I don’t know about you, but the older I get, the more New Year’s Eve loses its luster. It feels less like a party and more like a bedtime challenge. Can I make it to midnight? Can I even make it past 9:30? I think William Vaughn said it best, “Youth is when you’re allowed to stay up late on New Year’s Eve. Middle age is when you’re forced to.”
For the record, I stopped trying for midnight years ago, especially with a worship service in the morning. Still, the moment has never been lost on me. New Year’s Eve—the day itself—has always been a moment to pause. It can be sort of a held breath between what was and what will be, if only we’ll take the opportunity to consider it. Right now, I’m sitting at my dining room table. Even with a quick glance around the room, I’m reminded of just how quickly things can change.
For example, right across from where I’m sitting, a poster-sized photo hangs on the wall. Jennifer snapped the picture. Essentially, she captured a moment we can never revisit.
The photo was taken on a beautiful, sun-washed day at a beachside restaurant near Lemon Bay, Florida—one we visited with some relatively newfound friends at the time who knew the place and loved it. In the image, there’s a wooden post planted in the sand with forty or so signs nailed to it, each pointing somewhere else—cities across the United States, and a few beyond its borders, all measured in miles from that very spot. A bird is perched on one of the top signs, palled by a nearby palm tree’s shadow. It’s as if the bird’s deciding which of the cities he’ll choose to visit next. The sky is bright blue, interrupted only by a handful of clouds. Everything about the picture feels calm, steady, and permanent.
But permanence is a lie we tell ourselves when the sun is shining and things are easy. Hurricane Ian erased everything in that photo back in 2022. The sign, the restaurant, the familiar stretch of beach, it was all pretty much gone overnight. It was reduced to ocean-soaked debris and memory.
That said, I can promise you, the Thoma family loves the image all the more, if only because everything in it is gone. In a way, it’s not just a photograph for us anymore. It’s a reminder that certain moments don’t ask our permission before they become history. We will never stand there again. We will never see that post in the sand exactly as it was. We’ll never be able to visit that restaurant and relive that moment.
New Year’s Eve has a way of turning our attention toward that same kind of truth. We look back at the year behind us and realize how much of it has vanished without much ceremony. I think of my dear Christian friend, Alex Bak, who died just before Christmas. We had recent conversations together that I never suspected would be our last. Like the signs near the beachfront restaurant, I lived as though Alex would always be there. I just assumed I’d always see Alex sitting in his same pew near the post on the pulpit side of the church’s nave. Indeed, plenty of other things have happened all around me that felt ordinary at the time but now feel sacred because they’re gone.
I suppose the point I’m trying to make is that time moves forward with or without my consent. The clock ticks with absolute indifference to my nostalgia.
But I have an upper hand on the clock’s cruelty. As a Christian, I know Christ is present in every moment. “Behold,” He said, “I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).
Everything we love in this world is fragile. I’ve been known to say from the pulpit from time to time that everything has an expiration date. Everything is subject to wind, water, decay, and time. But the thing is, Christ stands right in the middle of the storms. He’s a fixed anchor right in the middle of all our victories and losses. He’s unshaken and unchanging. He does not promise that the signposts will remain standing. He doesn’t promise that the forthcoming year and its moments will be gentle. But He does promise Himself. And with that promise comes the impenetrable truth of a kingdom that cannot be washed away, grasped by a hope-filled strength that does not weaken or erode.
So as 2025 becomes 2026, just as I won’t cling to the misapprehension that I can stay up until midnight, I won’t hold to the illusion that the coming year will somehow be free from struggle or loss. Time has cured me of that naiveté. There will be storms I didn’t see coming, moments I assumed would last that didn’t, and conversations I didn’t realize were final until they already were. But those potential realities are not hollow or hopeless when viewed through the lens of the Gospel. The calendar can change all it wants. Christ remains the same—yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8).
Indeed, the world may lose its landmarks. Favorite places and moments may disappear into the Gulf, maybe even becoming portraits on our dining room walls. But in the middle of all of it, the cross still stands, unmoved by this world’s winds and waves, untouched by time’s inevitable erosion. And that’s enough for me. I have everything I need in Jesus, which means I’ll have everything I need in 2026. My prayer is that He’ll be enough for you in the new year, too.
By the way, if your church doesn’t offer a New Year’s Eve service, stop by Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hartland, Michigan. Ours is at 4:30 pm. For the record, I’ve never met anyone who was disappointed they went to church on New Year’s Eve.
Before I begin, a clarification is in order, if only because people asked for a recording of the hymn I described in last week’s eNews message.
For starters, yes, we do record our worship services. The audio recordings are kept and given to those who genuinely need them, which I’ll come back to in a moment. In the meantime, know that the device we use to capture the service is fed straight from our thousand-year-old microphones directly to a flash drive. In other words, the recordings are, by no means, a spectral capture in crisp Dolby stereo. Above and beneath and around the liturgy’s voice, there are a multitude of ambient sounds you’d expect in a room bearing several hundred people. Thankfully, the spoken word survives the ordeal reasonably well. You can hear the lector reading and the pastor preaching clearly enough, and without much annoyance. But what does not fare so well is the music. It sounds like it’s being performed and sung from inside a gigantic oil drum.
In short, the recordings do what they are meant to do, which is to preserve the Word of God preached and read. However, they do not showcase the liturgical experience—and I’m perfectly okay with that, for a couple of reasons.
One of the reasons we do not share our services with anyone other than shut-ins or other folks in genuine need became especially clear during COVID. Not long after so many in society became terrified, even as we gathered in person, I warned the Board of Elders that providing a virtual alternative would inevitably give people an excuse to stay away—not out of necessity, but out of convenience. And as it turns out, I was right. While it didn’t necessarily happen to us, plenty of studies have discovered it did, in fact, happen to countless others. Indeed, American Christendom experienced a significant shift. Duke Divinity School’s Faith & Leadership initiative found that most congregations that normalized virtual worship during COVID never fully regained their in-person attendance, ultimately returning to in-person worship with 10% fewer people than before. The COVID Religion Research Project found that as many as 25% of regular churchgoers in America now regularly rely on online worship as a viable substitute for in-person gatherings.
Gathering these things into a singular thought, my sense is that what began as an emergency measure became, for many churches, a long-term standard for deliberate displacement. People settled into watching rather than attending, observing rather than gathering.
And yet, the Bible does not treat worship in this way. That’s because it does not consider the actual assembly as optional (Hebrews 10:24-25). Christian worship is, by design, incarnational. We do it together, in person. It is God’s people gathered in one place to hear, confess, receive, and sing. We do this in one another’s presence. We’re the Body of Christ, and that’s how a body works, together with its other parts (1 Corinthians 12:12-27).
So, what about service recordings? Well, we record and share our services as a care for those who truly cannot be there—the shut-in, the homebound, those whose bodies no longer allow them to gather without real difficulty. These are exceptional cases of care. I’ve always considered the service recordings as functioning sort of like an artificial heart. It’s not ideal. It more or less sustains when what should be there cannot be. In the meantime, for the healthy among us, we resist broadcasting beyond this threshold because we do not want to train anyone to believe that artificial substitutes are equivalent to the real thing. Again, an artificial heart does not replace a healthy, living one. In the same way, virtual presence can serve in cases of genuine need, but it is not the same as real presence.
But there’s still more to this.
Returning to where I started, after last week’s note, more than a few people asked if I had a recording of the service. I was going to disregard everything I just said and share a short clip of “What Child Is This” from our Children’s Christmas service. I really was. But then I listened to the recording. As I did, I ran squarely into what I mentioned before.
Our service recordings are not very good—and I like that they’re not. Yes, the hymn as it was sung that night—the children’s voices, the organ, the words—all these parts were technically present in the recording. But at the same time, they weren’t. The recording did not capture the moment. To understand what I described last week, you had to be there. If you weren’t there, then, well, you missed it.
Along the same lines as what I’ve already written here, there’s something about being in the room. It’s something no microphone can seize, and no speaker can reproduce. I can only tell you about it—the way the sound moved, the way the congregation was pulled into carrying the lyrics, the way time seemed to slow during the second stanza of “What Child Is This,” as though its words really were pressing down on all of us with a theological weight you could actually feel. Sure, I could play the recording for you. You’d hear the music and singing. But you cannot experience the surge of a moment when truth lands heavily, and everyone in the room is caught in its blast radius.
That only happens incarnationally. It only happens when you are there.
This is not a critique of recordings. They serve a purpose. Again, we consider it a kindness to shut-ins, travelers, and those whose bodies or circumstances truly prevent them from gathering with their Christian family. Thanks be to God for such tools. But they were never meant to replace presence. They cannot. They do not.
Christian worship is far more than content delivery. It’s not something you consume efficiently while cleaning the kitchen or working in the garage. It is not background noise for Sunday morning coffee or something you “catch up on” later in the week. Christian Worship is a holy and deliberate interruption to everything else in your life. It is God gathering His people to Himself at a time and in a place to feed and sustain them with His gifts of forgiveness.
Even better, Christian worship is where the Word is not merely read but actually addressed to you personally—where the Sacrament of Christ’s body and blood is not something thought about but actually received. You open your mouth, and you eat and drink. It’s a place where forgiven hearts sing praises to God, and what they sing isn’t just sound, but it’s borne by the space itself—by breath and wood and pipe and stone and people standing shoulder to shoulder confessing and resonating the same truths together (Colossians 3:16).
The night we sang “What Child Is This,” the hymn was not so moving or impressive because it was technically flawless. It was powerful because, in a sense, it was inhabited. Indeed, Kantor Newman painted the text gloriously. And yet, the text was painted not only by him, but by the space, by the gathered Church, by the shared attentiveness of people who had come expecting God to do what He has promised to do. And He did (Isaiah 55:10-11). That’s something you cannot download and listen to during the car ride to work.
Now, may I say something plainly and pastorally?
As we stand on the doorstep of a new year, if you have been away from church, come back. If attendance has slipped into something occasional, make it deliberate again. I’m all about New Year’s resolutions. I’m already planning mine. Perhaps you could embrace and use the tradition to recommit to attending church.
Now, be careful. Don’t do it because you feel attendance somehow checks a box and proves your devotion. Don’t do it for any reason other than you know you need what God gives you there. You need to be where the hymnody—God’s Word put to music—is not just captured, but encountered. You need to be where your sins are forgiven out loud (John 20:22-23), where death is named from the pulpit and defied from the pews, where joy is shared by the rest of the Christian body who believe and confess the body’s head, Jesus Christ, together (Ephesians 1:22-23).
Quite simply, nothing compares to being present.
You know as well as I do that this coming year will bring its share of noise, distance, and disembodied substitutes for real life. Resist the lie that these are enough. The Christian faith has always insisted on incarnational truths. So go. Stand. Sing. Listen. Receive. Let the gathering of God’s people in holy worship do what it was always meant to do—which is not merely to pass through your ears, but rather, to take hold of you completely (Psalm 95:1-7).
I think the best place to start this morning is with a little bit of honesty. I suppose quite plainly, the Bible never pretends that the world is other than it is. From Genesis onward, it describes a creation that groans beneath a weight it was never meant to endure. A glance to one side or the other in our surroundings reveals weariness. It’s not hard to identify. It’s in the headlines. It’s in families. It’s along the streets we walk. It’s in the human heart, too. That alone tells us something important. This world requires Christmas.
Now, to say that we need Christmas is to confess something far more than sentiment. It’s to admit that something decisive absolutely must interrupt the long fatigue I described.
On the surface, Christmas brings a rare pause. Even in our culture, which is so often bent inward, this day still nudges people toward generosity, reconciliation, and maybe even a little bit of genuine goodwill. For a brief moment, the rhythm of take-take-take slows, and the instinct to give emerges. People wrap and give presents to others. Dinner tables are set for more than just the immediate family. Indeed, people make room in their homes, even for people they’d prefer to see only once a year. These traditions, however imperfect, testify to something deeper than the mushiness of human nostalgia. They’re winks to a world that’s supposed to be something so much better than it is.
That said, there’s still more. Traditions do not exist in a vacuum. They always point somewhere. For one, a gift is never meaningless. It assumes a reason. And the reason for Christmas—regardless of what its underminers would say—has never changed. Long before the décor and melodies, Christmas had a name. To remember the day is, at some level, to remember Him. Christ is not one of many accessories to the holiday. He is its origin.
Christians know this, not necessarily by intuition, but by faith. That is why the Church gathers on Christmas Day. The pews are not empty because the promise is not. At Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hartland, Michigan, there will be people who understand that the world’s deepest hunger cannot be satisfied by even its best seasonal traditions.
I admire the people who set aside everything else for worship on Christmas Day. Those are the ones who seem to know, truly, that no amount of giving or receiving, no feasting on holiday ham or snacking on Christmas cookies can quiet the concerned conscience made weary by sin. That’s because none of these things can conquer sin’s wage—the last enemy we all face, which is death. Only Christ can do that. Faith recognizes that without Him at the center, even the joy of a fabulous Christmas gift fades quickly. With Christ, however, joy endures long after everyone has gone home, the ornaments are back in their boxes, and the tree is out at the street awaiting the garbage truck.
All year long, believers live from the same confession the Apostles proclaimed. With Saint Paul they trust that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). With Saint John they cling to the truth that “the Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). Christmas fixes a moment in history and declares that rescue entered time itself (Galatians 4:4). God did not shout salvation from a distance, but sent His own Son into the world (John 3:17). He stepped into the darkness to overcome it. Indeed, “the true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world” (John 1:5, 9). And He did just that!
So yes, Christmas brings warmth to a frigid landscape, both literally and figuratively. Yes, it has always involved gifts. But Christians know the heart of the season lies elsewhere—in something entirely different. Worship invites you into that “something.” It invites you to God’s house, where the order of giving is wonderfully reversed. We arrive empty-handed, and the One we celebrate supplies all the gifts. Life, forgiveness, salvation—these are the heavenly treasures He delivers. These are the gifts He just cannot wait to give!
This is why we need Christmas. This is why, no matter how the world recrafts it, Christmas will forever remain as the greatest news—the best invitation! By the power of the Holy Spirit for faith in this Gospel, receive that invitation. Do not set it aside as the world does. Instead, rejoice in the Savior who exchanged heavenly glory for a manger, and who would later exchange His innocence for your guilt. That work saves you.
I began by mentioning this world’s weariness. Maybe this is where Christmas finally meets with it. Like the Word of God in which it rests, the Christmas narrative does not pretend the burden isn’t there, nor does it ask weary sinners to carry it a little longer on their own. Instead, Christmas announces that rest has entered the world in the flesh of God’s own Son. The world may remain tired, and hearts may still feel heavy, but they are no longer without help or hope. Into our exhaustion, God has sent His Son, Jesus. Into our darkness, He has given His Light. Into the world’s prolonged fatigue, He now speaks a promise meant for sinners like you and me, saying, “Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). That rest is not found in a day on the calendar or in a season that fades, but in the Savior who came—and who remains.
I hope you’ll think about these things. Even better, I hope you’ll be immersed in them in a church pew.
I’ll leave you with that. And once again, Merry Christmas!
Tonight does not announce itself with spectacle. We might think that it does. But that’s only because of the holiday festivities. The event to which the festivities point did not demand attention by force or overwhelm the senses. It arrived quietly, almost unnoticed, as God so often does.
The world would have us recognize importance by noise and scale. It expects fanfare and crowds and applause. But God chose another way. He entered human history, but not in a royal procession. He came in the filthiness of childbirth. This did not happen surrounded by marble halls. He came to a borrowed shelter. He was not lifted from the mess and dressed in gilded garments. He was wrapped in whatever was available—swaddling cloths—if only to protect Him from the evening air.
That is the account of God’s arrival.
And yet, we know what the world does not. The eternal Word takes on weight. The Author of time submits Himself to it. The One who reached out and pinned the galaxies into place is laid where animals feed. Nothing about the scene feels impressive, and that’s precisely the point. God is not performing for us. He is coming to us—to be us.
Saint John tells us that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). He did not say that God hovered nearby. He did not say He came by for a visit. John said He dwelt. The Greek word is ἐσκήνωσεν—tabernacled. God pitched a tent among sinners. He took on human flesh. He breathed the same dust-filled air that we breathe. He became us in the truest sense of the word. That means the incarnation is far beyond allegorical niceties. It happened. It was God’s fulfilled commitment. He didn’t abandon us. Even better, He didn’t rescue from afar. He stepped into the mess. He rescued from within. See for yourself. There He is, right there in the manger.
Interestingly, Saint Luke doesn’t first draw our attention to the Christ-child. Instead, he draws us to the witnesses—shepherds keeping watch in the darkness, men accustomed to long nights and very little recognition. We could, in a sense, consider them lowly. And so, notice, the story remains grounded. Heaven opens to them first. The silence is broken by heavenly glory. Into the presence of the ordinary, the eternal invades. “Fear not,” the angels declare. I’ve said countless times before that this is the only appropriate greeting when an angel arrives, just as genuine fear is the only proper reaction when holiness collides with fallen humanity. Still, the message is not one of condemnation. It is the joy of all joys. God in human flesh has appeared. “For unto you is born this day…a Savior” (Luke 2:11).
A Savior. The Savior.
Heaven does not sing with the shepherds in that moment because just any baby has been born. Heaven sings because divine salvation has entered the world with lungs and a heartbeat. And the sign given is almost as scandalous as it is simple. A Child—the Christ—wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger. No throne. No visible power. No grandeur. Only His presence. God makes Himself small enough to be held, small enough to be threatened, to actually be in danger. Even before Herod’s men come tramping through Bethlehem to kill Jesus, already, the shadow of the cross is stretching backward across the manger’s hay.
We know why this child came. We know what His future holds.
We also know that future will be the ultimate demonstration of divine love. Divine love does not arrive demanding what it’s owed. And we certainly owe God so very much. Still, Divine love brings and distributes what is undeserved. What’s more, it does not protect itself. It gives itself away to protect others. It empties itself, even to the point of death, for others. Saint Paul wrote those words first. He insisted that Christ “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself” (Philippians 2:6-7). The manger, the shepherds, the angels, and everything surrounding the birth of Jesus, all these comprise the first sermon of this beautiful Gospel.
So tonight, in sense, the Church gathers for far more than a sentimental moment. We gather because the moment of all moments occurred in Bethlehem so many years ago. And as a result, reality changed. God bound Himself to humanity in a way that cannot be undone. Do you know what this means—what it really means? It means there is no suffering He cannot enter, no grief He does not understand, no darkness He has not stepped into ahead of us. Whatever the world looks like tomorrow, God will still be with us—because He already is (Matthew 28:19-20).
For now, we kneel beside the manger. We kneel where heaven touched earth in the most excellent way. It wasn’t an exceptional sight in human terms at the time, except maybe for that moment in the field with the shepherds. But still, that’s not why we’re here. We’re here, and we’re kneeling, because it’s all true, and we believe it. The Light has come. The Savior has arrived. And nothing—absolutely nothing—will ever be the same for us again. Sin, death, and Satan have met their match. The countdown to their final demise was certified at the moment of Christ’s conception.
With these Gospel promises in mind, may this holy night be an opportunity to renew your wonder, steady your hope, and anchor your faith in the One who chose to be near you. And why did He do this? Because He loves you more than anyone ever would or could. God bless and keep you by His grace. And Merry Christmas.
This past Wednesday evening, during our Children’s Christmas service here at Our Savior Lutheran Church in Hartland, Michigan, I found myself unexpectedly undone by one of my favorite Christmas hymns. Those who know me might say, “That happens to you with lots of hymns, Pastor.” Ah, yes, it does. But it only happens when exceptionally well-written hymns are played as they should. “What Child Is This” is one of those hymns.
Our relatively new Kantor, Dr. Richard Newman, had been rehearsing the hymn with the children over the past few weeks. But he’d been playing it plainly and without any noticeable flourish. I don’t mean that as a critique. Kantor Newman is a gifted musician. I mean, he holds a doctorate in his craft, and no one earns one in such fields without peerless skill. Besides, anyone with ears can tell he has far more in reserve than what any given Sunday hymn page he’s navigating allows. That said, and considering the context, he’d been playing somewhat plainly for a reason—to lead the children. He was giving the 130 or so students surrounding him in the choir loft a melody sturdy enough to carry their voices.
Now, I don’t like to drop changes on anyone before a worship service. However, not long before the service, I mentioned to him, pretty much in passing, that if he felt inclined, he could let loose a bit during the second stanza of “What Child Is This,” especially during the lines that actually sit in the hymn’s middle—the lines drawing our attention to the Lord’s inevitable passion.
“Nails, spear shall pierce Him through, The cross be borne for me, for you.”
I’ve written about those lines at Christmastime before, encouraging people to listen carefully during the hymn, if only their church musicians would play it. Those lines are by no means incidental. Again, they sit squarely at the hymn’s center, literally. Look at the words on the page to see for yourself. But even theologically, they are the hymn’s pivot. Everything before them asks the identity question posed by the hymn’s title. Everything afterward answers with an awareness overcome by strict solemnity—if only the one playing the hymn can get it right. If they do, the lines refuse to allow Christmas to remain sentimental or mushy. Instead, they insist that the Child in the manger, that cooing infant so dearly loved by His mother and adoptive father, has come for one purpose and one purpose only. He will bear our sins on the cross. Nails will tear into and through Him. A spear will be rammed through His side. He will die. It will be terrible. But He will do it—endure all of it—for me, for you.
That reality deserves something more than a simple tune.
Even while I was making the request of Kantor Newman, he was smiling. He then said something to the effect that what I was asking for had a name in the organ world. It’s called text painting. It’s the practice of allowing the music not merely to accompany the words, but to interpret them—to embody them.
Now that I know what he’s talking about, I’m willing to go even further and say it means to let the music preach the words.
And during the service, Kantor Newman did precisely that.
Rolling into the second stanza, the organ changed. It wasn’t loud for the sake of volume. It was expressive for the sake of the text’s actual weight. Our Kantor began building. And the music pressed into the text’s weight in a way that made it seem like the organ was rising into the rafters to play alongside beings we could not see but were nevertheless there. In that moment, for as much as I wanted to sing along, I couldn’t. My jaw tightened, and my throat shrank a little. And had our church’s Christmas tree not been hiding me, I’m sure anybody watching would’ve noticed my inability. I was overcome, even to the point of shedding a tear down my right cheek. For the record, the feeling was familiar. Our former Kantor, Keith Vieregge, could do this with certain hymns, too. I can barely get through “Stricken, Smitten, and Afflicted” with him at the helm.
But regardless of who’s painting the text, such moments capture something essential to Christmas, and it’s something I think too many work very hard to avoid.
We like our Christmas to be gentle. We appreciate it safely wrapped in glistening décor and candlelight. We prefer shepherds and angels and Dickens-like Christmas scenes. And those things are nice. They belong. But if Christmas never takes us beyond the wonder into the weight that the second stanza of “What Child Is This” brings, then I think we’re misunderstanding it entirely.
Grammatically, the hymn’s title is a question. But it’s not a rhetorical one. It’s asking the same question now in the Lord’s infancy that, when He grew and began to speak, He’d ask of others at various times and in various ways throughout His earthly ministry. Inherent to almost every question Jesus asked along the way is the much deeper inquiry, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15). Whether it’s Jesus replying to His mother at the wineless wedding at Cana, “What does this have to do with me?” (John 2:4), which is to acknowledge she knows He can do something to help; or to His disciples on the treacherous sea, asking them, “Why are you so afraid?” (Matthew 8:26), which is to invite trust in the One who’s in the boat beside them. “What child is this?” is another of these questions, showing that Christmas is not immune to concern for the answer.
The hymn refuses to let us stop at the manger and then be on our way. It doesn’t allow us to marvel at the Christ Child without reckoning with the man He becomes—with what He actually came to do. In other words, we risk Christmas being emptied of its principal joy if we don’t know the deeper “who” and “why” of the Child. The incarnation is not just a moment on the timeline that we observe and then carry along to other things. It is this world’s interruption. It is God’s plan moving decisively forward.
That is why the second stanza matters so much. Again, it is the epicenter of the hymn. It has to be. That’s because it’s the epicenter of Christmas. And I dare say William Dix, the hymnwriter, proved that he knew it.
For me, this is where text painting becomes far more than a musical technique. It becomes a theological confession of what the whole congregation must know is true. It’s the same reason certain words are chanted during a service, and some are not. Chanting draws attention to something significant and, by its form, ensures it is heard crisply and clearly. When music leans into the meaning of the words, it reminds us that truth is not only something to be stated; it is something to be immersed in fully. Another way to say it (and any church musicians out there reading this, feel free to correct me), I’d say good church music doesn’t manipulate emotion. It aligns it. It brings heart and mind, body and soul, into harmony with something real.
Last Wednesday, during the Children’s Christmas service here at Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hartland, Michigan, “What Child Is This” was sung. But I dare say that, with the school children singing and some exceptional text painting by our very gifted Kantor, the Gospel was amplified in ways that made even the angels jealous. If anything, Gabriel and his pals were smiling through the whole evening. And any mortal human being who was listening—really listening—would’ve sensed that the cross is always the best lens for observing Christmas. The joy we experience at Christmas is a costly joy. It knows the world is not safe. It knows sin and death are no small things. It knows Satan is strong. And yet, the Lord entered into and against all these enemies anyway, and He did so to make sure we are not inheritors of this world—that we are not sin’s, death’s, or Satan’s captives. Instead, these are conquered and destroyed, and we are inheritors of the world to come and eternal citizens of the Lord’s blessed kingdom.
I’m looking forward to singing the hymn again on Christmas Eve. Desperately, so. I sure hope you get to sing it at your church, too.
Unfortunately, I haven’t been holding to my usual practice of posting and ghosting. Usually, I share what I’m thinking and move on, rarely returning to the original post. I did turn off notifications for my last post right after I wrote it, so there’s that. I feel somewhat refreshed. But for others, I’d been reading comments, and in so doing, sensing a black hole form in the galaxy of my willingness to share anything at all. I don’t like that sensation. I’d rather keep sharing, not because I have anything valuable to say, but because for me, writing is a mental illness. Seriously. I have to do it. As I’ve told others, if I don’t, I sometimes feel like my head will split open and spray words on the wall.
I’ve also noted on occasion that there’s a reason for the black hole’s formation and the value of posting and ghosting. No one is truly capable of enduring the scale or flow that the social media firehose can produce. No one is meant to say something and then be instantaneously admired or hated by so many all at once. I suppose the inspiration for what I’m writing right now is an article I just read about the rigors of life in the entertainment business. It certainly seemed interesting, so I scrolled through it. Essentially, the author, a psychiatrist, noted that celebrities—people in the public eye—are more prone to anxiety, depression, bipolar disorders, suicide, and substance abuse. And why? The never-ending media and public scrutiny. They are loved and hated on a mass scale. It seems the ones who survive this are those who can step out on stage, speak, and then leave the stage, ultimately retreating to a well-insulated distance.
In a way, social media gives everyday Joes like us a sense of this. Apart from the fact that it’s a forum where so many rules of normal communication already seem to dissipate into ethereal nothingness, social media gives a sense of broad-reaching importance to anything anyone writes. Social media lets all of us announce our thoughts to the world, as if history itself had been waiting for our exact opinions, typed right there on our phones in a grocery store checkout line. Add to that social media’s instinctual rules. For the most part, nuance is frowned upon. Tribal allegiance matters most. Thoughtful consideration followed by kindly conversation has become heresy. Reactionism is rewarded. And the highest virtue is not being right but being certain that I could never be wrong—preferably in all caps, and while correcting someone who never asked. Or perhaps worse, having direct access to someone through private messaging, demanding an answer to an angry question, neither the response nor the person’s time being something you are owed.
And so, the practice of posting and ghosting is a way of sharing one’s thoughts without being slow-boiled toward defeat by potential vitriol. It also prevents the temptation to knee-jerk in response to the vitriol. In other words—and I speak only for myself when I say it—it’s an act of both self-control and self-preservation in a system primarily designed to fan instantaneous and mass-scale reactionary flames. I believe people can have their moment on stage, speak, and then leave the stage, leaving the crowd to discuss without being harmed in the process. It might not be what readers want from the one posting, but it helps him avoid the black hole, ultimately keeping him around a little bit longer.
Why am I sticking my nose in this? Why do I care about it? Not only because folks are taking time out of their apparently not-so-busy work day to come after me by email now, but because it matters.
What doesn’t matter is what Rob Reiner bemoaningly said about Donald Trump in the past. His name-calling does not matter. It also does not matter what he said about Rush Limbaugh’s death, no matter how cruel. None of those words supply anyone with moral permission to cheer someone’s murder.
But do me a favor and keep reading. Don’t skim. Read, because some are already sensing the urge to object to what I just wrote.
Yes, Reiner’s rhetoric probably helped fuel the kind of violence that got Charlie killed. Yes, words can inflame unstable people, and I have criticized that recklessness for, well, forever. But inherent to my point is that causal responsibility is not moral permission. Cruel or deceitful speech may be blameworthy, but it is never a license for murder. It’s certainly never grounds for celebrating it. And if you cannot discern these things, you are not dealing in moral clarity. You are trapped in an emotional tribalism, and you are a part of the Woke Right.
The Woke Right, just like the Woke Left, can decide that a man’s death is funny, or deserved, or useful, or whatever. But once you cross into that borderland, every protest that follows rings ridiculously hollow—because you’ve already proven that your moral claims only apply when it is your tribe member lying dead on the ground.
Interestingly, someone decided to email me and say something like, “Well, what about being glad about Hitler’s death? What if someone could’ve killed him to stop him? Can we cheer for that?” I’ll respond right here.
Yes, there are such things as stupid questions, and you just asked one. Why is it stupid? Because in this context, your question is an evasive attempt to justify your cheering for Reiner’s murder. How so? Because none of this is even remotely comparable to stopping (or being glad someone stopped) a man like Hitler while he was actively murdering millions. There is a categorical difference between restraining or killing someone in order to halt ongoing mass slaughter and cheering the death of a movie director because you despised what he said about the leader of your tribe. The former is tragic necessity in the face of evil. The latter is moral rot. And conflating the two is either careless and accidental, because you didn’t think it through, or you didn’t know any better, or it’s deliberately dishonest. Whatever the case may be, if you cannot tell the difference between preventing slaughter and celebrating murder, then the problem is not the complexity of the situation. It is your collapsed moral framework.
In the end, it’s pretty simple for me. If my commitment to human dignity evaporates the moment it costs my side something, then it was never a conviction at all. I’m not going to live that way. And that’s how I’m different than the folks coming after me. I don’t care what you’ve said about me. Your life still matters to me, and I’m going to do everything I can to protect it. Not because I like you, but because Christ considered you worthy of every single drop of blood in His holy veins, and I’m on His side.
There are very important moments when leadership is not measured by how loudly we speak, but by how carefully we choose our words. Rob Reiner was verbally cruel to President Trump. He had been for many years. No one argues this. But his and his wife’s rather gruesome deaths required words of reverent sobriety, not mockery.
This really could have been a time for President Trump to shine. Simplicity, or maybe even silence, would have been the wiser course. Of course, silence would’ve prompted backlash, so what’s the harm in a brief acknowledgment of loss? A recognition of grief, even for an outspoken enemy? That’s it. I mean, there is a time to argue, and there is a time to mourn.
I should say that I’ve stood before my congregation on countless occasions and in various contexts and shared the characteristics I appreciate most in people. Two in particular stand out right now. I think the best way to relay the first is to say that leadership isn’t always about how quickly a person responds in the middle of a crisis. It’s about whether the person actually understands the moment requiring a response. That said, the ability to exercise restraint when restraint is hardest—when emotion, and even a long history of provocation, seem to beg for a sharp response. Leadership we can call “good” knows when to tone down and hold back. Even better, I think it takes more guts to lower your voice than to shout one’s apparent vindication. That’s by no means a sign of weakness. It demonstrates strength under control.
Trump made a huge mistake. The moment called for restraint, and he blew it. That leads to another characteristic I admire in people. Those with the ability to admit to a mistake and seek to amend that mistake are the truly courageous among us. They are also the wisest, and I trust them above all others.
If I were advising Trump, I’d tell him an apology here would not weaken him. It would show that even a man accustomed to fighting understands when the fight needs to stop. It would communicate that there are moments when compassion must take precedence over score-settling. That kind of humility is already too rare in public life, which is precisely why it matters right now, and why it would strengthen President Trump, not weaken him.
Again, the strongest people I know can admit to being wrong and say, “I’m sorry.” They own their errors. And they correct course. When they do, they earn my trust rather than lose it. In this particular moment, a sincere apology would not erase what President Trump wrote, but it would demonstrate that he does, in fact, understand the gravity of the moment he first failed to recognize. I’ll pray that someone in his immediate circle encourages him to do this.
I received my fair share of hate mail for what I shared last week about the church in Evanston, Illinois. Even a few business owners from the town reached out to give me a verbal slap. And yet, it is as I’ve said countless times before. Writing for public consumption is risky. And so, be ready to endure what goes with it. Of course, knowing what to expect helps. Most of the messages bore a tired spirit, the kind that only knows accusations like, “You’re a heartless human being,” or “You’re a hypocritical Christian.”
However, I found one email rather interesting. I’ve copied and pasted it here for you.
“With all due respect Mr. Thoma (I will not call you doctor or reverend because you are not) you are just one more fantic [sic] who does what you tell others not to do. You make the bible say things it does not. It does not talk about genders the way you do. It does not say anything at all about abortion. That church can make there [sic] manager [sic] scene say whatever they want. There is no rule to understand it the way you do. And didn’t Jesus say to judge not?”
There’s a lot in that message. It has a lot of the same trite prattling I’ve endured a thousand times before. That said, I’ll admit I have very little interest in responding to most of it, especially the first, third, and fourth concerns in the message. Those are easy. Yes, the Bible does speak rather precisely about gender. No, you cannot make the Gospel and its narratives into whatever you want. Lastly, you just judged me and then said Jesus insisted we not do such things.
But the second concern—that the Bible does not say anything specifically about abortion—is worthy of some attention.
This particular comment exposes a genuine hermeneutical problem—a way of interpreting God’s Word. It holds that if something is not loudly foregrounded in a familiar verse, then the Bible must intend for us to do whatever we want with it. To be fair, many within the prolife camp inadvertently reinforce this misunderstanding. This is where the prolife movement could use some help. What I’m saying is that when confronted by these same arguments, most in the prolife camp go for the low-hanging fruit. We quote Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1, Luke 1—verses about God forming life in the womb, about knowing us before birth, about children leaping for joy beneath a mother’s ribs. To be sure, these are beautiful passages. But they do not yet fully address the challenge posed in the message, which is the claim that the Bible doesn’t say anything specifically about abortion, like, at all.
And yet, the Bible does. Saint Paul himself is the crucial proof here.
A few years back, I spoke at a Right to Life banquet, and I spent most of my presentation dealing with this point. In particular, I focused on a word Saint Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15. Before I share that word, we need to know the capabilities of the man who used it, not merely as an Apostle, but as a writer who knew the innate power of language and its ability to carry theological freight. In other words, Paul understood how one well-chosen term could do what a thousand explanations could not. And so, when he does this, we are wise to pay attention, being sure not to soften his intent, or to do what we can to explain it away.
First, Paul was fully aware he was writing Scripture (see Galatians 2:1–9). That matters. It means he knew what he wrote was not only inspired but also immutably authoritative. It wasn’t just for his time. It was aimed directly at the saints of every generation, including our own.
Second (and as a writer, I just love Paul for this), he was no dull penman. In fact, whenever I want to show the students in my religion class just how much fun the Scriptures can be, I take them into Saint Paul’s writings. The Holy Spirit’s allowance for a biblical writer’s mind, wit, personality, experiences, and education really shine through with Paul. His epistles breathe with imagery and rhetorical devices. Sometimes he thunders. Sometimes he sings. Sometimes he jokes. Sometimes he pokes with stinging sarcasm. Sometimes he rambles, as if wrestling with himself out loud. He laughs at himself on occasion. Sometimes the Holy Spirit leads him to write some really hard news, leaving him feeling slimy. When that happens, you can almost guarantee you’ll discover a strange doxological sentence afterward, as if he felt the need to take a verbal shower.
Aware of these things, Saint Paul is great fun to read.
But it also enables the reader to see those places where Saint Paul drops plainspoken word-bombs. There is one such place where the word he chooses, one that the prochoice world hopes no one will notice, is meant to rattle the teeth in a reader’s skull.
In 1 Corinthians 15:8, Paul describes himself as τῷ ἐκτρώματι. This is typically softened to “one abnormally born” or “untimely born.” Unfortunately, most assume Paul just meant he arrived late to the apostolic party, as if he were the last hired or least deserving. But that’s not at all what the word means.
Admittedly, ἔκτρωμα (ektroma) is a rare word in the New Testament. In fact, this is the only place it appears. But outside of Scripture, it is common enough in Hippocrates, Dioscorides, and other early medical writers. And there it rarely means “one abnormally born” or “untimely born.” It’s the word used for an aborted child—a baby expelled dead, and often deliberately. In other words, this is not just miscarriage or tragic happenstance language. The word includes the idea of killing a baby in the womb.
Now, let your stomach turn a little. I get the sense that’s the response Paul wanted. It’s an ugly comparison. Contextually, Paul is not mildly saying, “I was late to the apostles.” He is calling himself an abortion by comparison—a repulsive example of something terrible, the only thing he could be in his time apart from Christ, before his appointment as an apostle. Now, here’s why I think this matters to the discussion.
Years ago, I read an article in The Telegraph recounting a sermon by Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, then-Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In front of an abortion clinic, Ragsdale said everything in public that the email I shared above implies. She called out from a microphone that the Bible was silent on abortion, and by its silence, a person’s freedom to have or not have one is implied. Stepping from that twisted assumption, she declared that abortion is actually a blessing given by God, and then she invited everyone in the crowd to chant, “Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done!”
Wow.
Of course, Ragsdale is not some persona plucked from modern Christendom’s fringe. Her ideas have actually taken root like invasive weeds throughout the denominational spectrum. I know this, not only because of the email that came my way, but because of the stereotypical points that “prochoice Christians” lean on to support their ungodly position. It’s a common defense to say that the Bible doesn’t even mention abortion, and since that’s true, it belongs in the category of adiaphora—something neither commanded nor forbidden by God’s Word. Furthermore, if something is neither commanded nor forbidden, we are free to do with it as we’d prefer—maybe even consider it a blessing.
Well, unfortunately for them, the Bible does mention abortion explicitly and by name—ἔκτρωμα. And by the way, I should add that it’s the theology of toddlers and thieves to shove genuine ungodliness into adiaphora’s category. I don’t care what the topic is. Besides, it is irrational to think that if any source, let alone the Bible, uses a word as an insult, the concept attached to that word could ever be considered good. Paul did not call himself a hug or a sunrise. He called himself an abortion—a grotesque image meant to reveal what sin makes of us, and what God has every right to do to us as children. In our sin, we deserve death before we even take our first breath. Grammatically, if abortion is used in this way to portray humanity’s depravity, then for Christians to call it a blessing or declare it holy is to declare altar fellowship with Molech.
The Church must know and understand this. And she must be ready to say it without stuttering. No, abortion is not a blessing. It is an abomination. It always has been, and it always will be. The Bible specifically refers to abortion as something dreadful. If your Bible translation calls it holy, go bury it somewhere. If your pastor calls it a blessing, well, don’t bury him, tempting as the thought may be. Instead, confront him and demand repentance. If he refuses, leave. Find a church that still believes the Word means what it says
Did you happen to see the article from Breitbart last week describing how a Christian (and I use the term loosely) congregation in Evanston, Illinois, put out a rather provocative nativity scene? My friend, Bob, sent it to me. I’m glad he did. Essentially, the church is displaying an infant Jesus bound with zip ties. Mary and Joseph are wearing gas masks. Roman soldiers are depicted as modern-day ICE agents, wearing insignia vests and all.
The first thing I’ll say is that it sure seems tempting for some to turn sacred things into public spectacles, especially in a culture that not only enjoys but rewards sensationalism. For those who know where I stand on worship styles, that’s really what sits at the heart of my beef with contemporary worship. I just can’t get past the anthropocentric exhibitionist nature of it all. Why would any of us need Hollywood theatrics to “encounter” the Lord? Why strain so hard to manufacture emotion when we know, by faith, that Christ Himself is truly present by His visible and verbal Word to deliver forgiveness, life, and salvation? But even as contemporary worship teeters on the edge of spectacle, I’m willing to admit that most who prefer it still at least want to tell the Lord’s story. They’re reaching, even if thinly, for Christ.
The church in Evanston, not so much. Their goal isn’t proclamation. It’s provocation. It is to deliberately exchange the holy mystery of Christ’s birth with a political message that the Christmas narrative was never meant to carry. And not just a little exchange. But a complete conversion into the ridiculous. The entire goal is to fashion Jesus’s birth into a statement about immigration. That’s it, and nothing more.
Ultimately, the heart of the Christmas narrative is that God became Man, thus the longstanding practice of reading John 1:1-14 as the appointed Gospel text for Christmas Day. The birth of Jesus Christ is not an allegory. It’s not a political metaphor. It’s not a social-justice image. It’s an all-encompassing historical and spiritual reality. Not one single inch of it is a backdrop for the progressive silliness we’re seeing in Evanston, Illinois. It’s the humble cradle of the One who became as us, that He might take our place in judgment (Isaiah 53:4-6; 2 Corinthians 5:21), and win for us eternal life (John 3:16). All of its themes and sub-themes circle this truth.
By the way, I think the response to this nonsense by some in the Church has been too kind. I saw a note on a Facebook post calling it an “unfortunate demonstration done in poor taste.” It is not poor taste. It is unbridled sacrilege.
But here’s the real catch. The display’s orchestrators claim we ought not miss the parallels between the Holy Family’s escape to Egypt and the plight of modern immigrants. However, any objective person, even one who spends only a minute or two on the Christmas narrative, will see this as a gross oversimplification and, ultimately, a distortion. The flight into Egypt was not a matter of contemporary geopolitics or border enforcement. It had nothing to do with social justice policy. It was divine choreography. It was the unfolding of God’s redemptive plan. To equate that salvific narrative with today’s immigration debates is to cram sacred things into the mold of secular activism, ultimately betraying progressive Christianity’s real geist.
Progressive Christianity is not interested in who Jesus is and what He’s done, except to convert Him into a mascot when convenient—or a moral illustration helpful only insofar as He endorses the activist agenda. Progressivism does not proclaim Christ crucified for sinners (1 Corinthians 1:23). It can’t. The theologies of sin and grace would undermine the Marxist premise that some are inherently unforgivable and some are inherently oppressed by those same unforgivables. Straying too far from that premise risks a finger pointing back in the direction of progressivism’s false “righteousness.” Jesus is a much safer Christ when He can be conscripted for slogans. And so, they do. And they do it for everything.
So keep digging. Read, don’t skim. The Breitbart article’s author was right. Their public “covenant” omits the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, His atoning death, and salvation by grace through faith.
Aware of these things, this ungodly nativity scene makes a little more sense. Not to mention, the omissions can be understood rightly. They aren’t incidental. They are foundational. Once the person and work of Jesus Christ cease to be central, the Gospel becomes malleable. And if the Gospel is malleable, it can be reshaped into any form that suits the latest progressive cause. You name it, and Jesus is a social warrior for it. Immigration, BLM, gender fluidity, and the list goes on.
But now, before I say anything else, I should circle back around to something I said already.
You can pretty much count on the progressive churches this time of year to roll out the ol’ “Jesus was a refugee” campaign. Unfortunately, many folks fall for it. That’s because it sounds compassionate on the surface. It’s also because people are biblically illiterate. It trades on half-remembered Sunday School summaries rather than what the Scriptures actually say. But once you step past the slogan and back into the sacred text, the whole construct collapses. A person can see that biblically, historically, and most importantly, theologically, the refugee narrative simply does not fit into the Christmas story. And the only way to bring them into stride is to do some serious rewriting.
First of all, the Holy Family’s escape was not an immigration crisis. It was, as I already said, divine choreography. Mary, Joseph, and the infant Jesus fled to Egypt because God commanded it through an angel (Matthew 2:13). They also returned because God commanded it through an angel (Matthew 2:19-20). Their escape was not a search for asylum. It wasn’t a reaction to immigration laws. It wasn’t a political protest. It was God preserving the Messiah so that He could accomplish His appointed work (Galatians 4:4-5). What we’re watching in the Christmas narrative is redemptive history, not social justice rhetoric.
Second, Egypt was not a foreign nation in the modern political sense. The first-century world wasn’t divided into modern nation-states. Egypt and Judea were both under Roman rule. There were no checkpoints or passports. There were no visas or asylum protocols. The Holy Family’s movement was absolutely nothing like border migration. It was, quite simply, movement within a unified structure, and about the only noticeable differences were the regional variations. In fact, it would be more honest to compare it to moving from one state in the U.S to another.
Third, the Holy Family was not homeless or destitute. Progressives love to depict them this way. But God’s Word doesn’t do that. After the Magi arrived bearing their gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matthew 2:11), Joseph and Mary went into Egypt with some significant financial means. And don’t forget that Joseph is described as a τέκτονος (Matthew 13:55), which is a word that’s often translated as “carpenter,” but can also indicate a craftsman who works as a builder with various materials. In other words, Jesus’s adoptive father was a skilled tradesman. Those were in demand everywhere in the first century. Joseph was more than able to provide for his little family, which is to say our beloved Savior and His family were not impoverished migrants trying to survive. They were a well-cared-for, God-guided family under divine protection.
And it was all in place for one purpose: to preserve the Messiah.
Christ was spared from Herod so that He could die for the sins of the world at the appointed hour (John 10:17-18). This is the epicenter of the escape narrative, and to recast it as commentary on modern immigration is to betray no small ignorance of salvation history’s details and eventual arc.
But again, what should we expect from these goofy activist churches?
That said, I should warn you against the churches on the other side of the political aisle in this regard, too. Indeed, ours is a nation undeniably shaped by Christian principles, and for that we should give thanks. Patriotism, rightly ordered, is a gift—an expression of gratitude for rights we don’t deserve and didn’t earn, and yet God gave. With that, we rejoice in this nation because it’s free. Ironically, even as progressive ideologues are forever trying to silence conservative bible-believing churches, these same Bible-believing churches rejoice in religious liberty—the same principle that guarantees the sleazy progressive churches the freedom to hang LGBTQ, Inc. flags and put up activist nativity scenes.
Still, we have to be clear and consistent. The faithful churches must guard against any and all tendencies to allow anything to eclipse the Gospel (1 Corinthians 2:2). We must maintain that the Church’s calling is higher, older, and holier than any one nation’s story, even when we’re considering America’s uniquely Christological heritage. We’re glad for it. We rejoice in it. We do everything we can to prevent it from slipping into forgotten history. But it’s not the primary message of our lives in Christ. It’s a piece of who we are, not the thrust of our Christian identity (Philippians 3:20).
Now, again, don’t misunderstand me. (Of course, those who know me best won’t do such a thing.) We can and should talk about political things from the pulpit. In fact, I wrote a book that Fidelis Publishing is set to release in February, entitled Christ Before Caesar: Faithful Public Witness in an Age of Retreat. I more than mention throughout the importance of pastors concerning themselves with these things, if only because, just as Abraham Kuyper, the late nineteenth-century pastor and Prime Minister of the Netherlands, so rightly said: “There is not one square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Lord, does not cry ‘Mine!’” But I do this mindful that I am to preach the Word of God, and nothing is to get more airtime or airspace in the pulpit than the Gospel. In the churches that give more to politics than Christ, even the conservative ones, I dare say Christ is just as absent in the preaching there as He is in the Evanston church’s nativity scene.
The Church must preach a Christ unshadowed by any agenda—One whose kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), yet who rules this world all the same for the good of His people (Ephesians 1:22-23).
In the end, that’s a key indicator of what separates the real Church from every cheap imitation of it. The world can dress Jesus in zip ties or put Him on an eagle’s back with a flag in His hand. It can drag Him into its activism, shrink Him into a mascot, or draft Him into its political crusades. But the real Christ didn’t take on flesh to validate movements. He came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).
Full stop. The Church’s task is also not to improve the Lord’s image or update His mission. It is to be faithful to His Word. It is to proclaim the Gospel—what He’s done, is doing, and will continue to do for sinners relative to their dreadful predicament in judgment (Hebrews 13:8). Knowing this, we can strip away the theatrics. When we do, we’ll see Jesus there—the Holy Child in the manger, the Man on the cross, the Lord at the empty tomb. That Jesus—unrevised and unshadowed—is the only One who gives life (John 11:25). And if a church cannot preach that Christ purely and without alteration, it is not a church at all (Revelation 2:4-5).
Cruciform Stuff 