A Nightmare OFF Elm Street

It was only a dream; well, more like a nightmare!

I awoke with a start on that Sunday morning as a result of the dream. While not reality, the dream did contain foreboding images and sounds which would not depart from my brain. Sensing something amiss, my wife asked me what was wrong. I told her I was in a bad mood because of the dream.

For the remainder of that day, I could not clear my head of the horrible events I witnessed in my sleep. Some of my family interpreted my quietness and the absence of interest in variable events of the day to mean I was angry. But, that was not the case. It was not anger that troubled me; it was fear. This fear arose out of what I envisioned in my dream and the possibility it may foretell the future.

I’ve never been one to put much credence in the interpretation of dreams. Usually, I simply dismiss any which I recall once awake. God once revealed Himself to our ancestors in dreams, but I’m not convinced He does so today. If He would give us a dream for some purpose, that vision must align with the words of Scripture. God’s revelation has been sealed for centuries; no new revelation is being given, only illumination of His revealed Word. Therefore, I lay no claim that this horrific dream was God-sent.

Nevertheless, it remains with me days later. I’ve struggled with whether to share the content of the dream or to keep it to myself. Furthermore, I’ve struggled with what, if anything, I can do about it.

I’m writing this article to explain what I dreamt and attempt to do something positive from it.

First, the reader must have some background on our family. My wife and I have nine, grown children. All eleven of us, at one time or another, have professed Jesus as our Lord and been immersed. Furthermore, we have eighteen grandchildren ranging in age from one to twenty-five. Some of them have also made professions of faith in Christ.

I must also confess I have developed a ridiculous fear of crowds (ochlophobia) over the past decade. On occasion, if I am in a large group of people, I become extremely nervous and have an urgent need to extricate myself from the situation. At times, I have successfully managed to control the fear. But, I never know beforehand if I can do so.

With that knowledge, I begin my recollection of my dream. It came to me in two distinct parts.

First, my entire family were visiting Disney World. We were walking around when my ochlophobia began. After attempting to control it for a brief time, I told my family I must leave them and return to the hotel room. To my dismay and surprise, some of them laughed at me, some mocked me, and others yelled at me for not seeing a doctor about my condition. None of this mattered to me, and I departed for the solitude of the hotel room.

Second, while relaxing in my room and recovering from my panic, I began to hear voices. I sat up in my bed and distinctly heard the voices of some of my family. Someone was shouting, “Dad, please help me.” Another screamed, “Grandpa, help!” The voices became louder in volume and more in number.

Concerned for my family’s well-being, I leapt from my bed, threw on my shoes, and bolted for the door. Meanwhile, the voices were growing louder than before, repeatedly pleading for my help. I was quivering from fear, wondering what might be happening to them.

Then, I flung open the door to the room.

On the other side of the door was a massive chasm, the bottom completely out of sight. Far down in that hole, orange flames and smoke were clearly visible. The sound of steam was now added to the crying voices of my family.

Across the chasm on the far ledge stood some of my family, both children and grandchildren. Not all were there, and I could not make out any of their faces. Yet, I knew they were the source of the pleas for help.

Standing in the doorway of my room, I watched as my family members, one by one, were pushed into this pit. Even as they fell, they were screaming for my aid, begging me to rescue them.

I could do nothing.

Then, I awoke.

I trust the reader now understands why this dream has dramatically affected me. I suspect such a dream would haunt any parent. The larger and more important question is what can I do with it? Simply forgetting the dream is not an option, at least, not one for me.

Now that all our children have left our home, they must live their own lives. I have no authority over them and cannot demand their obedience to my religion. I do my best not to offer advice to any of them unless asked. Some of them remain active in local churches, hopefully a sign of their true faith. Others, however, appear to have abandoned the faith, or, at least, no longer consider it of importance. The only help I can offer my child is, first, that I will pray for you, and, second, to exhort you either to return to the Lord you once professed or to truly seek Him for the first time. For when the judgment comes, and we stand on opposite sides of God’s throne, there is nothing I can do to help you. Screaming for my assistance will prove useless. Jesus is your only hope.

My grandchildren prove a special burden. I have exercised extreme caution over the years with meddling in their lives. Their parents, not me, are responsible for their upbringing. Even in the realm of religion, I have reluctantly refrained from saying very much about Christ and salvation so not to override their parents’ views. Yet, I fear some may not be learning about the danger that awaits them and their need for Christ. What might I do to respect their parents but assist my grandchildren? Well, as with your parents, I will pray for you, grandchild. The Lord often moves in mysterious ways and He can reach you even if your parents attempt to block His influence. Second, I will pray for your parents. I will pray that, perhaps, they will have a similar dream in which they are standing in the door and watching you being pushed into eternal punishment. I will pray they come to their senses in the matter of God, sin, Jesus, salvation, and eternal judgment. They have the responsibility to share those things with you.

Lastly, I will pray that, when judgment day comes, all my family, each one, stand on the same side of God’s throne, believers in Jesus, prepared for eternity.

Oh, and yes, we do live just off Elm Street!

What Are We Teaching Our Children?

I am not a legalist. The Bible clearly reveals that a saving relationship with God is received only by faith in Christ and not by any works which we may do. We cannot keep the law perfectly and keeping it only occasionally will never earn us anything but wrath!


I am not a legalist. Once God has caused us to be born again by the regenerating power of His Spirit and we have repented of our sins and trusted Christ for salvation, we do not keep that salvation by obeying God’s commands. Again, we continue to fail from time to time even after we are saved. Keeping us in a “saving” relationship with Christ is also the work of God. It is He who preserves us and our salvation to the end.


BUT, the Bible does teach that those who have been born again will keep God’s commandments. In other words, our desire has now changed and we long to be obedient, not because it earns or keeps our salvation but because we have been born again. Our new spiritual nature, received at our new birth, guides us to do good works and to obey the Word of God.


“If you love me, you will keep my commandments” said our Lord in John 14:15.


“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments” writes the Apostle John in 1 John 5:1-2. Evidence of one’s new birth is his love for God and his obedience to God’s commandments.


Throughout Scripture, God has called His children to set aside a day to remember Him. God wants us to join together with other brothers and sisters on that day and worship Him. According to the New Testament, the principal day for a church (brothers and sisters in Christ) to worship together is the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day, our Sunday.


“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near” the author of Hebrews records in 10:24-25. The Lord desires His children, His church, to meet together and not to neglect such meetings. In other words, He wants us worshiping Him with our church on the Lord’s Day.


But what are we teaching our children about our love of God, our love of our fellow believers, our love of our church, and our love of worship? Are we telling them and showing them that the worship of God with the church on the Lord’s Day is important and necessary?


A very noticeable trend has been developing over the past couple of decades. With their lips many believers are telling their children of the importance of worshiping God on the Lord’s Day with the church. But they are teaching them something entirely different with their lives. Essentially, their lives are saying, “Yes, worshiping God with our church family on Sunday is our #1 priority for the day UNLESS you have to participate in a sporting activity or attend some school activity or go fishing with someone, etc.”


Sports have probably been the most significant culprit in this trend. Parents and their children have elevated the importance of sports above the importance of God. Those individuals who have children presently engaged in sports are likely screaming “No” even as they read this. But face facts, folks. When you pull your child away from the worship of the Lord on Sunday morning to permit them to participate in a voluntary activity such as baseball, football, soccer, or any other sport, you are teaching them the sporting event is more important than the worship of God. If you did not believe so you would not let them participate in the activity.


Look at it from another angle. If you were to tell your child they are going to have to miss worship service in order to participate in a sporting event, almost without exception the child will NOT be disappointed (and you probably aren’t either). But tell that child they must miss the sporting event to participate in the worship of God and see who gets upset! Now tell me which is more important in their life, God or sports? The fact they become upset reveals which “god” they love the most. Jesus said, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21).


I can’t fault sports alone. In today’s culture, the school system seems to find new ways to pull families out of church on the Lord’s Day. “We have to be at Busch Stadium by 11:30 in order to prepare to play the National Anthem so we can’t make church today.” Why can’t they play the anthem any other day of the week? “We have such and such event out of town this Sunday so we will miss church.” Why is the event not held on Friday and Saturday only? Even some schools now have their graduation services on the Lord’s Day.


When we parents yield to the demands of athletic teams, school systems, and other organizations and allow our children to “skip” church in lieu of whatever the activity may be, we are teaching them this event is more important than the worship of God. In fact, we are telling them this event is our god.


Again, I am not a legalist. There are some professions which demand individuals work on Sunday mornings. Medical personnel are needed on the Lord’s Day. Businesses sometimes require operating on Sundays. I, myself, have had to work on the Lord’s Day and miss worship services on a few occasions over the years. Why, even families taking a vacation will miss Sunday worship from time to time. Missing the Lord’s Day worship is not necessarily wrong or evil. Sometimes it is unavoidable. This is not what I am talking about.


Parents, you have authority over your children. If you are permitting them to participate in activities which draw them away from their worship of God then you are, like it or not, teaching them that activity, no matter what it is, is more important than God. Period.

Those parents who are, in fact, engaged in such “education” are probably thinking they are stuck. They have a child who, for example, loves football. He plays for a football team in some local organization and some of their games are Sunday mornings. What can you do?


You can do plenty. You can teach your child the importance of being with their church on the Lord’s Day worshiping God by telling them they will not participate in any sporting event (or other activity) which requires them to “skip” the service. “But the team is counting on them.” Well, before the season begins, have a discussion with the coach and tell him your child will not play on Sundays. Tell your child this as well. Set the ground rules up front. We do not miss worshiping the Lord on Sunday mornings for sporting events. Find another league which does not schedule games on Sunday mornings. If enough Christians “stuck to their guns” on the issue of Sunday activities, the organizations would be more likely to eliminate those Sunday activities.


I am not a legalist. As a pastor, I do not keep a record of who is at church and who is away at some sporting event. Skipping worship services for sporting events or other activities does not cost you your salvation. But it is teaching your child a very dangerous lesson. Which “god” do you want your child to serve when they get older?

A Response to Mythbuster

When I first began this blog, I discovered almost immediately the necessity to monitor comments. The first comment posted (which I later deleted) was filled with unnecessary language as well as made absolutely no sense relative to my entry. So I have the capability of deciding whether to permit a comment or not.

Some blogger named “Mythbuster” attempted to post a comment to my March 12 entry in this blog. I decided to block the comment for one primary reason: most folks do not often view comments. Comments get lost in the “blog shuffle”. This comment demanded a reply and such a reply would also be lost in a simple comment. I believed this specific “comment” needed more visibility than a simple comment.

So, first, I am posting the comment in its entirety. Then, I will step through it paragraph by paragraph and attempt to address “Mythbuster”’s statements.

For starters, there was no word for embryo in ancient Greek or ancient Hebrew. For that matter, there was no word for abortion either, even though abortions were taking place during that period in history.

Furthermore, if we look more closely at the Bible we see passages which actually show that God does not consider an embryo/fetus to be a human life.

Take, for example, Exodus 21:22-25 which shows that a woman's health is more important than that of a fetus.(22)If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (23)And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, (24)Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25)Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.This clearly states that if a woman suffers a miscarriage due to two men fighting but she is not harmed then her husband can take the other man to court, but if she is also harmed the punishment must fit the crime.

In Leviticus 27:6, God commands that a monetary value be placed on children who were no younger than one month old. Any younger than that and they had no value.

In Numbers 3:15, God commands that a census be taken, but only of those one month old and above. Those younger than that, including fetuses, were not counted.

Even in Genesis 2:7 we see that God did not consider Adam to be a "living soul" until God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life".

I could go on but I think these examples state it best. Either human life does not begin at conception or God's words clearly contradict themselves and therefore could not be from an omnipotent being.

I do not want to be repetitive but I am going to respond to these statements one paragraph at a time by first repeating each paragraph.

For starters, there was no word for embryo in ancient Greek or ancient Hebrew. For that matter, there was no word for abortion either, even though abortions were taking place during that period in history.

Mythbuster is referring to my comment attached to Luke 1:36. This is what I said:

"And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has conceived a son" (not an embryo, or a blob of cells, but a SON; Luke 1:36).

Unfortunately, he misses my point. Whether Greek or Hebrew had a word for embryo is not the issue. The fact is the angel has confirmed Elizabeth conceived a son (huion in the Greek) and not some impersonal entity. The conception resulted in a male human. If that was not the angel’s intention, the statement could have read “has conceived an it” (auto in the Greek). In this verse, “son” (huion) is the direct object of the verb “conceived”.

Concerning the Old Testament passages I quoted (the Hebrew passages of which there are many more), my point, again, is not the absence of the word “fetus” or “embryo” in Hebrew but the use of the personal pronoun translated by such words as “me” and “you”, not “it”.

Were abortions taking place at that time? Almost certainly they were. But that does not justify abortion. Since the eating of the fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden, man has been and is a sinner. Abortion has been and continues to be a sin no matter in what era it was or is practiced.

Furthermore, if we look more closely at the Bible we see passages which actually show that God does not consider an embryo/fetus to be a human life.Take, for example, Exodus 21:22-25 which shows that a woman's health is more important than that of a fetus.(22)If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (23)And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, (24)Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25)Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.This clearly states that if a woman suffers a miscarriage due to two men fighting but she is not harmed then her husband can take the other man to court, but if she is also harmed the punishment must fit the crime.

When I read this text it does not “clearly state” what Mythbuster is claiming. There have been debates on this passage among Christian scholarship but I believe the passage is better understood quite differently. Verse 22 states one side of the problem while verses 23-25 give us the other side. Using the English Standard Version, let me look at those two divisions.

“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.”

So, in this case you have some men fighting and during the fight they strike a pregnant woman who goes into labor. The result: the child (children) is born with “no harm”, i.e., the child was not injured by the men in this fight. The woman’s husband imposes a fine on them for hurting his wife and the judges demand the payment.

“But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

This is case 2. The pregnant woman is struck and goes into labor. However, the child is born with problems (“there is harm”). In that case, what is the penalty to be assessed those who struck the woman? It is the “lex talionis”, the law of retaliation. If that child has lost an eye, the men will lose an eye. If that child has lost a foot, the men will lose a foot. If that child has lost its life, well, you get the picture.

Furthermore, Mythbuster said this passage shows a “woman's health is more important than that of a fetus.” Somehow that is supposed to prove that “God does not consider an embryo/fetus to be a human life.” As I have stated in other blog entries, there are cases when one must choose the life of the mother over the life of the unborn child. For example, a tubal pregnancy will result in the death of both mother and child if the child is not removed. In order to save the life of the mother, the child’s life must be ended before birth. The LIFE (not health) of the mother, in this case, is of more value than the LIFE of the unborn child. But that statement does not lead to the conclusion that I do consider the unborn child to be anything less than a human life and neither does God.

On to his next example:

In Leviticus 27:6, God commands that a monetary value be placed on children who were no younger than one month old. Any younger than that and they had no value.

If you read the entire chapter it becomes apparent the discussion concerns giving a monetary offering in place of an actual dedication of a person to the Lord. The NIV renders part of verse 2 as “If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate persons to the Lord by giving equivalent values…”. Following this are the various equivalent values for individuals. We find the following values:

- males, over 60 years: 15 shekels
- females, over 60 years: 10 shekels
- males, 20-60: 50 shekels
- females, 20-60: 30 shekels
- males, 5-20: 20 shekels
- females, 5-20: 10 shekels
- males, 1 month – 5 years: 5 shekels
- females, 1 month – 5 years: 3 shekels

Dedicated service to the Lord is valued more for those who are more capable of serving him, i.e., those in the 20-60 years of age. Those younger are of less value in terms of service as are those much older. Serving males are of more value than serving females.

Given the infant mortality rate was quite high, it isn’t surprising no equivalent value was placed on a one month old. Is Mythbuster implying that God does not believe an individual is a living human being until they are at least one month old?

In Numbers 3:15, God commands that a census be taken, but only of those one month old and above. Those younger than that, including fetuses, were not counted.

Mythbuster is attempting to use the same argument on Numbers 3:15 as he did in Leviticus 27:6. So there is no need to repeat what I said relative to that verse. In the Numbers passage, the Levites are being counted for service in the ministry. The census taken does not include those under one month which, again, is not surprising given the infant mortality rate. Once more I would ask Mythbuster if he is inferring that God does not consider an individual a living human until they are one month of age?

One additional note, though. If Numbers 3:15 implies God does not consider those under one month to be a living human, then God must not consider those under 20 years to be human either (see Numbers 1:3 for the counting of people in all tribes but Levi, the tribe being counted in Numbers 3).

Even in Genesis 2:7 we see that God did not consider Adam to be a "living soul" until God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life".

I’m assuming Mythbuster is implying life does not begin until the “fetus” takes a breath. Otherwise, I see no reason for even referring to this verse.

First, anyone who believes in the creation account (and I suspect Mythbuster does not which makes his using this text curious at best), understands the creation of Adam and Eve was a unique event. Obviously neither could be born in some normal way. In reality, this is the “which came first, the chicken or the egg” question. The answer: the chicken. God created Adam and Eve as adults. Therefore, using their “births” as a model for typical human births is illogical.

Second, Mybuster may consult his Hebrew and note that Genesis 2:7 reads “breathed into his nostrils the BREATH OF LIVES”. Sometimes Hebrew uses plural words to indicate majesty. Perhaps that’s what is happening here. But perhaps the plural is referring to the two lives God breathed into Adam: physical life and spiritual life. Adam’s heart was not beating prior to this act. Adam’s brain was not functioning prior to this act. Adam was not moving his arms or his legs prior to this act. In ONE ACT, Adam became a physical and spiritual being, i.e., a living soul.

Wow, that sounds like what happens at conception to me! The heart of the unborn is beating before the mother even realizes she’s pregnant. Physical life is present at conception because conception results in continual growth. Physical life exists for that child before it ever takes its first breath of air because it has already received the breath of God at its conception.

Now to his conclusion:

I could go on but I think these examples state it best. Either human life does not begin at conception or God's words clearly contradict themselves and therefore could not be from an omnipotent being.

Nothing Mythbuster has said or any passage he has quoted proves human life does not begin at conception. Perhaps he should go back and examine the passages I quoted. Interestingly, he never addressed them other than his comment on the word “embryo”.

Second, he has offered no proof that God’s Word “clearly contradict themselves”. I’m a bit perplexed how he could draw such a conclusion.

Finally, he claims if God’s words do contradict themselves then God could not be an omnipotent being. I’m sorry but that logic does not follow. God could be an all powerful (omnipotent) LYING being in which case His words could consistently contradict themselves. The correct conclusion would be if God’s word clearly contradict themselves He, therefore, is not a God of truth or He is not an omniscient (all knowing) God.

My suspicion is Mythbuster has grabbed a selection of “pro-death” arguments he has found at some web site and plastered them together to form his comment. I’ve seen these before. Nevertheless, I feel sorry for him and those like him who continue to fight for the “right” to murder unborn children for any case and at any time. May the Lord convict his heart and save his soul.

PETA, Pigs, and Publicity

This morning’s news programs were spending time discussing PETA’s (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) complaint against the Army for their proposed trauma training exercise, namely, shooting pigs and treating their gunshot wounds. The notice is also given on various web news sites (e.g., http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5400912).

Now I have nothing against the Army or pigs and have no way of knowing if this is ethical treatment of pigs or not. Should we shoot pigs in order to train medics on how to save American soldiers wounded in action? I don’t know. What I do know is the media is publicizing the matter and many commentators are taking the side of the pigs.

My question from all of this is why are folks so much more concerned over the shooting of pigs than they are of the murdering of unborn babies? In the United States alone, over 170 babies are murdered each hour. Yet, when an individual or an organization raises its concern about such an atrocity, the media often finds a way to “put down” the protestor or simply ignore them all together. Oh, but let someone complain about shooting pigs and watch how much publicity is raised!

To be sure, the Bible does not contain a verse which EXPLICITLY condemns or condones abortion. “Thou shalt not commit abortion” is not listed as one of the commandments. Nevertheless, Scripture is clear: abortion is evil. Exodus 21:22-24 indicates judgment for those who unintentionally cause a miscarriage. Therefore, judgment would be required for those who intentionally take an unborn life.

All human life is from God and is in His image (Genesis 1:26-28). Passages such as Luke 1:39-42 and Psalm 51 teach God knows those in the womb and is involved in a person’s history/life prior to his birth. And Psalm 127 teaches children are gifts from the Lord and He has chosen to give us those gifts via the womb. To destroy life before its birth is to reject and destroy God’s gift.

May the Lord forgive us, our media, and our nation for being so concerned about pigs but so unconcerned about our unborn posterity.