And in the case of religion whereas this traditionalism against truth reared its fleshly head in the Jews who were thus blinded to the Messiah for whom they were looking, and in the Catholic church whose papal decrees and councils blinded it to the Gospel of our Lord, so too now many Baptists have taken up with great zealotry the doctrines of believer’s baptism and baptism by immersion without regard for the foundation upon which it was built. These have perpetuated divisions in God’s church by holding onto the spoils of a battle long past, and these have cherished the spoils and yet have forgotten and even contradicted those who fought the battle that produced the spoils.

To understand how we have drifted from those who spilt their blood for the sake of what is called believer’s baptism, we must understand the context in which that battle was fought. It began not too long after the Reformation began, where the church of Christ was being delivered out from under the oppression of the Catholic church that was much more political than it was spiritual. Because of the Catholics and their power, they ravaged the church of Christ and through fear of superstition gained power over the peoples of Europe, even to the extent of making the Pontiff of Rome the king of the kings of the nations. Because of this, there was a welding of the church and state whereby there was no distinguishing between the church and the government. The government was the church, and the church was the government. It was a most natural thought to the citizens of these Roman controlled states, and it is for this reason that the early reformers did not seek to break the division between church and state. They had no categories for such a division, so they attempted to practice holiness and righteousness within the confines of that which they had only ever known.

A since the church was the state and the state was the church, the ordinance by which men were admitted into the church was the same ordinance by which they were admitted into the state, namely baptism. Therefore, when a baby was baptized by the church, he was simultaneously admitted into the institute named the “church” and was made a citizen of the state in which he dwelled. Therefore, the ordinance of baptism was not merely an ecclesiastical issue, but it was also a political issue, and, therefore, to reject the doctrine of the baptism of infants was not merely considered heterodoxy, it was considered treason against the state.

It is in this context in which we find those who were called Anabaptists (meaning baptized again). These, despite many of whom were heretics, saw in the Scriptures that the church of Christ is not an institution that is synonymous with the state, but it is the elect of God, it is those who were called by God out of the world (ekklesia meaning called [from the Greek root kle] out [from the Greek preposition ek]). These saw from the Scriptures that the church was not to be comprised of both non-believers and believers (as it was in the state-church system), but the church was to be comprised of the elect only, purifying itself by the Word of Christ and by discipline in holiness. The church was to be to the world a city on a hill, a light for the unregenerate people, and salt to the earth, flavoring the unrighteous world with righteousness.

For this reason, when they saw in the Scriptures that it was only those who have believed in Christ and repented from worldliness who were baptized and admitted into fellowship with the saints, these rejected the doctrine of infant baptism whereby all people, elect and reprobate, were allowed in the church of Christ thereby defiling the church and making her a harlot rather than a purified Bride of our Lord. And since these rejected infant baptism and re-baptized those who were regenerate alone, they were counted by the state and the church as rebels and traitors. The church and state fell upon them as they would a terrorist, and many of them lost their lives brutally both to Catholic and Protestant states.

And it is in this context that we are to judge the zeal by which we as Baptists propagate our most holy of doctrines–baptism by immersion alone. Do we do it in the same line as those who spilt their blood, namely for the sake of the purity of the church and growth in holiness, or do we do it for the sake of some tradition in which we find ourselves and for the sake of our supposed biblical accuracy with regard to our practice of the shadow of baptism? I would ask you to survey the typical Baptist church in our country and think upon what you see. Do you see a church that is actively seeking to purify itself of worldliness by only fellowshipping with those who are of Christ, boldly teaching God’s people the Word of our Lord and disciplining its members? Or do you see a church that is so enamored with preserving the proper administration of shadow that they have neglected the very purpose for which those who fought for its proper administration died?

Sadly, it cannot be denied that the latter is the case. Many American Baptists have become so dogmatic and legalistic with the proper administration of baptism that they have wholly forgotten what its significance is. These are like modern day Pharisees who would circumcise on the Sabbath if it were the eighth day, and yet they wholly forgot that, “No one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical; but a Jew is one inwardly and circumcision is a matter of the heart by the Spirit, not by the letter” (Rm. 2:27,28). We like them, have become so ensnared by a symbol and a shadow that we have forgotten the reality for which they stand as symbols and shadows. For if you were to ask any Baptist what baptism truly is, I doubt that you would scarcely find five out of a hundred who could testify to you the marvelous work of the Spirit of Christ for the sake of our obedience, righteousness, and glory (cf. Rm. 6-8:17; Ez. 36:25-27).

Despite our misunderstanding of baptism and our supposed allegiance to its historical adminstration, we as Baptists have with our present day practices spit upon the dashed bodies of our forbearers. These who fought and died to separate the church of Christ from the godless state would be appalled by the way by which we not only do not repel the world from our fellowship but tempt the world to come into our midst. We as Baptists, with our church growth philosophies and our Field of Dreams mentality, Sunday after Sunday, week after week, and year after year, devise new schemes to make ourselves more attractive to the fallen world. We, opposed to our predecessors, do not view the church as the gathering of God’s saints alone for teaching and reproof, but we view the church as the concert hall by which we entice the world with our rock-star portraiture of Jesus so that we can trick them into praying some conjured prayer and into filling out a membership card so that we can add another butt to our seats and another tithe to our offering plates. We therefore preach “relevant” sermons that do not offend, and we paint pictures of emasculated Jesus who frolics in fields with fluffy lambs and who is going sob for you until you choose to make him your Savior. We care nothing about the holiness of our people, we only care about numbers; we do not care about their faith and repentance, we only care that they have written their spiritual birthday in their Bibles; and we do not care that they are generous to the widowed and the orphaned, we only care that they give ten-percent of their untaxed income so that we can fund our middle-class lifestyles and build bigger buildings and flashier stages by which we can lure more of the world into our midst.

So then, if you as a Baptist wish to honor the deaths of those who went before you, do not seek it through building monuments to them and through the dogged administration of a shadow, but seek it through the purification of God’s church from worldliness and worldly growth tactics. For I promise you that the modern paedobaptist church who actively seeks to cleanse itself from worldliness through godly discipline and accountability pays a greater tribute to the martyred first Baptists than we who bear their name.

What then is speaking the truth in love? If you were to take a random survey of people in our country, you would likely receive a host of different answers. If you were to ask the question of a person of a postmodern persuasion, you would likely get an answer similar to, “Speaking the truth in love is not speaking at all, for truth is relative to the individual, and to force one’s opinion of truth upon another is offensive and intolerant and therefore unloving.” If you were to ask it of another, you might get the answer, “Speaking the truth in love is sharing what is true in such a way that it presents one’s view of truth as an opinion thereby making compliance to it optional and thus making it inoffensive.” If you were to ask it of one who professes to be a Christian, you might get an answer like, “Speaking the truth in love is sharing the truth of God’s Word in a way that is not judgmental and that withholds matters that might offend a person and turn them away from a church or the Faith.”

And though you obviously might get other answers if you were to speak to others, there is a common thread that runs through most of the answers that you would receive, namely, you are not to be offensive in what you speak. It is the common thread of American morality and individualism–that each person is entitled to his own beliefs and opinions and to question one’s opinion is intolerant and unloving. According to this morality, the highest expression of love is to let one be himself and not to stifle that which makes him a special individual. Therefore, the highest expression of love is, first, to love and to esteem one’s self, and, second, to allow others to love and to esteem themselves in the same way that one esteems himself. Therefore, one must look upon himself as his own end, and his truth is not to transcend himself so as to impose it upon others.

This type of morality is simply self-idolatry, for one’s chief end is himself and his expressions of truth and love do not transcend himself. It is self-worship, and its influence has not been contained to the secular culture. In the church, it is demonstrated in the gross individualization of God’s Word–the Word of Truth that by its Authors transcends all. It is seen in such questions raised of God’s Word as, “What does this passage mean to you?” and it is seen in the consumer mentality that imbues the American church: “How do you like the church you attend?” “How is the music?” “Do the services move you?” “Is the preacher a good speaker?” “Are the seats comfortable?” “What clothes are you allowed to wear?”–and on the questions go that demonstrate that even we who claim to worship Christ claim to worship him with the real end of worshiping ourselves. We, by and large, do not go to church to worship Christ and to build up his Body, but we go to church to edify ourselves and ourselves alone. Thus when something happens in a church that offends us or hinders our self-worship, we pack our bags and leave to find another church that will allow us to worship ourselves unhindered.

How our self-worship affects speaking the truth in love is undeniable, for we in our present moral mindset seek to speak the truth in a manner that does not ruffle another’s feathers so that we in turn might not have our feathers ruffled. We do not care so much that there is Truth that is to be adhered to or holiness that is to be pursued, but we care that there be a place and fellowship maintained that will allow us to continue in our self-centered religion. We might study God’s Word in our services and Sunday school classes, but there is no room for corporate accountability and discipline, and there is no room for Truth that transcends the individual. Thus God’s Word becomes merely a matter of personal opinion even in the church, and to challenge one’s personal opinion or conviction on the Word of God is to speak the truth in an unloving way.

Presuming for a moment that this view of speaking the truth in love is not the correct view, what then is the correct view of speaking the truth in love?

1. Speaking the Truth in Love is To Worship God Alone
Before we can rightly answer the question, “What is speaking the truth in love?” we must first understand that all people exist for the sole purpose of worshiping God and that all things exist for sole purpose of glorifying God. Not to understand this most basic of all truths is to misunderstand everything. It is through this lens that we must judge all of reality, and it is through this lens that we must answer our present question. Any philosophy or notion of truth that does not find its end in the worship and the glory of God is false and cannot properly answer the question of speaking the truth in love. Therefore, when we ask the question in the church, “What is speaking the truth in love?” we must ask does our present answer to the question find its end in the worship of God, or does it find its end in the worship of ourselves?

Therefore we must ask the question, “What does God ask of us to worship and to glorify him alone?” This question immediately removes us from the self-idolatry that is so common in the American church, and it places our lives in the balance of God’s glory alone. And what does God require of his people to worship him properly? We find the answer to this question in those whom God predestined before the foundation of the world, namely they are “to be conformed to image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn of many brothers” (Rm. 8:29). Therefore, for those who are called to be saints, their worship of God finds its greatest expression in becoming like Jesus Christ. This is expressed elsewhere as being “holy in all your conduct” (1Pet. 1:15; cf. 1Pet. 1:13-21), obeying God’s commandments (cf. Jn. 14:15; Rm. 6:15-23; 1Jn. 5:2), and loving God with all our being (cf. Deut. 6:5; Mt. 22:37), for this is the manner in which Christ perfectly conducted himself while he walked upon this earth.

Therefore, speaking the truth in love must have the end of glorifying God through holiness, obedience, and loving God, for this is the manner in which God has called his saints to worship him. Any notion of speaking the truth in love that does not have this end is a false notion of speaking the truth in love.

2. Speaking the Truth in Love Must Understand the Truth of God
It seems to be a most obvious statement that before one can speak the truth in love he must understand the truth, but how much of our lives do we invest in knowing the truth of God? If our calling in this life is to holiness, to obedience, and to loving God as he prescribes, how are we to do these things unless we know what God has spoken? The answer is simply that we cannot, and it is for this reason that God instructed Joshua to “meditate on [the Law] day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all is written in it,” and why David spoke, saying, “I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you” (Ps. 119:11). Our worship of God therefore is contingent upon our knowledge of his Word, and therefore our speaking the truth in love is contingent upon our knowledge of his Word as well.

3. Speaking the Truth in Love Must Build up the Body of Christ
Being that God has ordained that he would call a people to himself, and that that people would be a fellowship of God’s people existing for the mutual edification of one another in holiness, speaking the truth in love must exist to build up the church in holiness. The apostle Paul puts it this way:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love (Eph. 4:11-16).

This passage of the apostle is the fullest exposition of speaking the truth in love, and it would be helpful to understand in its entirety. First, we see that God has ordained that there would be offices in the church that would exist for the purpose of the building up the body of Christ so that the church would attain the unity of faith and of the knowledge of Christ in order that the church would grow into the fullness of Christ. These offices were ordained so that men could guide the church to glorify God by becoming holy and obedient through the knowledge of God’s Word. Second, this building up of the church by the prescribed offices were done also to prevent the church from being “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, and by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” In other words, there is a proper manner by which the church is to live that is prescribed by God, and an improper one that is devised by men and demons. Therefore, the offices that God has ordained exist, one, to build up the church in Knowledge and, two, to prevent the church from being deceived by false doctrine.

Third, these two things, i.e. growing into the fullness of Christ through the unity of faith / the knowledge of Christ and the dispelling of the false doctrines of men and demons, are called “speaking the truth in love.” We know this is so, because, one, the “truth” spoken of is called earlier, “the knowledge of the Son of God,” and the “love” has the purpose of growing the church into Christ (“fullness of Christ” from earlier), of holding and joining it with that which is equipped (“to equip the saints for the work of ministry” from earlier), and for its working together properly in the building up in love (“the unity of faith” from earlier). Therefore, the “speaking the truth in love” is not so much the means in which the truth is spoken, but it is the end for which it is spoken, namely the building up of the church into the fullness of Christ. However, the end of love does indeed dictate the means, for the fullness of Christ is dictated by what was called earlier, “the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.”

Therefore, speaking the truth in love is done in seeking the unity of faith and the unity of the knowledge of Christ. When one speaks the truth in love he must it do so for the sake of the unity of the one Faith. And while there are many notions of unity, most of which center upon the capitulation of doctrine and truth and upon tolerance, the unity of which the apostle speaks is the particular unity of faith or belief. It is, in the context, not the capitulation of doctrine, but it is the teaching of doctrine. And it is for this reason that God has established church offices, so that the church might be taught rightly and be united under proper doctrine. And being that there is only one Faith, unity must be established under that Faith alone. Likewise, there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, and we are called to united under him alone through the knowledge of him alone. And it is for this reason that the apostle wrote earlier, “There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call–one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (vv. 4:4-6). Therefore, speaking the truth in love is done for the sake of unity–a unity that is bound by sound doctrine under the one Faith and Lord to which God calls and draws men.

4. Speaking the Truth in Love Must Seek the Good of him to Whom it is Spoken
Though when the apostle speaks of speaking the truth in love he is speaking particularly of the edification of the church, oftentimes speaking the truth in love must be done to individuals in particular instances. Therefore when the speaking the truth to individuals is done, it must be done in love. What then is loving to an individual? Taking into account that which we have already determined, loving an individual is desiring that they glorify and worship God alone, that they know the Truth, in order that they might be equipped for ministry in the church. Any desire to speak the truth outside of these ends is not to speak the truth in love.

Also, speaking the truth in love to individuals must be done in such a manner that those ends are evinced. For while one might inwardly desire to speak the truth to a soul so that he might glorify God by knowing the truth so that he might serve well in the Body, not demonstrating that by tone and declaration can prove to be futile. For speaking the truth to an individual will, more often than not, incite animosity and offense in the one to whom it is spoken, therefore it must be clearly demonstrated that the end of such truth-speaking is loving that person as God desires us to love one another. And though we can count on resistance to the truth even when spoken in love, we must do so in faith that the Spirit of God will take that which was spoken in truth and love and will use it to unify the Body in the proper knowledge of Christ.

Final Thoughts
From this brief survey, what is speaking the truth in love? It is, in short, the speaking of truth for the end of glorifying God through its proclamation so that individuals in the church might be called together in the unity of the knowledge of Christ in order that the church might be equipped for ministry. It is the loving of God and of others to such an extent that we are willing to sacrifice ourselves and our esteem by men by boldly speaking that which God has spoken. For the proper loving of men is done through the proclamation of truth, and the proper proclamation of truth is done through loving men. Neither can be done without the other to the glory of God.

Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection (Rm. 12:9, 10a).

The apostle Paul, in the twelfth chapter of his letter to the Romans, continues in the paragraph that begins in verse nine with the practical exhortations that are built upon his theological discourse that precedes this present section in chapters one through eleven. Having solidified the Roman church’s knowledge of God in Christ, he continues to demonstrate how that knowledge is to transform one into the image of Christ and to destroy his conformity to the world (cf. v. 12:2).

In verse nine, the true knowledge of God in the face of Christ by faith exhibits itself in genuine love toward those in the church. What is interesting in this verse, and yet so wonderfully applicable, is the first instruction given by the apostle to exhibit genuine love, namely, “Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.” In other words, the first and primary step to loving the church genuinely is to despise evil and to love good. For if love toward Christ’s church is to be practiced truly and rightly, it must always be done in the context of holiness. For any love that attempts to demonstrate itself apart from God’s decrees and demands for holiness in his Bride is not love at all, but it is hatred. For true love is always concerned first with the glory of God and second with the state of a person’s soul, and to attempt to love a person without regard God’s glory or without regard to their soul, despite sentiment, demonstrates a cold callousness that is concerned more with ease and feigned peace than it is with pressing a soul unto godliness.

However, this abhorrence of evil and clinging to that which is good is to be practiced in the church in a manner that befits brotherly affection. Just as attempts to love a soul without regard to holiness are false and destructive, so are attempts to love a soul by holiness apart from brotherly affection false and destructive. For the lover of holiness in the church must also have a deep affection for the church that exhibits itself in patience and longsuffering toward his brothers and sisters. For this is the manner in which holiness in the church must be endured in this age, for holiness is not an instant transformation, but it is a gradual conformity to the image of Christ by the seemingly slow but sure work of the Spirit of God. And as such, love for holiness must be accompanied by the same patience with which the Holy Spirit of God endures each of us.

Were all human beings suddenly to become blind, still the sun would shine by day and the stars by night, for these owe nothing to the millions who benefit from their light. So, were every man on earth to become atheist, it could not affect God in any way. He is what he is in himself without regard to any other. To believe in him adds nothing to his perfections; to doubt him takes nothing away

Almighty God, just because he is is almighty, needs no support. The picture of a nervous, ingratiating God fawning over men to win their favor is not a pleasant one; yet if we look at the popular conception of God that is precisely what we see. Twentieth-century Christianity has put God on charity. So lofty is our opinion of ourselves that we find it quite easy, not to say enjoyable, to believe that we are necessary to God. But the truth is that God is not greater for our being, nor would he be less if we did not exist. That we do exist is altogether of God’s free determination, not by our desert nor by divine necessity (A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, p. 32).

You might be thinking, “What an absurd story,” and you would be right. It is an absurd story. But what makes the story absurd is not the selling of coffee mugs, or the painting of pictures, or the putting on of dramas by Israelites during the Exodus, but it is their response to God’s holiness. People do not behold the holiness of the Lord and then proceed to make him who is holy appear to be common. There is a fear that naturally grips the heart and soul of a man when he realizes what holiness means, and that fear changes his life.

A casual look at the church today would reveal that we are a diseased people. We are people who possess God’s holy revelation, and yet we cannot grasp God and his holiness. Oh, we sing songs with the word “holy” in the lyrics, but we never tremble as a people before the Almighty or even show a sliver of respect toward the Being who is wholly other. We love to embrace the humanity of Jesus Christ and his “likeness” to us, and yet we only ascribe to him deity when he must be so to cover our sins. Do you not see the disease of the church? The symptoms are everywhere:

Disregard for His Commandments
If Christ demonstrated anything in his discourse in the Sermon of the Mount, he demonstrated that the law is not a stepladder, but it is a demonstration of God’s holiness. No man can ever keep the law, because no one is holy but the Lord. This is the very reason that Christ came and died, to demonstrate that he is Yahweh by keeping the law perfectly, and then to die in the place of unholy persons so that they might be counted as holy.

We know this well as the Church. We know that Jesus Christ died for sinners to reconcile them to God, but what we do not know well is the command, “Be ye holy.” What that translates to in practice is an apathy toward to commandments of God because our mistakes are “covered.” For example take the second commandment: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Now take a look at the phrase, “Any likeness of anything that is in heaven.” Then ask yourself, “Where presently is Jesus Christ?” Now ask yourself if you have ever seen anything that has attempted to portray the likeness of Jesus Christ. Right, they’re everywhere! Pictures of Jesus, crucifixes with Jesus on them, statues of Jesus–all idols transgressing the second commandment. And your response? “What’s the big deal?” “It helps the children.” “The commandment is kinda fuzzy on that.” “I like nativities.” These are real responses from past conversations that show that we in the church want to walk as close to the boundary of Mt. Sinai without being struck down by a holy God. And you will probably lightly nod your head in agreement with that and still keep your pictures of Jesus and your nativities showing that you still don’t give a rip about holiness.

Cornifying God
The next time you step into your local “Christian” “book”store, survey what is there for you to buy. To your right and to the back there’s the t-shirt section, where the t-shirts take catchy secular sayings and manipulate them to put Jesus on a Reeses cup, an Abercrombie logo, or in a punchline from a perverted TV show. To your left you’ll see a rack of auto decals that have things like a fish with an American flag on the inside (because you know, the U.S. is a Christian nation), a Godfather movie logo manipulated to say “GodtheFather,” and a quote borrowed from those infamous billboards, “Don’t make me come down there. ~God.” At the front counter you’ll see a collection of “Christian” erasers, pencils, fingernail clippers, and some Testamints that sanctify your breath. All these are designed to press you on to the comprehension of the holiness of God–to portray God as the glorious, unfathomable, infinite Lord of the Universe and his Son as the Holy One, Yahweh Incarnate in whose presence you would be incinerated. Testamints do that, they really do.

Mocking the Revelation of God
There are few things in life that cause me to lose sleep at night, but I lost sleep two nights in a row over the mockery that happened at a local church this past Sunday. During the morning service, some sacrilegious imbeciles thought that it would be a good idea to put on a drama where someone would act as Moses receiving God’s revelation, and another would, in Wizard of Oz fashion, speak as God over the speakers, justifying to Moses his not entering into Canaan. And what was this drama for? To demonstrate the justice of God? To pay tribute to God’s greatest prophet? No! It was a promotion for some upcoming conference! Really! Someone thought that it was worth making trite the holy revelation of God, through the voice of a puny man, with words that God never spoke, all to advertise a conference! Fools! Praise be to the immeasurable mercy of God that withheld his hand from striking down those who permitted such blasphemy!

All this is to say that God is holy, and we need to be a people who know that God is holy. The American church obviously does not understand the holiness of God, and it demonstrates that by its flippancy toward God, his commandments, and his revelation. We should be utterly terrified at our state, because the Lord is not idly watching.

The moment that Moses is out of site and in the presence of the Lord, three groups within the Israelites think of three different ways to respond to the holiness of God that they had just beheld.

The first group was made up of Israelites who had the gift of entrepreneury, and they built a trading stand at the edge of the mountain. At the stand they began to sell things that would help the Israelites remember that the Lord is holy. One of the things that they sold was a coffee mug that had a picture of mountain with a cloud around it; another was a stuffed Moses for the kids that when one pulled a string it said, “Stay away from the mountain, or you’ll die!” Another was a picture of a bridge beside the cloud-covered mountain by famous Israelite painter, Thomak Chichade, and also a t-shirt that said, “What has two thumbs and thinks that the Lord is holy? This guy!”

The second group was gifted artists, and they began to paint different things that portrayed the holiness of God to them. Some simply painted the cloud-covered mountain that Moses ascended; some added a dead person beside the edge of the mountain. Some painted a picture of a bull, explaining that it reminded them of the strength of the Lord. Some painted pictures of the sun, citing that it reminded them of the Egyptian god Ra whom they believed was the closest Egyptian god to the Lord. And some painted pictures of a man since they felt that God had condescended himself to them. They hung their paintings of the holiness of God all around the Israelite camp–in the children’s tents, in front of the altar, and even in the latrines, so that the people could always see a visual representation of the holiness of the Lord.

The third group was a group of gifted dramatists who had a knack for throwing return parties. They said, “Hey, let’s plan a return party for Moses for when he gets back from speaking to the Lord, and we’ll promote it by putting on a drama!” They decided that the best way to promote Moses’ return party was to imagine how the Lord would promote a return party. And that’s what they did. The party planning dramatists built a stage at the edge of the mountain and gathered the people of Israel together. They pulled back the curtains, and their promotion drama began. The scene looked like the top of a mountain with thick fog around it. On its peak was a man prostrate with his face looking upward. Out from nowhere, it seems, a deep voice says, “Moses!” The man lying on the mountain peak says, “Speak Lord, I am listening.” The voice says, “Moses, Moses, you have been up here receiving my commandments for weeks, and the people of Israel miss you a lot. Moses, they miss you so much that they are throwing a party celebrating your return, and it is going to be out of this world. Moses, everyone who is of the people of Israel should come to this party. It is going to be awesome. Thus says me, the Lord.” And thus the party was promoted via dramatization.

To be continued…