Lullaby of Death

What is the parent's course of action when a child needs to be lulled to sleep? A peaceful and kind song of love to calm and lull the child into rest. The child feels warm, good, and happy. A euphoria floods their face as they drift into sleep. It is not necessarily their tired disposition that puts them at peaceful ease, but rather the soothing and kind song of love being whispered and sung. So the main cause, the prodding and soft pushing, is the lullaby itself.

The same child, when blindfolded and running toward the edge of a cliff is again in need of their parent's help. The child's need is now much different. Would a parent not appear to be out of their mind if they tried to lull the child to sleep in an effort to keep them from running off the cliff? A simple game near a cliff would prove deadly. What parent would be mindless enough to behave in such a way? And yet many preachers are just as mindless in their preaching. Lulling people to sleep as they hurl themselves headlong into hell.

This stems from the same lunacy in the above example with the child heading toward the cliff. More concern for someone's feelings trumps the ultimate concern for where they are headed. Don't startle them or upset them! Tell them how grand life can be and how much God loves them. As the child ran toward the cliff who would be hesitant to scream and shout? Who would only softly say, "You are loved, isn't that wonderful?" A patient dying wants cured! The child, if he knew the cliff was there, would want to be spared!

Imagine the conversation between the parent and child after the fact. The child is broken, bleeding, and barely alive. Would the child say, "I'm glad you told me I was loved." What lunacy is this? The child would shout and wail, "Why didn't you tell me?!?" Dare I say, one day many preachers (so called) will hear similar cries from a lake of swelter. All the men whom they have lulled to sleep will be abruptly awakened by the pain of death and the sting of suffering. And no excuse will be available for either party.

The law is on their hearts and they enjoyed the tickling comfort from their so called shepherd. Just because a man did not steal the bread, if it fills his stomach and warms his heart he is guilty for eating it. The greater crime is committed by the initiator, but the partaker is not innocent merely because he only "went along" with it. The soldiers that stood watch are guilty along with the wretched rabble that sent our Lord to the cross. Yes we can see how a larger measure of guilt and shame for the lazy preacher, the bread thief, and the ones who cried, "crucify Him!". But all partakers are not absolved and made innocent by their passive involvement.

You sir, who sit and slumber beneath the soft blanket of dead preaching are guilty as well! Stand and be judged!