In recent years, there have been a few sporadic reports about dogs’ possibly infallible ability to detect various cancers with their noses--including breast cancer.
 
It’s early yet. No doubt it would take years of massive studies before anyone in the healthcare industry would admit creation’s superiority over man-made technologies. And considering what’s at stake for those already invested in this discipline, it’s possible that we’ll never hear much more about it. After all, the BBC reported on this amazing canine capability over eight years ago, and the corporate media haven’t exactly been jumping up and down about it.
 
And so we wait. But in the meantime, I find statements like this, focusing on the breast-cancer angle, very curious: “The technique is simple, non-invasive and cheap, and may revolutionise cancer detection in countries where mammograms are hard to come by.”
 
“In countries where mammograms are hard to come by”?
 
But according to the specialists at Susan G. Komen, while mammography demonstrates a sensitivity of about 87% for detecting breast cancer, its  specificity is relatively low; if you’re a woman who’s been faithfully following the experts’ recommendations for 10 years or more, your chances of experiencing a false-positive result is 50-60%. Which means that many obedient women end up experiencing unnecessary anxiety and follow-up testing over the course of their lives.
 
So if these phenomenal canine results are borne out, why wouldn’t you make 100% accurate doggie detection available everywhere, not just where mammograms are “hard to come by”?
 
I wonder, too, about our spending priorities.
 
These days, breast cancer research is a multi-billion-dollar industry; in the U.S. alone, the federal government’s National Cancer Institute spends far more investigating breast cancer than it does on any other form of the disease – even though colorectal, lung and pancreatic cancer each kill more Americans than breast cancer does. Why are we not putting that money into evaluating dogs’ utility for early detection and treatment monitoring for all kinds of cancer?

Could this emphasis on man-made technologies possibly be because only dog breeders and trainers stand to make money on canine detection?
 
Or because the cancer industry has already invested billions in equipment that would have to be chucked if dogs proved superior?
 
Or perhaps it’s because only God would get the glory for this remarkable canine-olfactory invention; and these days, only a minority of the “experts” even believe in Him.

News item: The rise and slow demise of hotel Bibles

​How many lost souls, over the decades, have picked up a Gideon Bible in their lonely hotel rooms, not even realizing it was written for them? 

How many have been transformed by what they found within? 

How many have discovered in its pages the peace that surpasses all understanding? 

How many have crossed the threshold into eternal life upon learning that the price of admission is simply repenting and trusting in Christ?

God only knows. But these days, more and more hotel and motel chains are making sure that it won't happen again under their roofs.   

As the travel reporter cited in the above article explains, " if [hotel chains are] not putting a Bible in, in many cases, it's just because they don't think people need it, and maybe there's not room for it.”

Right. People don't need it, according to progressive hospitality executives. And there's no room for it, not even in those empty desk drawers.

It makes you wonder what pompous little mid-level managers are making this decision – and if we will witness them trying to justify it on judgment day? I do hope so.

Not long ago, I heard yet another unbeliever citing “hypocritical Christians” as her primary excuse for rejecting Christianity.
 
Unfortunately for those who rely on it, it’s not an excuse that will fly on Judgment Day.
 
In the first place, born-again believers may be ambassadors for Jesus Christ, but we are not Him. We are all, in fact, colossal failures in the obedience department, and that indeed makes us all hypocrites to some extent. It's what makes His grace so amazing.
 
Secondly, our behavior has nothing to do with truth. To equate the two is a fallacy that logicians call a category mistake, “the error of assigning to something a quality or action which can only properly be assigned to things of another category” (Oxford dictionary).
 
The trouble is, unbelievers seem to be unable to grasp any of this. I write as one who spent 30 years of her adult life in that blinded condition, refusing to let such facts interfere with my beloved sin – in particular, my pride, self-righteousness and unbelief. 
 
Instead of investigating, unbelievers tend to cling to this logical fallacy as tenaciously as we believers cling to our Bibles. They use our behavior to judge Christianity’s validity. And that means they almost invariably reject truth, because it’s so very easy to find flaws in us.
 
All of which underscores the eternal importance of cleaning up our acts before unbelievers – because the onus is quite literally on us. It’s our responsibility to present Christ in the best possible light in spite of the unbeliever’s category error.
 
As imperfect beings, we’re going to be angry at times; we’re going to gossip; we’re going to break the speed limit; we’re going to snarl at a surly waitress or an ignorant comment about our faith. We need to repent of our sins, of course. But equally important, we need to do everything we can to avoid committing them before a lost and dying world, and be ready to apologize when we fail.
 
Above all, we need to put the love of Christ on permanent display in our lives, knowing that we are being watched, and that unbelievers are judging Christ Himself on the basis of our behavior. It's the only way we'll earn the right to ​share God's truth with them.

An update on my review of the ebook

There are so many things I love about this book, starting with the subject: What will it be like for those who are left behind when the Rapture occurs? What might they think about what has happened? How might they react?
 
What born-again Christian has not thought about these things in the face of beloved unbelievers’ stubborn resistance to the good news of Jesus Christ? Wyler tells us what she thinks, and I suspect she’s right.
 
To be honest, I didn’t like narrator Sarah Colton very much, but I think that’s because she reminded me of myself before I came to Christ (and sometimes since then, I’m ashamed to admit). She’s a self-absorbed feminist atheist, viewing the world through her own selfish eyes. Just one example: When a plane crashes near her home, the ambitious photojournalist grabs her equipment and races to capture the scene on video. Her motive? “This will make me famous. Sarah Colton has arrived …” (page 72). 
 
The author’s presentation of Sarah is consistent from start to finish. More than once, I wondered how someone so familiar with what Scripture says about everything from salvation to the Rapture could also have such accurate insight into a feminist atheist’s thinking. It’s really a brilliant character sketch.
 
I also appreciate Wyler’s generous use of foreshadowing. It’s fairly subtle; there’s none of the obvious “you could hear her coming in her wooden shoes” foretelling. But it’s the sort of thing that makes this reader’s heart smile when it plays itself out.
 
Then there’s the pacing. It’s flawless. The author continually turns up the tension and then gives the reader a breather with detours into less intense territory. For instance, on page 75, Sarah is rushing out to capture the aftermath of the crash on camera. Her heart is pounding, and so is mine. She takes this opportunity to tell us about her witnessing the convenience-store shooting of the governor’s son. Not a pleasant diversion, to be sure; but it’s in the past and Sarah has clearly survived the incident, so it lets the reader relax for a few moments.
 
But not for long. Wyler ramps it up again in short order, keeping my pulse racing and my eyes leaping through page after digital page.
 
As a result, I found it difficult to set this book aside. That may be due in part to the author’s use of the present tense throughout. Interestingly, I’m not at all a fan of present-tense novels; in the past, it has always struck me as gimmicky. But not in this case. The present tense is integral to the story. And Wyler handled it so transparently that I didn’t even notice it until I was halfway through the book.
 
But perhaps my favorite thing about Untaken is Sarah’s voice. This book is not simply written in the first person; it is written to the reader. Sarah holds a running conversation with you from beginning to end. She asks you what you think, and if you saw, heard, or felt what she did. She wonders if you’re still with her, or have abandoned her, as of course you are free to do. She invites you to tell her what you would do if you were in her shoes.
 
She gets kind of personal, too. In the aforementioned scene when she’s racing to the crash site, she asks, “Are you keeping up with me? I do not know what shape you are in healthwise, but step it up as we must get to the scene before anyone else does.”
 
Sarah even admonishes the reader a time or two for failing to help her. “Are you here with me?” she asks on page 166. “But why do I bother asking you? You have been of no help since we started this relationship.”
 
It’s crazy and I found it endearing. Since there’s nothing new under the sun, as Solomon told us in Ecclesiastes, I suppose that other writers have pioneered this technique. But I’d certainly never seen it. In fact, I’ve never read anything quite like Untaken.
 
A bonus: Wyler closes with an interesting discussion of the choices she made in writing the story and an appeal for the reader to believe on Christ. She also includes Bible passages describing the Rapture and God’s plan of salvation.
 
Bottom line: This is an irresistible book that I think virtually any true believer would thoroughly enjoy--one that all unbelievers really should read and ponder, before it’s too late. Find it here. (The ebook is still free everywhere except on Amazon.)

Gone with the Wind is probably my favorite movie of all time. Since reading the book twice or thrice as a teen, I’ve seen the film at least 30 times. Every time it’s on TV, I tune in with the intention of watching for just a few minutes; and every time, I end up glued to the set until Scarlett utters her final “Tomorrow is another day.”
 
In spite of having practically memorized the dialogue, it wasn’t until I was born again that I understood the significance of Melanie Wilkes being Christian. Yet there it was: Melanie was always kind, compassionate, faithful, loving – the epitome of Christian virtue. How wonderful to have her goodness on such prominent display in this fallen world, with non-believers always on high alert for hypocrisy in the church.
 
But I've now realized that another GWTW character may have telegraphed, in just a few words, something even more important than goodness.
 
Surprisingly, that character was Rhett Butler – surely no Christian, given his flagrant disregard of the commands of Christ. 
                  
Rhett’s critical theological insight was tucked into the movie’s last scene.  You may remember it: Having proclaimed her long-standing but just-discovered love for him, Scarlett O’Hara was tearfully expressing her regret over the course of their lives together. He responded, “My darling, you’re such a child. You think by saying ‘I’m sorry,’ all the past can be corrected.” (See the clip here.)
 
Consider this comment in light of the gospel.
 
According to the word of God, Christ suffered and died on the cross to pay the penalty for the world’s sin. To avail ourselves personally of His payment and be ensured of a heavenly forever after, we need to do two things:

• Repent – i.e., to acknowledge that sin is what God says it is, not what we like to think it is; to sorrowfully seek His forgiveness for our personal sin; and to turn from it deliberately, if not perfectly. (See, for example, Luke 13:3 and Acts 3:19.)
  
• Trust in Christ to have paid for our sin in full on the cross. We cannot pay for even one sin ourselves, so we must give up trying to earn heaven and rely entirely on His finished work. (See, e.g., Ephesians 2:8-9 and 2 Corinthians 5:21.)

 
Scarlett did indeed say she was sorry – very, very sorry, in fact. But did she repent of her behavior? Or did she simply make excuses for it?
 
Now, obviously Rhett was not meant to be even a poor imitation of God. Even if Scarlett had truly repented and sought his forgiveness, he was clearly, and literally, on his way out the door. His patience and love for her had evaporated.
 
Fortunately for us, God’s patience never runs out, and His love never dies. If, before we breathe our last, we truly repent and trust in Christ to have paid our sin debt in full, we will be clothed in His righteousness and welcomed into heaven for all eternity.
 
But if Scarlett’s approach is all we can offer Him on judgment day – if the best we can do is say we’re sorry and make excuses for our sin – we will be paying its penalty for all eternity.  And that will be true even if we cloak our regrets and excuses in good works and sacraments. These are not the things that save us; only the blood of Christ can do that, and we can take advantage of that only by repenting and trusting in Him.
 
Have you done so yet? If not, don’t wait; tomorrow will indeed be “another day,” but are you certain you’ll live to see it?

It’s been more than a half-century since I read Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. Until rather recently, I don’t believe I'd seen any of its film adaptations. And I’ve never been very good at memorization. 

Yet for 50+ years, I've been able to recite the last line of this beloved novel: 

“It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.”  

The speaker, of course, is Sydney Carton. He is headed for the guillotine, sacrificing himself to accept the punishment meant for the aristocrat Charles Darnay. 

I don’t know about you, but I see in this story a reflection, albeit imperfect, of Christ’s death on the cross as payment for the sins of the world, so that “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:15).  

But apparently I’m wrong about that, because the Wikipedia entry on this novel insists on another meaning entirely: “The very last thoughts attributed to Carton, in their poetic use of repetition, register this faith as a calm and soothing certainty: that both the name of Sydney Carton and of France will be reborn into glory and made ‘illustrious.’" 

There’s no mention of Jesus Christ in this somewhat lengthy synopsis. No mention of the biblical account of His sacrifice, which seemed to me so clearly to have inspired Dickens. And just one mention of Heaven, in its quotation of the novel’s opening paragraph.  

So color my face red: A Tale of Two Cities must be nothing more than a compelling saga about those greedy aristocrats and the noble (if murderous) revolutionaries and a suicidal lawyer who was trying to make a name for himself with his Top Secret sacrifice. 

Just one problem with that assessment: Charles Dickens was a devoted Christian and student of the New Testament. Consider just some of what he wrote on the subject:

• “The New Testament is the very best book that ever was or ever will be known in the world.” 
• “Remember!--It is Christianity to do good always--even to those who do evil to us. It is Christianity to love our neighbours as ourself, and to do to all men as we would have them do to us. It is Christianity to be gentle, merciful and forgiving, and to keep those qualities quiet in our own hearts, and never make a boast of them or of our prayers or of our love of God, but always to show that we love Him by humbly trying to do right in everything." 
• “I have always striven in my writings to express veneration for the life and lessons of Our Saviour.” 
• “I commit my soul to the mercy of God through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and I exhort my dear children humbly to try to guide themselves by the teaching of the New Testament in its broad spirit, and to put no faith in any man’s narrow construction of its letter here or there.”

What's more, Dickens’ last published work was a gospel-retelling entitled The Life of our Lord. Written for his children, it was an instant best-seller when it was finally published in 1934, after the death of his last child.  

Some observers charge that Dickens believed in a works-based plan of salvation. If that’s true – and it may be so – how curious that he painted, in Sydney Carton, such an astounding picture of substitutionary sacrifice in the satisfaction of a death penalty. I certainly have read only an infinitesimal fraction of the world’s books, so I’m no expert; but from what I have read, I don’t know of any novelist who more clearly captured Christ’s atoning sacrifice.    

I’m guessing there must be much more biblical imagery in A Tale of Two Cities – imagery that I would have missed when I read it, having been well on my way to full-blown atheism, and having never paid a bit of attention to my weekly Sunday School lessons. It’s high time I dug out my old copy of this outstanding novel and read it through the lens of the Bible.  

Some time back, I caught a movie version of A Tale of Two Cities – the 1935 edition produced by David O. Selznick of Gone with the Wind fame, starring Ronald Colman as Sydney Carton.
 
The ending was, not surprisingly, absolutely riveting. As Carton headed up to the guillotine at the film’s end and the camera panned to the heavens, he spoke those heart-wrenching last words, “It is a far, far better thing that I do than I have ever done …”
 
But even more gripping was what followed: A title card reading, “I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. –John 11:25”
 
Dickens himself quoted this verse four times in his novel.  I wonder how many of the more recent movie versions included it? I’m guessing none, but perhaps I’m wrong – perhaps another movie-maker or two felt compelled to acknowledge the Christian message of this unforgettable story; it’s hardly subtle, and overlooking it would be an obvious  demonstration of willful ignorance.   

"Unsolved scientific mysteries don’t have to be large-scale questions about the nature of the universe," wrote someone named Thor Jensen, long enough ago that I've lost the original reference. "They can be closer to home--such as the centuries-long investigation into why cats purr. The soft rumbling noise is typically made as an expression of happiness and contentment, but cats also emit the sound when  they’re upset or recovering from injury ... Even more puzzling is how they purr--there’s no specific organ that makes the sound, and the best theory we have is that it’s a result of contractions of the larynx around the vocal [chords]."

And that's just the start. It seems that there are more unsolved mysteries in this world than solutions, beginning with the origins of all that mystical, mythical compressed matter that supposedly erupted, via a mysteriously caused Big Bang, into everything in the universe. (No word on where space came from.) Then there are puzzles about phenomena from human fingerprints to the distribution of prime numbers to the existence of gravity and free will.
 
So here's my question: How is it that so many people--allegedly a growing majority, including a grand proportion of our intelligentsia--are trusting their eternities to the word of scientists who can't even explain how cats purr? We're talking about the most critical whodunit of our lives, and the atheists' bumbling Hercules Poirots are turning a blind eye to the obvious Suspect.

If you're looking for the solution, open the nearest Bible; you'll find it thoroughly explained in the very first sentence, AKA Genesis 1:1.

Perhaps you’ve noticed: A celebrity contracts XYZ disease, or loses a loved one to it, and here comes the pitch for battling it. “Let’s conquer XYZ in our lifetimes so that no one else has suffer!” You can even see it in the daily obituaries, where survivors of the less-than-famous request, in lieu of flowers, memorial donations to XYZ research.
 
The good Lord knows there are all kinds of horrible diseases to take us out. I’ve personally lost family and friends to everything from heart disease to breast, colorectal, kidney and ovarian cancer, from MS and lupus to Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. You probably have, too. So which of these killers should we fight with all our hearts, souls, minds and, most importantly, money?
 
Here’s the problem. Even if we were to succeed in wiping out all these diseases, its victims would ultimately die of something else – because it’s death that’s our enemy, not the means of death. In fact, sooner or later, we are all going to die of something, leaving these earthly bodies behind to spend eternity in heaven or hell. What sense does it make to pour our time and money into fighting earth’s inevitable end, while virtually ignoring the reality of eternity?
 
Fortunately, there’s a solution: experiencing death as the doorway to everlasting joy in heaven. We need simply repent of what God says is sin and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ to have paid our sin penalty on the cross. (Not that it’s easy; as Jesus is quoted as saying in Luke 9:23, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” But it is simple.)
 
You say you don’t believe this? You hold to some other scenario, such as “we cease to exist upon death” or “everyone goes to heaven except for Hitler” or “no one can possibly know what happens after death”?
 
But what if you’re wrong? Considering that we’re talking about eternity, don’t you think it might conceivably be worth investigating the subject as ardently as you plan your next week-long vacation? I beg you to do so before it’s too late; the Lord has promised that you will find Him when you seek Him with all your heart (see, e.g., Jeremiah 29:13).  
 
If you’re already a born-again believer, great! I look forward to seeing you here, There or in the air. In the meantime, how about reserving your charitable contributions for efforts that are making a difference for all eternity? 

Since I became a born-again Christian in 2000, I've thought incessantly about how to reach the lost – especially the young. I’ve finally come to the conclusion that there are two approaches that might have opened my eyes many moons ago.
 
SELECT THE RIGHT SOURCE
 
First, I might have been greatly impressed had someone I admired taken the time to discuss topics such as these with me:

• Absolute truth. We all know it’s just plain wrong to murder, steal, and lie. No matter what the naysayers may tell you, absolute truth does prevail in every realm -- physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual. Do not listen to those who tell you it doesn't.
• Can’t see it? So what? Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it does not exist. Consider love, hate, joy, depression, oxygen, helium, gravity, and wind. We may see the effects of each, but not the thing itself. So when someone tells you that God doesn't exist because we can’t see Him, don't you believe it.
• There is a Creator. And there’s a stunning amount of readily available evidence to prove it.
• The Bible is true. Ditto on the evidence front, starting with science and prophecy.
• This life will end. Your loved ones will die someday. So will you. Here's how you can make sure you'll all be spending eternity together in eternal joy.

It would’ve been nice if these things had been taught in the Sunday school my parents dragged me to every week, until I escaped to boarding school. Although maybe they were addressed; I usually spent those classes daydreaming about more interesting subjects, like horses or boys. But there were some older kids and adults I thought the world of, and probably would have listened to – even if the subject had been God.
 
So that's one possibility: Reach out to the lost one-on-one, via Christians whom they admire. 
 
TEACH THE CONTROVERSY
 
A professor at a nearby Lutheran school routinely promotes teaching students both sides of any worldview issue. His reasoning: even those well-instructed in Christian truth will one day walk out into a big wide world that mocks this truth, substituting clever lies disguised as the real deal. It’s up to the Christian community to help young people understand those lies within the context of truth, to prevent their faith from being shaken.  
 
For instance, don't simply teach young people that the Grand Canyon was carved out by the Genesis Flood. Do so of course, but also:

• Explore the world’s old-earth explanations with them, pinpointing where each one falls into absurdity.
• Help them to consider how even a mighty little river could possibly have carved out this vast canyon, and weigh that explanation against the likelihood that it was formed quickly by a cataclysmic hydraulic event.
• Show them photos of the Canyon’s curved rock layers and ask how those layers could possibly have been caused by slow erosion and deposition; then show them how easily the Flood explains such formations.  
• Ditto on the subject of fossils, so often advanced by evolutionists as proof of their God-free old-earth theories.  

 
And that’s just one narrow slice of the discipline-wide science supporting the biblical worldview. I'll bet the same approach could be taken with virtually any subject of interest to a particular young student. For instance, a budding historian might be interested in comparing biblical accounts to what the world says about the evolution of languages. Or perhaps he or she would like to explore the root causes of Nazi Germany, and what secularists say on that score vs. what the Bible suggests.
 
THE BOTTOM LINE
 
So there you are – two possible ways to help the vulnerable young grow up to be solid Christians, well-prepared to help their own children follow suit. If you have further suggestions, I’d love to hear them. Click here to email me.