The Scriptures are full of promises -- yes, promises -- that God's people will suffer for doing what is right ... and that it is a blessing. Why is it, then, that when God's people suffer for doing what is right, we are outraged? We raise a stink. We complain. We fight. We argue. What we don't do is "count it all joy". We don't see it as a blessing.
Could it be that American Christians are too often more devoted to comfort than principle? Are we so sold on the importance of feeling good that we aren't willing to do what is right at any cost? Do we believe that obedience should always be comfortable, should always feel good?
Hebrews speaks of people who had not received the things promised (Heb 11:13). There is a stunning list there:
Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated (Heb 11:35-37).The author describes these people as "of whom the world was not worthy" (Heb 11:38). So I'm wondering. Which are we? Are we the ones who will act in faith, aware that we will possibly suffer and allow that pain and injustice because we know we have a better life? Or are we the ones who will only act on principle, only stand for truth, if it doesn't cost us?
In his second letter to the church at Thessalonica, Paul urged them "Do not grow weary in doing good" (2 Thess 3:13). The author of Hebrews wrote, "Consider Him who endured from sinners such hostility against Himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted" (Heb 12:3). Why would Christians "grow weary"? Why would doing good be problematic? It is certainly not because it's so fulfilling, so pleasant, full of so much positive feedback, so rewarding. No, it's because it often goes without reward, without notice, and, worse, often costs us. We are called "Christians" -- followers of Christ. It is His example we are to follow. He didn't grow weary or fainthearted in doing good, and it cost Him everything. There's our example.
10 comments:
This is an exelent point. I think that since this was once a Christian nation suffering was at that time forign to us. Suffering for our faith is a new concept for Americans.
Other than your first paragraph, amen and amen!
"Other than your first paragraph ..."
Let's see ... Carrie Prejean should not have stood on her principles? The truck driver should not have stood on his prinicples? Or ... it did not cost them? No, that can't be it. I have to assume you're referring to the phrase "the oxymoronic concept of 'gay marriage'", which, of course, we've never discussed (you and I). I've spent quite a few posts on the topic, explaining how marriage is and always has been defined as a union of opposite genders and how even the California Supreme Court understood that they were redefining the term "marriage" when they approved "marriage" for homosexuals.
I'm referring to the suggestion that she lost her title because of her anti-gay marriage position. She lost it due to violating the terms of the contest (ie, because of some of the photos she had taken of her). At least that's my understanding of it, I haven't really followed the story that closely.
Your referring to the second part of Miss California's situation (which, right or wrong, was resolved with no change in her Miss California status). I was referring to the first part of the story where she told the judge who asked that she believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. The judge said that this is what cost her the Miss USA title. (She hasn't lost her Miss California title, and there is no "principle" on which she has been standing on that topic that would warrant a comment from me.)
Dan: "Suffering for our faith is a new concept for Americans."
So very true. Nowadays American Christians think, "If they didn't let that Christian valedictorian pray at the graduation ceremony, it was 'persecution'." We've no idea what "suffering for our faith" looks like. Good or bad ... I'm not sure how long that will last.
Okay, my apologies. As I said, I wasn't following the story too closely.
Apologize?? That means that you've removed your "Other than your first paragraph" exception and you're in full agreement. That's nice, isn't it?
Umm, it means that I agree that if you're right and she lost a position or contest due to her religious beliefs, that is not ideal. I'd be upset if, during wartime, a contestant in any contest came out opposed to war for religious (or ethical) reasons and then lost due to speaking up for their beliefs and if that is what happened here, I'm opposed to that. I think we need to be able to speak our beliefs.
Within reason.
I suppose if there was a contest sponsored by the VFW, for instance, and the winner was invited to give a speech and that speech was opposed to war, then I could understand the VFW wanting to withdraw that award. In other words, if one's belief was diametrically opposed to the organization sponsoring whatever contest, it might make sense to strip such a winner of their prize, but in general, I support free speech. Even when the person disagrees with me.
You're making my point.
Post a Comment