Aussie Rules season is upon us!

It's rare that I get to enjoy my favorite sport this early in the calendar year. The men haven't even begun their pre-season yet - that's still three weeks away. But this season marks the inaugural campaign of the AFLW, the women's version of the top professional Australian Football League.

And after a first weekend of games between the eight teams involved (eight of the eighteen mens' teams bid and won the right to have synergistic women's clubs alongside), everyone involved should be insanely pleased with the way the product was accepted by the public.

The best example was the first one, the opening game between longtime rivals Carlton and Collingwood on Friday night, AEDT. (They're currently eighteen hours ahead of us, so a 7:45 kickoff there was not only still daylight down under, where it's still summer, but translated to a 1:45 a.m. start time for those of me in the Mountain time zone here in the U.S. And yes, I set my alarm.)

The match was originally scheduled for a small, community venue that seats two thousand people, which gives a sense of what the AFL was expecting for interest in the product. The cost of attendance was free, with a possible small parking fee depending on where the field involved was located. With the build-up to the season approaching, it became evident that they might very well exceed that capacity, so they moved it to Ikon Park, which seats twenty thousand. Surely THAT would cover any eventuality.  

Whoops. Not quite.

It turns out that at eight p.m., the fire marshall demanded that the AFL close the gates, with an overflow attendance of 24,500 patrons inside and another few thousand outside, to whom AFL CEO Gillan McLaughlin had to go apologize for. (Personally, I don't see why - they'd already done everything they thought was necessary to accommodate the crowd!) Entrance to the AFLW games is free, and except for parking at sites where it's scarce, so is the parking.

The other three games this weekend were also sellouts in the six to fifteen thousand range, leaving the AFL with the pleasant problem of trying to move future games on the seven-week fixture to more appropriate sites. The quality of play was at least as good as I expected, and is reminiscent of watching women's college basketball: the intelligence of play was clearly there, the tactics were solid, but the athleticism wasn't as impressive as the men's game. The games are shorter, and the scores are lower, but none of the games were competitive: the scores were 46-11, 48-12, 44-12, and 25-10 (and that was close because of the horrid weather). If that stays the norm, it'll be as hard to stay involved as it is any other time you have a wide range of team quality. U Conn is on the verge of its 100th straight win, which makes for boring games, but the rest of women's teams are much more balanced.

As for the men, they start their preseason in three weeks. The season itself starts on March 23rd, with the finals series beginning in September. I'll post a season preview in mid-March, to try and get y'all intrigued, but most experts are expecting this year's Grand Final to be a rematch of last year's prelim final between the up-and-coming GWS Giants and the now-champion Western Bulldogs, a game that the Doggies won 89-83 in one of the best games of the year in Sydney. Other title contenders include Geelong, Adelaide, West Coast and Sydney,

Super Bowl 51, and Art

The Super Bowl is the most watched television show of the year in America every single year. It doesn't matter if it's Patriots/Falcons, or it was Jaguars/Buccaneers - the nation stops to watch the Super Bowl. 

Notice I didn't say stops to watch "the game", because that's not the major attraction for a large portion of society.

For football fans, even casual ones, we watch the game as the culmination of the NFL season, although it takes the edge off the game to me having the extra week in between the conference title games and the Big One. (I understand why you want to have the week in between; just whining about it from a fan's perspective.) To put the delay in perspective, the last meaningful game the NFL played was two days after the Inauguration - we had barely been introduced to the phrase "alternative facts" yet!

And when you have a polarizing or popular team in the game - and the Patriots are both - that's going to increase the fans' interest. Will Tom Brady become the only five-time champion QB? Will Belechick win another one? Will Roger Goodell have to present the MVP trophy to Deflategate-boy?When you add the excitement of a high-powered offense like Atlanta has, and the possible ascension of Matty Ice to the quarterback Parthenon with a title, then the hype for the game itself is palpable.

But for a large portion of the nation (and very slightly beyond - the NFL is truly 'national', still, unlike the other three major sports leagues which have teams in at least Toronto, Canada), the EVENT is more important than the GAME.

Luke Bryan singing the anthem (the over/under is two minutes fifteen seconds, if you're a betting person). Lady Gaga's halftime show (sometimes the halftime is bigger news than the game. We blame you, Janet.), all the amazing new camera tricks and gadgets the network of the year pulls out of its bag for its showcase (and with an indoor game, and being on Fox, expect more than normal on this front), and of course, don't forget that the POTUS always makes an interviewed appearance in the pre-game somewhere (somehow, I've a hunch that will be more newsmaking than normal).

And, of course, the commercials.

There was a study this year that suggests that 80% of Super Bowl advertisements fail to increase sales for the advertising company. Compared to the conference title games, for example, there's a 12% increase in viewership for a 20% markup in price (on average during the last decade or so - wish I'd cited my source when I read this!). That doesn't sound cost-effective, and some companies have come to that conclusion over the years themselves.

But others always seem to take their place - there's never a lack of advertisers for the game, even at five mil a slot. If you watch television, this is the ONLY time all year you're going to specifically watch for the advertisements, barring a special "stay tuned for a sneak preview of Disney's upcoming movie, Aladdin and Jasmine Are Arrested Flying Their Carpet Over Mr. Trump's Wall". If you want to make your mark in the culture today with an ad, this is where you have to do it, ever since Apple's 1984 Macintosh ad.

And every year, there are two or three that stick with us, at least for a while. Many more try and fail to capture the public's imagination, and that's as it should be. Art is always a risk - if it isn't, then it's not really art. And, believe it or don't, commercials like many of the SB ads are most definitely art. They make a statement (beyond 'buy our product'), they appeal to the senses, they are designed to challenge the viewer. Those are three of the most critical elements to determining what ART IS, and what IS ART.

Art should say something. You may not always like the message, or occasionally even get the message. But if it's really art, then it has to make you think at some level. Along with that is the idea that art should challenge the observer as well. It's one thing to say something benign, like "Chocolate is good," or "I like trains". Art should make you think about the message being given, and leave some of the work to you. It's the exact opposite of what a good journalist would do: if you're reading a news article, you want ALL the facts (and opinions, if appropriate) laid out in easily digestible form for the reader. That's the appeal of the USA Today/ Mashable school of layout - the easy on the eyes, straight forward modality that draws in those who find the New York Times a tough read. But art? Art as a rule leaves out key elements of the puzzle, forcing the observer to solve it (which they need to be able to do, or the artwork is a failure) and thereby become part of the artistic process themselves. If your observer never invests himself into your art, you've failed as an artist.

Critically, the difference between art and any other statement-making form is that art should be aesthetically stimulating. Notice I didn't say pleasing, although that's by far the norm. But cacophony has its place. Tension has its place. Jarring the sensibilities of the observer has its place. If it turns the observer off to your work, you've overdone it, but unlike every other method of communication, art must have an affect, not just an effect. 

Do Super Bowl commercials accomplish these three tasks? Are they "art"? Well, to be fair, many if not most of them don't strive for that particular goal. They're paid in the end to sell a product; if they can do so by other means, more power to them. But if you're ever going to see the artistic side of the advertising business, Sunday's the day you'll see it. There are awards shows for commercial makers, but we might well consider the Super Bowl after-analysis to be the "people's choice" of commercial awards: which ads will have you talking around the water cooler the next day? 

Of my children, four of them will be home with me watching the Super Bowl on and off. (The two oldest will be off making and selling food for the other viewers at their diverse food establishments.) My youngest son, the twelve-year old, will watch for the football game for the most part; the fifteen year old son will be interested in the musical performances, but he and his sisters will be the ones running into the room when commercials come on, rather than the usual tide going the opposite direction for most shows. 

As for the game itself, FOLLOWING FOOTBALL gives the Patriots a two point edge (Vegas has been hovering around three all week). I personally think Atlanta's the best option to face New England this year, as Dallas was a year or two away despite their record this year, and Green Bay had too many injuries to hold up against the Pats. Belechick's M.O. is to take away your best weapon on offense (to me, that's Julio Jones), but Atlanta has too many to take just one away and be completely effective on defense. On the other hand, the Falcons' defense (though improved throughout the season) can definitely be exploited by a smart offense and a good QB, and New England has both.

I expect a high-scoring game, and I expect Brady to Edelman to be the last and winning score of the game. New England will win its fifth title in the Brady/Belechick era by less than the final touchdown - less than seven points.

My greatest fear of the current political environment

I promise not to take sides in this essay, alright?

One of the worst side issues that's come out of the 2016 campaign - that is, it came to a head this past year, although it's been building for a decade or more - is the loss of civility and mutual respect that once permeated political discourse.

It was not always so, as Lin-Manuel Miranda writes.

Miranda went to great lengths to draw from historical evidence for his landmark musical Hamilton, basing the story and many of its details on Ron Chernow's award-winning biography of the man. The political debates he creates in the musical, while not word-for-word accurate (he was writing hip-hop lyrics, for Heaven's sake!), captured the general flavor of the discourse - and sometimes it was indeed as vehement as Alexander Hamilton's call to his own president John Adams (ahem), "Sit down, you fat m*****-f*****!" So, we had come a long way since then. In my childhood, it was the territory of gentlemen. (Alright, not entirely. But more so than before.)

But the reason President Obama was elected (in part) was his promise to work with both sides of Congress, something that had fallen away during the previous eight years. It turned out that the Republicans had no interest in working with him (and their retort would be, "because the Democrats had no interest in working with our President"), and the stalemate got worse. 

I heard an interview last year with President Bill Clinton, who served from 1993 to 2001. While he was victim of a particularly partisan witchhunt in retrospect (given the possible crimes since then), he argued that when he was in office, there was probably a center 20% or so that was the group that you could negotiate with in each situation - and now, that centrist group that refused to be blindly party-loyal was down to 5% or less. It made every issue into partisan politics, when it didn't have to be. President Carter says similar things in his most recent autobiography.

But even that isn't so much the issue. Now, it's the vehemence in the rhetoric that's jumped the shark. No longer are we debating the issues any more - now it seems to be the literal humanity of our opponents that we call into question. And the primary cause of this change is social media, where everyone can have their fifteen seconds of fame now, in posts or re-tweets. Wade into a comments section at your peril. That's where the people not intelligent enough to put together coherent positions on their own comment on everyone else's position, usually in misspelled and grammatically if not linguistically obscene fashion. 

And that tenor of conversation has leaked into the original discourse now - even the political leadership speaks in terms previously reserved for hellfire preachers warning of the eternal destination of sinners.One of Mr. Trump's great and sad discoveries in his first week of office (and for the life of me I cannot understand why he should be surprised by this, but apparently he is) is that vitriol comes with the office. His predecessors warned him about it - I know, because they did so very publicly. Half the populace will hate you no matter what you do. (If you're doing your job correctly; if not, it'll be MORE than half.) I can't imagine who would WANT the job as it stands now.


And that brings me back to my greatest fear. The people we would WANT to seek political office - not just the POTUS, but any office of consequence in this nation - are not going to want to have anything to do with politics, because even dipping your toes into that mess leaves a foul stench on you that is hard to erase. 

What Christian could in good conscience enter a political battle with an opponent willing to sling mud, unconcerned whether the mud has any basis in truth or even reality? I wouldn't - would you? And you don't have to be Christian to see that - anyone with any sense of privacy or decency would run from the field like Usain Bolt when the gun goes off. If you have the talent to make a living in other fields, knowing that the desire to actually help people no longer demands a career in political office but can be manifested a hundred different ways today, knowing that politics today is a career of bureaucratic stalemates and mudslinging, and knowing that (except for doing so corruptly) you cannot make as much money IN public service as you can outside of it?

Why would you even consider running for office?

It's very much like the sport of boxing today. Once, boxing was the sport of kings - the most honored man on the planet was the Heavyweight Champion of the World. But with the corruption that overwhelmed boxing, with the evidence of permanent physical damage that came to light (RIP, Muhammed Ali), and with the then-dwindling popularity of the sport, there was an abrupt shift in the men who sought a career in the Noble Art - mostly ghetto Hispanics, for whom this was the only way out of poverty. (By the way, I predict this is what you'll see in American football in twenty years without a drastic change in that sport as well.)

Who will pursue a career in politics henceforth? Only those who are ill-equipped for a life elsewhere...only the BS artists who realize they are quite capable of mudslinging and can do so without ethical qualms. That is the future we have to look forward to.

Or maybe we're already there.

As it was in the days of the Prophet Samuel, so shall it be today...

In the eleventh century before the birth of Christ on earth, the people of Israel had grown weary of being ruled by God. And they said so to God. 

They wanted a king, instead.

God knew this would be the case. Even before they came into the Promised Land, even before they were given the land at the hands of the Lord Almighty, leading them into battle to defeat the Canaanites and the other six tribes who occupied said land while they grew two million strong as slaves in Egypt. In the book of Deuteronomy (among other places), God through Moses told them when they decided they wanted a king, he was not to have too many wives, too many horses, or too many possessions. Not IF...WHEN.

(Imagine - a leader who had too many possessions! What kind of folly is that?)

And, sure enough, when Samuel was prophet of Israel, the people came to him and said they wanted a king. God reassured Samuel that it was Him being rejected, not Samuel, and chose a king for them, (This part of the tale is in First Samuel 8 through 10.) Now, Saul was a tall, handsome warrior of a man, and at first a man of God. But he failed both the Lord and the country with his petty battles that only he cared about. (Sad.) Then, the Lord had Samuel anoint David king, and while he was indeed "a man after God's own heart", he was guilty of adultery, murder to cover up that adultery, and whatever the term for bigamy is when you have children by six different women. Hexigamy? God forgave him often because he never forgot to repent of his sins (alright, he did need to be reminded that one time), but when those issues were exacerbated with his incredibly wise -yet- unbelievably foolish son Solomon (for whom we have to invent the word tri-centu-gamy, I guess), that was the end of the united nation of Israel until 2900 years later, in 1948, when End Times prophecy began to kick in and brought back a united Israel with a pure Hebrew out of almost nowhere. That subject's for another time.

So, when the people choose to elect a leader without God - and in Israel's case, that was only a relative term: God and His prophet Samuel still anointed each of the three kings the united kingdom of Israel had - the country soon found itself drifting farther and farther away from God's teaching. Even King Solomon, given by God "a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you," (1st Kings 3:12), wasn't smart enough to see the signs in his own life of disobedience - rather than one wife, he took 300, with another 700 concubines for good measure. Rather than use the great wealth granted him by God, he kept far too much of it for himself in direct contradiction of Deuteronomy. Rather than follow in God's teaching, he strayed far from it, as the writing of Ecclesiastes tells us. When his son tried to ascend to the throne, ten of the twelve tribes of Israel refused and balked, deserting Jerusalem and establishing their own kingdom, one which lasted less than three centuries before its own wicked ways brought God's judgment down on it. (Jerusalem lasted another hundred years, but it too fell to foreign powers by God's wrath, and Israel was destroyed. Only prophecy revived and reunited it, centuries later.)

➽

If you want to assume the position that the United States of America was blessed by God at all - and I challenge you to find me any Scripture which anoints any nation "across the sea" or some such phrase with His blessing. You won't find it - I would argue that the election of 2016 feels incredibly like Israel saying to God in 1050 BC, We don't need You any more. We want our own leader now. Evangelicals were so desperate to grasp onto any straw of a religious candidate that the majority of them backed a man who was the very antithesis of Christian: a serial liar, a serial adulterer, a narcissist, a dis-respecter of women, minorities, the poor, the downtrodden, the sojourner. But really, what were their alternatives? Most of them saw Mrs. Clinton as a godless liberal elitist, neither the Libertarian nor Green Party candidates expressed any positive statements on the Christian front, and even if you wanted to take a flyer on Evan McMullin, you were putting your eggs in an LDS basket that had scared them silly four years earlier. 


Christ and God were not represented in this election. 

And that's as He wanted it.

As I've said before, the cards played out FAR too conveniently to consider Mr. Trump's election a "fluke". For whatever reason, God wants Mr. Trump in office, and as the new POTUS demonstrated with a potential ban on refugees from Muslim countries that had nothing to do with terrorism, his policies are not those of Christ in any way, shape or form. 


So, why would God set up this particular 'king' over our nation? Hint - read the book of Samuel.

Whether you want to tag Mr. Trump as Saul, David, or Solomon, if you see an analogy (and God is nothing if not consistent and repetitious in His lessons), it's hard not to see the end coming soon for the United States of America. Beyond that, the question becomes, does the rest of the world go with us? (Translation: are we talking about an End Times scenario here?) Or is it merely the comeuppance of a nation that became far too enamored of its own importance, far too disobedient of the One True God, far too ignorant of the teaching of the Word? 


It's impossible to argue that we are currently a Christian nation, if indeed we ever truly were. Our national position on abortion, on adultery, on helping the poor, on the sanctity of marriage (not the rights of the individual seeking marriage, which is an entirely different issue), on warfare and any number of other topics damns us beyond our own national salvation, whatever your individual position may be.

But the eschatological evidence suggests that the world itself is not long from the Great Tribulation, and the pointlessness of smiting even the most powerful nation so close to the AntiChrist's appearance would seem to be in our favor. My own study of the facts in the world today compared to the signs in Scripture makes me place the beginning of the Great Tribulation (and the Rapture, since I'm a pre-millennalist) as coming within the next three years or so, give or take. I'm not about to tell the Lord Almighty how to run His World (and never forget, it IS His world, no matter what you see around you), but it would seem to be a lost lesson if we were to blow ourselves up, for example, right before the Rapture.


Unless, of course, our own self-annihilation was the cover for the Rapture. Hmmmm. There's an interesting thought that I really wish I hadn't thought of....

As an American, and as a Christian, I despise this.

When I think of banning those who desperately need our help, I think of two things which immediately discount it as an option. One is as an American, and one is as a Christian.

***As an American, I thought of our guiding principle of justice. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. I have seen judge after judge, lawyer after lawyer, layman after layman say that the most important element of the American system of justice is to error on the side of mercy. We convict ONLY when evidence mounts "BEYOND a reasonable DOUBT". "Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted." What does that say about convicting the entire Muslim nation, especially when the countries excluded from the ban are those countries which sent us the terrorists who HAVE killed Americans?

***As a Christian, I thought of the Lord's description of the Last Judgment ⇨ Matthew 25:31-46 at the end of the Olivet Discourse:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’

Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

I don't want to be the country the Lord finds guilty of the latter.

Immigration, refugees, and the Bible

It's been my policy to be non-political for the most part on this blog - the emphases of my writing is on Christ (with some sports and band teaching thrown in on the side), and Christ's teaching emphasizes that the TRUE government is God Almighty, not anything our secular minds can fabricate. God's laws supersede anything Mr. Trump, Mr. Obama, or any Congress can manufacture.

Having said that, it is and always will be my duty as a Christian writer to contribute my two cents to the conversation when something comes up that is a direct manifestation of OR a direct contradiction of the Lord's teaching, and disappointingly, the latter has come up this past week.

The Lord our God could not have said it in stronger terms - we are to treat the sojourners as our brothers. The nation of Israel, His people, were refugees themselves, escaping slavery in Egypt and BECAUSE of that heritage, God repeated over and over again, throughout the Torah, in Leviticus and Deuteronomy especially (that's where most of His commands and commandments are), that in the spirit of brotherhood, ALL sojourners who come your way are to be fed, respected, allowed to live within your tribe and nation, and so forth.

(If you're not fluent in the Bible, you may only remember the "Old Testament" God telling Israel to go and obliterate other tribes, other nations of people. If you read those sections in their entirety, you'll find that God often used Israel to send His Judgment on those other tribes, they should be wiped off the earth. In a similar manner, centuries later, God used Assyria and Babylon to punish Israel for its idol worship transgressions. But as for individuals who had not committed offense? Exactly the opposite - treat them like your brother.)

Ah! But that's the situation here, "Mr. Act II Ministries"! These refugees the President is banning from coming to America are terrorists!

Are they, though? 

Look at the list of countries banned:

• Iran.
• Iraq.
• Syria.
• Sudan.
• Libya.
• Yemen.
• Somalia.

Interestingly, the countries which were the home nations of the 9/11 terrorists, and from which the vast majority of those who have caused American deaths - Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, and the UAE - are NOT on the list. The seven countries banned have produced exactly ZERO American deaths through terrorism this century.

Why?

I hate to accuse the President of the United States of unethical behavior, but it's a fairly clear answer: not having divested himself from his businesses, it's in his personal interest to keep those four countries in the American loop so his businesses can continue to operate there. This is why we need to see his tax returns - to know where else he has monetary interests. Fortunately, we know some of his connections, because we know where Mr. Trump's businesses have involvement. His companies are not in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, or Somalia. They ARE in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, the UAE (and Russia. But that's a problem for another day).

Mr. Trump has made a point of defining himself as a Christian. So, let's see who it is Christ says is most important, by going to the most well-known section of His most famous speech: The Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:2-10)...

2And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

3“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

5“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

6“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

7“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

8“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

9“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

10“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

 
If those don't describe refugees in general, they don't describe anyone. 

Let's consider another proclamation of Christ's: Matthew 19:23-24 ⇨

23And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

By the way, before you go bashing the President for his (supposed) riches - we really have no idea if he really has any money, of course, as we've never seen his tax returns - think about who our Lord was really talking about. "Rich", in a global context, really means anyone who has a house with running water, toilets, and similar luxuries; a car to transport around in; and has the luxury of fast food and movies, for example. We are all that rich person who will struggle to enter heaven. 

Meanwhile, the refugees have nothing. Even if they had something back in their home country, they have nothing now.

Perhaps it is we who should be asking for their help getting into Heaven.

But our means into Heaven is through them. When you know your Bible, as our President does not (which he's demonstrated many times - recall the "Two Corinthians" episode at Liberty University?), you immediately think of the Last Judgment, recounted here from the ESV from Matthew 25:31-46 at the end of the Olivet Discourse:

31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.33And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,^f you did it to me.’

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

If we do not help the least of these, as the Statue of Liberty promises we will, we are dooming ourselves to eternal punishment.

A word from pastor Philip De Courcy

 I started listening to De Courcy on CSN simply because I loved his beautiful Irish lilt of an accent. But he has a very profound and fundamental view of Christianity that often resonates with me, even though he comes on at a time I can't often hear him. (Seven in the evening, locally.) I finally went to his website for the first time tonight (Know The Truth, which can be found at www.ktt.org.), and found this quote on his homepage, which I think is just about the best answer to someone who refuses to live for Christ because "His commands are so restrictive!"...

"Rabindranath Tagore, the son of the Maharishi, became a gifted composer and poet.  He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1913.  He said this … “I have on my table a violin string.  It is free.  I twist one end of it and it responds.  It is free.  But it is not free to do what a violin string is supposed to do – to produce music.  So I take it, fix it in my violin, and tighten it until it is taut.  Only then is it free to be a violin string.”  A life attached to Jesus Christ is the only life that can know true freedom.  We were made by God, for God, and life cannot be truly lived apart from the God who has made Himself known in the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ!"