A Pastor's Review of Unplanned: Uncertain of its Own Message

Unplanned is a movie based on the true story of Abby Johnson, the former Planned Parenthood director who famously became pro-life. The movie is produced by PureFlix, creators of such films like God's Not Dead, Mom's Night Out, The Case for Christ, and several rapture movies. Unplanned stars Ashley Bratcher as Abby Johnson, Brooks Ryan as Abby's husband, Doug, and Robia Scott as the wicked witch of the south. As far as the story goes, I rather liked the movie, but it was a hard watch. The violence of abortion is portrayed with chilling effect.

With the formalities out of the way, let me be upfront about two things. First, the R-rating on Unplanned is deserved. I know the film's promoters made a big deal about the MPAA slapping an R-rating on their movie. Charisma News called the rating "devious." An award-winning producer of Schindler's List called it "biased." If the outrage was expressed to hype the movie and get attention, more power to them, I guess. But the MPAA should be applauded for their decision. I'll come back to this later.

The second thing I want to be upfront about is this—the gospel is not in this movie. This is a pro-life film more than it is a Christian film, and those two things are not synonymous. The God-fearing Christian cherishes all human life as sacred from conception to natural death. But not all who call themselves pro-life are Christians. While the movie might win some people to the pro-life side of the political aisle, no one will leave the theater a Christian because no one will have heard the gospel.

Unplanned pulls back the curtain on many of the horrors of the abortion industry, and I appreciate that. At the same time, the filmmakers are confused about their own message, and that's evident within the story itself.

Abortion is murder. That's what you will see in the movie—the dramatic portrayal of babies being killed. The visuals and sounds are disturbing. You will witness at least two babies being aborted. Of course, what you're watching is cinematic drama, made up of make-up and special effects, music and tension. But it's depicting something very real, done thousands of times a day in America. Roughly 3,000 unborn children are killed daily. One Planned Parenthood clinic murders as many as three-dozen babies per day.

The first abortion is within the first ten minutes of the film. It is what's called a D&C abortion, or an abortion by suction catheter. You will see hoses and tubes and containers fill up with blood and organs as a 13-week-old baby is being pulled part, all while watching the child squirm in the womb on an ultrasound screen. The story goes that this was the abortion that pushed Abby Johnson over the edge from pro-abortion to pro-life. It is a difficult scene to watch—even more-so when you know this is something that really happens.

Before the scene began, a father sitting one row back from me realized what was about to occur. He quickly took up his son, about 7 or 8 years old, and rushed him out of the theater. I don't think he returned. Really, don't bring your kids to this movie until you've seen it first. (I saw another person leave after the scene was over, and another two people left in the second abortion scene.)

The second abortion happens about ten minutes later. I thought this scene was more difficult than the first. It shows what RU-486, or the abortion pill, does to a woman, and it's not pretty. You will see a woman have her abortion (painfully) in the shower, and in a sobbing mess she tries to pick up pieces of her aborted child. At the close of the scene, the camera pans up and away from the bathroom, and you see blood in the shower and in the toilet, on the woman and on the floor.

In one scene, a teenage girl's uterus is perforated during an abortion procedure. There's blood everywhere and she nearly dies. In another scene, Abby closely examines the leftover remains of a dissected child in a petri dish. The camera zooms in on the pieces of this tiny baby. Like I said, the R-rating is well-deserved. So it's rather confusing that the filmmakers got upset with the MPAA for labeling the movie "violent."

Think about it—If abortion is a simple medical procedure to remove unwanted tissue, as Planned Parenthood wants the public to believe, then showing an abortion should be no different than any operation you might see depicted in a hospital drama on network television. But if abortion is the brutal, calculated murder of innocent children, then of course the dramatization of such butchery should get an R-rating!

Furthermore—and this has been pointed out elsewhere—the fact that Unplanned has an R-rating means that a 15-year-old girl can get an abortion without her parents' consent, but that same teenage girl cannot see a film about abortion unless her parents are with her. This exposes the seared conscience of our culture. The R-rating was a gift, but it was poorly utilized by the film's promotional team.

Though in the movie abortion is shown to be the mortal death of unborn children, as far as I could tell it was connected with death only twice. It's called "murder" by the protestors outside the abortion clinic toward the start of the movie; then in a sobbing mess during her redemption scene, Abby says that she was complicit in having "killed" over 20,000 babies. (She said this while crying, and I can't be sure that "killed" was the word she used.)

It's widely known that Abby Johnson—speaking of the real-life Abby Johnson—strongly dislikes abortion protestors. She hates that anyone would stand outside an abortion clinic warning women about what actually goes on inside, which is the murder of innocent children. She's opposed to using graphic imagery like pictures of aborted babies—unless that graphic imagery is in her movie, I guess.

The movie depicts abortion protestors as fat, hairy slobs with bad teeth (I'm not kidding) carrying Bibles, hurling insults, and making death threats. But these are the only ones in the whole film to call abortion murder. The movie shows it's murder, but it won't say it's murder. Apparently us fat, hairy slobs who call abortion murder (I speak for myself) know something the filmmakers don't.

In one of the more contradictory sequences, Abby doubled-up all of her clinic's scheduled abortions in order to get them done before Hurricane Ike made landfall, and the scene is set to the song You're an Overcomer by Mandisa. It was like the film made Abby and her employees out to be heroes. What on earth were the filmmakers thinking? If I were Mandisa, I'd be horrified that my song was used in such a way. The movie regularly held up Abby as an accomplished woman, despite that her accomplishments were killing babies. Sometimes you had to wonder exactly whose side this movie is on.

The movie also portrays Abby's husband, Doug, as pro-life, but this man was not pro-life in the movie nor in real-life. As Jon Speed, pastor of Christ is King Baptist in NY, said in his review, "How in the world does someone who is pro-life marry someone who volunteers at Planned Parenthood?" If Doug truly cared about the lives of unborn children, he would not have married a woman who was complicit in the murder of three-dozen lives per day.

Speed goes on to say, "Abby told a journalist that her husband wanted her to work at the Planned Parenthood for a couple of weeks after she quit because they could not make it on one income. She couldn't take it after one week, so she quit. One more week killing babies surgically, handing out the bloody RU-486 to suburban teenagers, and doing an interview with a Feminist radio show the day after her mid-abortion conversion." (Check out Speed's review for the myths and the mythology of the movie and the pro-life movement.)

Doug and Abby are shown to be church-going Christians (their pastor is played by heretic Kris Vallotton of Bethel Church, which did most of the movie's soundtrack). When I say the film shows them as church-going Christians, I mean that in the story they were always church-going Christians. Abby was not an unbeliever who became a believer in this film. She never had a come-to-Jesus moment because the viewer is led to think she believed in God the entire time.

Her conversion in the story was from pro-abortion to pro-life, not from sinner to saint. When she's sobbing in her living room, she asks her husband how she will ever get over the guilt for the babies she killed. Doug says, "You say you're sorry and God will forgive you." She says, "But how can he do that?" Doug replies, "Because he's God."

If you went the rest of your life believing the message in that scene, you would still be dead in your sins and perish under the wrath of God on judgment day. We are forgiven when we know that we have sinned against a holy God and what we deserve is death, but God sent His Son, Jesus, to die on the cross for our sins and conquer death by rising again from the grave. All who believe in Him will not perish but will have His eternal life.

If we ask forgiveness for our sins, God cleanses us from all unrighteousness because Jesus died in our place—not "because he's God," but because He is "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26). He forgives because Christ has paid. We receive the immeasurable riches of His grace by faith in Christ alone and no other way. That's the gospel. When you hear that message and you believe it, you will turn from your sin and become a follower Jesus.

Abby never came to know that message in the movie, and she does not know it in real life either. Abby Johnson is a Catholic. In addition to not understanding the faith, she doesn't understand being pro-life. When legislation came up in Texas to abolish abortion and criminalize it as murder, Abby opposed it. "I do not support this bill because it is unconstitutional," she said. It's unconstitutional to criminalize murder? Abby went on to say, "I also do not support legislation that punishes women." Then who's responsible for abortion?

Like the real-life Abby's worldview, Unplanned leaves a lot of questions unanswered: Is abortion murder or not? If it's murder, who's at fault? If it's not murder, why is it wrong? How can a woman who has had an abortion be relieved of her guilt? How can the father of an aborted baby be relieved of his guilt? If a woman is convinced having an abortion is wrong, but she still doesn't think she can keep her baby, what else can she do? (See preborn.org for more info.)

As a movie, I liked the story. Movies can convey truth through storytelling, and I believe Unplanned does that very effectively—despite how uncertain the filmmakers were of their own message. When it comes to truth, we must be clear about what we are saying. We have been called to share the message of the gospel, the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes in Jesus, as God has planned.


Edit: Previously this article read that Abby Johnson "hates abortion protestors." I meant that she hates what they do, not that she hates the people themselves. The words "strongly dislikes" have been put in place of "hates."

The most common criticism I've received is that the goal of "Unplanned" was to raise awareness, not share the gospel. According to Abby Johnson, in her own words, this film was mostly about the "amazing, ready mercy of Jesus Christ that is available to everyone—whether you've been touched by abortion or not—that Christ is so ready to redeem us."

For answers to other common criticisms, please watch this video.

A Review of Jesus: His Life

Each Monday leading up to holy week, the History Channel is airing a docu-series called Jesus: His Life. The show awkwardly mixes in dramatic reenactments of the story of Jesus with commentary from an assemblage of (mostly liberal) Bible scholars.

The trailer to the show says that this is the life of Christ "told through the eyes of those who knew Him best." History has never done very well with the story of Jesus. Their mini-series The Bible (more accurately termed The Bobble) was terrible. In addition to biblical inaccuracies, it just wasn't entertaining. Jesus: His Life is equally dull. The mix of drama with commentary doesn't work. The thematic scenes fail to be captivating, and the theotwits do not add any life to the program.

Given that the show is flat and fallacious, I don't know why you'd want to bother with it enough to even read my review. But I offer this up anyway! The following is a play-by-play of the first episode, examining the life of Jesus though the eyes of Joseph. The time stamps are according to the video stream I watched on History's website, sans commercial breaks. And away we go!

1:00 — Oh, hello Joel. Yup, Joel Osteen is the executive producer of this little number, so he's one of the "experts" who will be popping up every now and then.

2:00 — The introduction is very "This is the story of how Jesus changed the world." This is not going to be about how Jesus was sent by God and died as an atoning sacrifice for those who will believe in Him. This is going to be about how Jesus bucked the status quo and brought about a revolution of social change. This show will not present the gospel. Phrases like "Savior of the world" might come up, but they'll never be explained. They'll be framed in a social context, not a gospel one.

6:30 — Aside from some questionable theotwits, the information so far has been factual for the most part.

7:45 — When Gabriel appears to Mary, he says, "Do not be afraid, for you have found favor with God. If you choose to accept His plan, you will conceive in your womb and give birth a son." Not only does this make the announcement to Mary staunchly Arminian, it's also pro-choice! Mary got to choose to have a baby. In Luke 1:31-32, Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus."

9:00 — Mary asks Gabriel, "Why has He chosen me?" Gabriel replies, "You are pure of heart and soul." According to the story in Luke 1, Mary did not ask that question, nor was Mary told that was the reason she was chosen. Gabriel said to her, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" When Mary was troubled, Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God." She was favored because God chose her, not because she merited worthiness.

9:30 — James Martin says, "Notice that when she says yes to the angel, she doesn't ask her husband or her father. She says to it on her own. So this is a very strong woman." The feminism is strong with this one.

11:00 — Dr. Otis Moss III says, "When Mary says, 'I'm pregnant, and you're not the father,' Joseph probably reacted in a typical male fashion. That's why I love the story because it does not sugar-coat it as making Joseph holier than thou." That's why you love the story? Because of your own conjecture? Not because it's about the birth of the Savior of the world? The show then portrays Joseph losing his temper, breaking stuff apart and throwing it around the house he had been building for him and Mary.

13:00 — Several teachers are cited as saying that if Joseph outs Mary publicly as having sex outside of wedlock, she could be killed under Jewish law. "Adultery is a crime punishable by death," according to Dr. Robert Cargill. That's true (Deuteronomy 22:20-24), but it's unlikely Mary would have been put to death. The Jews couldn't exercise capital punishment without permission from Rome. The Bible gives us no sense that Mary's life was in danger. The only people being stoned to death at that period of time were those who would preach the gospel (Acts 7:59).

13:30 — Ah, Michael Curry, the Love Bishop.

14:30 — Joseph is seen cleaning up the house he trashed after his rage fit. I've been waiting to see if anyone will actually quote the Scripture itself. No one has. Matthew 1:18-19 says:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

Being a "just man," he knew what the law said concerning unfaithfulness. Being "unwilling to put her to shame," he was not going to make a public spectacle of Mary. He knew the law was on his side. Rage-trashing his house is not divorcing her quietly.

16:30 — An angel speaks to Joseph in a dream and tells him the child in Mary's womb is from the Holy Spirit. When Joseph goes back to Mary, I have to admit, I found the interaction between them rather touching. But then this lovely scene was interrupted by silly commentary.

20:00 — Dr. Cargill explains, "There are two major problems with the census described in the gospel of Luke. The first is that the census takes place about a decade after Jesus has already been born. The second problem is that Roman censuses did not require people to return to their ancestral home. Most scholars think that Luke used this census as a device to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem because the prophecies say that the Messiah will be born in the city of David, in Bethlehem of Judea."

I covered this in my book 25 Christmas Myths and What the Bible Says. There are no problems with the census in Luke. The explanation is simple. Luke does not give an exact time reference to when the census took place. He said, "In those days," which is an unspecific period of time, and "this was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria." All Luke is pointing to is that these events were part of the same drama, not that they all happened at exactly the same time. There was no reason to use "a device to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem." Matthew didn't use such an explanation in his gospel.

The dates often used by historians for the Christmas story are based on the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. But sometimes Josephus was off by as much as a decade. Why are scholars so quick to villify Luke but justify Josephus? Luke under the appointment of the Holy Spirit is spotless in the telling of the gospel. Oh, and contrary to Dr. Cargill's claims, people did return to their lands when a census was taken.

21:45 — Ben Witherington III says, "[Joseph and Mary] barely got [to Bethlehem] before it was time for Mary to give birth." Not true, but that's a minor point. I appreciate that the show does correct the myth that Jesus was born in a barn. He wasn't. He was born in a house filled with family.

23:30 — Professor Nicola Denzey Lewis says, "Millions of women died in childbirth." Millions of women in Judea died in childbirth?

25:00 — Shut up, Joel.

25:30 — Whenever an angel appears to someone in this show and says, "Do not be afraid," they're just kind of like, "Who are you?" No one is actually afraid.

27:30 — The show continues the myth that there were only three wise men. Except they made the black wise man the lead guy now instead of the token sidekick.

28:00 — Right before the commercial break, Dr. Cargill says of the magi, "Meeting Herod the Great must have been terrifying." They probably had no idea who he was. But gotta keep the viewers in suspense!

29:00 — The show has the magi arriving at night. There's no commotion in the city. Yet the Bible says they came to Jerusalem asking, "'Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star when it rose and have come to worship Him.' When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him" (Matthew 2:2-3). The number of magi and the size of their caravan were enough to alert all of Jerusalem and earn the magi an audience before Herod. This was a big deal. In fact the question they asked, "Where is the King of the Jews," was asked of Jesus by Pontius Pilate over 30 years later.

30:30 — The magi say, "We followed a star. Our charts tell us it heralds the birth of a messiah." No, they knew the star was leading them to the Messiah because they had the Jewish Scriptures.

32:30 — Joseph tries to refuse the gifts of the magi. That was weird.

33:00 — The Love Bishop says love things.

34:00 — Right before the commercial break, Joseph rebukes the magi for coming because they've put Jesus's life at risk. Oh, good grief. Drama for the sake of drama.

35:30 — The Love Bishop says, "Joseph keeps getting these dreams in Matthew's gospel. He gets the dream that tells him the child is a miracle of God. Then he gets the dream telling him to flee Palestine and go to Egypt." Joseph wasn't listening to dreams. He was obeying God. Matthew 2:13 says, "An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Rise, take the child and His mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy Him.'" The show doesn't depict that. Instead, the show portrays Joseph having a vision of Herod giving the order to kill baby boys in Bethlehem.

39:30 — Joseph and Mary barely elude the guards and get Jesus out of Bethlehem during the massacre of the innocents. (I really thought I'd done a WWUTT video on the massacre of the innocents. Apparently not. I'll get on that for next Christmas.)

40:30 — Joshua Dubois, Faith Advisor to President Obama, says, "The holy family become refugees." These comments are always more politically loaded than they are biblically accurate. A refugee is someone forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or have been displaced because of a natural disaster. Yes, Joseph and Mary fled Judea to escape the wrath of Herod, but they never left the Roman empire. They would have gone to the Jewish settlement in Alexandria, Egypt. There they were quite secure among their own people, and they had the gifts from the magi to pay for their stay. This was not like we would consider a modern-day refugee.

41:00 — Dr. Moss points out that Joseph protected his wife and a child who was not his own. "Joseph becomes a beautiful model for fatherhood today. Where would we be if we had more men who operated like Joseph?" I appreciate the sentiment. But the question is better asked, "Where would we be if more men obeyed God?"

Part 2 examining the life of Jesus through the eyes of John the Baptist coming at a later time... Maybe. If I think I can stomach more of this.

Francis Chan Defends His Friendship With False Teachers

Yesterday, Francis Chan responded to the harsh accusations that he has been aligning with heretics. A recent article published at The Cripplegate was entitled Farewell Francis. The author Jordan Standridge warned that Chan "is sharing the stage with false teachers who will spend eternity in Hell (Gal. 1:6-9)." He pleaded for Chan to repent and "come back to your first love!"

Chan has been on a steady decline over the last few years. Preaching with Mike Bickle at the International House of Prayer may have been a head-scratcher, but it wasn't enough to denounce Chan as developing an alliance with the enemy. Maybe Chan didn't know that Bickle claimed to have gone to heaven and had a personal audience with Jesus. Maybe Chan didn't know Bickle teaches that we bring about Christ's return through prayer (according to what Jesus personally told him). Maybe Chan didn't know that Bickle has claimed there will be new apostles preaching things you will not be able to find in the Bible, and they will be superior to the biblical apostles. But Chan continued his association with IHOP, never arriving at a knowledge of the truth about this false church.

Everything came to a head last month when Chan preached at a conference in Orlando known as The Send (formerly known as The Call), featuring some of the worst teachers out there—Benny Hinn, Heidi Baker, Todd White, Rodney Howard Browne, and Bill Johnson to name a few. Following The Send, pictures started emerging of Chan being buddies with these charlatans. He embraced them as brothers and praised them for being bold men and women of God. This has prompted many, including myself, to warn people to stay away from Francis Chan. He is no longer trustworthy.

Questions have been raised for a few years regarding Chan's associations, but Chan has remained silent (except for claiming that he loved Mike Bickle). Finally he responded this weekend in a blog entitled A Response to Some Concerns by Francis Chan. I won't post the entire thing word for word—you can read it for yourself by clicking the link. I will highlight some critical points, and then my response will follow.

Chan wrote:

From what I hear from friends and critics (I stay away from social media, etc), there have been a lot of conclusions drawn from my decision to speak at The Send conference as well as other venues. Some people have questioned my willingness to take pictures with anyone who asks for a picture with me. So I thought it might be helpful to explain some of my theological beliefs which have come under scrutiny as of late, as well as some of my practices/decisions. I realize there are many questions, but let me at least clarify a few things.

What do you believe regarding the "Prosperity Gospel"?

My understanding of that term is that it refers to teachings which imply that if you follow Jesus, He will make you healthy and wealthy. It is often used to attract people to make a decision to follow Jesus so that they can spend the rest of their lives in health and prosperity. I believe this is a dangerous teaching for several reasons. First and foremost (in my opinion) is that it contradicts the teachings and example of Christ and the apostles. Jesus taught His disciples "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Matthew 16:24). It was not a call to come and prosper but rather the opposite—a call to come and suffer.

Chan goes on in his repudiation of the prosperity gospel. I am not in disagreement with him here. Prosperity theology is a lie from the pit of hell. It's precisely because of Chan's views regarding health-and-wealth teaching that he has become a hypocrite in his ministry partnerships. He preaches with the worst of the worst among prosperity charlatans. Teachers like Hinn, Johnson, White, and Heidi Baker preach exactly the false gospel Chan condemns!

In a video of a Bethel Church service from March 25 of last year, their pastor Bill Johnson is seen leading his church in an absurd prayer which he called "a decree and confession." Before praying aloud together, Johnson said, "I want your faith to be recognizable in your volume. No small task." He then led the congregation to recite the following, the audience practically yelling it as they proclaimed:

As we receive today's offering, we are believing the Lord for jobs and better jobs, raises and bonuses, benefits and sales and commissions, favorable settlements, estates and inheritances, interests and income, rebates and returns, checks in the mail, gifts and surprises, finding money, debts paid off, expenses decrease, blessing and increase. Thank you, Lord, for meeting all of my financial needs that I may have more than enough to give into the kingdom of God and promote the gospel of Jesus Christ. Hallelujah!

Bethel Church teaches you have the power to speak things into existence, especially your health and your wealth. By praying such a prayer, they are taught that they will have all of their professions.

Do not be fooled by Bethel's intention to "promote the gospel of Jesus Christ." Bill Johnson preaches a false gospel. He thinks the gospel is miraculous healing and has taught heretical things about God. Astonishingly, Chan has said, "Prosperity preachers often promise greater wealth if their listeners will give more to their ministries. This is never promised in Scriptures. We can never hold God to something that He has not promised." Yet that's exactly what Johnson was doing in that prayer!

What would it take for Chan to recognize Bill Johnson and others who spoke at The Send actively advance the thing Chan condemns? Yet Chan has preached that if you criticize these teachers, you are taking a sledgehammer to the house of God, and you will have to answer for that before God. He referenced 1 Corinthians 3:17 which says, "If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple." My friends, Bill Johnson's "gospel" is anything but holy. Calling out Johnson's heresy is not taking a sledgehammer to the house of God—Bill Johnson is taking a sledgehammer to the house of God. Chan is defending these guys and making people fear calling them out. That's deceptive, whether or not the intention of his heart is to deceive.

Chan's blog continues:

Why do you sometimes accept speaking engagements in places that tolerate theology that is different from yours?

I speak at events almost every week of the year. Often times, it’s more than one event a week. I don’t really enjoy it—I hate the travel, but try not to complain about it. Despite the toll it can take on myself and the family, it is always an honor to preach the Word. I believe it is my calling. Some question my choice to speak so often, but my best discernment and the discernment of the elders of our church is that it is still a part of my calling in this season.

I am asked to speak at approximately 500 events a year. I decline approximately 90% of the requests. It’s a difficult thing to do. Often times, I decline because other speakers will be at the event who believe almost exactly what I believe. My reasoning is that it may be a waste of Kingdom resources for all of us to be there, speaking largely to people who already agree with us. It seems more effective to speak where there is less Bible teaching. It has not been my practice to ask who will share the platform with me and to research the other speakers. While some may be dear friends, there are many that I know little about. This current experience has caused me to consider exercising more caution and to develop a team to help me research. That being said, I speak in many places where I am not in alignment theologically. I actually believe that is where I can be most effective, as long as they give me freedom to address anything I believe the Lord wants me to address.

I recognize, now more than ever, that sometimes my participation can give the impression that I align with every other speaker at the event. I’m not sure what to do about that other than to tell you that I don’t. Unless the elders of my church direct me differently, I will continue to be found preaching in venues with those I disagree. I will preach in just about any kind of setting if I’m given freedom to preach from any passage of scripture. The elders and I are trying to come up with more safeguards for future events to hopefully prevent misunderstandings. Pray for us.

From what it sounds like, Chan is going to be developing a team to help him decide whom he should preach with and whom he shouldn't. I appreciate that, and it will be interesting to see where this goes. Will there be change? Will Chan realize he's been teaching with liars and apologize? Or will Chan use this group he's assembling to validate his alignment with false teachers? Time will tell.

That aside, how is Chan's reasoning regarding where he preaches biblical? He gave numerous biblical references in his condemnation of the prosperity gospel—he gave no biblical references with regard to which speaking invitations he accepts. He says, "Often times, I decline because other speakers will be at the event who believe almost exactly what I believe." Does Chan think there is little to no value in preachers gathering together in doctrinal unity? Psalm 133:1 says, "Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" Isn't it a better witness for laypeople to see teachers in one accord and not in discord?

Now, even at events like the Shepherds Conference or the Ligonier Conference, both held in just the last couple weeks, not every teacher is doctrinally aligned at every point. Some preachers are Baptists and some are Presbyterians—there's doctrinal disagreement right there. But those preachers rejoice in that while they may disagree on secondary issues, they are exactly the same on their love for the true gospel. They love the word of God and pursue Him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.

When Francis Chan preached at The Send, he aligned with heretics who do not speak truth. There may have been no true gospel presented except what Chan preached. But Chan was not there in a Matthew 23 moment calling out sons of hell that produce more sons of hell. He called Todd White "a bold, bold man of God." Todd White is a con-artist and self-professed faith healer who said his father in the faith was Kenneth Copeland. Chan did nothing to call out these charlatans before a gullible audience. Rather, Chan's alignment with them makes them appear more credible to the less discerning.

Manipulation is the M.O. of almost every teacher at The Send. Bill Johnson's Bethel Church is known for pouring gold dust in the ventilation system and calling it a glory cloud from God. As with IHOP, teachers from Bethel claim to have face-to-face conversations with Jesus Christ as well as God the Father, whom the Bible says no one can see and live (Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 1 John 4:12). Lo and behold, Chan has preached against such claims of seeing God in His glory: it would be more credible to say you went walking on the sun! Yet Chan wants to be in unity with guys like Bickle and Johnson who have boasted that they have seen God and lived?

Romans 16:17-18 says, "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive."

The Apostle John warned, "Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works" (2 John 1:9-11).

There's simply no excuse for Chan's ignorance. If Chan is so busy that he cannot do even a little bit of research, then he needs to say no to some of his speaking engagements and free up time to "test everything" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). This is his responsibility. It's on him, especially as a teacher. For the Spirit of God says, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1).

Does Chan need a team of people to tell him Benny Hinn is a charlatan? If Chan simply watched the documentary American Gospel, he would receive so much insight into the false gospel these "friends" of his have preached and the damage they are causing. Chan knows the documentary exists. He was interviewed for it because of his outspokenness against the prosperity gospel. However, he was dropped from the final cut because the director of the film recognized the inconsistency in Chan's witness.

In his blog response, Chan continues:

Why did it take so long for you to write a response?

Early in my ministry, I had a professor warn, "Don't spend your time defending yourself. Let God defend you and those closest to you defend you. You can spend your whole life dispelling rumors." I have followed that advice for the past 30 years. I hope this response doesn’t sound like a person who is trying to save his reputation just for the sake of saving his reputation. My hope was to bring clarity to those who might trust my life and preaching and assume that my being in a picture or on a stage with someone means that I align with them. In regards to pictures, I live a very strange life. Most people take pictures with their friends and family. I end up taking thousands of pictures with complete strangers who ask to take pictures with me. I have struggled over the years with whether it is wrong to sign books or take pictures with people. I would be perfectly happy to never take another picture or sign another book. It just feels rude and discouraging to say no. My intention was never to show allegiance with those who request selfies.

First of all, I can appreciate not wasting your time defending yourself against critics. I don't. Dozens of videos have been made denouncing what I've preached. I've never responded to a single one of them. A pair of former members of my congregation once wrote a 9,000-word diatribe against me and posted it on Facebook. They lied about me in just about every way they could. But I did not type a single word in response—to them or anyone else (until just now, I suppose).

But this is not a trifle criticism over some idle comment Chan made. This is Chan aligning with heretics on a digression that keeps getting worse and worse. I have made several public appeals for anyone close to Chan to reach out to him and alert this brother to what he's doing. He just doesn't get it, and he still doesn't get it.

The criticism regarding Chan's associations has never been about selfies—not even in the last few weeks since images and comments have emerged following The Send. He's not merely taking selfies. He's heaping adulation and praise onto ministers of Satan. He's standing shoulder to shoulder with them and calling them friends and brothers and men of God. Through pictures we're seeing with our eyes what we've been hearing with our ears. It's alarming! I'm not trying to spread rumors and gossip. I want Chan to repent!

This is serious—deadly serious. James 4:4 says, "You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." Chan recognizes that the prosperity gospel is worldly, yet he calls those who teach it his friends. I pray the Lord will open his eyes to whom he is playing with.

Chan concludes:

Another reason I took so long to write this response is because I read Paul’s defense of his ministry. He was able to do it out of love for people and the furtherance of the gospel. I needed a little extra time to make sure I wasn’t responding out of anger, pride, hurt, or cynicism- things that I have been guilty of. I think my heart is in a good place now, and I am writing because I believe I have a calling to proclaim the gospel and preach unpopular truths in a crooked generation. Though some are trying to deter people from my ministry altogether, I believe God has given me a calling to teach His Word. I plan on teaching faithfully until I die. I hope you take this in the spirit in which it was written.

One final thought—We should all be careful to guard against false teaching of any kind. In the process of refuting false teachers, however, we can unintentionally falsely accuse good teachers. That might be equally harmful to His Kingdom. God desires unity in His body, so it is no small crime to bring division into the church.

"As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him." Titus 3:10

"Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple." 1 Corinthians 3:16-17

Jesus deeply longed for unity amongst His children. This should not come at the expense of truth. There are times when the truth will divide. Let’s all humbly beg for wisdom from the Holy Spirit to know how to love our brothers without compromising truth. As we diligently confront false teaching, let’s show equal fervency in defending those who are truly our brothers and equal zeal in confronting those who unnecessarily divide the body.

Truly, it is weird to read Chan call for unity when he said in the same blog that he tries to preach in places where he is not in unity with other preachers. Maybe Chan needs to offer a definition of what he thinks biblical unity is supposed to look like. The guy abandoned his church instead of shepherding them as a pastor should, so I have my doubts about his understanding of unity or even his role as a pastor. Titus 1:9 says that a pastor "must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also rebuke those who contradict it."

Chan didn't rebuke anyone in his blog except those who have been rebuking. Exactly who are the "good teachers" Chan thinks we are accusing of being false? He refuses to name names. He's still putting himself between the wolves and those trying to warn the flock. He's being deceptive even if his intention is to tell the truth. Until he can be more discerning, we have to dismiss Chan as lacking credibility. He will lead others into believing the false prosperity gospel even while he condemns it. People will be confused about what the prosperity gospel is and isn't when they see him aligning himself with those who preach it.

We cannot force unity. It cannot be manufactured by human will. We must be obedient to the truth, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom (Colossians 3:16), according to the full counsel of God. God will provide the growth. Chan made a reference to 1 Corinthians 3:17. Here's what that passage says in verses 18-23:

"Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their craftiness,' and again, 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.' So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's."

Upcoming Blog: Like Chan, Beth Moore also partners with preachers of the prosperity gospel, a teaching she has also condemned.

CORRECTION: In the first edit of this blog, I had incorrectly stated that Francis Chan had spoken at Bethel Church in Redding, CA. Chan spoke at Bethel in San Francisco, which is a different church. In that message (also linked above), he made a reference to Pastor John upstairs. I thought I heard him say "Pastor Johnson." A few paragraphs were rephrased to cite the information correctly.

What is the Song Bohemian Rhapsody About Anyway?

Last week, Bohemian Rhapsody was released on DVD, the Oscar-winning film about the band Queen and their lead singer, Freddie Mercury. The movie is titled after the famous song of the same name, a six-minute suite blending elements of rock and opera. It's only fitting that the album from which the song came was called A Night at the Opera, released in 1975. The star track Bohemian Rhapsody is considered by many to be Mercury's magnum opus.

With the success of the film, I thought I'd revisit the lyrics of Bohemian Rhapsody. What is this song about anyway? Plenty of legendary rock songs are nonsense (since a lot of these guys were probably on drugs when they wrote them), but Mercury was a meticulous and brilliant lyricist. A friend of mine recently said, "Sometimes a movie is just a movie." Well, sometimes a song is just a song. But there's more going on in Bohemian Rhapsody than meets the ears.

In order to understand the underlying message, we need a little background. Freddie Mercury was born Farrokh Bulsara in a British territory of Zanzibar on the east coast of Africa. His parents immigrated from British India and were Parsis, meaning that they practiced Zoroastrianism; a pantheistic, free-will religion that teaches you must have "good thoughts, good words, good deeds." Though Zoroastrians believe in a version of heaven and hell, ultimately everyone will be "saved" whether they did good or bad, and they will be reunited with the "Wise Lord" in immortality. When Mercury died in 1991, his funeral was conducted by a Zoroastrian priest at Mercury's request.

As a boy, Mercury was sent away from his parents to St. Peter's Church of England School, an all-boys boarding school in Panchgani, India; later to finish at St. Joseph's Convent School in Zanzibar. It was in boarding school that he was given the more English-sounding nickname Freddie. A violent revolution rose up in Zanzibar in 1964, so Mercury fled with his family to England, where he attended a liberal arts college and graduated in 1969 with a degree in graphic art and design. Mercury incorporated these skills into designing Queen's logo and his performance costumes.

In 1970, Mercury wrote a song called My Fairy King. Toward the close of the song, he mentioned "Mother Mercury." He later said, "I am going to become Mercury, as the mother in this song is my mother." In the film Bohemian Rhapsody, Mercury was criticized by his father that the Bulsara name was "not good enough." The likelihood though is that it simply never mattered to Mercury. Consider the very last line of Bohemian Rhapsody: "Nothing really matters to me."

If you knew nothing else happening in the lyrics to this song, that line would tell you all you need to know: Freddie Mercury believed, "Nothing really matters." His worldview was not driven by secularism or born out of irreligion—this was his religion. Mercury's music was a hodgepodge of religious subtext, which the movie only barely touched on.

Mercury received his primary education through Anglican and Catholic schooling, all the while underscored by his family's Zoroastrianism, a religion that preaches do what you think is right and everyone is going to the same place anyway. Therefore, "Nothing really matters."

As we dissect the lyrics, let's start with that title. What is a Bohemian rhapsody? The term "Bohemian" was coined in western Europe in the 19th century in reference to gypsies who were thought to have come from Bohemia. The word would later be used to describe any person rich or poor who lived an unconventional lifestyle. A Bohemian's interests were outside the norm, particularly when it came to expressions of art, music, literature, or spirituality.

A "rhapsody" is a single-movement piece of music or an epic poem with highly contrasting themes. So by the title alone, we might expect Bohemian Rhapsody to be a musical epic about an unconventional person. Queen's guitarist Brian May said, "Freddie never explained the lyrics, but I think he put a lot himself into that song."

The song begins by asking if life is "real" or a "fantasy" we're unwillingly "caught in" from which there is "no escape." Here are the opening lyrics, sung acapella at first, then underscored with piano:

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality
Open your eyes
Look up to the skies and see

I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy
Because I'm easy come, easy go
A little high, little low
Anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me, to me

Having mentioned the closing line, the song ends the same way it begins: "Nothing really matters to me." This was Mercury's approach to life. In his 1985 interview with David Wigg, Mercury was asked, "How do you want to be remembered when you die?" Mercury replied, "Dead and gone. Who cares?"

The song continues and gradually elevates in strength:

Mama just killed a man
Put a gun against his head
Pulled my trigger now he's dead
Mama, life had just begun
But now I've gone and thrown it all away 

Mama, oh-oh
Didn't mean to make you cry
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow
Carry on, carry on, as if nothing really matters

Now we get more religious. In several of Mercury's songs, Mama represented the feminine or nurturing side of God. This opinion about God was influenced by Zoroastrianism. The Persian prophet Zoroaster referred to their god Ahura Mazda in both masculine and feminine terms interchangeably, depending on the attribute of god he was referring to.

It's interesting to note the opening line of this segment begins, "Mama just killed a man," rather than, "Mama, I just killed a man." We would be led to think Mama was the one who put a gun against a man's head until the singer sings, "Pulled my trigger now he's dead." This was intentional. What Mercury was conveying here was that God tempted me with all these things He then called evil. They pleased me, but they displeased God. Why then did God give them to me? God put the gun against my head, but I'm the one that pulled the trigger.

Since Mercury referred to what he characterized as the effeminate side of God, the singer apologizes and says he "didn't mean to make you cry." But "carry on, as if nothing really matters." Mercury thought God didn't care about anything that happened. If He did, He wouldn't allow the people He created to be tempted by the evil that He would eventually judge them for. Ultimately, according to Mercury's worldview, there is no divine mercy, nor is there lasting punishment for evil. Therefore, "Carry on, as if nothing really matters."

The "man" who was killed in the song was Mercury himself, but this doesn't mean he was thinking of committing suicide. He was singing about a series of personal yet destructive decisions that would eventually kill him. This was not unlike Mercury to write of such things. In his song Great King Rat, he sang about a man who died of a sexually transmitted disease at the age of 44. This was somewhat prophetic considering Mercury died of AIDS brought on by his homosexual perversion at the age of 45.

It's in Great King Rat that Mercury sang, "Don't believe all you read in the Bible," and "Don't listen to what Mama says," but instead, "Put out the good and keep the bad." You already know what's best for you: "I'm not going to tell you what you already know." (In the aforementioned 1985 interview, Mercury was asked whom he turned to whenever he had a problem. He said, "I have a lot of mirrors.")

When you live the way you want to live, "Very soon you're gonna be his disciple," a disciple of the Great King Rat. Through the voice of Mercury, Satan whispers, "Don't follow God. Follow me!" All these little decisions for yourself are "dirty," and will eventually kill you. Again, it's a slow death, not a sudden suicide, as Mercury notes next in Bohemian Rhapsody:

Too late, my time has come
Sends shivers down my spine
Body's aching all the time
Goodbye everybody, I've got to go
Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth

Mama, oh-oh (anyway the wind blows)
I don't want to die
Sometimes I wish I'd never been born at all

The singer is slowly killing himself and he knows that, but he doesn't really want to die. A part of Mercury understood that after death comes judgment, hence why the singer thought it would have been better if he'd "never been born at all." Mercury lived his life feeding his sensuous appetites, but none of it ever brought him any fulfillment—even in 1975 when Bohemian Rhapsody debuted and Mercury was hardly 30 years old. As rich and as famous as he was, he was always unsatisfied and wanted more.

Zoroastrians see life as a battle between two spirits: Spenta Mainyu, the good spirit or the "Bounteous Principle," and Angra Mainyu, the chaotic spirit or the "Destructive Principle." Mercury identified himself with the destructive spirit since "nothing really matters." Though a person who lived destructively might go to the Zoroastrian equivalent of hell, all of creation is eventually renovated by a savior-like figure, and everyone returns to Ahura Mazda, the "Wise Lord," in immortality.

In Mercury's 1985 interview, Wigg asked him, "Do you think you're going to get to heaven?" Mercury replied, "No, I don't want to. Hell is much better. Look at the interesting people you're going to meet down there?" He only thought so flippantly of hell because Zoroastrianism taught him hell was just a hang-out until immortality is granted to everyone. But the Bible is clear hell is eternal punishment for those who rejected Christ and followed the devil.

From here, Bohemian Rhapsody picks up tempo and we enter into the operetta section. Likewise, the lyrics get more intense as well:

I see a little silhouetto of a man
Scaramouch, Scaramouch, will you do the Fandango
Thunderbolt and lightning very very frightening me
Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, Figaro, Magnifico

Lyrics like this have led many to conclude that the song is mostly nonsense, but these lines are very revealing. The singer sees but a shadow of a man, a "little silhouetto," someone who doesn't make a great impression and is easily vanquished as a shadow disappears when someone turns on a light. A "scaramouch" is a stock clown character in Italian theater. So he's singing of someone (himself) who is of no consequence but gives everyone a few laughs for a while.

He then sings, "Will you do the Fandango?" The Fandango is a Spanish dance. It's a euphemism for hanging himself—again, keeping up the motif of slowly killing himself with the life choices he makes. "Thunderbolt and lightning" means God is displeased with how he lives his life. With that in mind, "Galileo" is not a reference to Galileo Galilei, the Italian astronomer, at least not entirely. (As a winking aside, Galileo was the first astronomer to observe the planet Mercury through a telescope.)

Galileo Figaro Magnifico in Latin means "Make great the Galilean's figure" or image. Galilean is the Roman name for Jesus Christ. Maybe the singer could break the cycle of his meaningless comedy if he were to call upon Jesus (and maybe Mercury himself was asking Jesus to search him out just as Galileo found Mercury).

Of course, this is if "Figaro" was spelled figuro instead of like the character in the opera The Barber of Seville by Gioachino Rossini. In the opera's most famous piece Figaro's Aria, Figaro sings of "a good life! What pleasures there are." He calls out his own name multiple times, but toward the end of the aria, he's so popular that he's unable to meet the demands of all his adoring customers.

In Bohemian Rhapsody, the singer calls upon Jesus multiple times to save him from the meaninglessness of life and possibly the wrath of God. But if the inference of Figaro's Aria is to be considered, Mercury thought of Jesus as being too too busy or He just didn't care—He can't meet the demands of all His adorers (Andrew Lloyd Weber and Tim Rice made this same criticism of Christ in the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar, which preceded the release of Bohemian Rhapsody by several years).

Here's where the lyric goes next, still in an operatic style:

I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
He's just a poor boy from a poor family
Spare him his life from this monstrosity
Easy come, easy go, will you let me go
Bismillah, no, we will not let you go, let him go
Bismillah, we will not let you go, let him go
Bismillah, we will not let you go, let me go
(Will not let you go) let me go (never let you go)
Let me go (never let me go)
Oh oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no

The singer says he's someone of no consequence no one really cares for. Being a "poor boy" means he was too immature to know that his decisions were so destructive. The accompanying choir repeats his prayer as though angels or saints (considering Mercury's Catholic influence) are also praying for him: "Spare him his life from this monstrosity." It's as though the singer is saying, "I came into these things easily; will you let me off easy?" and also, "I'm of no consequence; why bother with me?"

Then comes the line, "Bismillah, no, we will not let you go." I first heard this song a few years after it was made popular in America by the 1992 film Wayne's World. Even at a young age, the word "Bismillah" clued me in to recognizing there was more going on in the song than random lyrics. No one says "Bismillah" just because. "Bismillah" is the first word in the Quran, and it means, "In the name of God," also called, "most gracious, most merciful."

Three times it is sung, "Bismillah, no, we will not let you go." Mercury was presenting what he thought of as the personality of the Muslim god and the Christian Triune God together as the same god, whom Mercury did not think of as gracious and merciful. "Bismillah" is sung harshly. The angelic chorus pleads, "Let him go," and instead "Bismillah" curses the singer and denies him relief from cravings of his flesh: "We will not let you go."

The opera portion concludes with this:

Oh mama mia, mama mia, mama mia let me go
Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me
For me, for me

Again, "Mama" was Mercury's effeminate title for God. "Beelzebub" is another name for Satan (from Matthew 10:25, Mark 3:22, and Luke 11:18). Since God is not going to relieve the singer of his lusty appetites, Satan is waiting in the wings with a devil to keep the singer company while he gives in to indulging in the passions of his flesh. The demons are better fellowship for the singer than God.

Mercury blamed God for the temptation he experienced and the sins he committed as if God was the one who caused them. He was no different than Adam in the Garden of Eden, when Adam said to God, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate" (Genesis 3:12). If only Mercury understood the words of James 1:12-15, when he said:

"Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love Him. Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."

God is not guilty of your sin—you are. You have no one to blame but yourself. If indeed Mercury prayed to God and asked to be delivered from temptation, the reason God didn't grant his request was because he asked with wrong motives. He only wanted his guilt taken away—he didn't actually want to honor God with his life or stop doing what he was doing. James 4:3 goes on to say, "You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly to spend it on your passions."

At this point, the song leaves the opera and goes hard rock. Whatever your opinion is of rock, it is often an angry genre of music, and Mercury is straight-up spiteful as he sings:

So you think you can stop me and spit in my eye
So you think you can love me and leave me to die
Oh baby, can't do this to me, baby
Just gotta get out, just gotta get right outta here

Singing "baby" and saying "so you think you can love me and leave me to die" sounds like grief over a woman who broke his heart. But nothing else in the song has set the tone for that. The singer has taken on the persona of a hard-rocker singing of his broken heart when he expresses his hatred toward God for not caring about him.

From the singer's perspective, if God truly loved him, God wouldn't let him die like this. Threats of punishment against the evil-doer are not enough to stop the singer from indulging in his temptations. He's "just gotta get out" of the cycle of temptation and guilt he can't seem to find relief for. But instead of repenting of his pride and blasphemy and finding peace with God through Jesus Christ, he relieves himself by hardening his heart and giving in.

Then the song calms way down into a ballad again, and it ends the same way it began:

Nothing really matters
Anyone can see
Nothing really matters
Nothing really matters to me
(Anyway the wind blows)

Nothing really matters which anyone can see. Just like in Great King Rat, you know what's good for you. Do what thou wilt, for nothing really matters anyway.

Songwriter Tim Rice said he knew the secret of Bohemian Rhapsody. "It's fairly obvious to me that this was Freddie's coming out song," Rice said. "This is Freddie admitting that he is gay." One of Mercury's homosexual partners agreed. "Bohemian Rhapsody was Freddie's confessional," said hairdresser Jim Hutton. "It was about how different his life could have been, and how much happier he might have been, had he just been able to be himself the whole of his life."

Brian May denied it: "What's it about? None of us know. Freddie never talked about it to my knowledge and didn't want to and that's the way it should be. He had something in his mind and he loved to spin these little pieces of magic. A little bit of reality and little bit of fantasy. If anyone tries to unravel it, they'll never manage it, because they'll never know what went into those lyrics."

I searched multiple websites and read several dissections of the lyrics of Bohemian Rhapsody. None of them considered the influence of religion on Freddie Mercury. He feared judgment for his sins, and the honesty of his tormented soul came out in his most famous work. But instead of repenting of his sins, he blasphemed God and pursued worldly pleasure and treasure. In Luke 4:7, the Devil said, "If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours." Freddie Mercury fell for it, and it killed him.

When a person believes nothing we do in this life has eternal significance, then "nothing really matters." When a person believes everyone receives eternal life and no one gets eternal punishment, they will do whatever they want expecting the outcome will ultimately be the same for all. But the Bible says that those who persist in sin will "be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thessalonians 2:12). Jesus said, "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matthew 25:46).

Everything matters. You were made to glorify God. Do not sell your eternal soul for the fleeting pleasure of sin, leaving you empty and leading to judgment. Know the gospel of Jesus Christ, who died on the cross as a sacrifice for sins and rose again from the grave, so that all who believe in Him will receive His eternal life. Turn from your sin and follow Jesus. He will clothe you in His righteousness. You will be received by your Father in heaven. And you will live in His kingdom forever.

Next Week: My son met Mary Sue, and he hated her.