So, I wrote another song. I haven't written a song in second person for a while… I think the lyrics turned out really cool. It makes for a pretty good poem. I was trying to be wordy and poetic… perhaps the lyrics don't make much sense. I thought they were pretty clear, but who am I to say if they're clear, I'm the one who wrote it.

The song is essentially mourning the fact that everyone wears masks. No one wants to show anyone their true self, but everybody is hurting inside–I think even a lot of people who would call themselves Christians or people who go to church… it's gotten so bad that even many ministers or people in positions of authority are putting on masks. It really hurts me when I see all the emptiness and faking going on. I can only hope God will give me grace enough to reach people and help them to see.

Download

Free someone else from a black blind oblivion
Is living a lie for their sake just opinion?
If you can help them from hell while you wear a mask
Should you go on if you're cauterized through the task

Is this a sermon, is this a play?
Am I pretending putting on a parade?
Maybe I'm pointing indirectly to me…
But maybe I'm faking trying to get you to see.

Disillusioned hearts
Are falling apart
Trying to disguise
Endless seas of lies.

Ludicrous lies lapse with time into the truth.
False fantasies fabricated become a proof
Fashioning bright faces belied by paint,
Lines of reality grow fainter than faint

Is this all real or is it a game?
Play your cards perfect to look just the same.
So the masquerade marches with you melted in
The numbness ignored so it's not felt a sin

Disillusioned hearts
Are falling apart
Trying to disguise
Endless seas of lies

Pageants and plays
Filled with pretty people
Prancing around in their masks
Inside they're dying and crying and lying
For anything, anything that lasts

Am I pretending, or is this all real?
Am I faking you double with only fear left to feel?

I was looking through my notebook yesterday and found this little piece from a while back…

It seems our modern culture has built the individual to sustain himself off the praise of man. Our society puts an emphasis on praising men and their deeds, even if the deeds are not worthy of praise. We have become a flattering people whose tongues are eager to please at the cost of falsity. And we become so accustomed to hearing such praise that subconciously we begin to feed off of it. It is a dangerous thing to live off of the praise and reassurance of men and not off of the sustenance provided for us through the Holy Ghost. We must derive our strength from the power and love of God, and no other man. People may say that you should not become detached from the world. But God will vindicate. We are not set on earth to judge but to be vessels and servants of God. Our purpose is the will and the work of God, not to please others. If the very reason of our existence is for God, should we not draw our sustenance and strength from God? Should not God be our everything; our breath of life; our joy; our hope? Let us not, then, look to men but to God. And let us not draw our strength from frail humans. Do not live on the false praise of men, but on the true praise of God.

Yeah, yeah, I know, sorry for the big long wordy title. I couldn't help myself. I know it probably makes me sound dumb, but it makes me feel intelligent, so humor me.

It seems to me Protestants are far too lacking in self-discipline or willingness to deny themselves any physical pleasure, and excuse their laxity by saying "Well, it's not good or bad, it's just neutral. It doesn't affect me." While we must in no wise fall into gnostic tendency and say all matter and physical is evil, we can't jump into the other side of the ditch as we are so prone to do! There seems to me to be a very big bias against monasticism in our modern Protestant world, and very big bias against any sort of severe asceticism, and the root of it seems to be our overflowing abundance in America. We are so inundated by food, music and aesthetic sound, visual noise and symmetry, pain-relief, mental- and physical-relieving machines that our lax minds have a hard time grasping or conceiving the monastic or ascetic or contemplative life.

Please don't think I'm saying severe asceticism can't have problems and that everyone should live as an ascetic, because that is not what I'm saying. The problem is that because our minds are weak and flabby, we must find excuses for ourselves so that we don't have to push ourselves into any discomfort. Because of this weakness of mind it is easy to look at the negative aspects of asceticism and then never give it a second thought. Here lies the problem, I think. First we must conquer the body, and after we have conquered the body, then we can live with the material in good conscience.

As I see it, there are three general stages of spiritual development in terms of relation to material physical things (i.e. food, marriage, clothes, music, etc.) :

1) Enslavement or weak attachment,

2) Ascetic abstention or semi-forced detachment,

3) Mastery or full detachment.

We are all born into category 1. The problem is that's where most modern evangelical Protestants stay. Asceticism is a more forced attempt to train the soul not to rely on the physical, and thus could be said to be a more 'advanced' stage of a soul than attachment to physical things. It is a weaning, it proves un-reliance upon the carnal and physical and material things, such as food and marriage. But asceticism is only a training ground for the soul, because if we are spiritually detached from the physical, then there is no harm in partaking them or using them. This is how Christ lived; in complete detachment and independence from all physical carnal things and emotion. Thus he was able with good conscience to partake of material things, because of his spiritual strength.

Now I think this points us to the problem of modern evangelical anti-ascetic Protestants, and semi-holier-than-thou spiritual-nobility asceticism. An ascetic would perhaps say that level 2 is higher than level one, which is certainly the case, but they fail to recognize that there is a level three; while a Protestant would perhaps condemn the ascetic and say that there is a level three, while being blind that there is a reason behind asceticism. Thus, both are wrong in that the ascetic doesn't realize that there is a more advanced spiritual state than asceticism and the Protestant doesn't realize that asceticism is a (for the most part) necessary stage in advancing towards detachment and mastery of the physical and carnal.

Now please don't think I'm trying to be all legalistic and that I'm saying you have to go through this specific stage, you have to do this thing, and then you advance to the next level which is defined as so and so… that isn't my point. My point is that in general asceticism is a schoolmaster to proper consideration of the physical and carnal, and that for most it is a necessary step in the process. Thus, as Protestants, we must test ourselves by saying this: are we capable of abstention? Are we capable and willing to go through severe asceticism? Are we detached from the physical so that we have mastery over our appetites and can deny ourselves if it is expedient to do so for the sake of God? If we can answer with a hearty yes to those questions, then by all means there is no harm in partaking of God's good and wondrous gifts of food and marriage and proper clothing! In fact we do God favor by doing so. But if we are attached to these things, how can we say that God is our sole desire? How can we with good conscience partake if we are attached to the gifts themselves and not the giver?

We live in a very individualistic culture. As a result of this, we have reactions and thought patterns ingrained and programmed into us that we don't even realize are incorrect and sinful.

America is all about rights; it is all about giving everyone a fair chance, and letting everyone voice themselves. Our culture revolves around the individual, and we are *highly* democratic in our thought. Unfortunately, the church has imbibed this philosophy that everyone has certain rights, that every voice should be heard, that everything should be fair and equal. It seems to me people have lost sight of the fact that there IS such a thing as authority, and that Christians are called to submit to authority. We are also called to love our enemies, our brethren, and above all, God.

I, though I don't like to think it, am a product of this culture. Perhaps I am less ingrained with modern American new-age socialistic philosophy, but it's there whether I can see it or not. One of my most recurring prayers is that God would open my eyes to the things about myself that I can't see. Because if I cannot see things, if I am not aware that I am doing things, then I can't change those things I'm not aware of. Many people seemingly go on through life blissfully unaware of their major shortcomings, weak areas, and sinful patterns.

But as I was saying, I am, at least to some extent, a product of the culture. I find myself thinking that I have 'rights' many times. I have a right to complain if I don't like the music playing on the radio, I have a righht to complain if someone is asking me to do something that takes out of my limited time, I have a right to refuse if someone asks me to do once more something I've been doing the past week for other people when it's not my job, I have a right to ask someone to do once something I've been doing for them out of goodwill because they owe it to me.

It annoys me to no end when I voice these rights so-called, because as soon as the words come out of my mouth I realize that I have absolutely no right to say what I just said. The problem is, that when I do voice any of the former examples, I am never condemned, because our culture dictates that in fact I do have a right to voice such thoughts. I would suggest, however, that I in no wise have any right whatsoever to even think those things which I just mentioned. Those thoughts are the result of the socialistic and democratic tendencies of American culture.

When I became a Christian, I went from being a slave of myself to being a slave of God. God commands me to do two things, that is to love him and to love all men: both my enemies and my brothers. The definition of love so far as I can see is putting the pleasure, desire, fulfillment, well-being, glory, and overall-good of another over your own pleasure, desire, fulfillment, well-being, glory, and overall-good. God's pleasure, desire, fulfillment, well-being, glory, and overall-good is first, then come others, and finally yours. God has called us to love firstly himself, and secondly all other men. Thus we reason that everyone is higher than ourselves. Essentially, all this translates into a very simple conclusion: I have no rights.

For example, let me take my previous examples and expound on them. Say your brother is listening to the radio and both of you are doing the dishes. He loves disco music, which you absolutely abhor. The normal reaction would be to perhaps gently ask if it would be alright if you changed the station to something both of you can stand. In fact this is completely wrong and selfish of you: you are in no wise being loving or thoughtful, you are merely surreptitiously trying to bring yourself more pleasure, and you are using your 'rights' so-called to do this. I have no room for seeking my pleasure if I am to love others.

Carrying on from the dishes, let us say you have been doing the dishes for a week, unasked, while it is not your job to do the dishes. It is the responsibility of you and all of your siblings, but you have graciously taken it upon yourself to relieve your siblings. At the end of the week, no one has realized that you have been doing the dishes, and your mother asks if you would be willing to do the dishes by yourself because your siblings have perhaps something they need to do, or they have had a long day. The normal response would perhaps be "Well, mother, I've done all the dishes for the past week, don't you think it would be fair if they did it tonight? I really wanted to talk to Bob tonight because we are trying to figure out something important…"

First of all, I would like to note that you just destroyed any service you might have done to your family because you just demanded payment for your 'sacrifice' so-called. Second I would like to point out that it was completely your choice to do the dishes previously, and that if you love your siblings and parents (which you are commanded to do especially by God) then you are putting their pleasure and good over your own. You are not justified in asking your siblings to do it, because as a Christian you have sacrificed yourself for others.

Of course this does not mean that you are to never once voice your opinion or will in a matter. That would defeat the purpose of loving others, because sometimes it is necessary to voice our opinion or will for the better good of others. As long as we are concerned with loving God first and others second, we shall not stray far from the mark.

One rule I live by is this: never refuse an offer of help. It is only selfish and pride-sustaining to refuse help or gifts. If someone offers to pay for the meal, *let them* with a thankful spirit. If someone offers to help you cook dinner or clean the kitchen, *let them* with a grateful spirit. If someone offers to do something for you, *let them*. Only make sure your motives are pure, that you accept with love and with thankfulness. If you are constantly sacrificing for others, you will more easily be able to let someone sacrifice for you once in a while.

Oh heavenly Father. Let me draw my strength from you. I live and breathe and serve for you, I exist to accomplish your will on earth in life and in spirit in death. I be thee to take pity on your servant and accept my filthy offerings. I know I have naught I can offer you for atonement other than the most precious blood of my Savior, your beloved Son. O boundless depths of grace, O intoxicating abundance of mercy poured out upon your servant! My heart runneth over with inexpressible gratitude and I am left to fall on my face in awe of your holy majesty with trembling and fear. My heart aches with ignorance, for it can in no wise comprehend the love of God manifested towards mankind, and my mind races down many paths seeking an answer but being overwhelmed at the sheer magnitude and size of the Most High. Every thought ascends the infinite stairway that leads towards the understanding of God, higher they ascend and put my soul in greater awe than before, for with a greater understanding of the greatness of God comes greater reverence with a heart filled with the Holy Spirit.

Yesterday our family went to the Cathedral of Connecticut in Hartford city. We were originally going to get a tour of the place, but there is a mass service every weekday at 7am and 12:10pm, so we went to mass beforehand. It was a most glorious experience, I thought.

My first thought is this: the Romans have mass twice a day, every day of the week. Now of course hardly any Roman, I suppose, would go to mass every day of the week, but there are certainly people there who go multiple days a week. How much better than most Protestant churches that have two or three services on Sunday, and *maybe* a service on Saturday night or Wednesday night! If there was a cathedral near by and I was a Roman, I think I would make an effort to attend mass once a day. If your heart is in the right place, it is very conducive to concentrating your thoughts and life on God. Being the semi-protestant that I am, if there was a cathedral nearby, I would go at least three or four times a week, if not more.

I think the vast majority of protestants have a very large prejudice against Catholicism. If you asked them if they would ever become a Roman Catholic, they would say "Oh, no, I would never become a Roman Catholic. They've messed up a lot and gone off the trail." My response, if you would be one of those that say this, is: what precisely is it that's so wrong with Roman Catholicism? I will grant you that they have a few major problems, but I would grant the same thing about Protestantism. I am not saying that there are not reasons, but do you know any reasons that you shouldn't become a Catholic?

I will say this, though, mass could very easily become a dead tradition. It would be very easy to say the correct words, kneel, bow your head, stand, sit, make the sign of the cross, and be done, all without giving a thought to what you are doing. But friends, it is precisely the same thing with protestant churches! They can very easily become something you do, something you check off the list as "alright, I've done my spiritual thing for the week, I'm set." But if your mind is on spiritual things, if you are not of this world, if you have the Holy Ghost constantly working and speaking and teaching you, then both become alive. It is the heart and spirit that gives life or death to a service, be it mass or protestant worship.

I think that there is much less wrong with Roman Catholicism than most protestants would have us think. You say there is much nominalism within the Roman church? Is it not so with the Protestants? You say there is much dead tradition in the Roman church? Is it not so with the Protestants? We must be open to the fact that there are many problems with both, it is the individual heart and spirit that breathe life into the Christian faith. I'm sure there are very many saved Romans, and very many saved Protestants. On the other hand, I am sure there are extraordinary amounts of Romans that are unsaved, and extraordinary amounts of Protestants that are unsaved.

One thing I realized about Protestantism while at the cathedral is that it is excruciatingly utilitarian. Everything must be useful, and if it's not useful, then why pay good money for it? What does this spirit give us? Ugly churches. There is something very awe-inspiring, beautiful, and fear-inducing about cathedrals, a feel that is all but non-existent in an average utilitarian protestant mega-church.

As you might know, all cathedrals are built in a cross shape (I believe they are also built pointing towards Rome, but don't quote me on that one, because I'm getting old and my memory isn't what it used to be). Here's the front of the cathedral.

At this cathedral, the confessional rooms were on the far side of the left wing of the church. The confessional rooms are down the isle a ways and way off to the left in the below picture.

Here's a closer picture of some of the stain-glass windows in the walls from the above picture.

When our tour was over, the lady had to run off to some appointment, but the church was open, so our group stayed for a while just kind of wandering around. While the rest of the group was looking at the confessional rooms (which are out of sight in the above picture) I wandered up to the altar, which is the very back of the above picture. Here's a closer picture.

I stood for a moment and looked at the cross, facing the wall in the above picture, then I turned around, so that if I was in the picture I would be behind the white table looking in the direction of the camera. The altar is actually much much bigger than it appears in the picture, because I had to shrink down the picture to fit the blog space.

But I was on the altar area now, looking out into the looming space of the gigantic room, with majestically colored stain-glass windows dimly lighting the vaulted room. Far away from me on the distant back wall was an enormous stain-glass picture of Jesus. He is sitting on a throne with a scepter and a crown, shining with glory. The bright late-afternoon sun was almost directly behind the window, giving it a much brighter appearance than the rest of the walls. As I stood there in the heavy silence of the looming cathedral, visions of the Jesus of Revelations flashed into my mind. The Jesus that was so fearsome and glorious that John fell to the ground as if dead at the sight of him; the Jesus from which the very heavens and the earth will flee away from, but shall not find anyplace to go. Blaring trumpets and ear-splitting peals of thunder ringing out across the earth as the Son of the most High God descends from the clouds to gather to himself his elect. As I knelt on the altar with these images flashing through my minds eye, I was reminded of the sheer size and power of the Lord I serve; I was reminded of the terrifying majesty of the God I worship. I could feel the power of God resonating in the echoey quiet.

What is hell? Honestly, I have no idea. I do not propose to give an answer to this question, but only to share a few thoughts I have had of late.

Some people say that hell is the 'complete absence of God,' or 'separation from God.' They picture it as an earth with none of God's common grace; an earth left to eternal hurt and pain and suffering, nations warring, people killing, licentiousness, and all manner of depravity continuing with none of the before restraint from God. He essentially leaves the earth to itself and says, "I gave you your chance, you left it, so I'm leaving you to yourselves. You could have had me, but you chose to fight me."

This, it seems, is a means of reconciling the fact that God would sentence anyone to hell eternally with their conception of a loving and merciful God. It seems many people cannot understand how God could possibly condemn anyone to an eternal hell just for a 'little sin.' My friend, if you find it at all hard to believe that God could sentence anyone to an eternal hell, you have no conception of what sin is. If you had any idea how abominable and blasphemous the very least sin is to God, you would immediately recognize the fact that everyone is worthy of hell.

I feel, though, as if I am going off into a familiar rant, and digressing from what I set out to discuss. I have probably talked about sin over and again on this blog… how we're worthy of hell and how we're horrible and worthy of hell etc. etc. Please excuse my repetition in bringing it up so oft. The reason, I think, that I so often degenerate into shouting about this is because it is such a key concept in understanding God and his relations to humans. It is what the gospel revolves upon: sin and grace. If we have no understanding of what sin is, we have no understanding of what grace is. And thus it is vital that we realize what wretches we are, in order to understand just how boundless and incomprehensible God's grace is. It also, I believe, helps us greatly in the practical outworking of our faith, because it gives us a deeper insight into the character of God and of man. When we can see ourselves for what we truly are, it is much easier to reconcile a lot of questions we might have concerning justice and God 'allowing' certain things to happen.

But returning again to the subject at hand, what is hell? It does not seem to me that it could be the complete absence of God. The reasoning behind this is a little muddled and thick, so let me take it thought by thought.

First, we believe, as Christians, that God is the originating principle of everything in existence. We believe that it is by his power things exist, it is by his power that he upholds everything in existence in existence. If God were to ever cease to be, immediately everything created would cease to be, and we would be left with absolute nothingness. If ever God were to withdraw his upholding power from any area of existence, that area of existence would immediately cease to be and would turn into non-existence.

Perhaps you can see where I am going with this: if God were to withdraw himself fully from the world–note here the *FULLY*–it would immediately cease its existence. This brings us to a problem. If hell, then, is the absence of God, then hell is non-existence. But orthodox Christian faith has always said that the soul of man is immortal, and will never cease to exist. We have people who believe in annihilation, that is, that after the judgement God will completely destroy the wicked, and they shall cease to exist; but this has always been the exception to catholic doctrine.

Therefore, hell cannot be the complete absence of God, for the complete absence of God is non-existence.

What are we then left with? We are left with the concept of eternal punishment. This is seemingly what is taught by Jesus and preached by the apostles: eternal life or eternal damnation. What is hell? Hell is punishment for sin. Fire and brimstone have long been associated with hell, probably because they are oft mentioned in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

(Parenthetical note: if you didn't know this, brimstone refers to sulfur. When I was young, I had always thought brimstone was another name for fire–some weird old word or another. But it's actually an old word for sulfur. Thus we have a combination of both senses: horrible smell AND horrible pain. I think that interesting, though I don't know the significance of it).

Countless times does Jesus talk about how the good will be spared, but the wicked shall be thrown into the fire; the bad tree shall be hewn down and thrown into the fire; that if we say 'thou fool' we are in danger of hell fire. "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." What is this fire prepared for the devil and his angels? I don't know. I do know that the lake of fire is referenced a few times in Revelation. In reference to the final outcome of all things it is said that Satan, Death, Hades, the Dragon, the False Prophet, those that received the sign, and every non-Christian are thrown into a 'lake of fire burning with brimstone.'

Thus, it seems to me, that the 'absence' of God should not be emphasized in reference to hell.

"How can I paint the happiness of a marriage which the church ratifies, the oblation confirms, the benediction seals, angels announce, the Father declares valid. Even upon earth, indeed, sons do not legitimately marry without the consent of their fathers. What a union of two believers–one hope, one vow, one discipline, and one worship! They are brother and sister, two fellow-servants, one spirit and one flesh. Where there is one flesh, there is also one spirit. They pray together, fast together, instruct, exhort, and support each other. They go together to the church of God, and to the table of the Lord. They share each other's tribulation, persecution, and revival. Neither conceals anything from the other; neither avoids neither annoys the other. They delight to visit the sick, supply the needy, give alms without constraint, and in daily zeal lay their offerings before the altar without scruple or hindrance. They do not need to keep the sign of the cross hidden, nor to express slyly their Christian joy, nor to suppress the blessing. Psalms and hymns they sing together, and they vie with each other in singing to God. Christ rejoices when he sees and hears this. He gives them his peace. Where two are gathered together in his name, there is he; and where he is, there the evil one cannot come."

A quote from Tertullian (one of the church Fathers). What beautiful picture! It makes my heart flip, and my eyes wander off and de-focus. Who can argue the beauty of the union of two true believers? Indeed, what a wonderful thing.

Today, though, if you presented such a picture to a non-Christian and asked him if he saw any such marriages in any Christians he knew, he would either burst out incredulously laughing, or run away for fear the person asking was a lunatic. Let's face it, that picture is not a reality. Oh, it most certainly should be, but it most emphatically is not. I'm not going to go off telling married couples to get their acts together. What a flat-out hypocrite that would make me. I mean, how could I speak, not being married myself? I can contemplate and theorize, and I might think my theories and abstracts would work out well, but I would get laughed and criticized down if I tried to give advice to the married. So I shall refrain. Only meditate on the above picture Tertullian gives, and ask yourself if that would aptly describe you. I very much hope it does.

To me, marriage has a two-fold purpose. Firstly, it provides a training ground for sacrificial love. I don't mean the type of love that will jump in front of a bus for someone else; that type of love is easy. Anyone could sacrifice their life in an instant for another. The type of sacrificial love I'm talking about here is the day-to-day type. They type that puts the needs and comfort of others first. The type of love that doesn't complain about doing the dishes or mowing the lawn. The type of love that is always looking for a chance to make that cup of tea or coffee without asking. The type of love that never argues and doesn't care about being right. None of these things I've mentioned are confined to the husband or to the wife, either.

The second purpose of marriage that I can see is support and love. I heard a pastor say recently 'Men thrive on respect, women thrive on love.' It is so very true. Marriage fits these two together perfectly. The husband loves the wife and puts her above himself even when she is stubborn and disrespectful, while the wife loves and respects the husband, even when he is unjust or unloving. Sacrificial love again. But when two believers marry, they supplement eachother, giving the other what he or she needs: love to a woman, respect to a man. The beautiful thing is, when the man loves the wife more, the wife respects the husband more, which makes the husband love her more for her very self, which makes the wife respect the husband more for his very self, and on it goes. What a strong union this makes, what a bond indestructably strong, strengthened by God himself.

 My friends, too often, in our short-sightedness, we lose sight of the fact that we serve a just God. Sometimes when we are being treated unjustly, we cry out to God and ask how he could let such happen to us. Even more often, when we see innocent people suffering around us, we feel their pain in our hearts and we begin to question God's justice. We can't wrap our minds around the fact that God would let such wickedness and injustice pass before his very eyes. We begin to revel in our empathy for other people, and we lose sight of this very important fact: we serve a just God.

Yes, we weep with those who weep, yes, we mourn with them that mourn. We are not hard-hearted fools and hypocrites who say "Well, that's what you deserve." While it is true that we deserve all injustice, it is neither the time nor the place to assert that to someone who is hurting, or someone who is living with someone else who is going through injustice. What a cold heart must he have who can do such.

But my friends, have we lost sight of who our God is? What fools we are! Do we not believe in a just God? Just because we don't see those who carry out iniquity punished right before our eyes, does that mean God is unjust? God forbid! Brothers, know this: our God is just. Every deed sown on this earth shall one day reap it's just fruits. Every injustice perpetrated on this earth shall receive a just recompense.

We tend to ask this question, "God, how can you let innocent people suffer?" My friends, God can let innocent people suffer because those who inflict the suffering will be rewarded for their deeds! It is our duty as Christians to bear all injustice, all undeserved suffering and pain; and it is our job to comfort and weep with those who go through the same. But we must never question the justice of God. What foolishness this must be in his sight, when his servants deep in their hearts cannot conceive of how he can let injustice occur.

Just because we do not see those practicers of evil punished does not mean they will not one day be punished. It is not our duty to serve out justice. It is not our place to want to see God carry out justice. Far from it! It is merely our place to serve God in fear, to trust in his goodness, his abounding mercy, his justice. We only peacefully believe that our God is just, and we carry the *mercy* of God to other people. If it was our job to carry the *justice* of God to others, then I, for one, would not be a Christian. I am in need of mercy, not judgement. I tremble and rejoice in the fact that God is merciful, and I wish to carry that mercy to other perpetrators of injustice, for once I was as such.

But rest assured, brethren, that one day every man shall pay for the things he practiced on earth. One day every debt shall be payed, every injustice shall be rewarded. Those who accepted the bountiful mercies of God, and the payment of Jesus Christ, and lived out their lives in fear, trembling, service to God, purity of heart, innocence of manner: these shall reap eternal life in the resurrection. But be sure of this: all who carried out lives of wickedness shall pay every last penny of their debt. Those who were unjust on earth and those who carried on willfully in sin will reap the vengeance and fiery indignation of a just and holy God.

I have been reading Philip Schaff's 8 volume 'History of the Christian Church' for my Church history class. He is an absolutely tremendous author. I could sing his praise for a few paragraphs very easily, I'm sure, but let it suffice to say he is up among the best of Christian historians. There are many passages which I could quote, but for this post I will constrain myself to one. When I read this passage, it resonated deeply with my heart. My admiration for womankind has increased greatly over my Christian life of the past year (Monday was actually my anniversary).

I have come to realize something, in the short time I have been a Christian. We don't have any men any more. We have few enough people who care at all for spiritual things, and those few are the women. Girls who care something about spiritual matters you will find scattered here and there; women who are examples of what the true woman looks like, living and breathing in the flesh. Don't get me wrong, even this is a rare occurrence, but when you find it, it is gem shining forth brightly in our society.

The most godly of women, I think, will never be recognized and glorified by men or by the secular community. This, in my eyes, elevates them even further on the scale of other-worldiness. What joy must our Lord have when he sees the humble purity of heart and gentleness of his little daughters!

Now the full realization of a godly woman is all-to-wanting in our society. But I would come down so much more harshly on my side: the men. As I put it one time: "Despite the artillery fire of feminism upon Christian women of America, they continue to be the ones who are holding Christianity together. We men just goof off in their immaturity, laxity, and un-spirituality. Props to you guys." Even if the full realization of such is rare, there are many more numbers of Christian women who are seeking God to at least some extent than men who are seeking after God and his ways. Women seem to have more of a draw to God… perhaps it's because of the way culture has always so demeaned women.

The woman has always been a slave to man, she has always been trampled over and used to satisfy the insatiable lust of men, she has always been tyrannically ruled and abused and played. Even with all the woman's rights and feminism that is so rampant today, really it's just a facade. Our culture in no wise thinks of women in their proper place. Just look at pornography. The abominable filth polutes most homes throughout America in some form or another. Look at our movies, our music, our books. They do not treat women with respect; far from it. Our culture is still as far from elevating woman to her proper place than any culture has ever been.

But this is where Christianity comes in. There is yet hope to be found, there is still God to be striven for. This high wall of injustice and maltreatment only drives us closer to God and Christianity, the only solution to the problem. Perhaps this is the reason women seem to be more attracted to Christianity than men. Who knows? I don't.

But read this quote from Schaff. Props to you Christian women. Strive to shine so brightly that you cannot help but lead your poor, blind, immature, ignorant brothers closer to Christ. Your gentleness and humility is the strength and pride of man.

Henceforth we find woman no longer a slave of man and tool of lust, but the pride and joy of her husband, the fond mother training her children to virtue and godliness, the ornament and treasure of the family, the faithful sister, the zealous servant of the congregation in every work of Christian charity, the sister of mercy, the martyr with superhuman courage, the guardian angel of peace, the example of purity, humility, gentleness, patience, love, and fidelity unto death. Such women were unkown before. The heathen Libanius, the enthusiastic eulogist of old Grecian culture, pronounced an involuntary euology on Christianity when he exclaimed, as he looked at the mother of Chrysostom: "What women the Christians have!"