Listen, so long as you're trying to earn a closer seat to Jesus, you're fearing God. 'What if it's not enough? Why should I try anyway when I'm such a screwup?' But when you realize you're a hopeless cause and grace is all you got, you can experience love. And perfect love drives out fear, and you stop trying to please God and just start loving Him, and then all you can do is wash feet. You know what I mean?"

Andrew nodded slowly. He hadn't "tried" it yet, but he was starting to grasp the concept.

"That's the first key for joy, brother," said Pablo. "Acknowledging you're a complete sinner ... so you can accept that you're completely loved."

Continue to part 2.

* * *
NOTES
1. See Luke 7:36-50.
2. See Philippians 3:4-11 for the basis of Pablo's thoughts on confidence in Christ.

Imprisoned Joy, Part 2
by George Halitzka

Andrew thought he was starting to understand joy a little better. Obviously, it would be hard to be sorrowful if you trusted completely in the love of God. "So you're saying when I trust God's love, I'll be happy, right?" he asked.

"Whoa!" exclaimed Pablo. "Who said anything about happy?"

Andrew was confused. "But you said if I trust God —"

" — Then you'll be miserable!" said Pablo. "You think the Evil One's thrilled when you lean on Jesus? You think you're better than your Savior, and never have to suffer?"

"But that sounds terrible!" protested Andrew.

"Sure it does!" said Pablo cheerfully. "Who smiles when life kicks them in the teeth?"

Something wasn't adding up for Andrew. "I thought we were talking about joy —"

"We are!"

Andrew was more confused than ever. "It doesn't sound like it."

"Brother, always remember this," said Pablo with intensity. "Happiness and joy are two different things. Happiness is when the sun shines and nobody's done you wrong. It just means that life's going your way today, and tomorrow you could be dead!"

"That's a cheerful way to look at things," muttered Andrew.

"So I'd rather have joy," continued Pablo. "Joy is when everything is a mess and I cry from a broken heart. But through my tears I say, 'God is good and Jesus saved me and heaven is waiting.' It's a lot harder than happy, brother. But it's also a lot more worth having."

"That kind of makes sense," said Andrew cautiously. "But how does it work? I mean, in real life?"

"Think about my namesake," said Pablo. "Remember the time he got whipped and tossed in prison for casting a demon out of a slave girl? Now, he's just been beaten almost to death. He's chained hand and foot in a cell that makes a leaky basement look like heaven. But he starts singing!1 Now, we dumb Americans don't get that. We shake our heads and say, 'I could never sing in those circumstances.' But that's the problem: We're thinking circumstances; we're thinking happy.
Andrew nodded cautiously: He sort of understood.

"Paul wasn't happy, he was miserable! But he was honored to be suffering like Christ and thanked God this would turn out for good — somehow. He knew he was loved, even as the World's Chief Sinner. So why wouldn't he sing? It wasn't circumstances ... it was a choice, based on radical trust."

Andrew shook his head. "Pablo ... I have to be honest, OK? I don't think I could choose to sing. I just ... I don't have that much faith."

"Most of us don't, brother," said Pablo. "That's why you start small."

"What do you mean?"

"Next time you're stressed, stop whatever you're doing and put your worries in God's hands," suggested Pablo. "The circumstances won't get better, but you will.2 When something bad happens to you, thank God for the good he's bringing out of it. The Book says to give thanks in all circumstances, right?3 Next time you want a new television, practice being content.4 Stop focusing on what you can't have and enjoy what you got! A beat-up 13-inch TV without cable works fine. Trust me — I know."

"That sounds kind of ... hard," said Andrew dubiously.

"But it's a lot easier than singing in chains, brother," smiled Pablo. "Remember — you said you'd try. Start by trusting God for the little things."

* * *

Andrew shook his head. He'd been feeling encouraged a minute ago, but the good feelings were ebbing away. He knew he could give up his worries to God and practice contentment — for about a week. Then he'd be back to his old tricks. He could never make stuff like that stick.

"You don't look too confident, brother," observed Pablo. "What's holding you back?"

"I don't think it'll last, Pablo," admitted Andrew. "Any time I try to change ... it's like a New Year's Resolution. Gone by February."

"So you don't have a community?" asked Pablo.

"Sure I do," said Andrew. "My church and small group —"

" — In other words, you don't have one," interjected Pablo.

"I just told you —"

"What do you call community, brother? The people you see while you sing songs from a video screen and listen to preaching for an hour a week? Your small group — the place where you compete to give the most 'spiritual' answers even when you don't mean them with a bunch of guys you don't really know?"

Andrew opened his mouth to protest, but then shut it again. He had to admit that was a pretty accurate picture of the situation.

"I'm talking about community, brother!" exclaimed Pablo. "People who don't just mutter prayer requests for you, but know where you live. People who won't play Pharisee when you admit you're struggling. People who can help you grow in grace; hold you accountable —"

"We do that," said Andrew defensively. "Every week, we ask each other how it's going with lust and stuff —"

"That's not accountability!" scoffed Pablo. "That's the Spanish Inquisition!"

"What are you talking about?"

"Anybody can admit to looking at Miss February," said Pablo. "And we should admit it — 'confess your sins to one another'5; that's in the Book. But that's a sorry substitute for accountability. If you had real community, you could share victories!"

Andrew shook his head in confusion. He had no idea what Pablo was talking about.

"You're working to find joy, right? And you're starting with baby steps, right? So don't just tell your group when you screw up! Tell them that on Tuesday, you were dreading a meeting with your boss, and you gave it over to God, and it went horribly, but you still thanked God afterwards for the character He's building in you!"

"I don't know," said Andrew, scratching his head. "Isn't that pride? Talking about how cool I am?"

"It can be," admitted Pablo. "But I'm not too worried about that. You know the problem I see with most of the brothers here? It's discouragement because they aren't good enough! Now, that's pride: thinking they can measure up to God's holiness. That pride won't let them admit they had a bad week, even if God got them through it, because 'Good Christians' are supposed to be happy all the time. End result: They don't grow because they give up on an impossible standard! You follow me?"

Andrew nodded cautiously.

"But brother, we serve a God who delights in us; who rejoices over us with singing.6 What's wrong with letting your friends rejoice when you do something right? Even something small? Isn't most of life about small things?"

"I guess...."

"When you get beyond admitting you peeked at Miss February to admitting you had a hard week, you're on the way to real community. And when you can share joy along with pain, your friends are closer than brothers. We're more afraid of confessing our private joys than our private sins any day of the week."

Andrew turned this over in his head. Being afraid to admit good things sounded ridiculous, but as he considered it, he realized that sometimes it was true. Maybe I'm afraid of sounding proud, he thought. Or maybe it's just superstition: If I admit to good things, then they're going to get worse.

"OK, I think I see what you mean," he said slowly. "But what's community have to do with joy?"

"In Philippians, there's a guy named Epaphroditus. Remember him?"
Andrew shrugged. The name sounded vaguely familiar.

"Paul found a huge amount of encouragement when this guy came to visit him in prison.7 Now, do you think Epaphroditus was just some guy Paul shook hands with after church? Or somebody who tried to look super-spiritual in his small group?"
"Probably not...."

"Of course not! Paul says they shared ministry and friendship. Would he celebrate over some clown he hardly knew? Here's the true test of community, brother: Is it joy to be with them? Do they encourage you; lift you up closer to Christ? Do you look forward to basking in their love? Sounds to me like your 'small group' isn't very encouraging. You only go to the Spanish Inquisition because you feel guilty, and then you leave feeling even worse."

Andrew shrugged again. He was doing a lot of that in this conversation, and it made him uncomfortable. The problem was, Pablo was right on the money with just about everything. He wanted to disagree with something ... but he couldn't.

"Brother, when you share your secret struggles and secret joys with a group of people, you'll rejoice to see them — just like Paul with his buddy Epaphroditus. And if you ask me, that's what real community is about. People who bring you the joy of Jesus."

* * *

Andrew got up to stretch and make another trip to the restroom. As he walked out of the visiting room, he noticed Deonte walk over to Pablo. The two men hugged and struck up a laughing conversation. Guess he practices what he preaches about joyful community, thought Andrew.

He glanced at the clock in the hall and discovered he'd already been talking to Pablo for almost 45 minutes. The time had flown by! The prison's visitation limit was an hour, so he hurried back to the table just as Deonte and Pablo were finishing their conversation.

"You listen to this brother, young man," said Deonte, stabbing a beefy finger in Andrew's direction as he moved back towards the wall. "He'll put you on the right track."

"Now," said Pablo, as Andrew sat back down in his chair. "Where were we? How about if you remind me what brought you to see Hermano Pablo?"

"Uh ... I guess it was ... y'know, boredom," said Andrew.

"Why are you bored?"

The truth is, Andrew had no idea. He'd never been very good at analyzing himself.

"I don't know."

"Fair answer. Let's find out," said Pablo. "What are your goals for life right now?"

"Well ... I want to find a new job. But I haven't really been looking; I know I should. I'd like to get married and have kids — you know, someday. And I guess I want the regular stuff — you know, a house, a new car, whatever."

Suddenly, Andrew thought he realized where Pablo was going with this. "But I should be content with what I have, right?"

"No — never do that! Not about your goals, brother — not if you want to get un-bored! When you don't have a mission, you're just waiting to die," said Pablo passionately.

"But you said —"

"Here's your problem: You need to have the right goals! Is what you just told me what you want carved on your tombstone? 'Here lies Andrew, who got married and bought a McMansion in the suburbs'?"

"No! I want to raise a family and get closer to God and be happy — well, joyful —"

"And who are you taking with you to heaven?"
Andrew shifted uncomfortably in his chair. He was afraid evangelism would come up eventually, and he'd been dreading the thought. "I don't know ... I mean, I try to witness. But it never works."

"It usually doesn't," said Pablo, "because people get all the commercials they need on TV. Why should they buy Jesus?"

"What?"

"The TV's selling cars; you're selling Personal Saviors. Why should people listen?"

"Well — because God loves them, like we were talking about —"

"Do you love them?"

Andrew scratched his head. Last time he tried witnessing, it was by passing out tracts at work — and almost got fired for it. But the truth is, he'd been motivated by a lot more guilt than love.

"It's interesting, brother," continued Pablo, "how Paul structured Philippians.

Chapter 1 is mostly about preaching Christ.8 Then chapter 2 tells us to humbly serve like Christ.9 I mean, Jesus gave up heaven to visit this sinful mess we call home. I don't care how many feet you wash, you'll never stoop that low! But would we have listened to Him preach any other way?"

Andrew nodded. He'd never thought about it quite like that before.

"The goal for us all is knowing Jesus more — always remember that," said Pablo, warming to his subject. "It's your goal, my goal, even your jerk boss's goal. Of course, he doesn't know it, and you're supposed to tell him. But why should he pay attention when you're a God salesman? He doesn't listen to the announcer hawking Toyotas, either."

"I'm hoping that gets me off the hook for witnessing," said Andrew wryly, "but I bet you have something else in mind."

"Ah, you're starting to learn my secrets! Imagine this, brother: What if you went out of your way to be a standout employee? What if you were more honest; more hardworking; more eager to help? Not because you're brown-nosing — but because you're working for Jesus instead of the company? Would that make the boss curious about you?"

Andrew shrugged. "He's not a very curious guy."

"OK, what if you volunteered at a homeless shelter? What if you started a Bible study here at Fairview? What if you went around to businesses and offered to clean their toilets? What if you read to people in a nursing home? What if —"

"I get the idea," said Andrew, holding up his hands. "That's serving — like Jesus served us. But is it preaching the gospel?"

"It is if you do it right," Pablo responded. "Jesus offered healings and parables, all for one low price!10 When you serve people nobody else wants to smell, you better believe they'll get curious about why you're there. When a man realizes he'll spend his best years making license plates, you'd be surprised how much he wants to hear about God."

"I liked my goals better than yours," muttered Andrew. "You know, a wife and a house in the suburbs —"

" — and that's exactly why you're bored," said Pablo promptly. "God made you for a greater purpose."

"So I should start serving? That's the new goal?"

"And pray for ways to share Jesus. Every day, I say, 'Lord, show me who I can serve today. Show me who needs Your love.' I won't say I'm never bored ... but not very often."

"Sounds kind of scary," said Andrew nervously.

"Sounds kind of joyful," corrected Pablo.

* * *

Andrew realized that his time with Pablo was almost over, but he didn't want to leave. He felt like he'd met a new friend; someone who, after only an hour, wasn't afraid to challenge him in love. I think this is real community, thought Andrew.
Pablo looked down at his watch. "Right now there's nothing I'd like more than to talk longer," he said. (And Andrew could tell he actually meant it.) "But in a few minutes, Deonte has to take me upstairs, and you have to drive home. Now, I need to give you a warning before you leave."

A warning? Andrew eyed Pablo cautiously.

"Here it is: The more joyful you get, the more you'll want to die," said Pablo.
Andrew stared blankly. That didn't make any sense.

"It's true, brother. When you put confidence in Christ, promotions and applause don't matter anymore, because your ego doesn't need it," said Pablo. "The more you find contentment, the more you realize everything you own is a pile of junk. If you discover real community, you won't desire anything you can't take with you when you go. And the more you serve people, the more you long to meet Love Himself."
"So joy gives you get a death wish?" asked Andrew incredulously.

"It makes you realize living is Christ and dying is gain," said Pablo. "You long for Jesus so much you can't stand it, because there's nothing left for you here. But you want to finish whatever God has for you to do before you leave."11

Andrew's mind was swimming. Yes, he was glad he'd go to heaven someday — but not now! He had some things he wanted to accomplish first, thank you very much.

Of course, according to Pablo, he wanted to accomplish the wrong things.

"I don't know," he said simply, after a long pause. "I don't know if I'll ever get there. I mean, I can't see wanting heaven that bad. I like life. Even when it's boring ... I can't imagine leaving it."

Pablo nodded. "It's harder on the outside, brother," he said. "The world is trying to give you heaven now because they don't believe in anything else. Inside, in prison ... well, I know the only way I'll ever be a free man is when I go to be with Jesus."

Andrew smiled. "Are you trying to make me jealous?"

"I just know it's easier here, brother. Sometimes I think everyone should spend a year or so in jail. Not for a crime — just to love Jesus more."

Andrew smiled. "I don't think you'd find many honest citizens who agree with you. But listen ... I just don't know about this. I can't imagine wanting heaven that much, that in some way, I kind of ... want to die."

"Most people can't," said Pablo. "But if you start looking for joy ... you might be surprised what happens. Heaven has a way of sneaking up on you."

Deonte walked over towards the table and motioned to Pablo. The inmate stood up.

"Come back again, brother," he said. "I want to hear how the joy's coming along."

"Count on it," said Andrew.

He reached out to shake Pablo's hand, but Pablo wrapped him in a huge bear hug.

"Brothers don't shake hands," he said.

Deonte led Pablo out of the visiting room, and Andrew was surprised to feel a lump rising in his throat. "I'll be back, Pablo," he said.

"I'll see you here, there, or in the air," said Pablo, grinning. Then he walked through a heavy steel door with the guard.

Andrew stood staring after him, lost in a confusing mix of thoughts, until a guard growled at him to leave.

* * *
Andrew drove home slowly, mind full of ideas. He was already starting to put some of Pablo's thoughts into action. When his heater took a while to warm up, he thanked God for the cold. When he thought how nice it would be to find a new job, he remembered how blessed he was to have one in the middle of a recession.

But his strangest thought of all came later in the trip, when he was almost home.

Andrew realized that he wanted to call the prison right away and schedule another visit with Pablo, but he would probably have to wait weeks — maybe months — to see him. And although he'd only met the man once, that felt like a very long time.

Then suddenly, the thought came to his mind that in heaven, he could talk with Pablo as much as he wanted. And just for a moment, he thought maybe heaven would be better than he was giving it credit for.

It was in that instant that Andrew Baxter felt something strange stir inside his soul. He wasn't sure what it was, because he hadn't felt it in a very long time.

But he thought maybe — just maybe — it was a twinge of joy.

* * *

NOTES
1. Check out Acts 16:16-34.
2. Philippians 4:6-7.
3. Read I Thessalonians 5:17-18. (No, this verse isn't from Philippians. So sue me.)
4. Philippians 4:11-13.
5. James 5:16.
6. Zephaniah 3:17.
7. See Philippians 2:25-30. It's also worth looking at what Paul says about his friend Timothy in verses 19-24 of the same chapter.
8. See, for example, Philippians 1:12-18.
9. Philippians 2:1-11 is the most beautiful passage in Paul's book — and perhaps the most challenging. Take a look.
10. We American Christians are good at forgetting this. We want to emphasize either Jesus' mercy ministries, like healing and feeding people, or His proclamations about being a good disciple and encountering God. But the reality is, His "gospel" teachings are inseparable from His "practical" ministry. He was committed to both, because they both build the Kingdom of Heaven.
11. Read Philippians 1:19-26.