Tag Archives: Featured

Wear the Name of the Lord Jesus!

Water baptism in the name of Jesus clothes a repentant candidate with Christ:

“…for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Galatians 3:27 NIV).

Biblically, the proper formula for Christian water baptism is to baptize in the name of the one who was crucified for us (I Corinthians 1:11-13)—that is in Jesus name, since Jesus is the one who was crucified for us. Biblically, we’re to be baptized in the name of the Son (Matthew 28:19), and the Son’s name is Jesus (Matthew 1:21). Biblically, we’re to be baptized while calling upon Jesus name (See Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, and Acts 22:16). Biblically, being baptized in Jesus name is the proper way to obey Matthew 28:19. Speaking of Matthew 28:19, some people are confused regarding what the name of the Father is, and what the name of the Holy Ghost is. But the scriptures give guidance:

What is the name of the Father? Since Jesus came in His Father’s name (John 5:43), and since the Father and Son (Jesus) are one (John 10:30), and since it was prophesied that the Lord’s name is to be one (Zechariah 14:9), and since the Son’s name is Jesus (Matthew 1:21), and since God the Father is glorified when we worship Jesus by bowing to Him and confessing Jesus Christ as Lord (Philippians 2:11), then we should recognize that by calling upon the name of Jesus we have access to God the Father, and that, for those of us alive in the New Covenant, Jesus is the person and name by which God the Father desires to be addressed and accessed.

What is the name of the Holy Ghost? The terms Spirit and Ghost are synonymous. The Bible says, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24). There is every reason to hold that all the prior points, about the name of the Father, should apply. But there is more. Since there is only one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), and since there is only one Lord (Ephesians 4:5), and since Jesus is the Lord (Philippians 2:11), and since the Word of the Lord says, “the Lord is that Spirit” (II Corinthians 3:17), and since, while He was describing the Holy Spirit’s arrival to dwell within believers, Jesus Christ said, “I will not leave you comfortless, I will come unto you” (John 14:18), then we should recognize that the Holy Spirit is “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27), and that Christ’s redemptive name for all New Covenant believers is Jesus.

Does this surprise? It should not. As believers who have the one Spirit dwelling in us, as long as we abide in the doctrine of Christ, we have both the Father and the Son (II John 1:9). The man Christ Jesus said Himself that the Holy Spirit would be sent in His name (John 14:26). His name is Jesus. The Spirit is sent in Jesus name. No name other than Jesus could possibly be rightly attributed to the Holy Spirit within New Covenant believers. Thus, the Bible says of Jesus name, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” {37} When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” {38} Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. {39} The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:36-39 NIV).

In the Bible, everyone who was baptized by any of the Lord’s apostles or disciples was baptized in Jesus name (see the Book of Acts and study the epistles).

Have you been baptized in Jesus name? If so, you are clothed with Christ. If not, you need to be baptized in Jesus name as soon as possible!


All United Pentecostal Churches baptize in Jesus name!
To find a UPCI near you, visit www.upci.org


Copyright information: Permission is granted to UPCI churches and/or Jesus-name people for use of this article, provided that credit is given and it is not edited without permission. All other rights reserved. This article previously appeared here.

 

West Virginians For Life interview with Pastor Doug Joseph, regarding “Angel of the Year” award + more

Dr. Wanda Franz presenting award to Pastor Doug Joseph, 2018-10-20
Dr. Wanda Franz, President of WV For Life, presenting award to Pastor Doug Joseph, 2018-10-20
Harrison County Chapter, Members, Residents, Friends, 2018-10-20
Harrison County Chapter, Members, Residents, Friends, 2018-10-20
2018-10-20 WVFL State Convention, Pastor Joseph received Angel of the Year award
2018-10-20 WVFL State Convention, Pastor Joseph received Angel of the Year award

October 20, 2018, Fairmont, WV — At the West Virginians For Life annual State Convention, I was presented WVFL’s “Angel of the Year” award. WVFL caught up with me later to ask me about that and more. Here are my brief answers from the interview:

WVFL: Thoughts on recent elections & passing of Amendment 1 in WV:

DJ: These [November 6, 2018] election night victories were more thrilling than I can express. So many endorsed pro-life candidates were elected/reelected and Amendment 1 (A1) was ratified! That was the single most exciting pro-life accomplishment for our state. It was bittersweet since pro-life Patrick Morrisey got so close, yet didn’t prevail.

WVFL: Thoughts on receiving Angel of the Year Award at WVFL State Convention: (Congratulations!)

DJ: I was blown away—totally didn’t see it coming! My wonderful wife, family, and others knew yet kept it secret. Considering our great pro-life heroes in WV, I am humbled to be selected. This is one of the most meaningful honors I’ve ever received. Thank you all!

WVFL: What are some pro-life activities your local WVFL Chapter and Church have been involved in since you were last interviewed in 2016?

DJ: Our amazing Harrison County chapter and awesome Christian Apostolic Church have partnered in Life Chain events, staffed festivals, and participated in Lit Drops. CAC hosted WVFL state board meetings and Morrisey’s launch of the pro-life coalition! Both chapter and church went all out for Amendment 1 and support of pro-life candidates. Members attended rallies, wrote letters to editors, did canvassing, made calls, created/shared videos & memes, aired radio spots, and paid for a huge billboard on I-79 for all of October, thanks to massive donations by members/friends. We cannot say enough about our chapter and church! You all are wonderful!

WVFL: Any parting words of wisdom, inspiration & encouragement?

DJ: WVFL is a wonderful organization of precious, selfless, dedicated people, and I am privileged to know you all and join you in laboring for life. Let’s fight on for more victories, until we see the sanctity of life honored in law and in the hearts of the citizenry! Each life saved makes it worth all effort and expense. God bless you!

Spent Shell – A tribute to Jack Wayne Murphy

(This tearful repost from December 31, 2009 first appeared elsewhere.)

Flower petals fluttered in the breeze on a brisk day in May. The time since has not dulled the memory of those moments. Taps rang out from a bugle in the hand of a tall Marine on a nearby hill. The melancholy notes uttered volumes as we laid to rest the body of Jack Wayne Murphy, my friend and brother in the Lord. An aged veteran recited dear words that added to the message of the bugler. A twenty-one gun salute wrote a holy ellipsis at the end of the book of a precious life.

While some may not immediately recognize the term ellipsis, we all know what one is. It’s the little dots that say there is more than what is seen on the page… On that pristine day, seven Marine rifles fired as one to mark the first dot. Again the solemn barrels shouted in unison, and finally a third and final shot pierced the sky. Twenty one spent shell casings lay fallen upon the flagstone and in the grass near the walk.

Someone thought to gather up the spent shells. I think one was placed into the diligently folded American flag that was carefully presented to the grieving widow. Others were given to the teary-eyed children and relatives. As the minister, one was bestowed upon me.

I weep as I hold the spent shell. That casing is a lot like the body that we deposited into the earth that day; it once held a bullet that was released into the sky. Likewise the buried body once held a man—a husband, a dad, a Marine, a Christian brother. The body once held a soul that has now been released into Heaven.

When I hold that spent shell, I remember how the body of Jack Murphy was ravaged by disease in the process of releasing his soul to God. Just as the expending of a bullet is not its end, so also death is not the end of a man. The spent shell is not the bullet. It is only a remainder, and a reminder, of where the bullet once was…

I wrote a novel that was dedicated to my departed friend. My dedication said,

For God’s finest Marine, Jack Murphy Sr, a precious soul who showed us all how to live for Jesus Christ in the midst of the worst adversities that this sin-cursed world can deal out to a mortal body. In a vision, yours was the very first heavenly face I ever saw. It was the single most beautiful sight I ever beheld. See you soon, friend. Semper Fi!

No! The federal government has no power to restrict so-called “military grade” weapons.

The following is an excellent piece of writing regarding the federal government’s supposed power to impose “reasonable restraint” on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This alleged power of limitation/restriction has now become a mantra of many. When I first saw the excerpt (below) today, it was unattributed. So, I went looking for the name of the author(s). It’s apparently excerpted from this book:

The Bill of Rights Does Not Grant You Any Constitutional Rights
By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth
Published in 2007 by Nitwit Press
https://amzn.to/2EsT8n5

Below is the excerpt, with which I could not agree more. Please see my additional comments below the excerpt.

Supporters of the Amendment claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents counter that even if that were the case, the federal government was granted the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.

When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the federal government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.

If the Second Amendment is read through the preamble, we find it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights as a “declaratory and restrictive clause” to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its power” to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
Another way to understand the original intent of the Second Amendment is re-write it through the preamble:

“Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear Arms.”

The preamble and original intent of the Amendments has been suppressed by the institutions of government because it would expose their usurpation of power and perversion of Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.

By advancing the myth that the Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the federal government has been able to convert enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The federal government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.

A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the federal government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the federal government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on federal power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the federal government possessed the authority to nullify them?

When the federal government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Federal Government. Our rights are given by God and are inalienable. Therefore, they can’t be limited or taken away.]

As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging that people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle that government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.

If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief that individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the federal government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on federal power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on federal power are being replaced by government decree.

Opponents of the Second Amendment always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendment by asserting that rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the federal government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows that the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.

To all the gun grabbers… You got that?

The only things I would add now are:

Given that mass-murder of US civilians by US government agents has happened numerous times already, even with the right to bear arms, it’s clear that law-abiding civilians should have access to the best weapons available to anyone (military or civilian). The primary function of our right is the ability to defend against government gone bad (i.e. not just hunting or sport shooting).

For those so clueless about history that you doubt this fact, here are just a few examples.

In 1993, US Attorney General Janet Reno ordered a brutal assault by federal agents on a religious group’s complex in Waco, Texas. The attack ended a 51-day siege that had started when an earlier raid had led to the deaths of six (6) Branch Davidians and four (4) federal agents. The governmental assault caused a massive fire that led to the horrific deaths of almost all the victims. Many innocent people, including defenseless children, became collateral damage. 

The Waco fiasco was caused by an earlier government assault at Ruby Ridge, when in 1992, agents killed a boy who was hunting with his dog and a government sniper shot an unarmed woman. This assault led to not only the Waco disaster, but also the Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building.

Other instances include the siege at Wounded Knee in 1973, and the bombing of the headquarters of another religious group, the Philadelphia-based black nationalist MOVE group, in 1985.

Furthermore, historical evidence indicates that in the understanding of the framers of the Constitution, the term “militia” was not a force composed of people “other than civilians” but rather it referred to all able-bodied civilians. “The people” and the “militia” are one and the same. The civilians in general are the people who are to be armed and ready to serve as a militia if needed. To be an effective militia, they would, of course, need to have been able to “keep and bear” so-called “military grade” weapons.

In defense of tithing

Ryan French, a fellow Apostolic minister, recently posted a wonderfully helpful article, “How to Hurt Your Pastor,” in which (among other things) he mentioned tithing. As you might imagine, someone started taking pot shots at tithing (in the comments), in obvious opposition. Both he and I responded in the comments, in defense of tithing. As Ryan explained his thoughts (in a reply to a comment) he defended tithing as a practice of faith for believers:

First, Abraham chose to tithe because he recognized that everything was God’s in the first place (Genesis 14:19). This is a common thread throughout the Bible… that God has entrusted us as stewards of his goods (…the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof).

Secondly, When Abraham and Jacob began tithing it was … before the Law of Moses had been instituted. This places tithing firmly in the category of timeless moral law. For example, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY is Old Testament law but it is timeless and moral and carries over into the New Testament (consider Genesis 28:20-22).

Thirdly, Leviticus 27:30-31 shows that the Israelites could either give 10% in produce or 12% IN CASH. When it came to livestock, a shepherd had to set aside every tenth for God. In other words, if they were going to give actual money God required 2% more than if they were going to give in produce or livestock. Beyond all of that, produce and livestock were considered currency in the same way that cash is considered currency today. People bartered with produce and livestock because it was often all they had.

Fourth, Numbers 18:21 establishes God’s precedent that tithing would be for the work of the ministry. God has always considered spiritual things to be worthy of full-time attention.

Fifth, over half of Jesus’ parables talk about money and yet Jesus never once mentioned the earth-shattering fact that tithing is obsolete. In fact, he did the opposite in Matthew 23:23… he rebukes the Pharisees for neglecting weightier things than tithing but then carefully tells them that they should in fact tithe. Another time, Jesus uses a poor widow giving her last penny to the temple as an object lesson for his disciples. Why didn’t he run to her and say you don’t have to do that anymore? Because the principles of tithes and offerings are timeless and moral in the kingdom of God.

Finally, the early apostolic Church, as far back as history records, understood that tithing is the means by which the Church provides for the work of the ministry. I suppose if we wanted to really be like the early New Testament saints we would need to sell everything and give it to the Church. Such was the custom in their zealousness.

Regarding Ryan’s fourth point (“Numbers 18:21 establishes God’s precedent that tithing would be for the work of the ministry. God has always considered spiritual things to be worthy of full-time attention”) I added:

The Apostle Paul specifically linked New Covenant support for gospel preachers to the “same manner” (the “same way”) the Old Testament priests were provided for, which of course referred to tithing and offerings. This is clear in 1 Corinthians 9, especially take note of vv. 13-14.

KJV: {13} Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? {14} Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

NIV: {13} Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? {14} In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

Notice the KJV wording “Even so…” (we ought to ask “how so?”) and/or the NIV wording “in the same way” (we should ask “the same way as what?”). The answer is clear: tithes and offerings.

The same way that provision was made for priests in the Old Testament is how it is to be done for full-time gospel ministers in the New Testament. Can a minister forego this right and not accept? Certainly, as Paul himself chose to do at some points. However, that does not permanently waive the right for that minister, nor remove or bar the practice for others.

1 Corinthians 9:14 directly links with Numbers 18:21, i.e. the New Testament gospel minister is connected to tithes the same way Old Testament priests were connected to tithes.

More thoughts of mine followed:

The most common errors of those who claim tithing was “Mosaic Law” and “done away with,” involve:

  • mistaking New Testament verses about emergency relief effort giving as a supposed substitute for tithing (a notion which cannot be supported, biblically),
  • and (the above then often leads to such) wrongfully thinking they know what is supposed to happen “instead of tithing” under the New Covenant,
  • and finally, missing/overlooking the significance of New Testament links to Old Testament mentions of tithing, forming a functional biblical model for people of faith.

Here are a few questions for anti-tithe people:

Since you are professed to not be against giving, but rather against basing one’s giving on a set percentage of increase (which is a biblically based model and enables important functions of the believer’s family life, such as budgeting / financial planning), then what biblical model for giving do you appeal to as a substitute for the biblical model of tithing?

Whatever biblical model you claim as a substitute for the biblical model of tithing, are you sure you have not simply mistaken emergency relief effort giving as something else that it was never intended to be?

Is your biblically-based model absent any set percentage, making forecasting and budgeting extremely difficult if not nearly impossible? Or are all percentages acceptable except such that are prominent in Scripture?

Do you accept that any believer is free to choose a percentage-based plan, and then free to choose any percentage of increase they wish as their basis for regular giving? Or are you just “put off” by the 10% figure and/or an old word for “tenth” (tithe, aka 1/10th)?

If you accept that a believer is free to choose a percentage-based plan for their giving, do you accept that the same believer can in faith derive from the Bible a long-standing example of 10% as support for their choice to use that percentage?

Given that preachers / pastors who view tithing as an act of faith then teach it as such (not a bondage or entrapment or burden) why vilify or criticize them for doing do?

A certain anti-tither responded with the following:

You would have tithe more than 10% according to the law. I believe it is 23%. You are debtor to do the whole law you if you are going to tithe that includes the Old Covenant sacrifices.

What follows was my reply:

  1. Many aspects of a faith-based life predate the Mosaic Law. This includes tithing.
  2. The word “tithe” literally means “tenth” as in 10%. One cannot have “one-tenth” magically become 23%. One could possibly owe a “convenience fee” on top of the tithe, or give an additional offering beyond the tithe, but a tithe (a tenth) cannot be anything other than one tenth. This is common sense.
  3. Because biblically-based tithing in based on increase, the frequency does not affect the percent. Tithing once a week versus once a month does not increase the percentage from 10% to 40%, because if the the increase stays the same, so the percentage stays the same. This also is common sense.

Finally, I asked:

What policy do you practice regarding giving? Does your policy have a biblical basis? If so, what is that basis?

Jeannette Corbitt Joseph – Homegoing Slideshow

Compiled and created by Pastor Doug Joseph, using photos supplied by family and friends. Shown at the viewing/visitation for Jeannette Corbitt Joseph’s Homegoing Celebration, Monday, April 3, 2017. She passed away Friday, March 31, at 81 years of age. View her obituary here.

Five [somethings] that cause [something]!

  1. Enough already with the “listy” titles: “Five behaviors that lead to early dementia,” or “Three foods that cause cancer,” or “Ten habits of highly effective leaders,” or “Seven policies that increase church giving,” or…
    .
    Back when I first read that popular blog post on “Eight ways to increase blog traffic” (or whatever it was actually titled), and it explained how people go for short, definitive lists that make everything sound simple, and how titles that hint at that kind of list really get the click traffic, I halfheartedly tried to get on board.
    .
    Over time, I even made some meager efforts to title some posts that way, but a quick scroll through my blog shows I was not consistent at it—yet I was never “against” it.
    .
    Still, come on! The “listy” titles have become so prolific and so annoying that I am now crying “uncle.” Enough. Please, bloggers and click-bait sites, get back to being creative with real titles.
    .
  2. And don’t even get me started on those other click bait titles such as “She was [something] until THIS happened!” Argh, ugh, and yuck. I have come to despise such things.
    .
  3. While I am at it, Christians and/or conservatives: can we please, for the love of all that is good and holy and decent, stop posting links to supposedly conservative articles that display, in the advertisements, “gratuitous cleavage” / wanton near nakedness and generally raunchy, nasty stuff?
    .
  4. And, Christians and/or conservatives: can we please stop linking (without any warning) to videos that contain seriously bad language? Yeah, that would be great.
    .
  5. Oh, boy. I seem to have compiled a definitive list of four items, yea five items if we count this last bit that doesn’t fit, but yet we could pretend it does. No, wait, the click-bait people do that too, whenever the 13th item in their list of 13 items is not a 13th item, but just a screen that says “you’ve reached the last item, so now click here.” Yeah, I guess I am now guilty, too.  (See what I did there?)    😉

So—whatever shall I title this post?

Hey, CNN, why the double standard regarding ISRAEL?

The folks at Honest Reporting nail it on this one. Or should I say, they nail CNN to the wall.

“An American led coalition is fighting Islamic State (ISIS) in its Iraqi stronghold of Mosul. This is very similar to Israel’s battles against the terror group Hamas. So why does CNN report on Israel so differently? Why the double standard?”

Shim Craimer’s musical serenity blessed me this morning

This morning in prayer, I broke down and wept, while considering all the threats against our kids these days, all the menacing possibilities we face, and how far short we fall in our efforts to protect and prepare our young ones. A comfort came in a calm assurance that the Holy Hand at work in our lives is more that able. Soon afterward, I stumbled upon this masterpiece by Jewish musician Shim Craimer.  It’s called “Forever More” — and I pray it blesses you as it did me.

Lyrics

The sun arrives so early yet
My eyes are wide awake
I’m thinking how the world
Is such a crazy place
But then a calm serenity
Takes over from the pain
I realize that nothing is in vain

Save me
Oh you heal me
Will you comfort me
Forever more

Lookin back through all the years
I’ve tried to understand
How everything life throws at you
Comes with a plan
You need to take a breath and find
How human one can be
Just look around at what you’ve got
And see

Save me
Oh you heal me
Will you comfort me
Forever more

The Day a Killer Sneaked Into Heaven

One day a killer sneaked into heaven.

How? By the mercy and grace of God, of course.

But why would a forgiven soul ever need to sneak in? Because a forgiven soul knows the forgiveness, knows their trespass which required it, and knows the price that was paid to grant it. The very last thing a forgiven soul would ever do is stroll into heaven like one who “owns the place”—like one who did not need mercy and grace to get there.

As I was saying, one day a killer sneaked into heaven.

Oh, the meetings with saints of ancient ages!  Samuel, the prophet, was so wise and so careful with his words! Mordecai was so inspiring with his faith and stories of determination! Peter and John and all the disciples of the Lord Jesus practically glowed. Maturity and wisdom emanated from them with such love. Yet the chance to meet King David was particularly welcomed. What a balm it was to meet a fellow killer, one who had likewise inflicted wrongful death, yet was granted mercy and grace, and through forgiveness managed to hobble along fairly successfully through the remainder of his earthly life, writing songs (psalms) and seeking to regain the place with God he once had and lost.

Then the killer encountered an unexpected class of people: Joyful souls of aborted babies. Millions upon millions of them played and laughed on a velvet verge of grassy meadows beneath solemn mountains and serene skies. There, playing among them, was the precious girl this person had killed, in a signally selfish yet “safe and legal” procedure.

The forgiven soul (the formerly selfish soul) longed to hold the girl, longed be with her. Just as that longing foot was lifted in the girl’s direction, a voice spoke up nearby.

“You can’t,” said the voice, with both authority and anguish melted together in love. “Not until you realize that she cannot know.”

“But…” the forgiven soul stammered.

“These little ones have been spared the agony of being unwanted. They don’t know. She has never known that her life on earth was extinguished.  She has never known that the precious gift of life—her intended life on earth—was once counted as less than convenience and culture and campaigning and coy sloganeering.  You may only approach her once you are committed to not infecting her with the agony of her having been unloved.”

“So, I cannot tell her who I am? This is hell then, not heaven! I’ve not yet been forgiven,” said the forlorn yet forgiven soul. “I somehow feared it couldn’t be true.”

“No,” said the voice. “If this were hell, you would be freely permitted to inflict all manner of suffering in her heart, and then suffer in your own heart over having made her suffer. She would eventually retaliate. It is because this is heaven and not hell that such a thing will not be permitted. Because this is heaven, you may go and be with her, but only as a stranger, at first, with no past. For her there is no past to be forgotten. The past you would seek to bring her is buried beneath The Blood, and unworthy of the bringing. Leave it behind, and then you may be with her.”

After a long pause (while considering all the ramifications with a clarity that was seldom possible back on earth) the forgiven soul finally asked, “Will there ever be a time, a thousand years from now, or a million—will there ever be a point when she might finally know and yet not suffer? Will there ever be a time when a billion years of me loving her would finally empower her to hear that painful past spoken without suffering over it?”

“If such a day were to ever come…” said the voice. “Yet on such a day, you would most likely have left that past buried for so long and be so far removed from it, that you will have lost all the want to drag it up from the depths of forgetting. You will most likely no longer wish to tell it.”

“I understand.”

“Then you may go to her.”


“Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof” (Proverbs 18:21 KJV).


A personal note from the author, Pastor Doug Joseph:

Today, January 17, 2016, is this year’s Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. During this annual event (on the third Sunday, the one nearest on the calendar to the anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision by the US Supreme Court), we set aside time to mourn the millions and millions of human babies lost via abortions, to pray for an end to abortion, and to reflect on and teach about the sanctity of human life, which, as a godly principle, goes deeper even than just the issue of abortion, affecting how we stand on everything from opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide, to advocating for compassionate love for children facing handicaps and for people facing various challenges and limitations. Being Pro-Life is about much more than opposing wrongful deaths. It is about loving life, and upholding the dignity of human life as a sacred gift from God. I hope you will join with me today in a generous donation to West Virginians For Life or your state’s affiliate of the National Right To Life Committee.