Category: Archives

From the Archives: A Critique of Mark A. Garcia’s Post After the Patriarchy, Part 1.

(Originally published July 13, 2016. Since publishing this, Garcia’s post has been scrubbed from they internet. It won’t be missed. The point of my article is to show how progressives deal with Biblical patriarchy by appealing to lofty language in order to obscure biblical truth. The word of God has not changed, and neither has God. Therefore, patriarchy remains the calling of every man, in every family, in the church, and in society. All who pray the words, “Our Father, who art in heaven,” fundamentally agree with patriarchy. It comes from God and His very nature.

Another reason that I’m reposting this article, is because the failure to be patriarchal on the part of the church, is one of the Top 10 reasons the church is no longer the Pillar of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Just think of the great contradictions over the past few years. WE were aghast that a Supreme Court nominee cannot define what a woman is, but for the most part, we have been silent on the issue of the biblical roles of men and women. Yes, there are ministries devoted to it, but the pulpits in general, even where they are patriarchal in their understanding of things, have remained silent, lest they offend the feminists in their midst. This too shows a sad reality: far too many pastors would rather remain silent on what Scripture says, in order to avoid offending the goats, while starving the sheep. I’ve come to realize the loneliest sheep in our midst is always the woman who has a clear understanding of her role in the family and the church, and never gets any support from her own shepherd.

As for the article by Garcia, he was correct on one issue: patriarchal complimentarianism is dead. Those of us who are patriarchal today, prefer to call it what it is, biblical patriarchy. WE quit using the word complimentarianism a while back when we realized it anyone claiming to be complimentarian were nothing more than feminist who were to afraid to admit that reality about themselves. 

One more note: my hope in republishing it, is not the attack on Garcia per se, but to help you see how so many love to water down the truth in academia, always talking around a subject, but never really looking to it and submitting to God’s word as we are called to do. Enjoy.

First off, for those of you who don’t know me, the one thing that bothers me most in Christian circles is when a man preaches or teaches in such a way that sounds lofty and erudite, but is nothing more than a liberal screed (think N.T. Wright). I believe the loftier, the more dangerous a man’s speech. Jesus, Paul, Peter, and Stephen would not have fit in the erudite circles of the church today.

Secondly, I’ve been told that I’m very blunt when I preach and teach. To me, there is no greater compliment. Show me from scripture one sermon that was not in someone’s face, drawing a line in the sand, or calling out sinners to repentance, as opposed to what is set forth today in many circles, lofty words that tickle our intellectual fancies.

The point is that, when I read Mark A. Garcia’s post After Patriarchy, Part 1, I couldn’t help but think he was trying to bamboozle us with his lofty words. For the first two paragraphs, he was obviously writing for the inner circle, no, more like the inner sanctum of the high priestly elites of Christendom. He was much like Dennis Miller, dropping names and references to things that only six people in the country really know anything about, and laughing endlessly because only they get the inside joke. So needless to say, I wasn’t impressed with Garcia from the beginning. I didn’t know where he was going and it didn’t look like he did either. But that is because I don’t know the inside joke, and he does.

But he did finally meander his way to a point. He is making the poorly supported case for a more broad understanding of a woman’s role in marriage, with the usual calls to be broader in our thinking, and more claims that scholarship supports this gradual and more enlightened movement from a more conservative approach to a woman’s role in the family. He is working his way to saying that patriarchal complimentarianism is dead, and the ones who don’t know that are foolish.

But before we go deeper, let’s try to clarify. Granted, when it comes to the patriarchy/complimentarianism debate, I’m hardly an expert. But neither is anyone else as far as I can tell. Everyone seems to be talking past each other and if you are not careful, you will be called a member of one side or the other in a way that really is meant as an insult.

On the patriarchy side of things, there are people like Douglas Wilson who hold that a man is the head of his household and that the woman is there to serve her husband. Since he clearly states what he means by this, I will quote him:

Patriarchy simply means “father rule,” and so it follows that every biblical Christian holds to patriarchy. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23), and fathers have the central responsibility to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). Children are required to obey their parents (both of them), and since the wife is to follow the lead of her husband in all things (Eph. 5:24), this means that the father is responsible to provide for and protect his family. Father rule. That’s the good part.

This seems reasonable enough. The problem (which Wilson also identifies) is that fallen men are called to marriages and often abuse this position of authority. They tend to think it means “little dictator” and end up becoming…well, I can’t say where that thought ended up.

This is why strong elders are needed in the church. When someone is abusing their position given to them by God, they need to be confronted. Because there is this lack of confrontation, those who hold to patriarchy tend to be metaphorically tarred and feathered by the more “enlightened” corner of Christianity.

Now, as for complimentarians…It is really hard to pinpoint what they actually believe. I read in the New Geneva Study Bible the footnote for Genesis 2:20 that uses the phrase “comparable to him,” the following: “this expression assumes a complementary relationship; what he lacked she supplied and vice versa.” I can live with that. My wife certainly compliments me in this way, and I’m truly grateful.

But after that, it becomes much more fuzzy and I get the impression that many complimentarians are nothing more the feminist in disguise. Well, I shouldn’t say that. I should say that Garcia is nothing more than a feminist in disguise.

Allow me to define what a feminist is: a feminist is a woman or a man, that want to erase the male/female distinctions in the family, workplace and all of society. On some level, they also want to tear men down and subjugate men. There are really varying degrees of feminism, but I think the best way to understand it is in light of the curse in Genesis.  Feminists are women living out the curse: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16). The desire here is not sexual desire, but a desire to rule and control their husbands.  That is not a good thing.

With that background, let’s move forward with Garcia’s post. What he starts out doing is calling us to go back to all the theologians of the past and re-read them with the intent of finding out what they actually believed about women and their roles in marriage. He asks us if we have read Gregory of Nyssa on the Trinity. And if we have, then we should go back and read Gregory on women. He is making the assumption that Gregory was as confused about the role of women in marriage as he is.

Realize that when you look throughout church history, you don’t find a lot of women leading their husbands or women’s ministries because they understood their role in the family. Yes, the struggle of the curse was always there, but for the most part, men understood their role in the family and women understood their role. After all, it was quite obvious. With women giving birth to children, the most noble of all callings, they didn’t have time for worldly pursuits, or making a name for themselves.

Feminism has so saturated the church today, that we cannot see these clear distinctions in calling. We raise our daughters with the idea that they can be anything they want to be and if pregnancy gets in the way, that’s OK, we can kill the child in her womb. In fact, even in Christian homes, girls are raised with the idea that they need to go to college, get a career, and then after they have been satisfied in all the worldly pleasures, then settle down and have one baby, maybe two. I have heard from women raised in the church, while in college, tell me quite simply that they didn’t want the “burden” of children. I pointed out that this was a feminist view of the world, and was shortly thereafter “unfriended” by them. Never mind the directive: be fruitful and multiply.

The confusion in our day has become so pronounced that in the next few years, our daughters and wives can also go off to war. I believe this is because the church has clearly abdicated its place in reminding the women of our day that their greatest calling is giving birth to the next generation. Their calling is not to be all they can be. It is not to climb the corporate ladder. It is not to serve in any role just to prove their worthiness. As long as we continue with the charade, the importance of children will continue to be overlooked, and our society will see them only as the political footballs that they are now.

So when I read the liberal diatribe by Mr. Garcia, you can see that it gets my blood boiling. He is most erudite, and wordy. He says a lot, without actually saying a thing. He defends, not a biblical position, but being more biblical without actually referring to the Bible. He makes allusions to the fact that there have been abuses in patriarchy, and then makes the false assumption, that since there have been abuses in patriarchy, then all those who hold to the patriarchal position must be wrong.

We see this when he writes:

To avoid the dangers of reactionary error, the most responsible and well-informed voices need to be clear that, for example, our rediscovered sensitivity to the dark reality of spousal abuse does not mean we do not need to be very careful in identifying spousal misconduct as “abuse.”

Just look at his language: “the most responsible and well-informed voices…” that is code speak for, “those who agree with me are the most responsible and well-informed voices. Everyone else is daft.” Mr. Garcia, please just say what you believe: that everyone who disagrees with you is a backwards rube. And thank you for your nod in the direction that you, have discovered, that spousal abuse actually exists. We have known this for quite some time. Glad you are with the program.

He goes on to give a nod toward “submission” which is the closest to Scripture he actually comes and writes:

Our most responsible reading of what “submission” does and does not mean should not somehow entail, for our thinking or our rhetoric, that Scripture does not in fact teach that wives should “submit” to their husbands in the Lord. The fact of nuances and richness in biblical teaching on the grounds for a valid divorce does not mean divorce has limitless grounds (it does not), that divorce is no longer a significant problem in our day (it is), or that divorce ever takes place without the serious sin of at least one, though maybe only one, spouse (it only ever does). In these examples and many others, we must be painstakingly careful not to confuse our rejection of a bad idea or framework with the acceptance of every possible opposing one.

In other words, unless we see “submission” as Garcia & Company say it is, then clearly we are not being reasonable and fair minded in our approach to Scripture. Whenever scholars start throwing around the phrases like “nuances and richness in biblical teaching” you can count that not much biblical teaching will follow. And it doesn’t. In fact, the word “submission” is about the only Bible verse, nay word, that Garcia quotes.

Garcia is referencing Ephesians 5:22 to try and show us he understands the biblical teaching, but then quickly changes the subject and moves on to divorce to tell us what a problem it is. Notice the glaring non-sequitur in his argumentation. He brings up divorce because he has already said far too much about submission for  his own comfort. This is because he cannot hold to his position and give us an honest reflection on what the verse actually says. Liberals never can. We know the word of God doesn’t change, and the biblical idea of submission will not change even with “a vast amount of solid biblical and theological scholarship over the last several decades.” Garcia is trying to lead us to believe that new discoveries have been made, which mean that submission, doesn’t really mean submission.

So allow me to do what Garcia won’t do: actually look at the verse.

Ephesians 5:22 reads Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the LORD. The idea of submission is a military term that was used of those in the lower ranks, submitting, aligning under, placing themselves under their commanding officers so that the command could be successful in warfare. It is a voluntary act of the woman. It is not something that man can command. Yet, for a woman not to submit to her husband is to be in rebellion against the LORD. She is to submit to him, and serve him, as she would the LORD.

Peter, in his treatment on wives submitting to their husbands, even unbelieving ones, gives us an example of what this submission looks like:

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening (1 Peter 3:3-6).

Notice the example we are given. It is Sarah, who obeyed her husband, even when he told her to lie about their marriage (twice), and she is commended for obeying him. She didn’t argue with him, usurp his authority, tell him how wrong he was, but obeyed him.What she did was right and glorifying to the LORD, which is in stark contrast to the people of our day who will jump through all kinds of rationalizations in order to not obey God’s word.

Yet, if our families are to function as God intended, we cannot continue on in this disobedience. The family is the most sacred institution that we have in society, and our LORD guided the apostles on how we should live in this institution. Christ does so because it is honoring to Him for us to do so. This is actually an act of kindness on part of the LORD. William Hendriksen writes in the New Testament Commentary on Ephesians:

Now in his kindness toward womanhood, the Lord, fully realizing that within the family much of the care of children will rest on the wife, has been pleased not to overburden her. Hence, he placed ultimate responsibility with respect to the household upon the shoulders of her husband, in keeping with the latter’s creational endowment. So here, through his servant, the apostle Paul, the Lord assigns to the wife the duty of obeying her husband. This obedience must be a voluntary submission on her part, and that only to her own husband, not to every man. What will make this obedience easier, moreover, is that she is asked to render it ‘as to the Lord,’ that is, as part of her obedience to him, the very One who died for her (p. 248).

I wonder if Garcia would agree to Hendriksen’s scholarship.

But you get the idea. This is what it means for women to submit to their husbands. All the modern scholarship in the world is not going to change it and, since this is so, patriarchal complementarianism will continue, just like there are those of us who will never ordain women as deacons or elders in spite of increased pressure from denominational progressives to do so. The Bible doesn’t change, even when the culture around us changes.

I must give Garcia credit. He finally does get around to saying what he means. In his closing paragraph, he writes the following:

Next in this series, we will look at what has happened to the idea of marital and societal “patriarchy” in biblical and historical scholarship, its origins and elusive meaning, and why patriarchal complementarians are apparently the last to realize that this social-scientific convention has been abandoned (and rightly) by just about everyone else.

What absolute arrogance on Garcia’s part. He is so caught up in his progressive mindset that he cannot see that what scripture commands us to do, God actually expects us to do. The God who never changes, is not changing His word for men like Garcia, or any other progressive to come along, even with their erudite scholarship.

There is a lot more to comment upon, but I think we have given Garcia enough attention. One final point, as I was reading his article, I kept thinking that the way in which he wrote it, could have been used to make the argument for gay marriage. The same tactics were used by proponents of ordaining women in the ministry, ordaining gay men in the ministry, and accepting the oxymoronic gay marriage. Just use lofty words, an appeal to broader scholarship, and you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say…except, of course, what it actually says.

Winston Churchill ON Socialized Medicine

And now from the department of history repeating itself department…

Churchill on socialized medicine that was implemented in 1948

“The queues are longer, the shelves are barer, the shops are emptier. The interference of Government Departments with daily life is more severe and more galling. More forms have to be filled up, more officials have to be consulted. Whole spheres of potential activity are frozen, rigid, and numb, because this Government has to prove its Socialistic sincerity instead of showing how they can get the country alive and on the move again.”

This is all taken from The Last Lion by William Manchester and Paul Reid. I’ve been working my way through the book for months and have really increased my progress now that I realized I can read while students are working on their assignments.

I love the fact that Churchill had a grasp on the end result of socialism. It never, in the end, provides more of something, but leads to less of something because there are more demands on it. Socializing things also weakened the work force. “A might army of 450,000 additional civil servants has been taken from production and added, at the prodigious cost and waste, to the oppressive machinery of govewrnment and control. Instead of helping national recovery this is a positive hindrance.”

We will see the same thing with Obamacare.

Jock Colville wrote concerning Churchill and all this: “Never in his life has he felt such despair,” Colville wrote, “and he blamed it on the Government whose ‘insatiable lust for power is only equaled by their incurable impotence in exercising it.’”

Churchill also wrote about the Socialists: “What the German U-boats could never do to us has been achieved by our own misguided fellow countrymen through their incompetence, their arrogance, their hordes of officials, their thousands of regulations and their gross mismanagement of our affairs, large and small.”

Churchill on class warfare and the socialist government that led to years of poverty for England’s masses after WWII, Between the loans “and the unparalleled sacrifices exacted from the taxpayers” there is no reason why Britain should not have attained “solvency, security and utopian independence. This has been denied us not only by the incompetence and maladministration of the Socialist Government and their wild extravagance, but even more by the spirit of class hatred which they have spread throughout the land, and by the costly and wasteful nationalization of a fifth part of our industries.”

Sounds so very familiar to the Democratic Socialist governments of the left.

Cremation or Burial: A Biblical Perspective

(This post was originally published June 30, 2006– and published in the church’s newsletter after this topic came up in discussions in Sunday school. I published it again on July 14, 2011. Then, after the great purge, I finally found it again on the Way Back Machine. I’m publishing it again because it has been my most requested post.)

Cremation vs. Burial: A Biblical Perspective

I have to admit that this is a controversial topic, but I don’t think it should be. In fact, it has been a blessing for me to speak to a number of you on this point. I love the fact that you are interested in the subject and have challenged me with some thoughts on the topic. As we look at this topic of cremation, realize that my love for you will not change if we disagree. If you hold to the cremation of your body after your death, I still love you as a brother or sister in the Lord. How your body is disposed of after death is between you and the Lord. My affections for you will not change. This came to light when one of my elders asked me the simple question: “If someone from our congregation is cremated, will you officiate the memorial?” That told me more about myself than I realized. Even though I have strong convictions about this, my convictions towards the congregation are stronger.

The answer was “Yes, I would.”

As a pastor, I feel it is my job to teach you what the Bible has to say about these things. While cremation is not a black and white issue, (in other words, there is no command: thou shalt not use cremation) I do believe the Bible does hold enough evidence to give us a clear picture on what we should do with our bodies after death.

Therefore, I would like to present to you some of the evidence for Christian burial as opposed to Christian cremation. If you do not agree with me at the end of this article, that is fine. All I ask is that you read the article, pray about it, and see where the Lord leads you.

Misconceptions

In my comments about the Apostles’ Creed in worship on June 18th, I mentioned that we believe in the burial of the body because of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. I said that cremation is not a Christian concept and Christians should not resort to this method of burial. Afterwards, it came to my attention that there was some confusion over the issue. Allow me to clarify some of my statements. First, I am not saying that by using cremation that we are not Christians. Our Christianity is based upon belief in Christ for salvation, not how we bury our bodies. Yet, how we bury our bodies does make a statement about what we truly believe. More on that in a moment.

The second misconception about cremation concerns those that are killed in events like 9/11. What about their bodies? Does that mean that they are not Christians because their bodies were incinerated? Of course, the answer is no. Those who die in war or events like 9/11 are not cremated. They may have had their bodies incinerated, but this is not cremation, even though the end result is the same. Those who die this way, have no say over their funeral. They did not set out to be incinerated, or leave it in their last will and testament for such.

Finally, another misconception is the belief that God cannot handle their ashes at the Second Coming. I’m not saying that either. God can do anything as far as His character will allow Him. The reconstitution of our bodies is nothing for Him, whether our bodies become dust through natural decomposition or they are ashes through incineration. If God can take dust and turn it into a man, as He did with Adam, He can take the dust of our bodies and do the same.

Biblical Example

We believe that the Bible is the only rule and authority for faith and practice. There is no authority outside of Scripture. So, when it comes to beliefs and practices that are not expressly stated, we must come to the Scripture for example to help us know how we should live. For example, there is no specific passage that says we should use wine over grape juice, but the text seems to indicate the use of wine. This is why we practice using wine in communion.

The same is true for burial. There is no one passage that states we should bury our dead, but the evidence seems to indicate that this is the biblical practice both in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

In Genesis 23, Abraham negotiates with the Hittites for a cave in which to bury Sarah and the rest of his dead. In Genesis 47, Israel gives specific instructions to his sons not to be buried in Egypt, but to have his body buried in the land of Canaan. Joseph also gave instructions that when the descendants of Israel came out of Egypt, they were to bury him in the land of Canaan as well. The people carry these instructions out and he is buried in Canaan (Exodus 13:19 and Joshua 24:32).

We also see Joshua buried on his own land (Joshua 24:29ff, Judges 2:9), Gideon buried in the tomb of Joash, his father (Judges 8:29ff), and others in Judges, Ruth, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, in which David was buried (1 Kings 2:10ff), and host of other examples.

Clearly burial is the practice of Old Testament saints. If cremation is acceptable, it seems that they would have used this practice, especially in these cases, for it would have been much easier on them. But they did not use cremation.

There is cremation in two instances in the Old Testament. However, these instances seem to be the exception, and not the rule. The first instance of cremation is that of King Saul by the people of Jabesh Gilead (1 Samuel 31:11ff). Even then, King David has the bones of Saul buried with the bones of his father. While fire was used on Saul, burial was as well. Apparently the bones were left behind, of which, David instructed that they were to be buried with Saul’s fathers. There is a second account again in 2 Chronicles 16:14 with the cremation of Asa.

But for both cases, we don’t want to look to Saul or Asa for our example. Neither man was something we are to follow or emulate. Saul was in constant rebellion against the Lord and eventually had his kingship removed from him for disobedience. As for Asa, he took articles from the Temple showing disrespect and made a pack with Syria, showing a lack of trust in the Lord. Both of his actions brought about strong rebuke from the Lord, who would plague him with many wars. He eventually died from diseases in his feet because he did not seek the help of the Lord, but the help of physicians. Therefore, we do not want to follow in either one of these men’s footsteps in life or death.

The New Testament shows that burial was the normative practice among those who believed is Jesus as their Savior. Jesus stops the funeral procession in Luke 7:11ff and raised the widow’s son from the dead. The point of the miracle is to show Christ’s power over even death. Yet the people were not taking the man’s body to a funeral pyre, but to a tomb, as was the practice.

We also see that Lazarus, friend of Jesus and believer, was buried in a tomb in John 11. Jesus waited until the tomb was sealed to arrive in order to raise Lazarus from the dead four days after he died. He then performs one of His greatest miracles and Lazarus comes forth out of the tomb. Had they performed cremation, would this miracle have taken place? Jesus would have had to reconstitute ashes, which would have been perfectly in His capabilities. The point that I’m trying to make is that they buried the sickly body of Lazarus. They did not cremate him.

There are two reasons why this miracle was important.One is that many want to be cremated because of the disfiguring and gruesome illnesses that they have. Yet, here is a case where Lazarus was ill and they buried him. The other way this miracle is important is that Jesus points to His future Resurrection from the grave and to our spiritual and bodily resurrection as well.

Jesus Himself died and was buried three days as well. Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb, it was not cremated. If we are to identify with Christ in other aspects of our life, then let us follow this example in our death as well. Why? Because of what we are saying to those left behind. We place our bodies in the grave because we are looking forward to the future hope of the resurrection of the body, of THIS body. The entire doctrine of the resurrection is one which shows us that Christ died on the cross, not just to redeem us spiritually, but to redeem the entirety of our being. We are not two entities, body and soul, but one entity consisting of body and soul. These two entities are not meant to be separated. They will be at our deaths, and this is why death is sad, but at the resurrection, our bodies and souls will be reunited and glorified.

By burying our bodies, we are telling those around us that this resurrection is real. It is something we look forward to. It will happen. Cremation does not convey this truth. It merely eliminates the body for us, and allows us to enter into the pagan tradition of dumping our ashes in a lake or on the beach, or in our flower garden out back, or shaken together with our spouse’s ashes.

Yet, our entire lives and death are to point to Christ and who we are in Christ. It is a point of identification. The reason that Christ was baptized was so that He could identify with us in our baptism. He didn’t need it at all. It is also a point of identification for us. We identify with Christ when we are baptized. The same is true for our funerals. I am not saying our funerals are a sacrament. Baptism is merely and example of our identification with Him. So too is our burial a means of identifying with Jesus. He was laid in the grave and resurrected, and we are to be as well.

Fire Often Means Judgment

Now, lets examine the practice of cremation. While burial was the Biblical example, let’s look at what burning the body after death also conveys, for there is meaning in everything we do.

Cremation is the burning of the body after death. It is the use of fire on the body. This is done by the Hindus in order to return the body to ashes, so that those ashes can be spread among creation, symbolizing the person’s return to creation and oneness with creation. Our oneness is not to be found in creation, but in the Creator. He is the One whom we worship. To worship anything else, even the creation, is idolatry.

However, the symbolism of fire also has another meaning in the light of Scripture. It is the meaning of judgment upon a person.

In Genesis 19 we see God’s displeasure with Sodom and Gomorrah when He rained brimstone and fire on both cities for their immorality. After it was said and done, there was nothing left of the town or the people. This was a real event in history, but also the same imagery we have of those in the after life who are wicked. God will punish them with fire that is never quenched and the worm never dies (Isaiah 66:24). Clearly fire is used to show God’s displeasure. There is also nothing left of these individuals to be mourned. They’re names are removed from memory by the fire, blotted out.

In Leviticus 11:1-3 both Nadad and Abihu are consumed by fire for their unauthorized worship of God. There was no burial for the two, because they were consumed, or devoured by God’s wrath. Aaron, the two men’s father, was even prevented from morning their death.Again, God is showing His displeasure with the two by the use of fire.

In Leviticus 20:14, God instructs the people for a man not to marry a woman and her mother. If they do, all of them are to be burned with fire, because what they have done is wickedness. Again, God’s displeasure is shown by the punishment that is to be given to the wicked. They are burned to death.

In Leviticus 21:9, the daughter of a priest who plays the harlot is also to be put to death using fire. Again, this shows God’s displeasure with the wicked.

In Joshua 7 we have the story of Achan’s unbelief in taking accursed things. This brought God’s fierce wrath against the nation because it showed unbelief among the people. When it was discovered that Achan had sinned against God, the people of Israel stoned Achan and his family and then burned them with fire after they had stoned them. God’s wrath turned from Israel. Again, the Israelites did not bury the bodies of Achan and his family. They burned the bodies. This too showed the displeasure of God upon Achan’s family. The memorial that was left there is a memorial of shame, not a memorial of a faithful saint that lived out his life and went to be with his fathers. The name of Achan is a name of reproach and the burning of his body symbolizes the future hope of his wickedness.

In 2 Kings 1 we see judgment come down on the military guard that confronts Elijah the Tishbite, not once but twice. Both times, the men came to get Elijah, and Elijah called fire down upon their heads. Again, this is not seen as a blessing, but a curse. There is no burial for these men because their bodies are consumed by fire.

The bulk of Biblical evidence leads us to believe that the burning of the body does not represent something good. It signifies the wrath of God upon unbelief, wickedness and rebellion against God. Therefore, why would we want to adopt a symbol that represents God’s wrath, as opposed to His grace?

By having our bodies placed in the tomb, sepulcher or grave, we are giving testimony one last time to the grace that we have been given and look forward to. This is why 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is read at the graveside service. But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

It is the future hope and shows that the grave is only temporary, not permanent. Since this is true, let us return to the biblical practice of burial, by living and dying for Christ.

If you read this article and still have questions about death, cremation, or burial, please feel free to call me or come by and talk with me. I will be glad to discuss these, or any issues with you. Let this not be a topic which divides us, but unites us in our common belief in Christ our Savior.

UPDATE: For further reading, may I recommend Nick Batzig’s article, A Biblical Theology of Burial.

Top 5 Blue Bell Ice Creams

Originally published July 19, 2013. 

Last week, I finally got the opportunity to take the boys to the home of Blue Bell Creameries here in Brenham, TX for the tour. It was my first time to visit, which is odd, because I lived in and been around, and driven past the Creameries for the past 25 years or so, given that my father lives in the area.

Having two boys who love ice cream pushed me over the edge, I broke down for the tour and shelled out the $14 it cost to take the 30 minute tour. Normally, I would balk at shelling out $14 for a 30 minute tour, but this one had the promise that no other tour guide in history can offer: Blue Bell ice cream at the end of the tour. For my boys, the 30 minute tour was almost too long! After looking at assorted machines dispensing ice cream, ice cream sandwiches and Great Divide bars, Joey kept asking, “can we have some ice cream now?”

That is the cumulative effect of the tour. Never mind that we are peeking into the secret halls where that yummy, precious Homemade Vanilla is produced, all day, every day that the factory is open (no cameras allowed!). Never mind the fact that the tour-guide told us it was their number one selling ice cream hands down. Never mind that you can find Homemade Vanilla at every Outback Steakhouse across the nation. Never mind that Blue Bell is not yet nation wide, but should be. Never mind that they introduce 16 new flavors every year, while removing 16 other flavors every year, therefore if you like a flavor, buy a lot so that they keep it on the production list! All these facts and figures never seem to sink into the grey matter until we actually get some ice cream!

We did get our ice cream. There is an entire ice cream shop at the end of the tour complete with gift shop and plenty of ice cream. You get a ticket for free ice cream with your purchase of a tour ticket, and that gets you a good helping of ice cream to sample.

It was there that I came up with the following rule for my boys: “Sons, if Daddy doesn’t like what you are picking out, you can’t get it.”

That may sound harsh. But Joey selected his ice cream based on it’s color, not flavor. It was like a sherbet orange and lime of some kind. He didn’t like it and I ended up eating it and gave him my Rockside Brownie ice cream (NOTE: new flavor, very good, buy lots!). His was still good, but it wasn’t chocolate. Therefore, I don’t let him buy food or candy unless I like it too.

Now, what some of you have been waiting for. Here are the Top 5 selling Blue Bell Ice Creams. This is not my opinion, but their list compiled by a capitalistic system known as supply and DEMAND! They supply these flavors and the public keeps DEMANDING them! Which leads to the reminder, if you like a flavor, buy lots and demand more. Here are the top 5 selling flavors:

1. Homemade Vanilla — This should be logical because you can take vanilla and add anything you want to it and it will be great. I like to add chocolate syrup… well, to all my Blue Bell flavors.

2. Cookies and Cream — I had to get an ice–cream sandwich of this yesterday while swimming at the Blue Bell Aquatic Center with my boys. It reminded me why Cookies and Cream is so popular. The other ice cream sandwich they sell a lot of is Homemade Vanilla.

3. Chocolate — This would have been my number one on the list, but again, this list is based on sales, not opinion.

4. The Great Divide — Why not? An ice cream of their best flavor, Homemade Vanilla and Chocolate.

5. Ultimate Neapolitan — I don’t like this one because I’m not a fan of strawberry. But I do like 2/3 of this one. Can you guess which ones?

Other Interesting FACTS: I have Orange Swirl and Red Velvet Cake in my freezer right now. Both are July rotational flavors and Orange Swirl is new. I like it even though it’s not chocolate. And, I have yet to add chocolate syrup to it, but I’m sure it would be delightful.

When the ice cream is put into the cartons, the cartons are spun so that the ice cream doesn’t have bubbles. This is true for all ice creams except those like the Ultimate Neapolitan and the Great Divide. Not sure how they keep the bubbles out of those.

It takes 60,000 cows to produce enough milk for a days worth of production. That is a lot of milk. They also test every batch of milk in order to maintain their high standards.

They shut down production at the end of every day and are only open Monday through Friday. Kudos to Blue Bell on this! They know the importance of family and time off.

They truly do eat all they can and sell the rest. In the employee break room, the ice cream in the freezers is free to all employees.

PHOTO Below: I think that is their first delivery truck. Andy wanted to climb on it, even though the sign says not to do so. Beside Joey and Andy are their cousins, Jackson and Maddie.

Copyright © Timothy J. Hammons 2020.

 

From the Archives

Some of you may have the feeling that you have seen the pictures I’m posting here of late. That is true. When I revamped the blog to make it 98% photography, I deleted every thing from the blog, including that which was already photography. But I still have those photos in my library. I am going through those, republishing the good ones, and trashing the bad ones. So if you see a photo that looks familiar, just think to yourself, “it’s deja vu all over again.”

 

In Memory of Stokely Hammons, October 25, 1969 – December 27, 2014

From the archives

We sat on the back porch, smoking cigars and listened to Stoke tell us stories about being pulled over by the cops. Pops and I were all ears, especially since neither of us had ever ridden on a motorcycle at 170 mph, much less being pulled over by the police. Apparently, Stoke had it down to a fine art and knew exactly what to do. If you are going 170 mph, take the first turn off the highway and sit in the woods for four hours. If you are going less, go ahead and pull over. It seemed to work for him because he kept his insurance rates at about $1,200 a year, as opposed to $5,000 a year. I hadn’t realized the insurance would cost that much.

This was Christmas day, 2014, just a few days ago. We were laughing and telling stories and joking and having a wonderful time. Neither Pops nor I knew it would be the last time we would see him alive. He was found by a friend on Saturday afternoon and we had the news within a couple of hours. Apparently, Stoke died from some medical event. That is what the coroner relayed to us. No suicide, no foul play.

Early Years

My first memory of Stoke was not actually seeing him, but what I did when I found out he was born. We got the news on the phone and I immediately went door-to-door telling everyone who would answer that I had a new baby brother. People kept asking me what his name was and I had no idea. And when we did find out what his name was, we were a bit perplexed. He was Stokely McCaga Hammons IV. Years later we would discover that there had never been a III, II, or a I. There had been several Stokely Hammons and McCaga Hammons but never a Stokely McCaga… well, so much for family trees.

When they brought him home, we loved him immediately. He had the brightest red hair anyone had ever seen. The red hair has a tendency to pop up in the family from time-to-time, just like it did with my son Joey. But we didn’t know that at the time. His hair would eventually fade to blond, but when he was younger, it was bright red.

The biggest event in his life would be the car accident that we would undergo a few months after his birth. While he wasn’t in the accident, this event would do more to shape him and make him who he was than anything else to follow. Not that our mother died, but the moment of that accident, he became motherless and eventually fatherless through the divorce of our parents. His real mother ended up being Anita and Bridget, two Mexican maids we had working for us at the time. After they left, several others would come and go, but for Stokely, due to the circumstances beyond his control, his parents were never really in charge of his life after that.

The sad part for me is that when I was in my teens, I felt like I had to assume the role of disciplinarian for Stoke. My mother never seemed to be concerned at all with teaching him right from wrong, or bringing any level of discipline at all. This too would have a profound affect on his life.

Stoke 001

School and Career

On top of all that, he was dyslexic. For those of us who grew up in the 1970s, there were no classes for dyslexic students. As Stoke once told me, “they stuck me in the class with the mentally retarded kids. Like I was going to learn anything in those classes.”

He did spend some time at Blinn College in Brenham, but after an advisor told him “college is probably not for you,” he gave up on that endeavor. So school was not his forte and he was never much of a reader. Because of this, he bounced around from job to job, and even bounced around from state to state.

One of his dreams was to surf in Hawaii. After learning the art in California, he did make it to Hawaii where he got the opportunity to surf. He told me of one such event, which may have taken place in California, where the wave he was riding crushed down to the bottom so hard and for so long that he actually got comfortable with it. He said it was the closest to death he had ever experienced, because he had to force himself to the surface again. It was a moment in his life where he had to make a choice: stay on the bottom, which was by far easier at the time, or struggle for the surface. He struggled for the surface.

His Struggles

I’m not sure, but it wouldn’t surprise me if some of the many struggles he faced, with depression and bouts of being bipolar, were actually what led to his death. The medicine that he had to take in order to be “normal” emotionally, really caused him to gain weight. The top picture was taken in 2003. But by last year, he was upwards of 260 lbs. A lot of that also had to do with his love for food, but I sensed a “why not” attitude towards all the food over the past couple of years.

Yet despite all these struggles, Stoke was doing really well professionally. He had finally found his calling in selling hearing aids. He learned the trade of being a salesmen in the auto industry, and he put those talents, and his tendency to care for people, together selling hearing aids. He tried to get me into the profession as well, and kept telling me, “just show them you care.” And he did care. He loved helping people and had hundreds of clients who knew they could come to him for help. He loved it.

If fact, he was so good at not only caring, but also selling hearing aids that we found out last week that his store was the number one store in the country and the company was going to send him to Italy for vacation in the spring. He was on top of the world.

I also felt that he was coming back to the LORD. Yes, during those times of struggles he had trusted Christ at one point. His faith wasn’t very strong, but I believe there was indeed saving faith. On Christmas day he showed me the Bible I bought him back in 1995. He said, “I still have it!” And he did.

He was attending several church homes trying to find the right one. He had bought himself a home in League City and things were finally going well for him. He had even patched up some broken relationships with members of the family. Things were indeed well.

But man knows not his own time, even when we are believers. The LORD called him home this past Saturday in a way that showed it was all God’s hand. There was nothing mysterious about it. Stoke just died in his kitchen from some medical event, where a close friend found him a short time later. Joe, his friend, is an EMT, so had there been an opportunity to revive him, he would have. There was nothing Joe could do because it was Stoke’s time.

The LORD blessed us with that wacky humor, boisterous laugh, and sense of adventure for only so long and then called him home. Gone is the younger brother, the surfer, the cyclist, the Texans fan, the hearing-aid salesman of the year. He is no longer any of those things. All that is left of Stoke is the one redeemed in Christ. He is now just the saint, as are all those who believer in Christ and are saved.

There is no way that I can really capture his life in a short-blog piece. But I don’t need to. Just the fact that he was “in Christ” is all that matters.

East Galveston Beach

Another one from the archives…

Both my Dad and I were hit with the smell of salt water the moment we opened the car doors. For us, it was special and a thousand memories flooded our minds. For my two sons, Andy and Joey, it was a first-time experience. Yes, they have been to the beach before. But this is the first time that they will remember it. We were down in Galveston for the day and we took the boys to walk around on the beach. The smell of the air, the seagulls flying about, even the smell of suntan lotion fired up our memories of vacations and day trip pasts. And now I was sharing them with Andy and Joey.

We told Andy he could walk in the water, but no higher than his shins or knees. Yeah, right! In the first five minutes he was soaked and upset that he didn’t have his bathing suit. Not sure what we were thinking, but I let him play in the water nonetheless.

As for Joey, he was sitting with me on a patch of soft sand, digging our toes into it. He wasn’t feeling well and wanted to stick next to my side.

Dad just wanted to walk along the beach and so we sat there while he took a stroll.

My father was born and raised in Galveston back in the 1930s and 1940s. His father, William James Newton Hammons, had come from west Texas where he was born in Callahan County back on November 4, 1902. His mother was a Missouri girl, born in 1898 in Sedalia, Mo., and her family made it to Texas as fast as they could, arriving in Galveston around 1908 or 1910. Apparently Clara Helen Varnon was absolutely gorgeous and a fine catch. She was also known for pushing social boundaries. According to legend, she was the first woman in Galveston to get a driver’s license and the first woman in Galveston to buy a car. At that time, it was scandalous. But she had a job and wanted a car and didn’t let anything get in her way of obtaining one.

My grandfather was a bit of a charmer and it is reported even went on a date with Mary Martin, the famous actress. He didn’t make any impression on her because she ended up marrying some guy named Hagman. You know the offspring of that union, Larry Hagman, their son, from Dallas fame. My Pops did however secure the affections of my grandmother. Since she was living in Galveston, that is when Pops moved there as well, and he became a real estate broker. He was part of the deal that sold the house known as the Bishop’s Palace, or Gresham’s Castle, to the Roman Catholic Church. The story goes that the Catholic Church wanted him and his fellow brokers just to give it to them, but they were not in a position to be that charitable.

EastBeach002There we were kicking about Galveston for the day. Dad took us to the Moody Gardens to explore the rain forest exhibit, then down to the beach just to walk around. He said east Galveston beach is one of the few places he can take off his shoes and walk barefoot. Now I know where I get my propensity to wear shoes all the time from. There are very few places I feel comfortable taking my shoes off and going barefoot. And yes, Galveston beach is one of them. The sand is extremely soft.

Dad grew up coming to this beach as a child. He told us that when he was extremely sick and covered with boils from some unknown malady, his father took him down to the beach to immerse him in the cold waters. It seems odd to us, but Dad recovered from whatever ailment it was. I’m not suggesting we all do this with our sick children, but it worked for Dad.

One of my favorite memories of east beach eating lunch there. We would make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, with Lay’s potato chips and Oreo cookies for dessert. What made it so special was the Texas sun would warm up the Oreo cookies for us while we were playing in the water, which made them extremely good to eat. It’s very similar to sun-warmed plain M&M’s. Just the right temperature for softening up the chocolate in the middle. Try it some time.

One of my worst memories was the time I met some guy my age and we decided to go up and down the beach popping all the Portuguese Man-O-Wars with handfuls of sands. Why, I will never know. But it was something boys do that makes no sense. My desire to do so quickly ended when my companion in this endeavor popped one, sending all the nice acids from the explosion all over my body.  That ruined my day.

After spending an hour there, we decided to head up the boulevard to get something to eat and Landry’s. Given that Andy was soaking wet, we also decided to stop and Academy and buy him some dry clothes. We didn’t want to go all the way back to the hotel before we ate. Andy loved the new pants and shirt we bought him.

Of the Photos: top is Dad with his shoes off, Andy getting ready to get soaked, and Joey at my side. Below, me on one of our trips to the beach back in the late 1960s.

Blue Bell Ice Cream: Top 10 Flavors

Given that we are just coming off the July 4th holiday, in which thousands of calories were consumed in ice cream alone, I thought it appropriates to list my Top 10 favorite Blue Bell Ice Cream flavors. Especially given that just moments ago, I polished off a bowl of one of my Top 10s, a bowl of Dutch Chocolate with the last remaining scoop of Mint Chocolate Chip. Realize, that is far as I’m concerned, I don’t care for any other type of ice cream other than Blue Bell. I know there are those who like differing brands, but for me, Blue Bell is the standard. This is for several reasons. First, Blue Bell is the best. Second, Blue Bell Ice Cream is from Texas. That heaven that the cows believe they are in, is none other than Brenham, TX, where I have lived and my father currently lives. Brenham is a slice of heaven for me. Every time I go to my father’s ranch, I think I’m in heaven. Finally, growing up, we always loved ice cream but knew the it was truly special when we could have Blue Bell. That is still true today!

So without further adieu (that’s French for get to the point) here is my list of Blue Bell flavors.

Number 1 — Natural Vanilla Bean. By far the best of all their vanillas because it captures the flavoring just right, and like the rest of the vanillas, you can add to it for a fine creation. My favorite addition is chocolate syrup with crunched up Oreo cookies and whip cream.

Number 2 — Dutch Chocolate. This is what, in my opinion, God had in mind when He thought of the word “chocolate.” There is no better chocolate ice cream or representation of what chocolate ice cream should be than Dutch Chocolate. After all, it’s chocolate which means that it is heavenly by nature, an Dutch which means that it’s the ice cream of all TULIP wearing Calvinists!!!

Number 3 — Mint Chocolate Chip. How they came up with this idea, I will never know, but it’s like the mint Girl Scout cookies turned into ice cream. Plus, it’s a year around ice cream so available all year long. They also have seasonal ice creams which are … seasonal.

Number 4 — Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough. The best of two desserts. Cookie dough, which is the best time to eat the cookie, and ice cream. I know this one may have been invented by those liberal loons back on the east coast, but Blue Bell took the idea and perfected it.

Number 5 — French Vanilla. Much like the Natural Bean Vanilla, only French.

Number 6 — Caramel Turtle Fudge. A seasonal ice cream, but one worth waiting for. They add the caramel, and like anyone who loves a Snickers or a Milky Way to chocolate you have something special.

Number 7 — Peaches and Homemade Vanilla. This one makes the list at the recommendation of my Dad, who lives in Brenham. Using Texas-grown peaches, they have combined one of their top vanillas for a Sunday treat that is worth the wait and anticipation. It’s season because once the peach crop has come and gone, so has the ice cream. We haven’t had a shipment arrive here in Jackson yet. I keep hoping.

Number 8 — Banana Split. Everything that those of us who like banana splits think that it should be.

Number 9 — **Dessert Trio – Brown Rim 
A triple treat of your most favorite desserts combined with our ice cream. Smooth vanilla ice cream loaded with chocolate chip cookie pieces, luscious pecan brownies, and chocolate-coated cake pieces all surrounded by a swirl of rich, chocolate sauce. (OK, this is so new, I haven’t tried it yet. But alas, another Blue Bell flavor to look forward to!)

Number 10 — Cherry Cheesecake. Another seasonal delicacy worth the wait. Since my love for cherries has increase over the years, so has my love for cheesecake and cherry cheesecake ice cream.

OK, that is my list. What is yours? Please… no Benjamin & Gerald’s ice creams please. All they do is add extra sugar to that which everyone else is already doing and charge an arm and a leg.