DEMONS WERE IN FASHION
THAT YEAR!

In YWAM in the mid 1980's Demonology was
all the rage. I had innocently signed up to do
a "DTS" residential course with the charismatic
missionary organisation "Youth with a
Mission". YWAM, pronounced 'why-wham', was
founded in the 1960's by an American called
Loren Cunningham in order to mobilise young
people into short term missionary work.

By way of preamble: If you feel that this article
is unduly critical of YWAM please bear in mind
that I will be posting another blog in Septem-
ber which will be more positive.

YWAM operates a course called a "Discipleship
Training School" which is the portal through
which people enter its work. DTSs have been
established all over the world and in 1985, aged
27 years, I went to the one at Holmsted Manor
in West Sussex in the UK. At the time I consid-
ered myself a Charismatic Christian. I had an
inflated view of my own importance and
wanted to develop my own "ministry" - a not
uncommon conceit among young men like
myself - and the DTS seemed like a good idea at
the time. And in God's providence it was a very
useful four months though not in the way I had
expected.

The church - or so it seems to me - goes
through phases; and various fads and fashions
sweep through from time to time and capture
the imagination.

Demonology was very much in fashion that
year in YWAM and no end of people's personal
difficulties were attributed to malevolent
spirits. Some individuals took to these sorts of
teachings with an unhealthy enthusiasm. The
biblical basis for much of their practice was at
best tenuous and usually what I would call
"derivative theology", that is founded upon
'extrapolations' based on their 'interpretation'
of their 'supposed' experiences in dealing with
troubled individuals together with some
wishful thinking.

I recall two of my contemporaries intently
discussing where "cat spirits" fall in the grand
scheme of things. (Apparently they are among
the most vindictive of demons - or so I was
reliably informed).

I am not denying the reality of malevolent
spirits in this blog, what I am denying is the
basis upon which they were given such
prominence. I believe there is a truly Biblical
spiritual warfare described in 1 Corinthians
10 that I am prepared to defend against
this "derivative" teaching which I believe
is 'dualistic' theology and barely (if that)
recognisable as 'Christian': the DTS implied
that the evil forces were, in effect, perfectly
balanced by the good and only we could tip
that balance! The effect on one such
officially recognised, "intercessor" was to
make her quite bitter about all those who
did not support her ministry fulsomely
enough; in her eyes only her constant,
possibly "obsessive", prayers were holding
back the demon hordes; (the "only I am left"
syndrome!)..... and she made it perfectly clear
that she thought that I was one of the
freeloaders. I don't believe she had singled
me out particularly for her ire, I think she
was merely doing the rounds. There was a
stark contrast between the image she projected
on the public platform to the one I experienced
in privacy!

The reality was that this poor woman was
being 'run ragged' by a theology which had
little room for Christ's victory at The Cross....
I am grateful that Satan has far more to fear
from those who are in Christ than we ever
have to fear from him! For her though it was
all about self effort and so it is no surprise that
that made her hard. The fact remains there
wasn't much 'grace' in evidence that year,
either doctrinally or relationally! And that
was the real spiritual battle that everyone
seemed oblivious to.

Demonology, aka "spiritual warfare", required
the identification of the controlling spirit in
order to directly confront it. A spirit may
control a geographical area, or a profession,
or a church, or an individual or a trait of an
individual. Some rather fanciful "research"
would be be done to this end, eg the city of
Coventry in England, was said to be a centre
of evil because of its connection with a witch's
coven - in reality the origin of the city's name
has an utterly innocent genesis. Anyway once
the demon could be named it could be defeated
by being ranted at or by endless singing, some-
times for hours into the night. But as those
who did the discerning also did the exorcism,
there was no objective way of knowing what
was actually being accomplished by the
exercise: "The spirit of unbelief has lifted
from China!" one intercessor declared.

Hmmm... My old dad used to say 'Don't ask a
barber if you need a haircut!'

The most troubling enthusiast was a mother
who was convinced her three year old
daughter's behavioural problems were due
to demonisation. I made it quite clear that I
thought this was nonsense. The fact is this
young child had been brought to a strange
country to live in this abnormal community
among people who spoke a strange language.
She needed to feel loved and secure I said.
I think most people took that to heart. But
some marked me down as not being one of
the cognoscenti.

On one occasion I was teamed up with a
young woman in order to approach likely
converts in Leicester Square in London to
tell them the Gospel. I think I made a reason-
able Gospel presentation about God creating
the world, how that we all have rejected
God's rule as something evil and made
gods of ourselves; God will not endure
this lie to stand forever but before He
judges the world he has set up a rescue
plan; God Himself came as a man and
graciously paid the penalty on The Cross
for all those who put their trust in Him -
and that man was Jesus. I made a call for
them to turn to Christ, which effectively
means turning around their lives and
living for God instead.

But the lady I was teamed up with
understood the Gospel to be about how
(and I quote) "everyone has demons which
mess up our lives and Jesus came to free us
from them". In her view everyone was a victim
and no-one was ultimately responsible for
their own actions - my jaw hit the floor!

Unsurprisingly she scored more "responses"
than I ever dreamed of! Until this point in
time I had naively assumed that all Christians
had the same view on sin, faith and redempt-
ion by Jesus. I had just discovered just how
naive I was. The worrying thing was how many
of these enthusiasts were keen to make a
"ministry" out of this and sought financial
support from their home churches to this end.
The reality was they had found a niche for
themselves and a "sprituality" which could
only ever exist in a greenhouse of a likeminded
community. The young woman I mentioned
"went on staff" permanently after our DTS.

The trouble is that in a charismatic hot house
like this what is wacky is by that very reason
presumed to be "spiritual"; the stranger the
better. During that time at Holmsted Manor
we had a preview of the "Toronto Blessing":
the phenomena made famous in the mid 1990s
by The Vineyard Church in Canada. The same
things happened on my DTS - "slaying in the
spirit", uncontrollable laughter, people
acting oddly like animals etc.

Too much was uncritically accepted as
originating with the Holy Spirit. Sometimes
people would have these seemingly remark-
able experiences and yet remain utterly
unchanged by them. I remember two guys in
our dorm having a stand up argument (and I
mean they were really having a go at each
other) about which of them had "the best"
testimony of how they got saved: each in turn
trumping the sins of the other in a catalogue
of misdemeanours. I didn't know whether to
laugh or cry!

The other fad that year was John Wimber's
book "Power Evangelism".The big idea was
that a dramatic healing will take a non-
believer from unbelief to faith in one fell
swoop without all that tedious evangelism
business. So naturally a number of my fellow
DTSers enthused about this short cut to faith
which dispensed with the need for any other
discussion. The thing is, even then, I knew
enough Bible to know that this was wrong
headed because of what Jesus himself said
in Luke 16 v31. What Jesus said is very stark
- the real miracle is that anyone comes to
faith at all!

I vividly recall one of the small group leaders
challenging me - he couldn't see how I
could reconcile being a Christian and being
a health care worker. I responded by saying
that "I am on the side of health!" To him
anything to do with healthcare was bound up
in unbelief! (In fairness I should add that
YWAM operate a couple of hospital ships, so
this leader was certainly talking out the back
of his head!)

Yet this whole 'super-spiritual' way of thinking
was being given way too much prominence -
I could see that, why couldn't anyone else?
And that was the problem; the flimsiest
"biblical" justification would be proffered for
these sorts of teachings. These fads offered
quick fix solutions - and they never worked....
not long term once the wishful thinking
faltered and reality kicked in again.

The thing I learnt most forcibly during
those months was how disastrous it is to
cut loose from the anchor of God's Word.
I sincerely hope that those people I met
that year have come to a better mind on
all these issues.

In case someone says I am merely being
cynical about these things; in my defence I
will respond that I did not quit my job and
leave my flat and take four months out of
my life and pay good money with the
sole intention of merely scoffing at it all
twenty years later! The fact is, at the time
I wanted to be part of what was going on.

It seemed to me that everyone else was
getting "blessed" but me. Others would
be crashing to the floor around me as some
ranter would lay hands on them - but the
ranters always passed me by. "They could
sense that the spirit had not come to rest
on me" one said. At the time I felt crushed
and rejected by God but now I'm glad it
passed me by. Whatever was going on that
time it was nothing to do with God -
Jesus is not capricious!

The reality is this; all Christians struggle
with the drawing power of the world, the flesh
and the devil and yet we feel that such a
struggle should be alien to anyone born again
of the Holy Spirit. Different churches and
groups will couch their ideal of 'the normal
christian life' in different ways and
(presumably) whichever suits the fad of the
time.

The most crass fad being the "gospel" of
'health and wealth'. But other groups will
stress the 'victory' of the believer in other
more subtle ways; the victory over all known
sin for example which spawned 'the holiness
movement'. Others stress the charismatic
gifts and "The Baptism of the Holy Spirit"
or even "The Baptism of the Shekinah Glory"
(don't ask). What they all have in common is
the unreality of the 'quick fix' - it is all
fantasyland "christianity". The Bible faithfully
describes the believers actual experience - one
of struggle to live out the life of the world to
come in this present age. There are no quick
fixes!

Check out the bookstall of any given church...
are the books self-help guides to a holier,
healthier, wealthier, spirit-filled, more
glorious, sanctified and fulfilled life?
The proliferation of these sorts of books is
testimony to their failure to deliver. These
books are selling a dream which the authors
callously know chimes with the desires of
believers to live a glorified life. The trouble
is that is not where we are at in "The Bible
Timeline" -we are in the fourth act of a five
part play and the reality of the fourth act is
struggle not ease. The glory we desire lies in
the future when Jesus finally comes to rescue
His people - only He can ultimately cleanse
us and restore us. We need to treat the
panacea merchants as shrewd students of
human nature and who know how to tell us
what we want to hear...and know how to
market it!

The true preacher tells us as it is - no fantasy
land - he tells us what we need to hear whether
we want it or not....and invariably it is an
unflattering message. God's function in life
is not to soothe our precious egos rather our
function in life is to rejoice in the sheer grace
of our Saviour God who rescues us from our
own self destructive hubris.The Christian life
starts by waking up to reality not by living in
fantasy.

After my stint on the DTS I returned home to
Yorkshire, but in 1987 I did revisit YWAM
to do another course - the "School of Biblical
Studies" (SBS) at The King's Lodge in
Warwickshire, England, and that experience
was of a totally different order as I will explain
in a few weeks time. I'll conclude for now by
saying that for a few months back then in the
Summer of 1985 I lived in the "church at
Corinth".

No, that's not fair, it would be better to say that
I realised how "Corinthian" we all are!

"CONDEMNED TO HELL
FOR NOT BELIEVING AN
IMPOSSIBILITY!"

I recently finished reading Robert Graves'
"Goodbye to All That" which is a biographical
account of his early life and his experiences as
an officer in the trenches of The First World
War. It is a great read. I am always intrigued
as a Christian when any writer alludes to their
own beliefs and, usually, why they come to
reject Jesus Christ.... literature invariably
values 'faith' as something to be lost as an
individual progresses towards maturity.

Robert Graves relates how his own religious
convictions wavered when Raymond, a school
friend, made the point that whoever asserted
that a belief in The Trinity was a prerequisite
to salvation "was asserting that a man must go
to Hell if he does not believe something that is,
by definition, impossible to understand."

Of course most such objections to the Gospel
are founded upon one conceit or another, and
this is no exception.

The assumption is this; "God has nothing on
me except that I don't believe in this theology!"
And the implication follows that God is an
unjust ogre who is in no position to judge me!
(It is no coincidence that this is exactly the
issue at the heart of Genesis 3. Plus ca change!)

If that is your position I have some good news
for you.... first up; no-one is going to be
condemned on a technicality. The bad news is
you are condemned already! That is what Jesus
said in John 3 v18; "...whoever does not believe
is condemned already..." (i.e. we do not start
this discussion as if we are innocents) which
can be paraphrased 'God didn't go to all the
trouble of sending his Son merely to point an
accusing finger...he came to help, to put the
world right again. Anyone who trusts in him
is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him
has long since been under the death sentence'.

It is a conceit to believe that we are innocents
in the hands of an unjust God - that is the
theology of Graves' friend isn't it? To claim that
we are faultless is to be mired in illusion and
self deceit; it is also to impute evil to God and
to condemn Him! That's Raymond's theology
isn't it? And we all have a theology.

Real maturity comes when we realise how
imperfect we are. In Psalm 32 David says
"Blessed is the man against whom the Lord
counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit is no
deceit". This does NOT mean that the believer
reaches some state of sinless perfection (as
some of my evangelical brethren think);
it means I have decided to cut out all the
fudging and to be totally honest with myself
- the reason I know that this is the correct
interpretation is because of verse five,
'Then I let it all out; I said "I'll make a clean
breast of my failures to God." I'm going to stop
kidding myself!'

I am a Christian because I am not the man I
pretend to be, or the man I should be nor am
I the man I fool myself that I am.

It is self evident that I need God himself
to help rescue me and that is exactly what He
did. God did not delegate the task to another
but He Himself came to do what no other
could. Jesus is God expressed in human form.
He would only do this out of love to rescue us
from ourselves.

I may not understand the Trinity either -
understanding the Godhead is not necessary;
but what is critical is to see our need for God's
rescue plan and to understand that this is
far from an impossibility... it is a downright
necessity. Jesus is the logic of history.

EVANGELICALS:
ELECT or ELITE?

The book "Father and Son" by Edmund
Gosse is an autobiographical account
of Gosse's relationship with his
evangelical father while growing up
in the mid nineteenth century. Some of
his observations and experiences resonate
with my own spiritual journey so it was a
fascinating and touching story. In many
respects his criticism of evangelicalism
(his parents were part of the Plymouth
Brethren) are ones I would endorse.
Gosse is right to point out the dehumanising
nature of religion when innocent pursuits
are arbitrarily counted as 'sinful'. And it
wasn't that Gosse's father was meaning to
be a dreadful ogre - his actions were meant
for the best - and that is the real issue isn't it?

What turns a reasonable, loving, caring father
into an ogre if it wasn't his evangelicalism?!

I believe that we can pinpoint the problem:
there is just a great a danger in living above
the line of God's Word as living below it!
(A crucial distinction between 'evangelicalism'
as a sociological phenomenon and the ideal
of the body of evangelical doctrine to which
all evangelicals ostensibly hold).

What does that distinction mean in practice?

The Pharisees of Jesus' day were orthodox,
upright people whose lives, in many respects,
were praiseworthy. The problem is in their
desire to remain unsullied by the world they
hedged themselves around with religious
requirements which God never asked for.

Not surprisingly they came to see themselves
as God's elite and that fed their spiritual pride.
Spiritual pride is an abomination to God.
They didn't just presume they were 'okay' -
they presume that they are better than okay!
Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, said
"Beware of practising your righteousness
before other people in order to be seen by
them..." Jesus challenges us with the question
'who are you trying to impress?' It is perfectly
possible to have orthodox beliefs but use
them in a self serving way - God says to
such people 'you sought the admiration of
your contemporaries.... and that is the only
reward you will get!'

It isn't wrong to seek to love and serve God
with all your heart - but it is possible to want
to do this in such a way as to be admired by
other people for it! And that poisons our
relationship with God. It is the comparing
which reveals the true state of our hearts.
Are we doing something solely to please God
or to compare ourselves favourably against
others?

'Others may be content to serve God to "X "
extent', we say, 'but I can do better'. Gosse's
father confused being "elect" with being "elite",
just as the Pharisees did, and as we continue
to do! Not surprisingly when life does not
follow the contours they had confidently
predicted - they felt some degree of grievance
against a God who had not come good on the
bargain they had foisted on Him; holding
God to account for promises He had never
made. God will not be so manipulated.


Their sense of grievance at the 'sacrifices' they
had made to no effect on a God impervious to
their demands is testimony to the nature of
the bargaining relationship they had with God
belying the evangelical doctrine they wore as
a badge of distinction!


It is not surprising that Jesus preferred the
company of prostitutes and swindlers because
they understood what the sheer grace of God
means: they had no spiritual pretensions, they
were 'elect' (that is, chosen by God to receive
His mercy) but they also knew they were not a
spiritual 'elite' - and that is the point every
true Christian needs to come to; where do you
really put your trust - in Christ's righteousness
alone or your own self righteouness?
There is no middle ground.

I should know because I was once full of it... my
spiritual credentials! Now I'm an evangelical:
elect but not "elite"!

The 144,000.

Central Focus Bible Studies follow the
academic year and last term we concluded
our look at the book of Revelation.This
coming term we will be studying "The Upper
Room Discourse" (John 14-17). We have an
introductory talk on Wednesday 25th April
starting at 8pm at St Andrew's in St Mary
Axe, next to "The Gherkin" in the City of
London. If you are in the vicinity why not
drop in?

But before we move on from Revelation
I have a couple of observations I would
like to pass on to blogworld.
I led our group's study on Revelation
chapter 7 when we considered the
significance of "The 144,000"!
Is this a literal number? Or is it a
metaphor? The Jehovah's Witnesses
have gotten into any number of
twists and turns over this, but so
too have some of my brethren. The
real mystery is why has it produced
such bafflement? Because the very
same passage includes clues about
how it should be understood!

First up; the list of names suggesting
"Israel", isn't as straight forward as it
looks - which any modest student of
the Bible already knows.

The key to understanding it as a
metaphor is that it "says" it is a
metaphor! John "hears" the number
'144,000' and their "Names" - but
when he sees he sees a countless
number from all tribes and nations!
All literalists are stuck at this point
[to them the passage simply describes
what "is"] they do not see the meaning
beyond.

"What does '144,000' mean?" I asked at
our Bible study. "It's the complete
number" someone said, " it's twelve
times twelve times one thousand -
the superlative complete number!"

"That is absolutely right!" I replied,
"but that is what the number IS,
the question is, what does the number
MEAN?"

Obviously my telepathy wasn't all it
could be as I was met with a pregnant
pause! "What do we mean by a
superlative complete number?" I went
on.

"Why is it 12,000 - 12,000 - 12,000 etc?
Why not 11,999?

Obviously the group was stumped so I
put in my answer - in all that countless
number no one is missing! Everyone who
is meant to be there, will be there! And
furthermore they will be there by name!
Not a single one will be missing!
THAT IS WHAT THE METAPHOR MEANS!

THE ANACHRONISTIC CALVINIST.

One of the issues which Christians debate among
themselves is the issue of 'free-will' versus
'pre-destination'. In essence the question is;
'what, if anything, do we contribute to our
own salvation?'

Once I was discussing this topic with a relative
who dismissed me as a "Calvinist".... as if that
alone was sufficient to clinch the argument from
his point of view! Upto that point in time I had
never actually read anything by John Calvin;
I'd heard of him but never read anything by him.
The opinions my relative had taken such exception
to were founded exclusively on Ephesians 2 despite
his assertion to the contrary. In any event; so what?
Being accused of having Calvinistic tendencies isn't
proof that my grasp of Ephesians 2 was wrong. And
quite why he thought I would alight on this 16th
century French protestant author and attribute
all authority to his words for no readily apparent
reason remains a mystery to me to this day.

That said I have no reason to suppose that I am
not a Calvinist - I can only assume that the man
was expounding the very thing I'd seen for myself
in Ephesians. For this reason I would describe
myself as an "Anachronistic Calvinist"! I drew
my theology from the Bible and later discovered
that a label was attributed to it. The fact that
the word "Calvinist" is used pejoratively is fine
by me; I am not ashamed of the New Testament
message about the sheer grace of God towards
sinners like me. And I understand why many
people detest such a message.... it is a challenge
to human pride.

Before I read Ephesians chapter two I had a
notion that salvation worked like this; Jesus has
contributed 99.99999999999999999999999999%
of what I need to be saved, I just need to add my
0.00000000000000000000000000000001%
to make it effective. As I read what Jesus and his
disciples taught I quickly realised that there was
a HUGE problem with this theory. It means that
Jesus actually saves no-one! For sure no-one is
saved without Him but all that he did at The Cross
is ineffectual - it saves nobody if we don't add
something to it to make it work. On this reckoning
Jesus saves everyone potentially but no one in
actuality. It is my 0.000000000000000000001%
which really provides the magic ingredient - it may
be small but it is that that makes all the difference
between being saved and not being saved. Do
you see the issue? Am I saved by the grace of
Jesus Christ alone, or is it a case of "Jesus plus
something else"? (Which inevitably degenerates
to "Something Else plus jesus!" especially when
human egos are involved). Remember that even
our faith is a gift of God" so that no-one can boast"
Eph 2 v9.

If my theory was right there is something intrinsic
to me which aids my salvation. I am somehow
intrinsically more loving, or more humble, or more
innately 'sprititual' than others; something within
me that makes me better than my neighbour.
Do you see the problem? Grace properly
understood means God's totally unmerited favour.
Even "my" faith is in reality God's gift! See Ephesians
2 v8. And that is good news!
Totally unmerited favour. Wow! Thank God!
Thank God my salvation isn't down to me -
not even 0.0000000000000000001% worth - if
it was I would be lost for sure! God alone is
glorified when we acknowledge the depth of his
amazing grace.

Speaking to another acquaintance about these
things, she said "but how can I be sure I'm saved
if it's all down to God?" [This injects uncertainty
she implied]. She went on to say "I know that I
will always be found faithful" [and on that basis she
can have assurance of salvation]. When I heard her
say this I could shudder for her - if she couldn't
see that she was relying on her self rather than
Christ I'm not sure I could explain it to her.

It is worth saying at this point that the phrase
"self righteous Christian" is a contradiction in
terms. An individual who has put their trust in
Jesus is claiming Christ's righteous in place of
their own because they realise their own
righteousness is "as filthy rags" to quote the
prophet Isaiah. You can trust in yourself and
your own merits or you can trust exclusively
in the merits of Jesus Christ when you stand
before God but you cannot do both. This is not
to say that some people don't want it both ways
and are prepared to give it a try! The question
ultimately is this: who or what exactlty are
you putting your trust in?

Paul writes in Philippians 3 that he considers all
the religious 'brownie points' he'd earned by
religious observances prior to his conversion
(yes, he was "religious" before he got converted
from it!) as 'rubbish' "that I may gain Christ and
be found in him, not having a righteouness of my
own..... but that which comes through faith in
Christ". ['Faith' in the 100% sense, not the
99.999999999999999999999999999% version].
This is the big difference between 'religion' (which
is about clocking up merit by means of religious
observances which is the natural default setting of
us humans - bearing in mind that even atheists
have their means of moral 'one-upmanship') and
The Gospel of Jesus which is about trust in him
and a positive rejection of all such self confidence
..... even if it is only 0.0000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000001%.

ps To this day I haven't yet read "Calvin's Institutes"
but then neither had the Apostle Paul - I guess that
makes him an "Anachronistic Calvinist" as well! Hmm....
Jesus too!

ALBERT EINSTEIN QUESTIONS
THE CHARACTER OF GOD.

April 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is:
"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurence,
including every human action, every human thought,
and every human feeling and aspiration is also His
work; how is it possible to think of holding men
responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such
an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and
rewards He would to a certain extent be passing
judgment on Himself. How can this be combined
with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to
Him?" Albert Einstein, "Out of My Later Years"
(New York: Philosophical Library, 1950) p27.

It seems to me that, Christians -who have actually
wrestled with these issues more than they are credited
with- can put the question more succinctly; "how do we
reconcile God's sovereignty with human responsibility?"

The obvious point to make is that Albert is confusing
being all powerful with being all initiating. That actually
isn't the Christian case, not even to a Calvinist like me!
It is certainly true that the scriptures never present God
as the victim of circumstance, but rather as someone
who works out his redemptive purposes irrespective of
events initiated by free agents. There is a redemptive
outcome to which God's actions drive. We see this with
Joseph, sold into slavery by his brothers. In Genesis
50v20 Joseph describes this act of betrayal as follows,
"you intended to harm me, but God intended it for good
to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of
many lives." We see this principle worked out supremely
in the cross of Christ; Peter on the day of Pentecost said
"this man was handed over to you by God's set purpose
and fore-knowledge; and you, with the help of wicked
men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross..."
Acts 2v23. And in so doing God did pass judgment on
himself, though not in the way Albert means. God is
never wrongfooted by evil, but rather he has set in
train - through the cross of Christ - a redemptive
purpose in human history.

No analogy is ever quite perfect but try this one for
size; when a chief fire fighter says "the fire is under
control" that officer is saying 'that fire is going
nowhere and it will be extinguished'. It may be that
the fire is quenched here and allowed to burn out
elsewhere, but it is being controlled, contained and
defeated. "Why not dynamite the building and destroy
the fire instantly" one might reply. The reason is because
there are people inside who need to be rescued first and
the motto of this fire department is 'the saving of many
lives'! God isn't ready yet to bring the house crashing
down but that does not mean he has made peace with
evil. Indeed this is an example of something God
cannot do. God cannot forebear evil indefinitely, not
because he is somehow constrained by evil but because
he is constrained by love.

Of course it is always possible to insult the fire officer as
an arrogant pompous ass who doesn't know what he
is doing. You might even have the gall to accuse him
of being the fire-starter - in which case, in fairness, one
would have to check what the fire has cost him personally
and in this instance it cost him dear. In the final analysis
there is only one issue: are you going to trust the fire
fighter or the fire?




Tagline, Calendar of Doom.