While enrapt in the progress of this mystery, I was suddenly jolted by a common misunderstanding of many relating to the need for conversion and what it means to be a Christian. St. Augustine of Canterbury may have been born an Anglican, but he could not be born a Christian. One may be born a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Presbyterian, a Baptist, a Roman Catholic, etc. However, Jesus Christ made very clear the necessity of a second birth when He said, “You must be born again” (John 3:7).

British mysteries have begun to have a strong attraction for me in recent years. Unlike many of our own mysteries, the British seem to rely on superb acting rather than splashy action to grip one’s attention. The authors of such mysteries, such as Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie, P. D. James, and Colin Dexter, are becoming familiar names to me. Perhaps their tales absorb one because the writers themselves are true scholars, products of Oxford or Cambridge. Consequently, their writings not only delight an inquisitive “whodunit” mind, they also satisfy a thirst for knowledge, wisdom, culture, and history. Their stories are so well researched.
“Murder in the Cathedral” appeared as a recent episode on Public Television. Colin Dexter’s Inspector Morse was investigating a series of murders which took place in a cathedral in Oxford. The first murder was committed while a ceremony to honor St. Augustine was taking place. Inspector Morse, whose main interests consist of classical music and a pint of beer, appeared ignorant of both doctrine and church history. His nickname while at the university was “Pagan” due to his distaste of all things religious. Because the ceremony itself offered a clue, he visited the Archdeacon of the Anglican Church to find out if there was a St. Augustine and who he was. The Archdeacon surprised him (and me) by responding, “Which St. Augustine?” He explained that there were two: St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Augustine of Canterbury. He further explained that St. Augustine of Hippo needed to be converted because of his sinful youth while St. Augustine of Canterbury did not need to be converted because he was “born” a Christian.
While enrapt in the progress of this mystery, I was suddenly jolted by a common misunderstanding of many relating to the need for conversion and what it means to be a Christian. St. Augustine of Canterbury may have been born an Anglican, but he could not be born a Christian. One may be born a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Presbyterian, a Baptist, a Roman Catholic, etc. However, Jesus Christ made very clear the necessity of a second birth when He said, “You must be born again” (John 3:7).
It is true that someone, such as Augustine of Canterbury, may be born into a covenant relationship to God by virtue of being born into a Christian family; but that child must one day make his or her own personal decision to trust Christ’s atonement for sin. There must be an active commitment to follow Christ and to give Him first place in one’s life. To “be born again” is to be born of the Spirit. To be born of the Spirit is to recognize one’s sinful nature and inability to cleanse oneself. There is a new recognition that only the blood of Christ shed on the cross of Calvary can make one clean and whole, forgive (as if one had never sinned), and put one in a right standing before God. This is part of “the mystery of godliness” mentioned in Paul’s first epistle to Timoth:
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:He who was revealed in the flesh,Was vindicated in the Spirit,Seen by angels,Proclaimed among the nations,Believed on in the world,Taken up in glory. (I Timothy 3:16)
It is hoped that the Archdeacon might merely have forgotten a very important event in the life of St. Augustine of Canterbury.
Inspector Morse went on to solve the mystery of “Murder in the Cathedral.” However, I fear he did not solve for himself personally, “the mystery of godliness” or change the status of his university days’ nickname.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the sequel to “Murder in the Cathedral” could be written entitled “Miracle in the Cathedral?” In the sequel, the inspector would solve this personal mystery as have so many down through the ages and universally in the world. Those of us who have come to understand this mystery in life have both the privilege and the responsibility to share with others the solution to “the mystery of godliness.” Whenever anyone is “born again” or “born from above,” a miracle takes place, whether in a cathedral, a church, or anywhere else!
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa. Originally published April 1989—The Centralian.
Related Posts:

Instead of the family of God requiring “an agreed-upon fiction to sustain itself,” it will act out an agreed-upon principle which is heaven given.  Reconciliation may be the most redemptive act we are at liberty to perform.  God has not been created for our needs, but Christians have been recreated for His pleasure.  Reconciliation pleases God.

A reviewer of a French movie wrote, “The family, like any other institution, requires agreed-upon fictions to sustain itself.”  I was struck by the fact that there might be more truth than fiction to that statement vis-à-vis the family of God.  We might wish that the world could view Christians as one big happy, loving family.  But if we are honest, we must recognize and acknowledge that we hardly imitate our heavenly father or His Son, Jesus Christ, in the area of reconciliation.
It is sad, but true, there are believers who won’t speak to other believers and are unwilling to resolve the problems between them in either a biblical or healthy manner.  Such cases exist in the same church or fellowship as well as in the same Christian circles.  Lest anyone not get the point, this is, unfortunately, true of evangelical Christians and organizations, including some who exercise spiritual leadership.  Besides appearing hypocritical to the world, such situations most certainly bring tears to our redeemer’s eyes and anger to our heavenly Father who has forgiven many more grievous sins and offenses than we could imagine possible.  As to reconciliation, Matthew, the Evangelist, aims his words well and hits the mark squarely.  He writes: “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and then remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar.  First go and be reconciled to your brother, then come and offer your gift.”  (Matthew 5:24) Reconciliation is a prerequisite for worship.  A few verses earlier, Matthew warns: “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.”  (Matthew 5: 22) What greater proof of anger can there be than a total shut down of communication?  It is obvious that Matthew is speaking of believers because he calls them “brothers” rather than neighbors.
Jerry Alpert of the Central Christian Counseling Center contributed an article to the April Centralian entitled: “Verbal Terminosis.”  In it he succinctly defines what can be termed the extreme opposite of reconciliation.  He defines “Verbal Terminosis” as “Termination of open and honest communication between spouses, parents and children, and friends.”  He also notes that “it is highly contagious and should be treated at first sign of infection.”  Perhaps the definition can be expanded to include Christians of any degree of affinity.
Some consider forgiveness to mean, “I won’t hold it against you or bring it up again, but I don’t want to see you again, or I won’t talk with you anymore.”  This is neither forgiveness nor reconciliation.  Forgiveness includes restoration of fellowship as existed previous to the breakdown in communication.  Isn’t that true of God’s forgiveness toward us?  Can it be any different in our relationships with one another?
When Matthew carefully chose the word “reconciled,” he picked a word that means “to renew friendship with one” in the original language.  When Christians obey God’s Word and become reconciled with one another, they prove to the world, as well as to one another, the power of the Gospel in their lives and model transparently God’s love to an incredulous, mocking world.  Reconciliation is what redemption is all about, and our willingness to be reconciled with others may well be one of the most trustworthy indicators of our own redemption in Jesus Christ and reconciliation with God the Father.
Let’s be careful not to grieve God’s Son or to anger our heavenly Father, inviting judgment on us by our unwillingness to be reconciled with one another.  May the world scratch its head as it ponders the power of the gospel lived out through believers and notes, “See how they love one another.”
Instead of the family of God requiring “an agreed-upon fiction to sustain itself,” it will act out an agreed-upon principle which is heaven given.  Reconciliation may be the most redemptive act we are at liberty to perform.  God has not been created for our needs, but Christians have been recreated for His pleasure.  Reconciliation pleases God. 
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.

Here we have an inkling of the great obstacle facing western Christianity. How clever the evil one is; he penetrates the political, sexual morality, and scientific realms in order to blind and enslave mankind. Sadly, the Church itself does not stand unscathed in this attack. Fortunately, there is power to the truth, “Greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world.” (I John 4: 4)

To any with the slightest interest in history, we have just passed through perhaps one of the most tumultuous history-making days of this century. To observe the dismantling of Communism (Marxist-Leninist style) around the world, almost without a shot being fired, is both awesome and baffling at the same time. To the amateur historian, it is either the most remarkable and miraculous event to take place or it is the greatest deception ever yet to be played out on the human race. Only time will reveal what is the truth behind this seemingly crumbling empire. What a comfort to know that God knows.
As our attention shifts from Eastern Europe to Communist China, Cuba, and Korea, we can only wonder what the future holds for these nations. More importantly, we should be certain as Christians to turn our eyes upon Jesus, trusting Him to forge ahead with His wonderful and merciful plan of redemption for all peoples in such days as these. If Communism is truly passing, the vacuum must be filled with something. Western civilization, with its permissive, pornographic, violent, drug-hallucinating societies, can only shudder at the possibilities.
True students of the Word of God and of prophecy know that the only light flashed on the future indicates ominous, evil days before the end comes and our Savior returns in glory. In all our wonder and elation, it behooves us to be wary, perhaps even trembling, as to what great evil crouches at the threshold of the future to rise next. If ever there were days when Christians should pray without ceasing, those days are now! Next to being a student of Scripture, being a student of history provides insights which both infidel and ignorant lack. The one reveals the will of God, and the other the will to power of various evil men.
Paul Johnson, an insightful and investigative British historian, offers perceptive clues as to from where modern history is coming to where it is advancing. He notes that “The nineteenth century saw the climax of the philosophy of personal responsibility—the notion that each of us is individually accountable for our actions—which was the joint heritage of Judeo-Christianity and the classical world.” According to him, “the impact of relativity was powerful because it coincided with the public reception of Freudianism. “Marx, Freud, Einstein – all conveyed the same message in the 1920s: the world was not what it seemed. . . Moreover, Marxist and Freudian analysis combined to under-mine, in their different ways, the highly developed sense of personal responsibility and of the duty towards a settled objectively true moral code, which was at the centre of nineteenth century European civilization.”
Here we have an inkling of the great obstacle facing western Christianity. How clever the evil one is; he penetrates the political, sexual morality, and scientific realms in order to blind and enslave mankind. Sadly, the Church itself does not stand unscathed in this attack. Fortunately, there is power to the truth, “Greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world.” (I John 4: 4)
Even as we gapingly watch the dismantling of Communism, we reside in the midst of the dismantling of the moral moorings of our own society and of the impact of Christianity on society. It has proceeded so cautiously that some of us are just now waking up to the fact that we are in hot water (boiling water at that)! Do any of us recoil with pain at the anti-Christian, anti-God environment in which we live? The only way the Church of Jesus Christ can advance in the hellish nightmare into which we have slipped in this century is to stand firm in our trust in God, to press on to holiness of life, and to proclaim release to those still in chains of bondage. Let us give heed to the words of Peter: “Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.” (I Peter 5: 8,9)
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa; this article originally appeared in October 1991 in her church newsletter.

Adding one, simple, single letter to the word race powerfully changes it to what our relationships as churches to other churches and believers to all believers ought to be, and to what Christianity offers that is not present in culture or society.  That word–—get ready for it, Christians–—that word is Grace.  Who would have thought that adding the letter “G” (“g”) to race would powerfully change it to what God intended for us all?

Our alphabet contains 26 simple letters.  We don’t generally consider one letter carrying more power than any other letter.  Yet one individual, simple letter can radically or even powerfully change a string of letters making up a word.  For instance, adding the letter “A” (“a”) to some words alters them from one meaning to the very opposite. Adding the letter “a” to either, that is, atheism and asexual, radically change them from belief in god and sexual to “no god” and “nonsexual,” both the very opposite of their meanings minus the added one-letter prefix.
Such a change is radical, but not necessarily powerful.  But this article is not about the alphabet, letters, or prefixes.  It’s about an issue dividing our country and society as well as perhaps not a few Christians.  That issue is race.
Despite Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. emphasizing judging “content of character” over “color of skin,” it appears the latter for many is winning out over “content of character.” That measure is applied in diverse racial directions. And there is a growing profusion of racism accusations.  There also appear a growing number of race-related hoaxes.  Political candidates and parties are accused of racism, athletic coaches are accused of racism, comedians are accused of racism, and TV newscasters are accused of racism.  When it comes to the Church and Christians, both denominations and individuals have also been accused of racism.
This is not to deny that racism exists or that some of the above are indeed guilty of racist remarks, racist practices, or racist attitudes.  Yet to deny improvements that have taken place or accomplished is to deny facts and truths.  The exponential upsurge in inter-racial marriages and relationships and the growing population of bi-racial or multi-racial children represent a decrease in racism or racist relationships. There are other positive indicators such as the growth of racial diversity of local and national political leaders.
When it comes to the Church and Christians, perhaps it is helpful to remember both historically and culturally, people tend to go where they are comfortable with people who resemble them physically and culturally.  During great immigration influxes from Europe, there were many churches based on ethnicity, such as German, Polish, Italian, churches.  Today in St. Louis where I live, there are Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, African American, and basically white-based churches.  I say the latter because European differentiation has greatly faded over the years.  This is just to suggest cultural comfort and not racism is/was the basis for ethnic churches.  No race is  monolithic; all tend to break down by ethnicity
Sitting recently in a pew and my pastor preaching on grace, the idea and concept for this article came to me.  No, I wasn’t ignoring him; his emphasis came to bear on an issue causing undue concern for many Christians and churches–—a concern contributing to a measure of division where division should not exist.   The issue of race–—even among believers–—is robbing many of something so much greater than our racial physical or cultural differences.  This is the thought that came during that powerful sermon: Adding one, simple, single letter to the word race powerfully changes it to what our relationships as churches to other churches and believers to all believers ought to be, and to what Christianity offers that is not present in culture or society.   That word–—get ready for it, Christians–—that word is Grace.  Who would have thought that adding the letter “G” (“g”) to race would powerfully change it to what God intended for us all? 
As Christians who believe God’s divine revelation, we know we are all under and guilty of sin.  The sin of racism is just one of those universal sins that affect all people and all races.  It should not be allowed, condoned, or practiced by any Christian or church.  And just as it and any sin are universal, God’s gift of grace to us is also universal–—available to all believers regardless of race.  Does that not impel and urge us to show such non-partial, non-racial grace to one another as well?  God, the Holy Spirit–—when not quenched–—gifts this issue of race with one humble letter, “G” (“g”) enabling us to love and accept impartially every believer regardless of race.  When we apply grace to one another, we focus on what we have in common, how God through Christ has transformed us all, and we can’t and don’t accuse whole races of people for the sins that some practice or perceived attitudes that some possess.  In other words, we refuse and resist to stereotype any race or people–—especially members of God’s and our family.
Let’s thank God for a simple, individual letter that added to a word that today causes havoc by some is transformed into a gift we give one another.
“As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the multifaceted grace of God” (1 Peter 4: 10).
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.

Why shepherds have a challenging and difficult task today: When it comes to racial division in the church, the culprit is today’s social justice agenda, and immoral sexual identity or tolerance relates to the LGBTQ activism and agenda.  The former is not biblical justice, and the latter is not biblical morality.  Racially, we are called to be one in Christ.  Sexually, we are only physically male and female in Christ–—not emotions or immoral desires.

Shepherds, that is ministers, priests, and other church leaders, have a most challenging and difficult responsibility–—especially today.  You may ask why or even articulate a Hmm! Throughout church history, it has not been easy.  There have been challenges resulting from false teachings, heresies, apostasies, moral scandals, and persecutions.  However, it may be questioned how can it be more challenging or difficult today?  Hopefully and eventually, I hope to be capable of shedding light on the why.
First, the flock and shepherds themselves need reminding of what shepherds are tasked to do and how they genuinely fulfill their obligation to the sheep.  Wouldn’t it be helpful to go to a sheep farm to observe what they do or to even go back in time in order to understand the biblical definition and description of shepherding?  Basically, shepherds were responsible to both feed the sheep by leading them to green pastures and to protect the sheep by anticipating dangers such as predators, rocky cliffs and dense bushes in which they could become entangled.
Personally, I’ve wanted to visit a sheep ranch to learn how differently ewes and rams are treated, as a constant conflict exists throughout church history and today as to the roles of men and women in the church.  I once thought of writing a book or essay entitled “Ewes in Rams’ Land.”  I hope this brings a smile on both men’s and women’s faces!  I’ll leave you to guess in what direction that would go; and you might be surprised!
Back to the shepherds and their task(s); feeding and protecting the sheep appear to be equal in importance for the sheep.  In many churches, expository preaching–— preaching through an entire book of the Bible–—is considered the summa cum laude preaching method, so much so it can even become an idol for some.  In other churches, topical preaching is the favored choice, while yet in others short, pithy homilies are de rigeuer.
Each perhaps has its strengths and weaknesses.  Certainly, expository preaching feeds; but does it protect when specific threats arise?  Topical preaching may do a better job of protecting, but does it promote nurturing feeding?  Not as familiar with short homilies, I’m incapable of distinguishing clearly which is stressed or if neither are.
Today’s shepherds do well to recognize their sheep–—like those grazing in a meadow–—are seriously in need of lush pastures for feeding and anticipatory protection from predators, falling down rocky cliffs or becoming entangled in thick bushes.  Both are equal responsibilities for shepherds who love and care for their Master and His sheep.  In other words, feeding and protecting the sheep are fulfilled by shepherds who are genuinely committed and loyal to their Master/Owner of the sheep.
The sheep will never flourish or thrive without feeding from “the whole counsel of God.” They also will not persevere if they are not protected from false ideologies and teachings or moral scandals.  They require clear focus on what the dangers are.  Someone else has written that sheep have poor eyesight but have a keen sense of hearing; are timid and nervous–—defenseless against predators; tend to huddle together and go where one sheep goes.  In other words, they are fragile and self-defenseless.
Today, just as throughout the Church’s history, Christians and the church are speedily assaulted with one deceptive ideology after another.  It’s not the time to ignore or be silent in face of such assaults.  This may be the weakness of expository preaching, that is, it doesn’t take a rest from feeding to protect the sheep.  The sheep need to be made aware of what ideologies are false and why from diverse biblical passages.  That requires topical preaching.  It also requires sensitivity to the Holy Spirit’s urging to focus on protecting the sheep.  Shepherds do well to remember there are also new lambs in the flock.  It‘s not enough for church leaders only to be aware or to be engaged in fighting infiltration of racial divisions and embracing sexually immoral identities or tolerance.  These are just two of the most aggressive false ideologies infiltrating the Church currently–—all three branches–—and particularly Evangelical and Reformed Faith churches and denominations.
I expressed hope to shed light on why shepherds have a challenging and difficult task today. When it comes to racial division in the church, the culprit is today’s social justice agenda, and immoral sexual identity or tolerance relates to the LGBTQ activism and agenda.  The former is not biblical justice, and the latter is not biblical morality.  Racially, we are called to be one in Christ.  Sexually, we are only physically male and female in Christ–—not emotions or immoral desires.
Shepherds (clerical and laity), continue to feed the sheep, but please–—really please–—protect your flock as well.  Don’t ignore or be silent to the dangers your Master’s sheep face.  They need you to do both tasks.
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder andwitness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glorythat is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you,exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, accordingto the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness . . . (1 Peter 5: 2)
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.

Christians ever identified themselves by inner desires?  Don’t we all experience a multitude of desires we deal with besides sexual ones?  As a single female Christian, it never occurred to me to identify myself related to any sexual desires.  I am not alone.  Among Christians, there are life-long single men and women, widowed men and women, divorced men and women, who have obeyed God’s commandments while remaining celibate during periods of their lives.  Furthermore, they never identified themselves by any desires they experienced during those same periods of their lives.

Dear Dr. Johnson:
I read your USA Today article, “I’m a gay, celibate pastor of a conservative church.”  Here’s a trick for de-scalation.”  My first thought was why would a Christian–—and a pastor at that–—take an issue controversially engaged and involving believers of a specific church and denomination out to the world–—a world that generally mocks Christianity and Christians? A second thought came immediately–— that this is not “de-escalation,” is it?  If anything, it’s a bold escalation bringing an unbelieving world into the church’s business.
Perhaps it’s time someone other than a married man or woman address you due to our mutually-deprived lives in accordance with God’s righteous laws–—deprived but not unfulfilled or unfruitful.  To begin with, you state you’ve been investigated by church authorities . . . because of your sexual orientation.”  As this issue is long-standing and quite public, you appear to miss the focus, that is, your promotion of “gay Christian identity” more so than your inner conflict.  You appear to insist on identifying yourself by desires.  Since when in Christianity’s history have Christians ever identified themselves by inner desires?  Don’t we all experience a multitude of desires we deal with besides sexual ones?  As a single female Christian at 80 years of age, it never occurred to me to identify myself related to any sexual desires.  I am not alone.  Among Christians, there are life-long single men and women, widowed men and women, divorced men and women, who have obeyed God’s commandments while remaining celibate during periods of their lives.  Furthermore, they never identified themselves by any desires they experienced during those same periods of their lives.
Specifically, why would any believer choose to self-identify oneself with a biblically-communicated deviant desire?  Both Plato and Aquinas taught: “It is sexual vice, among all vices, that has the greatest tendency to destroy rationality.  Sexual desire can seriously cloud the intellect even in the best of circumstances, but when its objects are contra naturam, indulgence makes the very idea of an objective, natural order of things hateful.”
Further on in the article, you confess: “I’ve found myself at times curled up in a ball on my office floor weeping.”  You do not define or describe exactly on what basis you wept.  Was it because you struggle with your desires?  Was it because you feel persecuted?  Was it perhaps a combination of both?  What it reveals is that you weren’t “gay.”  You were, in fact, “miserable.”  I haven’t curled up in a ball, but I know what it is to weep before the Lord.  They were times of recognizing sinfulness in diverse areas of my life and God’s many, many mercies and acts of grace in my life for which I knew I didn’t deserve.  We all need to humbly weep over any sinful desires, e.g., lust for power, lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life, and more.
Now permit me to specifically address your insistence on identifying yourself as “gay.”  The word “gay” is essentially a euphemism, isn’t it?  It’s “a mild or pleasant word used instead of one that is unpleasant or offensive,” according to the dictionary.  In other words, it’s a cover-up word.  It’s used instead of “deviancy,” “homosexual,” “lesbian,” or even “sodomite.”  It softens something that is biblically very offensive to God.  I can’t remember anyone being willing to call himself/herself a “deviant Christian,” a “homosexual Christian,” a “lesbian Christian,” or “a sodomite Christian.”  Would you be more honest to use any one of the genuine words for what you are claiming?  If you chose the actual word for the sin and sinful temptation you struggle with, would you choose to so identify yourself then as such a believer first, and secondly as a minister of the Gospel? Those terms sound terrible, don’t they?  Well, truth reveals the awfulness of sin and temptation.
I’m sorry if someone or others have hurt you unkindly and unnecessarily.  Many of us have been hurt by fellow believers.  At the same time, we have to do some soul-searching in order to ensure we did not do or say anything that deserved honest, loving, rebuke.  As a pastor, you must be aware that there are many diverse sexually immoral desires even believers struggle against.  So far, none of those are employed to identify one’s Christian faith.  Do you really want that door opened?  If alleged “gay” Christians insist on being so identified, wouldn’t the rest of us feel the need to identify ourselves otherwise?  Do Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican priests need to outwardly identify their sexuality?  Wouldn’t that become a quagmire for the church?
For millennia, there have been single or bachelor pastors/priests.  It did not provoke unwarranted curiosity.  Hopefully, the majority practiced celibacy, not as a sacrifice but as an act of obedience and love for God’s holy law.  The same is true for non-clerical men and women who devoted themselves to God’s holy and righteous moral standards.
Back to bringing the world into this ecclesiastical issue:  Wasn’t it unwise to do so?  Would the Holy Spirit lead you to put fellow believers and your fellow elders into a position to be further mocked and scorned by the world?  Was love the driving force or a desire for affirmation and sympathy by the many unbelieving “gays” and others who will take your article and run with it to hurt Christians who humbly seek to follow God’s commands?
A shepherd’s vocation is to protect the sheep—not to expose them to danger or derision.  It’s not too late for you to rethink and relinquish identifying your faith by an immoral and sinful desire.
I’m just a single Christian woman who has lived a long life accepting all the limitations and proscriptions our most compassionate God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—communicated to the unmarried knowing they represent His love.  But I’ve never felt any need to identify my faith by any desires, especially any morally sinful desires.
Sincerely in Christ,Helen Louise Herndon
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.

I have found crying before God–—whether in confession or simply out of joy and thanksgiving because of his graciousness and mercies over a long period of time–—is salutary.  It ends with a sense of genuine peace with God.  God deserves our sincere humility before him. A thought came to me that perhaps the Holy Spirit is preparing my conscience and spirit for that time when I will personally bow before him in the life to come and perhaps sooner than later.

When was the last time you found yourself crying before God?  I can’t remember anyone sharing with me or others that they cry before God.  There was a time when the same could be said about me, that is, crying before God was not an event I experienced regularly or even rarely.
This is not about crying before God in pleading for something or something to happen.  It’s not even about crying before God in confession of sin.  This is about crying before God in humility and thanksgiving for his many mercies in your life.
I was reading Psalm 86 when I found myself shedding tears before God in awe and gratefulness for his great mercies in my life over the years.  At this juncture in time, I have to recognize I’ve been granted a long life.  In Psalm 90: 10, the Psalmist says: “As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years, or if due to strength, eighty years, yet their pride is only trouble and tragedy; for it quickly passes, and we disappear.”  Well, I recently passed not just that first number–—but lo and behold, even that second number!
This life has suffered many broken bones, near-death experiences, such as riding a moped and striking a car that turned in front of me, being lifted off the bike into the air and soaring freely over the car to just missing a curb.  It happened in Montpellier, France returning home from class at the university.  My very first thought was in French, “Ça y est” (This is it!).  My immediate second thought and prayer were in English, “I commit my spirit to you, O Lord.”  Soaring in the air, I thought I would die.  Besides many broken bones and near-death misses, my life has consisted of not a few disappointments and many failures on my part.
As I look back on life, I’m reminded of many happy, positive moments, relationships, and experiences.  I’m not a pessimist or an optimist.  I tend to be a realist, which accounts for my seeing both failures and progress in my growth as a believer and follower of Jesus Christ.
I find myself acknowledging much of what David acknowledged in his life.  I never imagined one day I would confess, as David did, that my “iniquities are more than the hairs of my head.” (Psalm 40: 12) And my head is quite full of hair.  One recent morning, I was reading Psalm 86, a prayer of David.  As I read through this beautiful prayer, I found myself first tearing up and then practically sobbing.  It wasn’t a painful sobbing, but rather a humble and joyful sobbing.  It was because I was so struck with how merciful God has been to me all these years. This wasn’t a first-time experience for me, as it has happened before in these later years. There’s a beautiful Black spiritual song entitled, “He Never Failed Me Yet.”  How true that has been in my experience and relationship with God in Christ, that is, He is always faithful despite my frequent unfaithfulness.
In Psalm 86, David prays, “In the day of my trouble I shall call upon You, for You will answer me.”  He has faithfully done that for me.  Further on, he prays, “But You, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness and truth.”  This speaks to his many, many mercies in my life.
At one point David prays this–—a petition I am making mine: Teach me, Your way, O Lord; I will walk in your truth; Unite my heart to fear your name.”
I have found crying before God–—whether in confession or simply out of joy and thanksgiving because of his graciousness and mercies over a long period of time–—is salutary.  It ends with a sense of genuine peace with God.  God deserves our sincere humility before him. A thought came to me that perhaps the Holy Spirit is preparing my conscience and spirit for that time when I will personally bow before him in the life to come and perhaps sooner than later.
Have you cried before God lately?  You might find it to be as precious an experience as I have.  It doesn’t hurt at all.  It beneficially heals and rightly humbles.
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.

It appears they began working with one hand while holding a weapon with the other hand.  They both worked and were armed.  This is an actual and literal description of physical activity.  Sound hermeneutics and exegesis require the passage be interpreted and expressed as literal.  It is not intended to be spiritualized…At the same time, this passage may also be an illustration related to guidance, that is, there are times people of faith must do the work of proclaiming the Gospel and at the same time defend the Gospel.  There are times to build and fight at the same time.

God’s divine revelation is an amazing book–—replete with new lessons and guidance upon continuous readings.  Take the book of Nehemiah in the Old Testament.  We tend to see it basically as an historical narrative of Nehemiah, a Jewish captive in Persia and a wine taster for King Artaxerxes, which he was, and his mission to rebuild Jerusalem.  But, perhaps there’s more to it.
In chapter one, Nehemiah requests the king to be allowed to return to rebuild Jerusalem.  The king was pleased to grant him his request and allows Nehemiah leave from Persia and his duties to return to Jerusalem.  Interestingly, the Bible makes special note stating: “Then the king said to me, the queen sitting beside him . . .”  I wondered why God chose to include the fact that the queen was with him?  Is it possible it’s a hint he might have consulted her, and she might have taken pity on Nehemiah and his concern for his country?
Chapter three is strange in that it names all the builders of the walls.  It’s a bit like the genealogy chapters where name after name is communicated.  Most of us wouldn’t even know how to pronounce the majority of names given.
Chapter 4 relates how zealously the workers worked to repair the various gates and walls; however, they begin also to feel threatened by the surrounding inhabitants who ridiculed the Jews for what they were accomplishing.  They begin to do something differently.  It describes half of them continued working while half carried spears, shields, bows and breastplates.  Then verses 17 and 18 describe this remarkable activity:
“Those who were rebuilding the wall and those who carried burdenscarried with one hand doing the work, and the other keeping hold ofa weapon.  As for the builders, each wore his sword strapped to hiswaist as he built, while the trumpeter stood near me.”
It appears they began working with one hand while holding a weapon with the other hand.  They both worked and were armed.  This is an actual and literal description of physical activity.  Sound hermeneutics and exegesis require the passage be interpreted and expressed as literal.  It is not intended to be spiritualized.  Spiritualizing Scripture has done harm to texts and to what God intended us to learn.
At the same time, this passage may also be an illustration related to guidance, that is, there are times people of faith must do the work of proclaiming the Gospel and at the same time defend the Gospel.  There are times to build and fight at the same time.
Today, the Church is assaulted and attacked from different directions with false teachings and even heresy. These attacks involve morality, identity, and adulterating sound doctrine.
Just as Nehemiah and the Jews acknowledged and recognized dangers and threats to their work and took extreme steps to protect the work and themselves, Christians should follow their example and counsel by doing the same though it involves a spiritual battle–—not a physical one.
What steps can be taken?  For one be faithful and steadfast to biblical and theological teachings handed down through Scripture and the early Church Fathers.  This requires faithfulness and willingness to study both.  Secondly, be careful and cautious to solely apply sound hermeneutical (interpretative) principles to God’s Word with attention to context.  These are areas of assault and weakening God’s communications and intentions. Thirdly, give attention to apologetics, the defense of the Gospel, Scripture, and the Church.
The above are defensive actions.  Give priority to proclaiming the Gospel and “the whole counsel of God.”  Be true to all of God’s Word, not just to pet or favorite passages.  Be zealous in making Christ known as Judge, Lord, Redeemer, and Savior–—the only way to the Father and source of one’s salvation from sin and death.  Don’t scrimp on who all Jesus Christ is, why He came and what He accomplished on the cross and in His resurrection.  Present Christ and the Gospel in both truth and love.  Make sure people know God is a mystery–—three in one, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
These are just a few suggestions; there are others.  Just as the Jews were ridiculed for rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, the Church and Christians faithful to God’s Word are being ridiculed and threatened in many ways today.  Nehemiah and the Jews in their day serve as an example as to how to confront not only physical attacks, but spiritual attacks we are confronted with today.
Nehemiah 4: 6 states:  So, we built the wall, and the entire wall was joined together to half its height, for the people had a mind to work.”  This may be a message for today, that is, “. . . for the people had a mind to work.”  May we also “have a mind to work.” This message is for Christians today, both clerical and laity.
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.

Slavery was never black and white, involving only Whites enslaving Blacks. It was multiracial just as most evils existent today are multiracial. It’s time to correct America’s history. It’s also time to cease promoting racial division based on the falsehood of America’s “original sin” and its selective omission of facts about all the oppressors and practitioners. If we fail to correct how we teach history, we will reap untold and potentially horrific consequences. 

We’re experiencing an increasing racial divide when there should be a remarkable decrease. What is the basis for this historical anomaly, given that American has no more prejudicial race-based laws? No race currently faces legal obstacles to equal justice and opportunity. The most likely culprit for the divide is the simplistic, inaccurate approach to American history in our schools.
When people try to explain the racial divide, they offer many reasons: Critical Race Theory, which divides everyone into oppressed/oppressor categories; the Black Lives Matter movement; politicians pandering to receive ethnic-based votes; or the emphasis on police actions involving race. Something deeper is involved.
Americans are taught that slavery is America’s original sin.” Wrong. Slavery was not America’s “original sin.” It existed before any White or Black person arrived. Native Americans practiced it before they ever came along—but even then, it wasn’t their “original sin.” Slavery is humankind’s sin.
In elementary and secondary schools, slavery is now and has long been taught very simply: American slave owners were White and slaves Black—period. Students learn slaves were shipped from Africa, without any focus on who caught them, enslaved them, or sold them to Europeans to be shipped to Europe or the Americas.
Only after school ends do some learn the whole story. I broadened my knowledge by reading “Unspoken Reality: Black Slaveholders Prior to the Civil War,” co-written by Yulia Tikhomirova and Lucia Desir at Mercy College. Tikhomirova is Russian and Desir is Black. They draw upon and include information from Black historians and scholars (e.g., John Hope Franklin, Larry Koger, and Carter G. Woodson, et al.). The truth is Blacks were also slaveholders.
American slavery begins in Africa. Black Africans, chieftains, and Arabs were the main participants and oppressors of the enslaved. They captured, kidnapped, enslaved, and sold millions of Black Africans into slavery. Millions were sent to Europe and the Americas and millions more to the Middle East and North Africa.
Read More

Therein lies the crux of whose body and whose choice.  Abortion doesn’t dismember the woman’s body or crush her skull open to suck her brains out.  Those practices are aimed at another vulnerable human being: the baby carried in her womb.  That person’s heart is beating, his arms and legs moving, and perhaps his thumb is in his mouth.  He feels pain.

The most popular words of pro-abortion and pro-choice advocates are perhaps “My Body, My Choice.”  On the surface, it makes sense and sounds rational and reasonable.  In fact, it’s so sensible that even anti-vaxxers are using it to talk about their bodies and their choices.  Don’t we all make decisions related to our bodies, especially medical decisions?
The person who composed or created that slogan hit it big, and credit is due for such a commonsense, clever phrase.  It seems difficult to debate.  How could anyone challenge such a recognized personal decision with a response, such as “no, you don’t have that right” or “no, your body is not open to your choice”?
Wouldn’t such a person or response be widely ridiculed?  After all, we all make decisions about having surgeries for appendicitis, cancer, broken bones, cysts, and even benign tumors.  “My Body, My Choice” certainly applies to these.
At the same time, however, the patient contemplating the procedure usually discusses the details with the surgeon.  If it’s surgery for a broken bone, the doctor will discuss how complex the break is, that he plans to insert a pin, and the estimated length of time to recuperate.  If it’s surgery for cancer, he may tell a patient how he intends to extract or excise the cancerous growth, what the recovery will be like, and what outcome to expect.  Will it lengthen the patient’s life, or is it just a stopgap procedure to improve temporary well-being?  After all, it requires the patient’s consent because it is the patient’s body and the patient’s choice.
Read More