The above comment raises interesting questions. It easily brings up the meaning of what Christ intended when the Church was described as His Bride in a number of Biblical references. Psalms 19:5; Matthew 9:15 & 25:1; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34-35; John 3:29; Revelations 21:9.

This loving and sanctified relationship is best described at Ephesians 5:25-33. The description of the ‘marital relationship’ between Christ and His Church is not a mere theory, but is an objective description of what is expected of the person who loves the source of their Faith, and the relationship between these two ‘betrothed.’

The term ‘love affair’ almost doesn’t fit. It is almost tawdry, except to the extent that the author desired to think of religion as sanctified and one of solid covenant as opposed to an affair of sorts.

Moreover, the Chesterson quote introduces a vagueness and unnecessary subjectivity into the relationship between Man and God. It invites the error of unmet expectations into a relationship that is otherwise made clear by historical fact and by Biblical covenant.

In simpler terms, God does not always come through and give me the attention I want, or perceive myself to need, on any given day — nor should I expect Him to, for He teaches and disciplines me according to my actual needs and the covenant we made with each other. Sometimes, the relationship requires that I simply give my life up to Him and “repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42.

Considering myself to be in a “love affair” with Him will certainly not guide me in any truly objective way. The daily expectations of my wife or I can change as our moods change, life circumstances change, and in light of other external factors. Human love affairs are hardly consistent or predictable. What I can expect from God is that he will abide in the covenants made with me through the specific Words he chose to speak to all of us through the Bible. John 1:1-14.

If I do not believe in the covenant, I should not be in the relationship, much in the same way that those who are not willing to stick to their marital vows should not be married and bring judgment upon themselves for such failures. Matthew 5:31-32. But, that I should believe, I am required to bring my ship back to the safe harbor of His Love, Word and Compassion for me, as I would with my marriage and the love that it holds for me.

How can one please God if we do not know what to expect from him? Are His set of expectations merely “theory”? No, he expects us to keep his sayings/commandments and live by them much in the same way couples live out their vows. John 14:15-24.

When viewed from a humanistic stance, the expectation that one’s religion might be viewed as a “love affair” carries with it all of the potential for self interest as a governing force, the expectation of certain results, errors, false perception, and unmet expectations as with most “love affairs.” My love of, and servitude to, Christ must be submissive and humble. As I learn from my submission to His Church, I also learn patience, commitment and humility in my own human affairs. Ephesians 6:5-9. Acts 20:19; Colossians 2:18-23.

In fact, it is no secret that marriages, love affairs, and the entry into any covenant must be based on trust, honor, dignity and like factors. Conversely, such relations require much work, are not always perfect because of the people involved (regardless of the strength of the words of any covenant made between them), and relationships require an element of daily tolerance and forgiveness in order to work.

One of the other thoughts that comes to mind is one which relates to the definition of marriage and love. For me anyway, the purpose of marriage is so that the couple might become one flesh and so that they might put forth future generations. Often, we look to our parents, or at least want to look at prior generations, to learn about what makes for a good relationship. Perhaps this is why we were given the Commandment to honor our parents. Exodus 20:12; Matthew 15:1-6. Indeed, we look for the “things that made it work” for our relatives and friends who have been married for decades. Psalm 45:16-17. Much the same can be said for religion.

Would I look for a community of believers that had stayed together consistently for 2000 years, or would I want one that is unproven or shown to have splintered since its inception? I think that the building blocks for a marriage ought to be based on the objective history of what has kept other marriages together — regardless of whatever cultural, environmental, or financial challenges there were in those relationships.

Religion faces many of these same challenges and how the Faith responds to the challenges will either be honorable or dishonorable. The quality or reliability of the response, on the other hand, can only be looked at on a larger historical level. We often ask ourselves, “Did the couple last?” or we say, “Wow, that couple really made it. What a great marriage. They’ve been through a lot and still love each other.” What of us who have not forgotten the true love that we have for the Faith we had as children? What of that love that is rediscovered, but tempered with years of experience and life before coming back to the beloved?

As with all marriages, there are ups and downs and some of these peaks, separations of time, troughs, and plateaus last for varying periods of time. The issue then becomes more of a matter of assessing whether the “family” survived the challenges and made the most of them over the length of the relationship. As with marriage, the ability to maintain the relationship depends on my willingness to go back to the vows/commitment/covenant that I made in the first place, because I know that the words are objective and lasting — regardless of my own faults in keeping to the words at times.

Or, if I want to look for good or bad examples of relationships, what shall I say of the persons who continually switch love affairs or who are always trying to change their spouses? Is this not what Luther did? He didn’t love the spouse he married (i.e., the Catholic Church). Simply stated, Luther left his beloved for another. See generally, 2 Corinthians 11:1-2.

In a very strong sense, Luther seized upon the weaknesses of a long marriage and, instead of counseling and reforming, chose to be a home-wrecker of sorts. Such efforts were egged on by the likes of Zwingli and Calvin as well. Instead of looking to save the marriage, they tried to find new wives for Christ. Instead of reminding the cheaters (the religious leaders of the Catholic Church), of their vows, the “Reformers” focused on the destruction of the 1500-year-old marriage which had survived many an attack before Luther.

Luther, in a spiritual form of domestic violence, forcefully redefined his covenant and put in motion a view of the “love relationship” between Man and God that splintered, caused division, led to war, and resulted in a complete lack of unity between literally hundreds if not thousands of denominations. Prior to his “love affair” there was a solid bond among believers, and the unity had survived for more than 1500 years, not including the 3500-4000 years of lasting covenants between God and the People of Israel. These relationships and the example they set were not merely theoretical, they were confirmed by the annals of history and the happiness, sorrows, and challenges of the persons who lived in the relationships that form the basis even for our Faith today.

These things being said, it cannot be forgotten that couples need time alone, they often need time to heal spiritual wounds, they need time to reform their relationship so as to bring it into conformity with their original vows. Is a “date-night” not the time for ‘rekindling the fire’ and creating and enjoying memories as to why we love each other in the first place? Can these things not be said about the Church as well? God wants ‘date nights’ with us as well — it’s called prayer. Reform, however, cannot be confused with changing one’s vows. The vows remain the same, but are renewed through peace, reformation, and time.

The Chesterson quote also raises the question: What about the folks who find out that they fell in love, and found out the person/religion wasn’t what they thought they found? What if the beloved is dishonest? What if one spouse matures and the other remain stagnant? What about the spouse who suffers from a disease that inhibit the relationship? No true vow of marriage allows for its breaking through any of these ‘reasons.’ The strength of the relationship can only be defined by the willingness of those in it to remain true to themselves and to the relationship formed through their unique identities, overall purpose, and their complimentary reflections upon each other.

Isn’t Romanticism an ideal (i.e., theoretical)? To be loved, one must have all of the qualities necessary to be capable of being loved. For some, this is a history of honor, a definitive covenant, consistency, loyalty, appearance, accountability, depth, satisfaction, trust, and other such factors. These factors aren’t theoretical — either they exist as a matter of fact or not. Christ’s words and the history of His people are not theoretical. These Words tell us of what He expects of us for so long as we shall love each other, just as my vows tell me what I have promised my wife and she to me.

As of late, I have given some thought to the arguments of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Edward Wilson, Peter Singer and a number of other players in the current debates about God, morality, and evolutionary biology.  Their basic premise seems to be that what it means to be human or a part of nature can only be explained by evolutionary theory.  Moreover, this theory leads the to the inexorable conclusion that all can be reduced to an explanation as to how atomic physics have played out in the last however many billion years or so. (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe ). Nary a thought is given to the real fact that all of us have an epistemological gap between us and the beginning of time, such that no present explanation of our world can suffice to explain it entirely.  God does readily fill that epistemological void.

While it may very well be that all that we (and the universe we have our be-ing in) are nothing but a cosmic soup of atomic matter, it certainly does seem that humanity has the unique ability to stir the pot.  This ability is seen nowhere else in the 'natural world.'  Indeed, it is this very deviation from cosmic destiny, evolutionary theory, or even simple neuro-psychology, that uniquely defines what it is to be human.

Unlike the natural world, we are not dependent on the synchronicity of our coexistence with/in  the many moving and interactive elements of the earth's evolved environment.  Ostensibly, we are readily able to defy what nature might otherwise dictate.  Singer and others have, rather oddly, concluded that behavior which defies nature is somehow ignoble or immoral.  Isn't everything "natural," in the sense that all that is must be derivative of evolutionary processes and atomic destiny?  What possible moral difference could stirring the pot of cosmic existence make, if we can only have derived our ability to stir the pot from the very substance found in the pot?  There has to be a clear distinction made between the subject and objects confronted by human existence.

As an aside, this does not mean that morality would have to be completely dependent on some traditional notion of God. It is simply a matter of distinguishing a difference between intentionality, conscious acknowledgment and the human experience of what is “moral,” from that which is simply a byproduct of evolutionary necessity and atomic structure. Whether these aspects are distinguishable from each other is the question that Professor Dawkins raises. The conceptual parsing done by Dawkins is actually quite admirable and necessary to the understanding of either side's argument.

Moreover, it seems readily apparent that the process of evolution for the 'natural world' moves at the same pace as it has from the beginning of time (barring any natural disasters).  Animals and plants are not dependent on us for their existence in a natural state.  They only evolve at certain scientifically definable rates in accordance with the environmental variables which govern the process.

Simply put, humans command the ability to even deprive ourselves of the natural synchronicity with nature.  It is indeed arguable that we sometimes separate from nature and defy it.   At a minimum, we stand out from nature.  For example, a lion cannot simply redefine itself or make claim to an existence other than that which it has at its essence. A view toward's Heidegger's philosophy on death would also underscore the reality that humans are perfectly capable of  experiencing "unnatural" deaths.  Most lions and other creatures will die substantially the same way and of the same causes.  Humans, however, bear a capacity for defining even the parameters of our own deaths.  Certainly, our nearest alleged "relatives," chimpanzees, can hardly lay stake to such abilities.  In other words, there is something about the human experience that can be completely differentiated from that of the animal experience.  Indeed, this statement can be made even without accounting for the unique capacity of humans to conceive of [a] God, to understand beauty, and to engage in the fine arts.

Nevertheless, we can rightly claim that humans engage in unnatural acts.  They engage in acts that defy natural selection and the otherwise undisturbed progression of the natural world outside of humanity.  Animals are not generally self destructive in any real way.  Humans, on the other hand, are completely competent to destroy themselves and everything else around them.  Indeed, humankind is readily able to change its environment quickly and drastically.  And, in so changing, it becomes apparent that we are the only creatures on earth that are capable of self-directed evolution, even to the point of destroying ourselves.   Seemingly, evolutionists are ready to deprive of humankind of this sacred and distinct attribute shared by no other living creatures.

Frankly, it seems inconsistent to stand by an evolutionary biology explanans for why things are the way they are, and yet complain about the seemingly out of control, or even allegedly  immoral, progress of humanity.  Morality simply has no place in a universe driven only by the predisposed nature of atomic structures and the rules of physics to which they are bound.  In a very important sense, the effect of human existence on the environment is no less evolutionary or atomically driven than any other process that is claimed to have arisen from a purely evolutionary beginning.  That is, if one believes that all must have come from simple existence which led to a graduated complexity.

In order to speak of "moral" behavior, one must first believe that there is some constituent part of the universe which can be moral or act in a moral way.  If we rely simply on the synaptic firing of our neurons, coupled with a genetic destiny, it simply does not make sense to incorporate a moral lexicon into human existence.  However, if one believes that moral behavior is a step above, or uniquely differentiated from, the coldness of evolutionary survival of the species, it must follow that one believes that there is a higher arche to the human existence.  Whether this is attributable to God or a higher being/be-ing (a template for higher being or a more complex nature outside of the natural rules that apply to all other creatures), or not, seems to be the real question.

There are a good number of evolutionary biologists and philosophers of our time who readily conclude that all of human existence can simply be explained by reference to the primordial atomic soup from which all has evolved.  They do not explain where the atomic structure/fabric came from, they do not explain the source of the energy driving all that is, they ignore or gloss over the origins of art and beauty, and they completely ignore the obvious fact that the human line of species significantly deviates from otherwise predictable genetic destinies or even basic natural evolution of the rest of nature and its evolving complexity.

At first glance, the basic problem with evolutionary biology is that it rests upon what appears to be a purely linear view of the time-space continuum.  This purely linear view adds an unnecessary viscosity to the stream of the cosmos and nature itself. The evolutionists view does not account for the fact that all matter, or representations of matter, derive from an admittedly common source and theoretical moment of being put in motion.  That is, all things that can be perceived in the real world are the same age by reference to atomic matter, interactivity, and movement of the cosmos.

The only difference between one atomic structure and another is the 'present' constituency of the thing perceived.  Under a non-linear view of time, it may just be the case that the "age" of things is a function of where they are in the movement of the "cosmic swirl."  An evolutionist should not confuse the properties of age with actual age -- if time can even be said to be a good structure for cosmology.  If there was a single moment of creation, moving forward, differing "ages" of the atomic world's constituents are not so obvious as to merit the conclusion that the universe actually is 13.7 to 37 billion years old or any other specific age for that matter.  If, at the time the cosmos was put in motion, certain aspects of reality were given characteristics in their atomic structure that give off the impression of being "older," it may simply be that the evolutionist has been fooled in much the way a purchaser of art might be fooled by the acquisition of a good faux painting.  The thing acquired or perceived has all of the characteristics, but is lacking in the need of its original creator and an understanding of the process leading up to the perceived masterpiece.

In other words, the moment of creation may simply have been a stirring of the pot by an Omnipotent and wholly self sufficient Primary Mover.  A cyclical or interwoven time structure is not the same as a linear structure which starts from a given point and brings us to something called "today."  The 'swirl'  of the cosmic mass we call reality should not be confused with a purely linear view of reality, upon which evolution must rely (i.e., reliance on a Big Bang, primordial soup, then various periods of evolution/advancement of varying species).  Obviously, if linear time is the framework for the edifice of evolution, there is a strong likelihood that evolutionary theory is defectively constructed.

Additionally, it seems that the atheist opposition confuses their perceived improbability of God with ultimate exclusion from the range of all possibilities.  In the view of Dawkins and his company, it is nearly an absolute truth that God does not exist.  Were it the case that Dawkins could overcome the long standing objections that might be made by George Berkeley as to the importance of human perception in all of this, perhaps a better argument could be made.  However, Dawkins and his crew presuppose the validity and concrete values of their perceptions and just assume that a consensus gentium argument will carry the day because a vast number of other evolutionary biologists happen to agree on the notion that God, Creationism or Intelligent Design are improbable or altogether wacky.  Solipsism remains a strong enemy of confidence in the truth values of our own perceptions.  In fact it does seem that the utility and efficacy of certain "memes" bears out this very problem.  Cultural evolution is a product of passed on perception, without necessary regard to or of principles deriving from mathematics or physics.

In order for anyone's argument to work with respect to great cosmological arguments, it does seem that the veil of basic human perception must first be torn and put aside in favor of an unobstructed view of reality.  Humanity has proven itself quite incapable of divesting itself from its condition as a status which depends purely on the senses and humanized logic.  Professor Dawkins and his ilk may be assured that just as great a number of scientific theories have fallen, after ready acceptance by consensus, as have arguments for the existence of particular gods or ontologies.  In large part, it seems that the human defect of limited perception is the cause of a great number of these many failed scientific theories throughout history. Indeed, it seems apparent that our singular or collective experiences limit the conclusions to which we may arrive.  Experience naturally limits the parameters of what we can actually know.  Admittedly, the breadth of one's "experience" can be widened with knowledge/exposure to mathematics, physics, chemistry, theory of biology, philosophy, and other areas of learning.  However, the expansion of theory is dependent on the limits of our own personal knowledge and that of our colleagues in thought.  The limits of humanity do not give way simply because one believes in evolutionary biology.

Father Time has proven himself to be a bitter enemy to the life span of most scientific theories.  As human perception 'evolves,' scientific theories die.  Sometimes they die by the weight of their own complexity or the simply are shown to be inconsistent with the collective perceptions of an advanced humanity.  Oddly, however, the explanatory value of a higher cause or higher being has not died since the conceivable beginnings of human thought about the source of our being and the reasons for our existence.  This may be simply because a belief in God does provide a fabric to all that is.  Or, it may just as well be that the vast majority of humans have perceived something that can only be described as God.  For as many scientists and theologians as there have been in history, there have probably been nearly as many fools among them.

The pervasive perception of God, or the empirical basis for the use of a word such as "God," cannot be simply disregarded.  Simply because Dawkins has not personally perceived something that might be called God does not allow him to summarily dispense with any Wittgensteinean objections as to the limits of our language and ability to articulate what we experience.  It is undeniably the case that the Judeo-Christian view of the world has rather successfully sufficed to unite an advancing/progressive group of humans, indeed the entirety of Western Culture, of which Professor Dawkins would be a participant.  The "memes" of, or which are, Christianity have proven to be a rather powerful force by any account.  See generally, John 1:1-4 (KJV).

It seems to me that the evolutionists of our time ought to give some minor consideration to the thought that the theoretical explanans and the actual explanandum of human existence are conceivably different.  If truth be the sum of its complete, necessary and agreed upon conditions, the evolutionary biologists/theorists have plenty of agreement, but could not possibly have a complete or necessary epistemological basis for the ultimate truths they espouse.  Admittedly, the same applies for a strict historical or epistemological view of Christianity.

In the case of both Evolutionary Theory and the belief in God, there is indicia of pure religion.  Religion requires certain elements, which appear to be:  1.)  A redemptive or explanatory story for what is;  2.) An explanandum/definiendum which outside of complete human perception or experience;  3.) Preachers and prophets of the truth or content contained within the explanans/definiens; 4.) A body of the faithful who simply may have no epistemelogical basis for a belief in what is explained or the explanation itself; 5.) A desire to operate by explanatory fiat or ultimatum.  Zealotry on behalf of any such religion can lead to discord and unnecessary viscosity in the stream of otherwise valuable arguments.  Certainly, both sides of the Intelligent Design argument seem perfectly capable and willing to lift the sword toward the other. 

Or it may very well be that the enemies of God are simply asking the wrong questions even about their own existence and be-ing (Dasein) in the Heideggerian sense.  Perhaps it is just that they think it important to "stir the pot" in the proverbial sense.  But what sense does it make to stir the pot if you're in it?

Those who teach others to be complacent in the accomplishment of these necessary works, or  requiring others to do the work required of us alone, will not do well in the kingdom of heaven.  I directly challenge any reader of this article – Prove to me otherwise by the Words of Christ Himself.

Many Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, Catholics and other Christian denominational faiths begin just about any theological debate with a view toward determining whether the opposition truly believes in salvation by grace alone, salvation by works, or some hybrid theory.  As with all theological debates about what it means to be a “Christian,” it seems that we all ought to take a look at the actual Words of Christ as a starting point.  This particular piece focuses on the ‘red letters’ as found in the Book of Matthew.  I cannot help but find that faith alone, without daily living proof of that faith, will not suffice.

I believe this article is timely given the death of the Kansas late-term abortionist, George Tiller.  Many of us pro-lifers, whether we want to admit it or not, felt a refreshing sense of relief that he is no longer able to tear apart babies who would have otherwise survived outside of the womb, but for his act of dismembering them or vacuuming out their brains.  By his own account, he may have taken as may as 60,000 infants’ lives.

Of course, for the Christian, the question becomes, “What if Dr. Tiller gave his life over to Christ in the last 30 seconds of life?”  Moreover, there exists a serious theological question as to whether the murderer of Tiller blasphemed the Holy Spirit by taking the life of Tiller in a church.  If Tiller’s potential plea for last-minute salvation failed, he went straight to Hell.  Even if Tiller’s shooter, Scott Roeder, was a holy person till that moment, if blasphemy unto the Holy Spirit occurred, he’s done as well.  The ‘red letters’ actually don’t leave much room for debate on these points.  Obviously, if one thinks that the Words are just a form of philosophy, good advice, or just simply one view among many, there is no sense in even attempting to understand the clear choices put before us.  The Good News is that we don’t need to personally worry about Tiller’s and Roeder’s issues since we have plenty to do ourselves to act upon our own Faith.

With these points in mind, a step-by-step analysis of Matthew reveals some interesting answers about whether we are required to engage in certain works before we may avoid the fires of Hell.  For me, the question is readily answered by even a cursory review of Jesus’ words.  The Great Story of the Book of St. Matthew is set forth as follows.

First of all, we are told that we cannot live by material means alone.  It is written that we must live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4, KJV).  In this same vein, it also naturally follows that we should not participate in the temptation of God with the help of the Enemy (4:7).  These commands are then concluded with the thought that we are to commit ourselves unto God through our service and worship to Him alone. (4:10).  Oddly, the Scripture does not say that we are to make this commitment only by worship or belief alone.  This can only be reasonably construed to mean that my faith is not sufficient for salvation, but that faith with works is.  Our faith, however small, can grow into the greatest of works (even so much as moving a mountain) and we will need the Grace of God to be fully sanctified. (17:20;  19:23-24, 26;  21:21-22).

After Matthew recounts the time Christ spent in the desert with Satan, we are given a not so subtle description of why all of this matter.  It is summed up by saying “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. [...] Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” (4:17, 19).

Well, what could “follow me” possibly mean?  Using the words literally, as I expect most conservatives would want me to, one can only get the conclusion that “follow me” requires acts coupled with faith.

Moreover, what does it mean to “repent”?  It can only mean that you live life as though you were in acknowledgment of your sins.  We all know that true repentance can only be shown by how we live our lives.  The “why” of how we live our lives is not something we can ever answer sufficiently.  When life is over, we will only find out why we lived our lives the way we did.  As we are later told, there will be plenty of folks knocking on the door, claiming His Name, and the door is simply not going to be answered.

Nevertheless, Matthew leads us to the first big sermon in Chapters 5 through 7.  Interestingly enough, these Chapters are not a big sermon on altar calls and faith standing alone.  They focus almost exclusively on the omissions and commissions to/of acts which lead to our place in Heaven, or, where in disregard of His Word, we end up with weeping, gnashing of teeth, or the fires of Hell.  It is also interesting that these words are being directed at people who obviously came to listen to Jesus, already believed in what he was doing, and he had to have already known that he was going to Calvary.  If he knew that he was going to Calvary to wash the entire slate for anyone who believed in him, he certainly spent a whole lot of arguably unnecessary time talking about what needed to be done by the believers and what they needed to avoid.  If the words were only suggestions, I sincerely doubt that he would have followed up commands or prohibitions with words stating that either Heaven or Hell would follow, not purely by the decision to believe in Him, but by how these things were done.

This said, the followers were told that the “blessed” are those who are poor in spirit, meek, who mourn, who hunger and thirst after righteousness, who are pure in heart, who are merciful, who are peacemakers, who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, and when one is reviled for His sake. (5:3-11).  The result of which is made very clear.  It is said , “Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in heaven [...]” (5:12).  What could this possibly mean?  If I do the things commanded, I will find great reward in Heaven.  Each and every single one of the things mentioned requires that I do something.  There is no way to be any of these things without a work of the conscience, often coupled with an overt act toward another human being.  By way of our contemporary reference point, there are cogent arguments to be made that neither Tiller, nor his killer, demonstrated any of these characteristics as they completed their final works in life.  Whether or not their lives were an Opus Dei is not for us to decide per se.  We can only use their examples as a way to define or redefine our own daily existence.

After giving a description of those who will be blessed and given comfort, Christ goes on to tell the multitudes that they need to be a “light of the world” and that we are to “[l]et your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. [emphasis added].” (5:16).  Now, obviously, given His prior words, our works cannot be done or committed in such a way that we are prideful, vain, or arrogant.  Our works need to flow forth from a heartfelt desire to allow our lives to become the ultimate act of service unto our Maker and those that he created to live with and amongst us.

Well, maybe you still have John 3:16 in mind (i.e., the penultimate “altar call” verse cited so often by contemporary Christians), and just don’t think that following the commands set forth in Chapter 5 are mandatory for entrance to heaven.  I must ask you then, why does Matthew 5:19 go onto say that the failure to abide in “these” commandments will result in being called “the least in the kingdom of heaven”?  Maybe that’s not enough for you.  It goes on to say, “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. [emphasis added]. ” (5:20).  I’m not the brightest guy in the world, but this does certainly seem unequivocal.  Moreover, the “righteousness” being referred to follows directly from the beatitudes given to the crowd as instructions on what it means to follow Him.  Nary a word is said about simply doing an altar-call and being relieved of further duty to actually do works that one is capable of within one’s own calling in life or given environment.

Now, how these acts are carried out by each of us can only depend on where we are in life.  For example, a lawyer may be able to share his/her light in the courthouses.  An invalid may only be able to share his/her light in a convalescent home.  A mother may only be in a position to share her light with her husband and family.  I don’t think that He said that our works must occur in any certain place.  These works just must simply occur with the precedence of a pure, humble and willing heart.  Again, the failure to abide by the commandments to fulfill his Law and Word, results in being called the least in heaven.  The good news, at this early juncture in Matthew, is that one can conceivably still end up in heaven.  However, as will be seen later in the Book, there are several things one can do to make sure that you have no chance at the proverbial entrance ticket.

After given the admonition that the failure to abide in specific commandments will lead us to becoming the least in heaven, Jesus goes on to give some specific instructions about what will actually get us near or into the fires of Hell. (5:22).  The first one of these instructions being that simply calling a brother a fool is good enough to put us “in danger of hell fire.”  This is followed by the command that we not come before God to place our gifts before His altar until and unless we have forgiven others of whatever perceived transgressions they may have committed against us.  To the extent that we are called to lay our entire lives before the altar as a testimony unto Him and our fellow man, it does not seem to matter if we have not forgiven others.  I think it is all too easy to say that one has done an altar-call, placed their lives at the altar, but yet completely forget to forgive others in that process.  All too many of us do the altar-call, but don’t engage in the conscious act/work of forgiveness.

All too many of us forget that forgiveness is an act or work.  Any “act” or “work” by a human requires that we direct our conscious will toward a given outcome and take the steps necessary to fulfill the intended outcome.  If, for example, I want to forgive someone, then I must first will it so and then commit myself to the act of completing the forgiveness by consciously letting go any desire to seek revenge, to carry the baggage of the other’s sin, or to otherwise ‘hold it against the person’ until they have somehow repented in my view.  In fact, if there is any one consistent theme in the New Testament, it is that we are to engage in the work of forgiving others and in the work of accepting His Grace so that our works might be sanctified and our negligent omissions overlooked. (22:37-40).  By the way, it is so often said that “it isn’t easy to forgive.”  Actually, it is supposed to be easier than anything Christ did. (9:3-6).

Along these same lines, with regard to what it means to commit an “act,” Christ further admonishes His listeners to make sure that they not only avoid murder, adultery and other offenses, but that we avoid even the very intentional thoughts of these things.  With respect to those thoughts that occur to us without apparent reason, we are instructed to remove them immediately and take an immediate view toward the end goal.  In fact, we are specifically warned that if we do not commit the act of removing sinful thoughts and doings from our existence, that the whole “body should be cast into hell.” (5:27-32).

As though we didn’t have enough to do after actually listening to His words in Chapter 5: 3-32, Christ goes on to speak about what our words shall be unto others.  We are told that we are to keep our words simple and that we are not to swear by anyone, anything, or even by our own veracity. (5:33-37).

Now as for Tiller’s murderer, Verses 38-44 are particularly compelling.  This is where we are specifically told that the “eye for an eye” system of morality is done.  We are now to “turn the other cheek.”  In fact, we are even told to “love your enemies.”  We are “bless them that curse you.”  We are to “do good to them that hate you.”  We are to “pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”  (5:39-47).  In fact Verse 46 clearly suggests that there may be no “reward” for the failure to do these things that are commanded.  Where in Verses 38-44 does it say anything to the effect that we are just to have faith and that we not fully commit to doing these things as Christians?  Is prayer something other than an act of faith (i.e., a work)?

Chapter 5 ends by saying, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. [emphasis added].” (5:48).  How would one be “perfect” unless one acted in a way which presented itself as a standard by which God will judge whether or not we have achieved what his Son commands?  Obviously, what we do matters just as much as what we claim we believe.  The strength or existence of any belief in Christ can only be ascertained by our conduct since it is the conduct that defines the concept of what it means to have “faith.”  If one is not doing the acts which suggest the existence of actual faith, one cannot claim to have the faith.

Naturally, one would expect that this is all fine and dandy in theory.  However, one is left to wonder about how it is that one is supposed to commit all of these acts unto our Maker, without violating the requirement that we not do them for our own glory, but unto the Glory of our Maker alone. This is answered in Chapter 6.  We are told not to do our alms before Man, we are not to pray openly only for the purpose of being seen by others, we are not to make a big show out of our faith and sacrifices, and we are not to engage in vain repetition of prayers. (6:1-8, 16-17).  None of this suggests that we cannot rejoice with each other in our salvation, our reasons for acting the way we do, or in the consolation that we have a good reason for doing good unto others.  We can be a light unto the world without being blinding to others.

We are commanded, however, to pray in a way in a way that is in acknowledgment of the power of God, which respect His will for all of us (here and in heaven), that we receive the basic provisions of life, that we be forgiven as we forgive others, that we be given the help to avoid the sinful thoughts and actions that come, and that all glory be properly placed with Him and not us.  (6:9-14).  This is immediately followed up with the statement that, “But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (6:15).  Again, this sounds very unequivocal to me.  If you don’t do this (i.e., forgive others), you will not be saved of your sins.

It is not enough that you simply have faith that so long as you believe in forgiveness, you will be forgiven.  You must actually do it in order to receive your reward !!!  As we engage in a life of forgiveness and service, we earn our due treasures. (12:35-37).  Our eyes must constantly be focused on this purpose and be focused in such a way as to where others have no doubt as to what we are looking at.  (6:20-23).  Along these same lines, you probably should not spend to much time thinking about what those who are already acting a in a Christian way are doing.  (9:13).  Our Master will see to it that the requisite number of workers are put into the field of life without us doing anything other than what is required of us whilst we act through and by a Christian heart and soul.  (9:37-38).  If you attempt to have an influence on someone through your humble service, or words of preaching, and they want no part of it, don’t worry about it.  (10:5-15).  It is expected that you will be persecuted for doing what is right and you better be prepared to face your prosecutors with a glad and humble heart !!! (10:16-28).

While we are busy doing all of the things required of us, so that we might avoid the fires of hell, we are also commanded not to worry.  (10:25-31).  Well, how am I not going to worry?  Obviously, we must, again, take a conscious direction toward ignoring worry, and act in a way that testifies to our full faith in Him alone.  That is, we must actively pursue the conscious act of  destroying all worry.  This is no easy task.  We must trust that He will take care of all of our needs and that he will pave the way for His glorification and that He will take of evil on His own. (6:24-34; 10:32-33).

Our ultimate trust in Him is, and must be, founded upon our spiritual and mental acts of conscience, purpose, and servitude.  How easily we forget that we have control over our attitudes, philosophies, theology, and mindset.  Freewill is not a matter of controlling external circumstances, which we cannot.  Freewill is premised only in the notion that we can only change our attitude toward our circumstances, and, generally speaking, our circumstances will naturally change as our spiritual attitude does.  (6:33-34).

Well, now the difficult part comes.  Chapter 7 speaks to us on the topics of judgment of others, judgment of ourselves, hypocrisy, evilness, false prophecy, corruption, and the intent of our works. (7:1-23).  In no way is it suggested that our works alone will save us.  (7:16-23).  Our works must be, as stated before, with a view toward glorification unto our Maker.  They must be committed with a view toward spiritual, mental, and physical servitude unto something higher than ourselves. The works we commit may be good unto themselves and, in fact, may be very pleasing or admirable to others.  However, this is completely irrelevant to the Christian.  The Christian can have but one purpose in fulfilling his or her Divine Destiny.  We must know why we do what we do before it can be given any credit worthy of Him. (7:22-23).  Commit yourself to the act of building your house on a rock !!! (7:24-27).

It should also be noted that so many of us think in linear terms.  We often think that our purpose is to serve God, family, friends, and business (in respective order).  This is simply not true.  You cannot put your family before your faith.  That’s a serious work. (10:37).

We’ve got a lot of hard, but gladful, work before us. (10:34-42).  “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”  Where is the “rest” coming from then?  It comes from the peace of acting through and in him.  Nowhere is it suggested that our works don’t matter or aren’t necessary.  They will be made easy by our faith in Him, through Him and with Him.  What makes life burdensome is when we falsely define what work is required and how it ought to be performed.  It really isn’t that hard to feed the poor, to be merciful, to forgive, to make peace, or to preach the truth, when all is done from a humble heart directed at a Divine Purpose. Our purpose ought to emanate a natural and warm light unto the world.  Our lives cannot be defined by our material possessions, even if we worked hard to get them. (19:29).

So aside from acting or failing to act, what can get us in real spiritual trouble?  The answers are given in a fairly straightforward manner.  Even a “believer” can get himself or herself to Hell.  Remember, even Satan believes in the power of God – that’s why he fears God so much.  It is said, “Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.  And, whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. [bold emphasis added].” (12:25-37).  This is, again, an unequivocal statement that there are acts of speech which will be completely unforgiven, regardless of Calvary nor the reasons for Calvary.  Not only do your physical acts need to be conducted in conformity with your faith, your speech must also be as well.  These are matters of works/acts, and not simply matters of perceived “faith.”  (12:35-37).

At this point, it is also probably worth noting that the common denominator amongst all of the parables in Matthew is that they all involve forms of hard work (i.e., building, sowing seeds, buying and selling, toiling in a field, repayment of debts, working the vineyard, preparing for a wedding, grinding at the mill, serving the man of the house, spending our money/goods wisely).  Moreover, the parables seem to end with the result that someone is rewarded for doing the right thing, or, in the alternative, ends up burning, weeping, gnashing their teeth, and/or being cast out into the darkness. (13:3-9, 18-23, 25-43, 44-50;  18:23-35; 20:1-16; 21:27-40; 22:2-14; 24:40-41; 24:43-51; 25:1-30).

In Matthew 15 we are again reminded that it is our words that can defile us.  (15:8-11, 18-20).  The problem with words is that they are most often outright intentional or certainly a byproduct of the will of the heart.  When we engage in unholy speech-acts, we defile ourselves, regardless of whatever we may somehow believe.  It is not the beliefs that we hold which most see or hear, it is the words and actions that accompany our day-to-day interactions with others.  Our words are works of faith.

Following the above sayings, instructions, and admonitions, Jesus then, after being asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”, responds with a rather lengthy discourse in Chapter 18 on what it means to be a believer. (18:1-2).  The analysis is deep and again speaks to the conduct which will separate the sheep from the goats. (18:3-35).  Indeed, we are reminded that our faith should be as that of a child – innocent, pure, and unaffected.  Again, we are also given a dire description of what happens to those who mislead his “little ones.”

In fact, misleading a child results in the notion that one would be better off being drowned in the sea than to have interfered with the faith of a child.  (18:3-7).  Well, how does one mislead a child?  Obviously, one can only mislead another through setting a bad example through conduct or speech or by directly doing wrong unto the “little one” (i.e., through our works).  It is even stated that his “little ones” have direct representatives before the “face of my Father.” (18:10).  For me, anyway, there is plenty to think about with respect to our contemporary culture of consistently misleading children by direct interference with their innocence and pure faith.  Indeed, many an organization is fully dedicated to destroying the faith of children and supplanting it with secular values or no values at all.

With respect to disputes between Christians, Matthew 18:15-17 gives us a form of conduct by which they are to be resolved.  We are to work it out amongst ourselves.  If that does not work, then we are to work it out as a private situation within the Church.  In the event this does not work, we are simply to separate ourselves from the problem.  Each one of these steps takes work and has very little to do with inactive faith.  In fact, with respect to forgiveness, we are immediately told that our forgiveness must not be once, or seven times, but seventy times seven. (18:21-23).  That’s some serious work for anyone.

As to the conduct of our sexual lives, the call to certain conduct continues again in Matthew 19, where we are reminded that man and woman are made for each other and it was so from the beginning.  We are reminded that we have the responsibility to cleave to our wives and to become one with them.  The Scripture, in this area, is very clear and unequivocal.  A direct command not to interfere with the relationship is also made and divorce is viewed as a form of direct judgment.  Remarrying is adultery, save the cause of fornication by the wife.  The new husband of the cheater is, by his conduct, deemed an adulterer as well in this instance.  How does he become an adulterer, you ask?  By his works.  (19:4-9).

Interestingly, it is accepted by Jesus that not all will marry and, since being in the womb, were not meant to be married. (19:12).  To some extent, Christ was aware of the arguments that might be made against those who don’t marry (i.e., accusations, gossip, questions as to their sexuality).  He did not condemn these people, but reminded us of the purpose given to them by Him and not us. (Id.).

Next, comes the Greatest Commandments, which are:

 “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. [emphasis added].”  (22:37-40).

This is the summa theologica.  Who amongst us thinks that love is simply a matter of faith?  I don’t know about any of you, but I know that love requires hard work, intentional and humble sacrifice of self, and an undying need to acknowledge that we cannot control the object of our love nor the source of the Greatest Love.  While my faith has helped me love when I thought I had none left, I have always had to meet God halfway with my private dedication, servitude, and willingness to will my mind, soul and body to do the right things to strengthen my love of others and even of self.

After setting forth the Great Commandments, Christ then goes on to point out that we should not merely expect others to do the works required of us.  Rather, we must do honor to the value of works of servitude by serving others ourselves. Moreover, we are again our works cannot be for show or for the purpose of building more impressive churches.  (23:2-39).  As though one could be surprised, we again find a very negative result for those who do not pay heed to these admonishments. Indeed, should we abide in our institutionalized and personal religious hypocrisy, our house shall be left unto us “desolate.”  (23:38).

Even in the face of persecution, deliverance of our bodies for earthly punishment, hatred, deception, and iniquity, we “shall endure unto the end.” (24:4-13).  Well, what does “endure” mean?  It can only mean that, along with faith, we do what is required to get to the end of what life means for us in even a hostile culture.  We are to act toward the end of being a faithful “servant.” (24:43-51).

After reminding us of the end game, the pragmatic lessons of Matthew essentially wraps up with the following summation:

 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
 
 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
 
 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
 
 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
 
 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
 
 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
 
 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
 
 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
 
 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
 
 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
 
 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
 
 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
 
 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
 
 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (25:31-46).

And so it is that the Great Story told in Matthew ends with a clear how-to guide as to what acts will show our faith and those omissions which place ourselves in jeopardy of eternal damnation.  Where in this final admonition does it say that our mere faith, our mere knocking on the door, our mere religious affiliation, or our mere belief in God, gets us into Heaven?  It simply doesn’t.  What we are left with is a clear command that we must do certain things and the failure to do them will result in something eternally bad.

Unless someone is going to claim that these Words cannot be taken at face value, they are unequivocal.  Our works matter and they are essential to the goal of reaching the end as a good and faithful servant.  Do not be so blind as to lead another to complacency by asking them to buy off on the idea of ‘salvation by faith alone’ with nary a living proof that the faith has a foundation in daily life.  To do so would be to mislead one of His “little ones.”

For those of us who already know these truths, we are further instructed to teach all others to likewise abide, by our conduct, in observing His commandments. (28:20).  As for me and my house, permissum meus fides exsisto a Opus Dei.  That is, may my faith be an acceptable work of God unto Him.