Vote Anyway

With the ascension of Donald Trump as the presumed Republican nominee for President, many Christians are talking about staying home on Election Day this November. Enough believers had an adverse reaction to Mitt Romney that Barak Obama won re-election in 2012 (my opinion). I admitted my own reservations about Romney (See http://whammonline.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-not-mitt.html), but I concluded that the value of electing the lesser of two evils precluded staying home. I’d like to lobby for that again.

No one who is even slightly familiar with Donald Trump would argue that he is a wholesome Christian candidate. Some may even question the legitimacy of his faith; that is for God to judge, not me. Regardless of where the Donald will spend eternity, we must take part in deciding where he spends the next four years. There are good reasons to want him in the White House in spite of his religious attitudes, or his lack of them.

First of all, while believers may not like Trump’s soft position on some important issues, he comes out as better than either alternative currently vying for the Presidency on the Democrat ticket. It is possible that a Trump administration may be able to throttle back the quickening slide into socialism that President Obama and the rest of the progressives have been orchestrating for the last seven years. I say “quickening slide” because we started down the path to a social democracy early in the 20^th century. It is only recently that wide majorities have begun to believe that they are entitled to government handouts. This broadening support for socialist policies has emboldened progressives to push their ideas more aggressively.

For example, national health care has long been on the progressive wish list. Karen S. Palmer has written an excellent history of the push for national health care in America’s past. She notes that Europe instituted socialized medicine in the nineteenth century, long before the US. Her list of reasons why America was slow to follow a similar course is revealing. She says efforts to socialize health care in America failed in the last century due to, “ideological differences, anti-communism, anti-socialism… the entrepreneurial character of American medicine, a tradition of American voluntarism… and the association of public programs with charity, dependence, personal failure and the almshouses of years gone by.”

Some may be wondering why I suggest that Christians should be opposed to socialist policies, since so many think that socialism is more closely aligned with biblical teachings than free-market capitalism. First of all, that is not a correct interpretation of the Bible position on social welfare in my opinion. Second, history proves that, in practice people have not fared better under socialism. (For a more complete treatment of this see my post, “Obama isn’t the Problem.”) Also, if you study Palmer’s explanation of why socialized health care failed, you will see a list of decidedly conservative, and may I say Christian, positions. The biblical model promotes private industry and personal charity, not government giveaways and legislated morality.

There are other aspects of the progressive or socialist agenda that should worry Christians: the wholesale approval of the murder of the unborn, the forced acceptance of “alternative lifestyles”, the implicit infringement of the Christian religion alongside widening acceptance of Islamic practice, the attitude that collectivism is valued over individualism. These differences (and more) should be motivation enough to get out and vote in November. Donald Trump is certainly far from the ideal candidate, but he is closer than anyone the Democrats are likely to offer as an option. If Christians stay home in large numbers this election cycle because they don’t like the Donald, the victory of the opposition will be almost certain. I maintain that a “None of the Above” choice next November is short-sighted and serves to undermine the traditional values upon which our republic was founded.

Weakday Christians

Sunday after Sunday people sit in churches listening to messages from God. At least some churches deliver divine words; I am not concerned with all those churches that gave up preaching the truth years ago. In churches all across America the true message of the Bible is presented on a weekly basis, or perhaps I should say a weakly basis. The warning from James chapter one should haunt those people (like me) who listen to the Word every Sunday and then live like pagans the rest of the week. “Do not merely listen to the word and so deceive yourselves,” James says, “Do what it says.” (James 1:22)

I fear that many people sincerely believe they have done enough to call themselves Christians once they leave church Sunday morning. However, James cautions that listening to the Word but not living it is a useless practice, a wasted effort. Only those who, “continue in [the Word]… will be blessed in what they do.” (1:25) Some of the blame for this rampant self-deception can be placed on those who preach: how many men who get paid to stand in the pulpit every Sunday dare to accuse their flock of failure.

Failing to make the grade by James’ standard is not entirely, or even mostly the preachers’ fault. Every believer has the responsibility to know the Word and to do what he or she knows. No one gets to heaven on the preacher’s say-so. We are supposed to work the Word into every fiber of our being. Someone has quipped that most believers get just enough Bible in them to be inoculated against it. Instead of being vaccinated, we should be infected so that God’s Word seeps out of every pore of our lives like a Spirit-fed fever.

Paul told the Ephesians to avoid getting drunk with wine, but instead to be filled with the Spirit. It’s not stretching the metaphor to suggest that in much the same way that alcohol “takes over” a person, so the Spirit is supposed to be in control of a believer. While it is entirely possible and expected that the Holy Spirit can work in mysterious ways to accomplish God’s purpose through believers, He most frequently uses the Word for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16) The result of the teaching, etcetera is to lead believers into right action (righteousness).

None of what has been said should be misconstrued to mean salvation is by works. The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that belief in Jesus Christ is what saves. However, if you read a bit further in the book of James you will hear him testify that the only faith that saves is a faith that works. This sounds very much like an application of Jesus’ words to his disciples, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Someone once asked if you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence for a conviction? I fear I may be acquitted; that’s not good.

I belong to a too large club of believers: Sunday strong and weekday weak. As I write this, I am unsure of exactly what I should do differently. I’m not a bad person, generally, but I have a nagging feeling I’m not in line for the, “Well done, good and faithful servant” commendation either. So this is a challenge, as much for myself as anyone who might read this. What more can I do to strengthen my weak-day faith? Not tomorrow or next semester, but now, as soon as I post this and shut down the computer. And you?

Mounting Everest

It has been said that a special providence watches over fools and Englishmen. I guess that gives me double coverage. Many people think it foolish to actually plan to live full time in an RV, but since my wife and I began to do so, we have discovered that we are far from alone. It seems to be the preferred option for a large segment of the recently retired population.

We just purchased our fourth RV in three years; that’s where the foolish part comes in. Each time we thought we had the right one, and each time we discovered something missing. So we traded up. We think this is the last time; we’ll see. But I must tell you now this one came about because this is where the “special providence” comes into play.

We had some time to kill on a recent sight-seeing trip, so we stopped at Camping World in St. George, Utah. We had no intention of buying; we just wanted to see what was available. Of course the salesman wanted us to take one home immediately. We let him impress us with several new units even though we asked to see used ones. Then we let him write up a deal for our consideration. We could have done it if we wanted a 20 year mortgage on the rig; NOT.

When we got home that evening I checked out the Camping World web site and found a really nice looking, well outfitted fifth wheel that seemed to suit our needs and budget. The one photo that really struck me was of the kitchen; I knew my wife would be thrilled. Back in St. George with a salesman who wasn’t trying to push new units on us we found our dream home. We wrote up a potential deal and went back home to think about it.

The next day I called the dealer with what I thought was a real “low-ball” offer, and he accepted my terms much to my surprise. After that I found a small print clause in the Internet ad that implied they had over-charged me for prep, and I was able to get another $1,250 off the price, just what I needed to purchase and install the fifth wheel hitch. With the finance arrangements made with my credit union, we headed back to St. George with our trailer to make the swap.

 When the service person was giving us our walk-through to show us all the systems, the air conditioner failed to work, even though it had functioned perfectly days before. A quick inspection revealed a bad circuit board which was no longer available. The solution: the manager, Charles, offered to install a brand new A/C unit at no charge. We also learned that the inverter had malfunctioned the previous day and it too was replaced with a new unit.

Because the A/C unit would take several hours to install, and the hour was getting late, Charles put us up for the night in the motel next door since we could not stay in either our “old” unit or the “new” one. Since we had already put in several hours of transferring our belongings from one unit to the other, the hot tub at the motel was a welcome benefit. I must have made over a hundred trips down one set of steps and up the other taking loads of clothes, dishes and sundry other items into our new home.

The next morning we finished moving in and towed the Everest back to our “home” park in Mesquite, Nevada. We could not be happier. It will take a little more fuel to pull around, but it is worth it for all the extra benefits. It even has a washer/dryer already in place. And there is so much storage, we can’t fill it all (yet). The people at Camping World in St. George were wonderful, not only because I got the deal of a lifetime, but because they were so pleasant and helpful in providing it.

At St. George, I learned that the Good Sam Club of which we are members, is a Camping World affiliate, and is short for Good Samaritan, from the well-known Bible story. I don’t want to over-spiritualize a purely material transaction, but I do feel as though there was a “special Providence” working to get us our new home. And I don’t feel the least bit foolish... not about this anyway. 

God Wants Me Unhappy

I have been thinking a lot about my own happiness lately, so it is no coincidence that Randy Alcorn’s discussion of happiness slid across my Facebook page recently. God has a way of planting supplements to my devotional diet directly in my path so I can only avoid them on purpose. Many times I have had the subject of print or other media floating in my thought hopper only to find that it is the perfect preparation for a teaching or preaching assignment I am about to be given. It is exciting to work with an omniscient God. I am not yet sure what all this business about happiness is leading to.

When I taught high school students, the subject of God’s will for their lives was a frequent topic of discussion. Since the middle of the 20^th century, Christian teens have had to face numerous life choices that were seldom presented to earlier generations. Do I consider military service? Should I attend college? If so, what career should I pursue? Must it be a Christian college? Should I take on student loans? Who should I marry? Does God want me to get married at all? These are vexing questions to a young person who has been taught that God has a perfect will for each of them, and it is their responsibility to figure out what that will is.

I remember one young man who was horrified with the thought that God might call him to remain unmarried, to be celibate. He believed that sex outside of marriage was clearly forbidden, so marriage was his only hope to satisfy his biological desires. The idea that it might be outside God’s will for him to marry literally gave him many sleepless nights. He could not imagine being happy unless he was married.

I don’t recall the exact words I used to counsel him, but I do remember the general tenor of my advice. First, God will never ask us to do anything for Him that he does not give us the strength to accomplish. Next, God does not reveal His plan for our entire life all at once; that would negate the need to walk by faith which is what builds our trust in Him. The best we can do is take the step that is before us and wait on God to reveal the step after that. As long as we avoid taking steps we know are against God’s revealed will, His personal will for our lives will become clear as we live step by step.

In my recent response to Alcorn’s book, Happiness, I mentioned three of the countless episodes in the Bible that present unhappy servants. Here I might add Abraham who waited unhappily for 25 years for the son of promise only to be told he was to be sacrificed to the God who gave him. Abraham would not have been a happy camper trudging up Mt. Moriah knowing what lay ahead. Happiness came naturally when the angel stopped the knife and a ram appeared in a thicket to take Isaac’s place, but one cannot miss the agony through which Abraham walked as he followed God’s will up that hill. Nor can we miss the same thing when our Substitute walked up that same hill years later. I think Jesus was not happy about the crucifixion; he rejoiced in what it would accomplish, but to call that happiness is to wrench all meaning from the word.

Many of us find ourselves in circumstances that make us unhappy. The high school lad with raging hormones is not the only one who must wait on God’s answer to the burning question. Consider the husband or wife who has lost a spouse to divorce or death. While some may dispute the option of remarriage, none will argue that celibacy is the only righteous option outside of another marriage. Consider the man who, because of medical procedures or health issues, can no longer function normally. It would be comforting to think that the urge dies when the capability ceases, but that is often not the case. Consider the wife of that man. In these and countless other cases unrelated to sex, God’s will leads to unhappiness at least for a time.

There is a statement I probably borrowed, and I think I have posted it here before, but it bears repeating: God is less concerned with our comfort than our character. We are called to conform ourselves to the image of Christ, who for the joy set before him endured the cross (Hebrews 12:2). Endurance builds character; character, biblically defined, is what suits us for heaven.  Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are few prayers at parties. If my unhappiness makes me more like Christ, I’ll be “happy” to endure it.

Tillapaugh: Review and Resolution

I am half way through Frank Tillapaugh’s book, The Church Unleashed. The first thing I noticed is that his diagnosis of the infirmity in the church in America is spot on. The next thing that I realized is that his book is over thirty years old; that is a sad commentary. Then it occurred to me that another of my favorite twentieth century authors, A.W. Tozer, said essentially the same things Tillapaugh said another thirty years earlier. Two generations apart, two thoughtful men of God identify the same weaknesses in the church. Tozer lamented the emphasis on program over Presence, and Tillapaugh criticized the pastor-centric fortress mentality so prevalent in American evangelicalism versus what he called the unleashed church.

Tillapaugh traced the fortress mentality to the evangelical stance developed throughout the early years of the twentieth century in opposition to religious liberalism. He believed that as mainline denominations drifted away from doctrinal orthodoxy into unbiblical emphases like the “social gospel,” evangelicals retreated into bunkers to defend the true faith. This defensive position became ossified by the time Tillapaugh wrote (1980’s) and was exacerbated by the transition of American society from rural to urban and suburban in nature. In other words, Tillapaugh believed that the church closed itself off from the world, and the world moved away.

This separation resulted in a largely ineffective church, evangelistically speaking. The majority of time, treasure and talent were spent inside church walls on programs meant for members, and the main thrust of what evangelism did exist was to bring people into the church. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was held captive in the church building, and unbelievers were expected to come there to find it. Because the church had become irrelevant to a changed society, Tillapaugh believed it had failed in its prime directive: making disciples.

The corrective according to Tillapaugh is to stop thinking of a church building as the place where people find the gospel and start taking the gospel to where the people are found. The way he proposes to do this is to unleash both the pastors and the laity to minister as they are led by the Holy Spirit, a clear application of the principle found in Ephesians 4. He believed that committee meetings are a place where good ideas go to die, and though structure is necessary, the Spirit must dominate the structure rather than the structure dominating (quenching) the Spirit.

Apparently Tillapaugh’s ideas worked. At the time he wrote The Church Unleashed, the proving ground for the unleashed church, Bear Valley Church in Denver, was a body of thousands working out of a building designed for 300 and doing ministry all over the city to target groups such as street people, international students, singles and more while not abandoning a traditional Sunday ministry to believers. His application of Jesus’ teaching about new skins for new wine was apt: the old church “skins” are no longer functional given the newness of the “wine” he is recommending.

Here I plant my Ebenezer, as the old song goes. The church I now call home (when not snowbirding) has elements of both the fortress and the unleashed church. I am going to work to free the gospel from its captivity there and maximize the good already being accomplished, or else I will find a place where it is already unleashed. I loathe church hopping to find the perfect church (which does not exist in this world), but I believe Tillapaugh is right when he counsels against trying to fight against leadership that resists being unleashed. I want to be like the men of Issachar in David’s day: understand the times and act accordingly. The lost and dying world deserves better than what the typical American evangelical church offers. I plan to see what I can do about that.

Happiness and Joy, Part Two

This is part two of my rebuttal of Randy Alcorn’s assertion that happiness and joy are used synonymously in Scripture. In part one I explained why I think the difference between happiness and joy is an important one. In this post I will present my evidence that the Bible makes a clear distinction between the two words. In his article “Is There a Difference Between Happiness and Joy?” Alcorn makes the bold statement that, “An ungrounded, dangerous separation of joy from happiness has infiltrated the Christian community.” After citing an example of this “dangerous separation,” he says, “Judging from such articles… you’d think the distinction between joy and happiness is biblical. It’s not.” He is wrong; the Bible makes a clear distinction between the two.

First I want to explain why I will only use the New Testament in this argument. There is an important hermeneutical (interpretative) concept that demands we interpret a less clear passage with a more clear one. In this instance, Alcorn uses numerous Old Testament passages to support his argument. While I agree that we can learn much about God from the Old Testament, we must always use the New Testament to clarify the Old.

There are several reasons why the New Testament gives a better picture of God than the Old. The Hebrew language of the Old Testament is far less precise than the New Testament Greek. Also, the idea of progressive revelation leads us to understand that God revealed more detail about himself and his creation in the New Testament. Finally, God’s interaction with his people is significantly different after the Cross than before Calvary. Many of the errors that exist in the church today are a result of misunderstanding this important difference.

Second I want to explain why Alcorn’s argument about the English use of happiness and joy is irrelevant. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Scripture to use certain words, and I believe there is a reason for each and every choice. Neither Noah Webster nor any of the translators of English versions of the Bible can make the claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, so their opinions matter little. The New Testament Greek is a very precise language, far more precise than English in many cases, and the best Bible interpretation must take into account how the Greek handles any subject.

Third, I want to refute Alcorn’s argument that using happiness and joy in the same context proves they are synonymous. Quite the contrary, side-by-side use argues for a difference of kind or degree; it makes little sense to apply two words with identical meanings to a situation. This would be like saying the weather is wet and damp; that would be needlessly redundant. However, if one says the weather is cold and damp, the purpose of using two words is obvious. I believe this is precisely the reason for a Scriptural usage of both happiness and joy, even when they appear in the same passage.

Alcorn is correct to note that many modern translations use happiness and joy almost interchangeably. However, this is not reflective of the original Greek; the Greek has two different words with distinct meanings: chara (χαρα) for “joy” and makarios (μακαριοs) for what might be called “happiness.” Chara appears 59 times and makarios 50 times. The King James Version (KJV) does the best job of maintaining this distinction. The KJV translates chara as joy or a cognate of joy 55 times and gladness three times. Of the 50 occurrences of makarios, the KJV uses “blessed” 44 times and “happy” or a cognate the other six. In other words, the translators of the KJV recognized the difference between the words and rendered them as different.

It is noteworthy that the KJV used “blessed” for makarios. The English word “blessed” well reflects the Greek sense of makarios. One cannot have blessed (hear how strange that sounds). One can only be blessed; it is a reflexive verb. When circumstances outside a person are pleasant, the person is blessed; the person may feel happiness. Curiously, happiness is also a type of word that requires something to happen outside one’s self. Happiness results from good happening. Read any of the verses in the New Testament where makarios appears, and you will find precisely this type of situation. (eg. Matthew 5:11-13; James 1:25; Luke 11:27-28)

Because of the reflexive nature of the verb makarios, it is patently obvious that it cannot be commanded. It is illogical to suggest that God would command his people to have circumstances that would bring about happiness. God in his sovereignty can do such a thing, but humans are often powerless to change their situations. In fact, God has been known to do just the opposite. Consider Moses on the “backside of the desert,” or Jonah inside the whale, or Paul with his “thorn in the flesh.” It may be uncomfortable for Alcorn and others like him to admit, but God does not always orchestrate things for our happiness. God’s strength was shown in Paul’s unhappiness; Nineveh repented due to Jonah’s unhappiness; the Israelites discovered a strong leader following Moses’ unhappiness. God will be glorified with or without human happiness; it is his choice, not ours.

Chara or joy on the other hand can be commanded, and it is. I said in my previous post that I hesitate to call joy an emotion because I believe it is a spiritual state, and emotions reside in the soul, not the spirit. Certainly our joy can bubble over into an emotion, since our human condition is inseparably and mysteriously connected soul with spirit. But the strange irony is that we humans can experience sorrow and joy simultaneously. When my 33 year old sister succumbed to cancer and left a husband and four children behind, her funeral was heart-wrenching, yet we were peaceful and occasional laughter was heard as we rejoiced in the fact that she had been relieved from her suffering and was with Jesus.

Read the Bible verses that contain the word joy and you will see that it is not anything that could be called happiness. Peter and James admonish believers to have joy knowing that trials and suffering will be inevitable. It would be sick on the level of psychotic to say that we should be happy to suffer unless we recognize the joy that awaits our patience. Suffering does not bring happiness; knowing we can suffer and be carried through the suffering by the power of the Spirit and our hope in God brings joy, but not happiness. Even secular psychologists caution against seeking happiness indiscriminately, warning of a “shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life.” This sounds very much like Solomon’s estimate of such things as vanity.

It is ironic that Alcorn advocates for an emotional experience from the platform of Eternal Perspective Ministries. The true eternal perspective eschews emotional experience in favor of the spiritual. Perhaps Alcorn does not recognize the difference between the spirit and the soul, much as he ignores the difference between joy and happiness. This mistake is not insignificant. The web page touting his book, Happiness, says, “Christians are supposed to be happy…. this book is a paradigm-shifting wake-up call for the church and Christians everywhere.” His book does indeed shift the biblical paradigm; it shifts it from truth to falsehood.

It is unkind and unbiblical to claim as Alcorn does that God wants his people happy without qualification. God created the universe perfect and placed his human vice-regent in charge. Sadly, Adam rejected his proper role in that perfect world where happiness would have been the normal state and cast all humanity into the state of sinful unhappiness we now know as normal. Until Eden is restored, happiness is transitory and dependent on things mostly out of our control. Certainly we can have moments of happiness, but the Sovereign God dictates when those moments occur; we can only do what we are required to do and hope for the best on earth while sharing our joy with men of good will. Once heaven is realized, happiness and joy will be co-eternal for all God’s chosen.

Happiness and Joy, Part One

Here I am again, finding myself in a dispute with a well-known Christian author over an issue that many people would call trivial; some would even say it’s pointless. Being the semantic purist that I am, I naturally disagree. Words mean things, and Scripture word meanings have eternal consequences. In this case the dispute is whether happiness and joy are the same thing as far as the Bible usage is concerned. Randy Alcorn thinks so; I think not.

The publisher’s blurb for Alcorn’s latest book goes like this: “In God’s Promise of Happiness, bestselling author and noted theologian Randy Alcorn shares select passages and scripture from his latest hardcover release, Happiness, that provide insight, wisdom, and proof positive that God not only wants us to be happy, he commands it!” My dispute with this assertion centers on Alcorn’s conflation of two distinct words, two separate concepts within Scripture: joy and happiness. In interviews posted on his web site, Eternal Perspective Ministries (EPM), Alcorn has repeatedly stated that he believes the two words are interchangeable. I disagree.

Before I refute Alcorn’s “proof positive” that joy and happiness are the same, I will explain why this is not just a trivial argument over the translation of a couple words. The Great Commission calls us to bring the light of the Gospel to a dark world. In bringing this light to a post-modern culture that doubts the very existence of truth, it is imperative that we relate the truth revealed in Scripture with extreme care. Sloppy exegesis leads to inaccurate portrayals of God’s eternal truth. There is no passage in the Bible properly translated that suggests God wants people happy, let alone that He commands it. Telling people they must be happy is not only misleading, it is cruel.

The question arises how Alcorn, an otherwise responsible Bible expositor, can make such an erroneous claim. He can make such a claim because he fails to distinguish between two different Greek words used throughout the New Testament for joy and happiness. God does desire that His people have joy; it is one of the benefits of grace, also called a fruit of the Spirit. Nowhere does Scripture command believers to have happiness or to be happy. Even in our English language it is easy to see why happiness cannot be commanded. Happiness is a result of circumstances; happiness happens to one rather than one having happiness. We can have joy, but we are made happy; it is a reflexive type word, something done to us or for us rather than something we possess.

The Greek use of these two words in the New Testament bears this out completely. The word for joy (chara) appears 59 times in the Greek Testatment; the word rendered happy by modern translators (makarios) appears 50 times. The Greek makarios is translated “blessed” 44 times by the King James Version (KJV). This older usage is closer to the Greek meaning than our modern “happy.” To be blessed (again note the reflexive nature of the word) is to have something done to us. It is the result of things happening outside ourselves. Chara, on the other hand, is a state of being; it is something a person can possess. Chara is never rendered as “happy” by the KJV, nor should it be.

I mentioned that misconstruing happiness for joy is cruel. I say this because happiness results from our circumstances which are very often completely out of our control. It would be cruel to tell a young mother who has lost her husband that she must be happy. Being happy in that situation would be entirely unexpected (unless the husband was abusive). However, that suffering mother can have joy in her time of loss because she knows there is a greater purpose for her life, and there is a greater goal than happiness in this world. Here we reach the crux of the issue.

The bottom line to me is that these two words have different meanings in the original language of Scripture as inspired by the Holy Spirit. It clouds the understanding of God’s Word to make two different words synonymous. For my part, I believe that happiness is an emotion that results from positive circumstances and resides in the human soul. It is healthy, and our loving Father desires that we attain it when appropriate. Joy, on the other hand, is a spiritual concept (I hesitate to use “emotion”) which exists deeper within the “inner man,” and it is not dependent upon outside circumstances. The Spirit gives us inner joy in all circumstances; happiness is dependent upon that which occurs around us.

In my next post I will go into greater detail to refute Alcorn’s assertion that joy and happiness are synonymous. At this point I would simply say that confusing happiness with joy and then expecting it of all believers is akin to the prosperity preachers saying that God wants every believer healthy and wealthy. There simply is no proof of that in Scripture. (For more on this see Abraham's Promises.) Quite the contrary, we are commanded to be content in whatever circumstances we find ourselves, rejoicing, having joy, even in our want (Philippians 4). That sounds like a distasteful message to foist on a needy world, but the truth is that joy is eternal; happiness lasts only for the moment. For Randy Alcorn and Eternal Perspective Ministries, that appears to be ironically unimportant.

To read Part Two of my response, follow this link:

https://whammonline.blogspot.com/2015/12/happiness-and-joy-part-two.html