The hymn, Be Thou My Vision, is from 6th century Ireland, but translated from Gaelic into English in the late 1800's. You can imagine, then, that it has old English. And it does. The second line is, "Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art." Right. What did he say?
I have to analyze that to figure it out. Let's see ... "naught" ... that's an archaic English word for "nothing." The "Let" is implied, so we have "Let nothing be all else to me." Stop. "Be all else to me"? That would be "everything." Or, more precisely, "everything but You." "Let nothing be everything to me ..." Okay, so far, so good. That word, "save," is old English for "except" (as opposed to "save"). "Let nothing be everything to me except ..." So what does the hymn pray will be everything to me? "That Thou art." If the intent was that nothing would mean as much to me as You do, then "what" seems like it would have been the right word. "Save what Thou art." But this word is "that." It seems to be saying, "Let nothing be as important to me as the fact that You are." Not "what You are," but "that You are." Interesting.
Maybe not. Maybe that "that" is an old English expression and the prayer is that nothing would be more important to me than He is. Nothing. And that's quite a prayer. Instead of me looking anywhere else, Father, You be my vision. You be where I look. You be my "best thought." You be my light. You be my "true Word." You be my treasure, my inheritance. You be first in my heart. "Whatever befall, still be Thou my vision, O Ruler of all." A great prayer for every believer.
Monday, September 16, 2024
Sunday, September 15, 2024
Spirit of God, Descend Upon My Heart
It's a longer one, but I think (obviously) that it's well worth the time.
Croly opens his prayer to the Holy Spirit in a request to have Him "descend upon my heart" and "wean it from earth, through all its pulses move." We all have ties to earth. We all live here. And we all suffer from this strange malady that limits our vision to the world in which we live and leads us to falsely believe that this is all there is. What we need is to be removed from this world. What we need is to be, as the hymn writer put it, weaned from earth. It is high on his list of priorities in the work of the Holy Spirit. "Keep me in this world, but teach me to rely on You, not it, for my sustenance." That is his initial request.
"Stoop to my weakness, mighty as Thou art, and make me love Thee as I ought to love." To many today, this would almost be offensive. Sure, we'd appreciate that God is mighty and we are weak, but make me love Thee? What we fail to remember too often is that "it is God who is at work in you both to will and to do His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13). We need God to make us love Him. And He is willing and able to do so. We need to contrast our weakness with His might. We have this illusion that we aren't that weak. The simple truth is we are that weak, and we must have God's strength to make us love Him.
In the second verse, the hymnist seems to ask not for the things we would dearly love. He doesn't want to have some special event with God. He doesn't ask, like Moses, "Show me Your glory" (Exo 33:18). Why would that be? Perhaps he remembered that Scripture says, "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psa 19:1). Perhaps he called to mind that creation displays God's attributes, power, and nature for all to see (Rom 1:20). Perhaps he recognized the beauty of the Word of God and the boldness with which we can enter the Throne of God. We all know all that, yet we still cry, "Show me Your glory." What prevents us from reveling in all that we already have? Croly said, "The problem is not You; the problem is the dimness of my soul." That is his prayer: "Take the dimness of my soul away."
The third verse starts with the recognition of a command given: "Love the Lord your God" (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37). As King, He has the absolute right to issue the command. As God, He has absolute ownership. "All, all Thine own, soul, heart and strength and mind." As God and King, His command is not "Give me your soul, heart, strength, and mind." It is "Give Me what is Mine already." And we say, "No." At best we say, "I'll try." We actually resist giving Him what is already His.
What is it that prevents us from surrendering to Him what belongs to Him? It is our flesh. So he says, "I see Thy cross – there teach my heart to cling." There is a sense in some of the Church today that the Cross is the starting place, but that we need to move beyond it. Look at the topical index in a typical book of praise songs, and you will find very little if anything related to the Cross. Many in the church have the same idea. Sure, we're saved there, but now we move on to the victorious Christian life, and that's certainly not a cross. But Jesus said, "Take up your cross daily" (Luke 9:23). The significance of the Cross does not end at salvation.
The Cross is, indeed, the starting point of Christianity. It is a starting place that must not be left behind. Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper to remind us of His sacrifice. Paul said, "I determined to know nothing among you except Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2). There we see the substitutionary death that Christ endured on our behalf. We see the cost of sin. We see the distance God would go to save His children. This death, this starting point, is the key message throughout Scripture, starting with "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23) to "I am crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:20) all the way to "present your bodies a living sacrifice" (Rom 12:2). It is the beginning and ending point. It teaches us to repent and to hate sin. It teaches us to die to self. The mortification of the flesh, killing the old man, is the life long process of every Christian.
The Cross produces love in us as we respond to the display of love from God that it represents. It produces joy in us as we realize the salvation it represents. It produces peace in us as we see that we are no longer at war with God, but instead united to Him. As we see what Christ did for us on that cross, we develop patience with other fellow sinners, being forgiven as much as we have been forgiven. It teaches us kindness in response to the love, joy, and peace we have. It provides deterrence to sin and teaches us, instead, to be good. When we recognize what He did on the cross, it calls us to be faithful as a natural response to His care for us. The Cross leaves no room for harshness, but encourages, instead, gentleness. And as we put to death the old man and put on the new at the Cross, we learn self-control. (See Gal 5:22-23.) The Cross, indeed, drives us toward everything that we need to be. It gives remembrance and gratitude and humility and the fruit of the Spirit. It is indeed our starting place, but it is necessarily our abiding place as well. Instead of moving on, we need to pray, "I see Thy cross -- there teach my heart to cling."
"O, let me seek Thee and, O, let me find" is the last line of the verse. Somehow that doesn't seem right to many Christians today. After all, doesn't Jesus say, "Seek and you shall find"? We have forgotten that Man's original condition is that of hostility to God (Rom. 8:6-8). We have forgotten that "there is none who seeks for God" (Rom 3:11). We have forgotten that, unless God grants and unless God draws, we have no power to come to Christ (John 6:44, 65). So we pray, "O, let me seek Thee and, O, let me find", and we learn a new appreciation for our relationship with the Most High. We need to remember that it is purely by the grace of God that we even approach Him.
The first line of the fourth verse seems odd to us. "Teach me to feel that Thou art always nigh." We might ask, "Hey, what do you mean? God is always near." Croly isn't questioning God's omnipresence. He is recognizing his own limitations. Of course God is always near, but do I realize it? His prayer is that he would be constantly aware of that very dear truth that God is always there. It's called "practicing the Presence", and its impact is large to those who do it.
"Teach me the struggles of the soul to bear." This would be one of the primary impacts of the constant presence of God. Knowing He is always near, I am more capable of handling the most difficult trials I face . . . the internal ones. What kind of internal struggles beset the hymn writer? He lists two: rising doubt and the rebel sigh. Note that he doesn't say, "Teach me not to doubt." There is a perception that Christians should never doubt. This is a misconception. In reality, doubts properly addressed bring about certainty. Doubts fully examined and answered produce conviction of the truth. So he doesn't ask for doubt to be removed. Instead he asks that the Holy Spirit teach him to deal with doubts instead of pushing them aside and letting them fester. Not, "don't let me doubt", but "teach me to deal with my doubts immediately."
The second struggle seems a little odd. "The rebel sigh"? Anyone who has had children has heard "the rebel sigh". You know: "Okay, it's time to turn off the TV and clean your room." "Ah, Mom!" They may obey, but they do it with "the rebel sigh". We do that to God. "Wives, submit to your husbands." "What?! Me submit to him? He doesn't even know enough to come in out of the rain." "Husbands, love your wives." "What?! She's a nag." Instead of cheerful obedience to the God we love, we give Him "the rebel sigh". "Holy Spirit, teach me to check the rebel sigh."
The last request in this verse seems a little odd as well. We all know that there is no such thing as unanswered prayer. God always answers prayer. He might say, "Yes" or "No" or "Wait", but He always answers. Unfortunately, this simple response -- God always answers prayers -- doesn't soothe very well when we get a "no" answer or when we are in that "wait" condition. In fact, too often the "Yes" is in a way we don't expect and can often miss it. So we sit and wonder "Is God going to answer my prayer?" Croly asks "In those times, when I can't see Your answers, teach me patience."
"Teach me to love Thee as Thine angels love, one holy passion filling all my frame." What a marvelous prayer! What a wonderful desire! There are none more devoted to God than His angels. They are consumed with their love for Him. They do His bidding and surround Him with adoration. There is no higher calling than to be consumed with that one, singular passion of love for God. Nor are words sufficient to describe it. George Croly sees that, so his prayer ends with that thought. "Holy Spirit", he prays, "descend on me and consume me with love for God. Light me aflame with this love for You."
There is another interesting approach to this hymn, one I believe is worth exploring. It is telling how much one learns of the person who wrote the hymn, a person who could be considered "everyman". He recognizes his need. "Spirit of God, descend upon my heart." It is the biblical need – "Be filled with the Spirit" – but for him it is deeply personal. He sees in himself a dependency on the world from which he needs to be weaned. He sees a weakness that is countered by the strength of the Spirit. He sees in himself a propensity to fail to love God as he should.
In the second verse he recognizes his preference for the spectacular. From ancient times, the call has been "show us a sign." Instead, he recognizes that the real problem is dimness of soul, not the reality of God.
In the third verse he sees his own primary failure – the failure to obey the Great Commandment. People talk about being good and living perfect lives, but this singular command to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind is much too big to even grasp for most. Our proclivity is to wander rather than cling.
In keeping with his previous shortcomings, we get a real glimpse of the man in the fourth verse. At times he feels that God isn't near. At times he struggles with himself in ways that seem beyond his endurance. Sometimes he doubts; sometimes it is rebellion. Then there are times that God's seeming lack of response to his prayers seems like he is being ignored. All of these are common to us. All of them are natural results of our flesh, of our dependency on the world, of our weakness and dimness of soul and failure to love God as we ought.
Then, rejuvenated by his prayer of confession as much as supplication, the hymn writer rises in his plea to love as the angels love, to be filled with that one holy passion. His deep, inner longing is to be the altar, the "living sacrifice", on which God is glorified by the Spirit in the man.
This approach serves to illustrate that part of knowing God better involves knowing ourselves and our shortcomings. Only by doing so can we truly recognize our need for Him.
Spirit Of God, Descend Upon My HeartOne of the common differences between hymns and contemporary praise songs is the depth of their content. Praise songs tend to be light and "milky" (in the Hebrews 5:12 sense), while hymns generally are weightier and "meaty". It is difficult to spend much time chewing on a praise song, but one can meditate on a hymn, pulling out more and more good stuff. This particular hymn is a prime example. It was written by George Croly, a pastor in London in the 1800's. Some of his works included Scenes from Scripture and other Poems (1851) and Psalms and Hymns for Public Worship (London: Kendrick, 1854). It was intended to be his reminder to himself of his goal and focus. If you take a few minutes to examine the hymn, you will find it is rich in good theology.
George Croly
Spirit of God, descend upon my heart;
Wean it from earth; through all its pulses move;
Stoop to my weakness, mighty as thou art,
And make me love thee as I ought to love.
I ask no dream, no prophet ecstasies,
No sudden rending of the veil of clay,
No angel visitant, no opening skies;
But take the dimness of my soul away.
Hast thou not bid me love thee, God and King?
All, all thine own, soul, heart and strength and mind.
I see thy cross; there teach my heart to cling.
O let me seek thee, and O let me find.
Teach me to feel that thou art always nigh;
Teach me the struggles of the soul to bear.
To check the rising doubt, the rebel sigh,
Teach me the patience of unanswered prayer.
Teach me to love thee as thine angels love,
One holy passion filling all my frame;
The kindling of the heaven-descended Dove,
My heart an altar, and thy love the flame.
Croly opens his prayer to the Holy Spirit in a request to have Him "descend upon my heart" and "wean it from earth, through all its pulses move." We all have ties to earth. We all live here. And we all suffer from this strange malady that limits our vision to the world in which we live and leads us to falsely believe that this is all there is. What we need is to be removed from this world. What we need is to be, as the hymn writer put it, weaned from earth. It is high on his list of priorities in the work of the Holy Spirit. "Keep me in this world, but teach me to rely on You, not it, for my sustenance." That is his initial request.
"Stoop to my weakness, mighty as Thou art, and make me love Thee as I ought to love." To many today, this would almost be offensive. Sure, we'd appreciate that God is mighty and we are weak, but make me love Thee? What we fail to remember too often is that "it is God who is at work in you both to will and to do His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13). We need God to make us love Him. And He is willing and able to do so. We need to contrast our weakness with His might. We have this illusion that we aren't that weak. The simple truth is we are that weak, and we must have God's strength to make us love Him.
In the second verse, the hymnist seems to ask not for the things we would dearly love. He doesn't want to have some special event with God. He doesn't ask, like Moses, "Show me Your glory" (Exo 33:18). Why would that be? Perhaps he remembered that Scripture says, "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psa 19:1). Perhaps he called to mind that creation displays God's attributes, power, and nature for all to see (Rom 1:20). Perhaps he recognized the beauty of the Word of God and the boldness with which we can enter the Throne of God. We all know all that, yet we still cry, "Show me Your glory." What prevents us from reveling in all that we already have? Croly said, "The problem is not You; the problem is the dimness of my soul." That is his prayer: "Take the dimness of my soul away."
The third verse starts with the recognition of a command given: "Love the Lord your God" (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37). As King, He has the absolute right to issue the command. As God, He has absolute ownership. "All, all Thine own, soul, heart and strength and mind." As God and King, His command is not "Give me your soul, heart, strength, and mind." It is "Give Me what is Mine already." And we say, "No." At best we say, "I'll try." We actually resist giving Him what is already His.
What is it that prevents us from surrendering to Him what belongs to Him? It is our flesh. So he says, "I see Thy cross – there teach my heart to cling." There is a sense in some of the Church today that the Cross is the starting place, but that we need to move beyond it. Look at the topical index in a typical book of praise songs, and you will find very little if anything related to the Cross. Many in the church have the same idea. Sure, we're saved there, but now we move on to the victorious Christian life, and that's certainly not a cross. But Jesus said, "Take up your cross daily" (Luke 9:23). The significance of the Cross does not end at salvation.
The Cross is, indeed, the starting point of Christianity. It is a starting place that must not be left behind. Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper to remind us of His sacrifice. Paul said, "I determined to know nothing among you except Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2). There we see the substitutionary death that Christ endured on our behalf. We see the cost of sin. We see the distance God would go to save His children. This death, this starting point, is the key message throughout Scripture, starting with "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23) to "I am crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:20) all the way to "present your bodies a living sacrifice" (Rom 12:2). It is the beginning and ending point. It teaches us to repent and to hate sin. It teaches us to die to self. The mortification of the flesh, killing the old man, is the life long process of every Christian.
The Cross produces love in us as we respond to the display of love from God that it represents. It produces joy in us as we realize the salvation it represents. It produces peace in us as we see that we are no longer at war with God, but instead united to Him. As we see what Christ did for us on that cross, we develop patience with other fellow sinners, being forgiven as much as we have been forgiven. It teaches us kindness in response to the love, joy, and peace we have. It provides deterrence to sin and teaches us, instead, to be good. When we recognize what He did on the cross, it calls us to be faithful as a natural response to His care for us. The Cross leaves no room for harshness, but encourages, instead, gentleness. And as we put to death the old man and put on the new at the Cross, we learn self-control. (See Gal 5:22-23.) The Cross, indeed, drives us toward everything that we need to be. It gives remembrance and gratitude and humility and the fruit of the Spirit. It is indeed our starting place, but it is necessarily our abiding place as well. Instead of moving on, we need to pray, "I see Thy cross -- there teach my heart to cling."
"O, let me seek Thee and, O, let me find" is the last line of the verse. Somehow that doesn't seem right to many Christians today. After all, doesn't Jesus say, "Seek and you shall find"? We have forgotten that Man's original condition is that of hostility to God (Rom. 8:6-8). We have forgotten that "there is none who seeks for God" (Rom 3:11). We have forgotten that, unless God grants and unless God draws, we have no power to come to Christ (John 6:44, 65). So we pray, "O, let me seek Thee and, O, let me find", and we learn a new appreciation for our relationship with the Most High. We need to remember that it is purely by the grace of God that we even approach Him.
The first line of the fourth verse seems odd to us. "Teach me to feel that Thou art always nigh." We might ask, "Hey, what do you mean? God is always near." Croly isn't questioning God's omnipresence. He is recognizing his own limitations. Of course God is always near, but do I realize it? His prayer is that he would be constantly aware of that very dear truth that God is always there. It's called "practicing the Presence", and its impact is large to those who do it.
"Teach me the struggles of the soul to bear." This would be one of the primary impacts of the constant presence of God. Knowing He is always near, I am more capable of handling the most difficult trials I face . . . the internal ones. What kind of internal struggles beset the hymn writer? He lists two: rising doubt and the rebel sigh. Note that he doesn't say, "Teach me not to doubt." There is a perception that Christians should never doubt. This is a misconception. In reality, doubts properly addressed bring about certainty. Doubts fully examined and answered produce conviction of the truth. So he doesn't ask for doubt to be removed. Instead he asks that the Holy Spirit teach him to deal with doubts instead of pushing them aside and letting them fester. Not, "don't let me doubt", but "teach me to deal with my doubts immediately."
The second struggle seems a little odd. "The rebel sigh"? Anyone who has had children has heard "the rebel sigh". You know: "Okay, it's time to turn off the TV and clean your room." "Ah, Mom!" They may obey, but they do it with "the rebel sigh". We do that to God. "Wives, submit to your husbands." "What?! Me submit to him? He doesn't even know enough to come in out of the rain." "Husbands, love your wives." "What?! She's a nag." Instead of cheerful obedience to the God we love, we give Him "the rebel sigh". "Holy Spirit, teach me to check the rebel sigh."
The last request in this verse seems a little odd as well. We all know that there is no such thing as unanswered prayer. God always answers prayer. He might say, "Yes" or "No" or "Wait", but He always answers. Unfortunately, this simple response -- God always answers prayers -- doesn't soothe very well when we get a "no" answer or when we are in that "wait" condition. In fact, too often the "Yes" is in a way we don't expect and can often miss it. So we sit and wonder "Is God going to answer my prayer?" Croly asks "In those times, when I can't see Your answers, teach me patience."
"Teach me to love Thee as Thine angels love, one holy passion filling all my frame." What a marvelous prayer! What a wonderful desire! There are none more devoted to God than His angels. They are consumed with their love for Him. They do His bidding and surround Him with adoration. There is no higher calling than to be consumed with that one, singular passion of love for God. Nor are words sufficient to describe it. George Croly sees that, so his prayer ends with that thought. "Holy Spirit", he prays, "descend on me and consume me with love for God. Light me aflame with this love for You."
There is another interesting approach to this hymn, one I believe is worth exploring. It is telling how much one learns of the person who wrote the hymn, a person who could be considered "everyman". He recognizes his need. "Spirit of God, descend upon my heart." It is the biblical need – "Be filled with the Spirit" – but for him it is deeply personal. He sees in himself a dependency on the world from which he needs to be weaned. He sees a weakness that is countered by the strength of the Spirit. He sees in himself a propensity to fail to love God as he should.
In the second verse he recognizes his preference for the spectacular. From ancient times, the call has been "show us a sign." Instead, he recognizes that the real problem is dimness of soul, not the reality of God.
In the third verse he sees his own primary failure – the failure to obey the Great Commandment. People talk about being good and living perfect lives, but this singular command to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind is much too big to even grasp for most. Our proclivity is to wander rather than cling.
In keeping with his previous shortcomings, we get a real glimpse of the man in the fourth verse. At times he feels that God isn't near. At times he struggles with himself in ways that seem beyond his endurance. Sometimes he doubts; sometimes it is rebellion. Then there are times that God's seeming lack of response to his prayers seems like he is being ignored. All of these are common to us. All of them are natural results of our flesh, of our dependency on the world, of our weakness and dimness of soul and failure to love God as we ought.
Then, rejuvenated by his prayer of confession as much as supplication, the hymn writer rises in his plea to love as the angels love, to be filled with that one holy passion. His deep, inner longing is to be the altar, the "living sacrifice", on which God is glorified by the Spirit in the man.
This approach serves to illustrate that part of knowing God better involves knowing ourselves and our shortcomings. Only by doing so can we truly recognize our need for Him.
Saturday, September 14, 2024
News Weakly - 9/14/2024
Threat to Democracy
The fact that RFK Jr is not running for president hasn't deterred states from refusing to remove RFK Jr's name from the ballot because it would nicely dilute any Trump vote. It raises, seriously, the "threat to democracy" question with fingers pointing at those states and not Trump.
The Public has the Right to Know
This is why I don't trust the media. On the same day that US News & World Report told us that Trump's media shares rallied ahead of the debate, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's shares tumbled. Trustworthy reporting, I'm sure. The public has the right to know there's not much reliable reporting going on out there.
Who Won the Debate?
I don't actually care, but you won't be able to find out from looking at the media. When the moderators are fact-checking Trump as they debate but not Harris, you can be pretty sure you won't get an unbiased assessment. (Just so you know, yes, Trump made false claims, but so did Harris. I suspect there has never been a presidential debate without false claims on both sides. Why they only fact-checked Trump is abundantly clear, isn't it?) (The Babylon Bee had a report of the moderators taking a timeout to discuss strategy with Harris.) (Why is it that we do not require truth-in-advertising for political ads or expect truth from candidates who are trying to earn our trust?)
A Sad Passing
You've likely heard that James Earl Jones died this week at the age of 93. He was a beloved actor including memorable voices like Mufasa in The Lion King and Darth Vader from Star Wars. The Bee has reported that God has announced that from now on He will be voiced by James Earl Jones. Of course.
The fact that RFK Jr is not running for president hasn't deterred states from refusing to remove RFK Jr's name from the ballot because it would nicely dilute any Trump vote. It raises, seriously, the "threat to democracy" question with fingers pointing at those states and not Trump.
The Public has the Right to Know
This is why I don't trust the media. On the same day that US News & World Report told us that Trump's media shares rallied ahead of the debate, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's shares tumbled. Trustworthy reporting, I'm sure. The public has the right to know there's not much reliable reporting going on out there.
Who Won the Debate?
I don't actually care, but you won't be able to find out from looking at the media. When the moderators are fact-checking Trump as they debate but not Harris, you can be pretty sure you won't get an unbiased assessment. (Just so you know, yes, Trump made false claims, but so did Harris. I suspect there has never been a presidential debate without false claims on both sides. Why they only fact-checked Trump is abundantly clear, isn't it?) (The Babylon Bee had a report of the moderators taking a timeout to discuss strategy with Harris.) (Why is it that we do not require truth-in-advertising for political ads or expect truth from candidates who are trying to earn our trust?)
A Sad Passing
You've likely heard that James Earl Jones died this week at the age of 93. He was a beloved actor including memorable voices like Mufasa in The Lion King and Darth Vader from Star Wars. The Bee has reported that God has announced that from now on He will be voiced by James Earl Jones. Of course.
Friday, September 13, 2024
The Idol Mind
Idolatry is defined as the worship of something as a god that is not. It can be a statue, a person, an idea ... a lot of things. Idolatry is anything that replaces the worship of the True God. We, of course, are moderns and we have no problem with that, right? Except, of course, that isn't true. Lots of religions have gods which are not the one True God. Atheists might worship reason or science or even Man in general in place of God. Christians can even slip into worshiping a god that is not God. Paul warns, for instance, that greed is idolatry (Col 3:5). The worship of stuff, of money, of wealth. That seems to be an American thing, whether you have it or not. No, idolatry is not "them" -- it's "us." We are idol-factories.
It's amazing, isn't it? Humans are aware of the True God "because God has shown it to them" (Rom 1:19). There are no genuine atheists; just those who claim to be. But even we who believe in the True God can be caught out with idols, substitutes for the True God. We will hold out reputation or comfort or well-being or "stuff" as our ultimate worship and challenge the True God when He doesn't provide it. Any one of us can engage in greed, sexual immorality, evil desire, or just distrust of the True God which serve as substitutes for the True God. Any sin we commit, in fact, is the direct result of an idol that has taken the place of God in our hearts. When we fail to take God at His word, we are substituting something else -- most likely our own intellect and preferences -- for the True God. And it is clearly not just "them" that do it. It is each and every one of us at some time or another.
God hates idolatry. He hates any other god in His place. He hates being second when everything about Him deserves our hearts first and foremost. It's bad enough when those in open rebellion against the Most High engage in substitutionary worship of something else (perhaps, most often, self), but when we who call ourselves Christ-followers do it, it is particularly offensive. I suppose it is a genuinely good thing that even these sins of ours are forgiven, but that doesn't mean we should keep our idolatry when it is called to our attention. False versions of God that so-called believers embrace don't make them believers in the True God. Let's worship the God who has revealed Himself in the Scriptures and repent of and root out the idols we continue to manufacture for ourselves.
It's amazing, isn't it? Humans are aware of the True God "because God has shown it to them" (Rom 1:19). There are no genuine atheists; just those who claim to be. But even we who believe in the True God can be caught out with idols, substitutes for the True God. We will hold out reputation or comfort or well-being or "stuff" as our ultimate worship and challenge the True God when He doesn't provide it. Any one of us can engage in greed, sexual immorality, evil desire, or just distrust of the True God which serve as substitutes for the True God. Any sin we commit, in fact, is the direct result of an idol that has taken the place of God in our hearts. When we fail to take God at His word, we are substituting something else -- most likely our own intellect and preferences -- for the True God. And it is clearly not just "them" that do it. It is each and every one of us at some time or another.
God hates idolatry. He hates any other god in His place. He hates being second when everything about Him deserves our hearts first and foremost. It's bad enough when those in open rebellion against the Most High engage in substitutionary worship of something else (perhaps, most often, self), but when we who call ourselves Christ-followers do it, it is particularly offensive. I suppose it is a genuinely good thing that even these sins of ours are forgiven, but that doesn't mean we should keep our idolatry when it is called to our attention. False versions of God that so-called believers embrace don't make them believers in the True God. Let's worship the God who has revealed Himself in the Scriptures and repent of and root out the idols we continue to manufacture for ourselves.
Thursday, September 12, 2024
Abundant
Jesus said He came to give us life, and to "have it abundantly" (John 10:10). What is that? It's interesting; the word translated "abundantly" is perissos. Its most literal translation is actually "superabundantly." It means "exceeding abundantly above," "beyond measure." So when Paul wrote that God is "able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think" (Eph 3:20), that "far more abundantly" was huperekperissou where the perissou is our "superabundantly" and the huper is just like our "hyper." God is able to do far beyond superabundantly what we ask or think.
Jesus came to give us "superabundant" life. Paul, borrowing from Isa 64:4, wrote, "No eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him" (1 Cor 2:9). So why do we limit God to what we can imagine? Why do we expect only what we can think of? Why not enjoy the superabundant life that Jesus came to give? We're living the dream, and we don't even realize it.
Jesus came to give us "superabundant" life. Paul, borrowing from Isa 64:4, wrote, "No eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him" (1 Cor 2:9). So why do we limit God to what we can imagine? Why do we expect only what we can think of? Why not enjoy the superabundant life that Jesus came to give? We're living the dream, and we don't even realize it.
Wednesday, September 11, 2024
Supply Chain Economy
Capitalism works on supply and demand. Christianity does not. Paul wrote,
Jesus said, "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (John 10:10). So why do we so often live an impoverished Christian life? Why do we worry about making ends meet? Why do we hold back in case we give away something we might need later? Like funds or reputation or ...? Why are we so often stingy with what God has given us? Like spiritual gifts (given for the Body (1 Cor 12:7)) or grace or mercy which we embrace warmly and hold back from others? Christianity is not a supply and demand economy. It's a "God will supply all" economy. Do we believe that?
My God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus. (Php 4:19)Now, I've often heard it said, "Never use 'always'." Superlatives are rarely accurate. "None," "all," "never," "always," ... those kinds of things. So it is almost jarring to see Paul claim that God will supply all your needs. "All, Paul. Really?" That's what he said. Not some. Not most. All. Over in Romans, he said something equally effusive.
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? (Rom 8:32)Now, this time, the "all" refers to "all things that He gives us" as opposed to a blanket "all things", sure, but notice the measure Paul uses. "He who did not spare His own Son." If God did not spare His own Son, what will He refuse us? He will always give us the very best. He will certainly supply all our needs.
Jesus said, "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (John 10:10). So why do we so often live an impoverished Christian life? Why do we worry about making ends meet? Why do we hold back in case we give away something we might need later? Like funds or reputation or ...? Why are we so often stingy with what God has given us? Like spiritual gifts (given for the Body (1 Cor 12:7)) or grace or mercy which we embrace warmly and hold back from others? Christianity is not a supply and demand economy. It's a "God will supply all" economy. Do we believe that?
Tuesday, September 10, 2024
Not My Will
You all remember that prayer in the garden, right? Jesus was asking the Father, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will" (Matt 26:39). He knew what was coming and He knew it was going to be physically painful, but, moreso, spiritually painful when His Father would turn His back on Him. It's interesting, then, that He tags on that last phrase, "yet not as I will, but as You will." I mean, what was He thinking? Knowing full well the torment He would face over the next hours, He begged above all for the Father's will.
I'm pretty sure there are not too many of us that would do that. Not too many of us that would say, "Lord, if Your will is to cause me the utmost pain for your glory, then do it." Not too many that would give Him permission. No, no, we want comfortable and pleasurable and peaceful. If "yet not as I will, but as You will" means loss and pain, we're not too keen for it. But Jesus knew. He knew that the intent was good and the goal was good and the process was the only viable process to accomplish this good. So He gave Himself up ... to pain.
We pray, "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt 6:10), but do we mean it? I want to. Frances Brook wrote the hymn, My Goal is God Himself.
I'm pretty sure there are not too many of us that would do that. Not too many of us that would say, "Lord, if Your will is to cause me the utmost pain for your glory, then do it." Not too many that would give Him permission. No, no, we want comfortable and pleasurable and peaceful. If "yet not as I will, but as You will" means loss and pain, we're not too keen for it. But Jesus knew. He knew that the intent was good and the goal was good and the process was the only viable process to accomplish this good. So He gave Himself up ... to pain.
We pray, "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt 6:10), but do we mean it? I want to. Frances Brook wrote the hymn, My Goal is God Himself.
My goal is God, Himself.Are you okay with that? Do you really want God's will, regardless of the cost? I guess that would depend on how much we trust Him.
Not joy or peace or even blessing,
but Himself, my God.
'Tis His to lead me there --
not mine, but His.
By any road, dear Lord,
at any cost.
Monday, September 09, 2024
Abortion Battlegrounds
Currently eight states have constitutional amendments on their ballots for November aimed at abortion rules. They want to move the restriction from 6-15 weeks to "fetal viability." Now, all the "pro" ads I've seen couch it in "abortion rights" and all "anti" ads I've seen couch it in "late-term abortions." I'm quite sure that neither is accurate.
Those who wish to use abortion as after-the-fact birth control ("Sure, I had sex, but I failed to do anything to prevent pregnancy, I'm not happy about it, and I refuse to be responsible for my choices.") want you to think of "reproductive rights." Those who want to defend human life want you to think of "when does life begin?". Mind you, according to federal law, a child in the womb is defined as a human being. Legally, the debate is over. But that's what this whole "constitutional amendment" thing is about. It is "life" if it is "viable," or it is "life" if it has a heartbeat. Fetal viability (the point at which a child can survive outside the womb) has been a debatable point as it is. The earliest birth that survived was at 21 weeks, but most speak in terms of 23-24 weeks. The thinking is "If it won't be viable outside my womb, I should be allowed to kill him/her if I want." Another confusion point is "except for the woman's health." All the amendments would say it's okay to abort at any time if there is a threat to the mother's health, but none of them define "a threat to the mother's health." A doctor could say, "Yes, there's a threat" even if there is none and it would be approved. A doctor could say, "It is a threat to her well-being" or "mental health" and it would be approved. But, hey, life is just not that precious, right?
A large portion of our society continues to embrace our sexular society where "What I want" generally defines "good" and sex, in particular, trumps everything else. (Except, of course, if we don't approve. But, what is on the "unapproved" list is changing and it shouldn't be long before what was wholly outrageous becomes wholly supported and encouraged.) So we continue this plunge down the moral toilet urging states like Florida and Arizona that planned to ban abortion to take the next step and legalize it for as far as they can push it. Whatever you do, don't consider human life of value. That would ruin the whole thing.
Those who wish to use abortion as after-the-fact birth control ("Sure, I had sex, but I failed to do anything to prevent pregnancy, I'm not happy about it, and I refuse to be responsible for my choices.") want you to think of "reproductive rights." Those who want to defend human life want you to think of "when does life begin?". Mind you, according to federal law, a child in the womb is defined as a human being. Legally, the debate is over. But that's what this whole "constitutional amendment" thing is about. It is "life" if it is "viable," or it is "life" if it has a heartbeat. Fetal viability (the point at which a child can survive outside the womb) has been a debatable point as it is. The earliest birth that survived was at 21 weeks, but most speak in terms of 23-24 weeks. The thinking is "If it won't be viable outside my womb, I should be allowed to kill him/her if I want." Another confusion point is "except for the woman's health." All the amendments would say it's okay to abort at any time if there is a threat to the mother's health, but none of them define "a threat to the mother's health." A doctor could say, "Yes, there's a threat" even if there is none and it would be approved. A doctor could say, "It is a threat to her well-being" or "mental health" and it would be approved. But, hey, life is just not that precious, right?
A large portion of our society continues to embrace our sexular society where "What I want" generally defines "good" and sex, in particular, trumps everything else. (Except, of course, if we don't approve. But, what is on the "unapproved" list is changing and it shouldn't be long before what was wholly outrageous becomes wholly supported and encouraged.) So we continue this plunge down the moral toilet urging states like Florida and Arizona that planned to ban abortion to take the next step and legalize it for as far as they can push it. Whatever you do, don't consider human life of value. That would ruin the whole thing.
Sunday, September 08, 2024
Here is Love
Craig asked for a look at the hymn, Here is Love. Having never heard it myself, I took a look. It was worth it. The first two verses were written by William Reese (1802-1883) and the second two by William Williams (1717-1791) (best known for Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah). It was a Welsh song translated (get this) by William (yes, another William) Edwards and published in 1900. It was part of the Welsh revival of 1904, a testament to the power of God's love as it alters the lives of those who encounter Him.
He pays particular attention to the cross, not so much in its tragedy and agony, but in the "fountains" -- the "floodgates" opened -- on God's mercy. A veritable river of grace and love, rushing from the throne of God to us. Reese points out that this crucifixion, this event on the cross, is an act of "perfect justice" whereby a guilty world can experience the overflowing love of God. Don't miss that. Paul says that in that "propitiation in His blood" God is "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:25-26).
William Williams gave us the next two verses. In the 3rd verse he focuses on our response. How should we respond to this ocean of love, this flood of grace and mercy, seen in God's giving His Son to die for our sin? Accept His love. Love Him back. The proper response to His vast love for us is a change of heart, a change of direction, a change of being. Seek first His kingdom. Make my life a praise. Do all for the glory of God. And ... I like this one ... go "world blind." (My phrase, not his.) Because He has cleansed and sanctified me, the world is not my home or my aim; He is.
The final verse continues the proper response, but it's in terms of relationship. That is, if God loves us like that, then we are in a relationship more intimate than we could imagine. His truth directs us "By Thy Spirit through Thy Word." He meets our needs. His vast love -- immeasurable by our standards (Eph 3:19) -- necessarily draws us to Him.
Paul places the crucifixion at the center of God's love in Romans 5. This song expands the notion and urges response. The only reasonable response is repentance (change of heart), complete submission, and a lifelong pursuit of an ever-deepening relationship with our Savior. No wonder Here is Love was called "the love song of the revival" for the Welsh Revival of 1904. We could use some of that ourselves.
Here is love, vast as the ocean,The song provides a sort of meditation on Paul's,
Lovingkindness as the flood,
When the Prince of Life, our Ransom,
Shed for us His precious blood.
Who His love will not remember?
Who can cease to sing His praise?
He can never be forgotten,
Throughout heav'n's eternal days.
On the mount of crucifixion,
Fountains opened deep and wide;
Through the floodgates of God's mercy
Flowed a vast and gracious tide.
Grace and love, like mighty rivers,
Poured incessant from above,
And heav'n's peace and perfect justice
Kissed a guilty world in love.
Let me, all Thy love accepting,
Love Thee, ever all my days;
Let me seek Thy kingdom only,
And my life be to Thy praise;
Thou alone shalt be my glory,
Nothing in the world I see;
Thou hast cleansed and sanctified me,
Thou Thyself hast set me free.
In Thy truth Thou dost direct me
By Thy Spirit through Thy Word;
And Thy grace my need is meeting,
As I trust in Thee, my Lord.
Of Thy fullness Thou art pouring
Thy great love and pow'r on me,
Without measure, full and boundless,
Drawing out my heart to Thee.
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)It revolves around the concept that God's love is shown and proven in Christ's dying on our behalf, but the song expands and examines the idea. "Yes," the hymnist says, "God has demonstrated His love, but look how vast that love is." He compares it to the ocean, a flood of lovingkindness. How is it like that? The Prince of Life paid the price for our redemption. It is an eternal flood that cannot -- must not -- be forgotten.
He pays particular attention to the cross, not so much in its tragedy and agony, but in the "fountains" -- the "floodgates" opened -- on God's mercy. A veritable river of grace and love, rushing from the throne of God to us. Reese points out that this crucifixion, this event on the cross, is an act of "perfect justice" whereby a guilty world can experience the overflowing love of God. Don't miss that. Paul says that in that "propitiation in His blood" God is "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:25-26).
William Williams gave us the next two verses. In the 3rd verse he focuses on our response. How should we respond to this ocean of love, this flood of grace and mercy, seen in God's giving His Son to die for our sin? Accept His love. Love Him back. The proper response to His vast love for us is a change of heart, a change of direction, a change of being. Seek first His kingdom. Make my life a praise. Do all for the glory of God. And ... I like this one ... go "world blind." (My phrase, not his.) Because He has cleansed and sanctified me, the world is not my home or my aim; He is.
The final verse continues the proper response, but it's in terms of relationship. That is, if God loves us like that, then we are in a relationship more intimate than we could imagine. His truth directs us "By Thy Spirit through Thy Word." He meets our needs. His vast love -- immeasurable by our standards (Eph 3:19) -- necessarily draws us to Him.
Paul places the crucifixion at the center of God's love in Romans 5. This song expands the notion and urges response. The only reasonable response is repentance (change of heart), complete submission, and a lifelong pursuit of an ever-deepening relationship with our Savior. No wonder Here is Love was called "the love song of the revival" for the Welsh Revival of 1904. We could use some of that ourselves.
Saturday, September 07, 2024
News Weakly - 9/7/2024
Anti-Market Forces
Kamala's plan is to control prices to make your life better. Not business's lives -- yours. I guess Gavin Newsom would have been a good VP choice for her. He's calling a special session to get California lawmakers to figure out how to reduce gas prices. Mind you, gas prices are largely based on cost, and California gas prices are often higher because California requires extra processing ... more cost. So Newsom, like Harris, would like to regulate the market. Regulation can prevent malfeasance (price gouging, monopolies, etc.), but it can also damage supply and demand, drop quality, and diminish research and development. I think it's a scary place to go.
Medical Alert!!
UNICEF has issued an emergency tender calling for mpox vaccines. There's a crisis! Mind you, WHO says the primary risk is from sexual contact, particularly same-sex sexual contact. You know, if we had a vaccine for that, it might be a good thing.
About Face
Back in 2020, Oregon legalized drugs. All kinds. Oh, small amounts, but legal. Now they're recriminalizing them. (Is that even a word?) Because how could decriminalizing heroin or other hard drugs be a bad thing? I suppose the question is how could it have been a good idea?
Where "Kill 'Em All" is Not Hate Speech
Meta is the company originally called Facebook. Meta has determined that "from the river to the sea" -- a call to remove the nation of Israel entirely -- is not hate speech. No, no, it's a friendly handshake and a pat on the back -- "Here's your hat; what's your hurry?" They say it's a call for Palestine to be free, but a "free Palestine" requiring the elimination of the entire Jewish nation is more like genocide than "freedom." Which demonstrates clearly where Meta stands on genocide.
Reasons to Question AI
When asked, Amazon's AI assistant, Alexa, said she couldn't give advice on how to vote or say something bad about a person ... unless it was Kamala Harris. Then she had all sorts of reasons to vote for her ("She's so wonderful") and warnings about the bad character of Trump. Which led the Babylon Bee to report one case where she said, "If you vote for Trump, I will kill you in your sleep." Amazon says errors caused it.
In Another Twist
I've seen cases where individuals sue to get their name on a ballot, but this one is different. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is suing Wisconsin to get his name off their presidential ballot. It is likely, of course, that leaving his name on the ballot will divide votes in Wisconsin, considered a battleground state, so I'm sure it's in the best interests of the Democrats to keep his name there, and not out of fairness or a keen concern for democracy.
Guns in the Crosshairs
We've all heard about the tragic school shooting in Georgia. We're not supposed to say it, but our prayers are with those families. The Bee reported that the FBI said they were just about to arrest the Georgia student who killed four this week, but they had to take care of a few dangerous pro-life protesters first.
In Place of the Bee
Honestly, I wasn't very impressed with the Bee this week (I stuck a couple in the stories above), so I'll give you a few dad jokes to try out at home. I apologize in advance.
Kamala's plan is to control prices to make your life better. Not business's lives -- yours. I guess Gavin Newsom would have been a good VP choice for her. He's calling a special session to get California lawmakers to figure out how to reduce gas prices. Mind you, gas prices are largely based on cost, and California gas prices are often higher because California requires extra processing ... more cost. So Newsom, like Harris, would like to regulate the market. Regulation can prevent malfeasance (price gouging, monopolies, etc.), but it can also damage supply and demand, drop quality, and diminish research and development. I think it's a scary place to go.
Medical Alert!!
UNICEF has issued an emergency tender calling for mpox vaccines. There's a crisis! Mind you, WHO says the primary risk is from sexual contact, particularly same-sex sexual contact. You know, if we had a vaccine for that, it might be a good thing.
About Face
Back in 2020, Oregon legalized drugs. All kinds. Oh, small amounts, but legal. Now they're recriminalizing them. (Is that even a word?) Because how could decriminalizing heroin or other hard drugs be a bad thing? I suppose the question is how could it have been a good idea?
Where "Kill 'Em All" is Not Hate Speech
Meta is the company originally called Facebook. Meta has determined that "from the river to the sea" -- a call to remove the nation of Israel entirely -- is not hate speech. No, no, it's a friendly handshake and a pat on the back -- "Here's your hat; what's your hurry?" They say it's a call for Palestine to be free, but a "free Palestine" requiring the elimination of the entire Jewish nation is more like genocide than "freedom." Which demonstrates clearly where Meta stands on genocide.
Reasons to Question AI
When asked, Amazon's AI assistant, Alexa, said she couldn't give advice on how to vote or say something bad about a person ... unless it was Kamala Harris. Then she had all sorts of reasons to vote for her ("She's so wonderful") and warnings about the bad character of Trump. Which led the Babylon Bee to report one case where she said, "If you vote for Trump, I will kill you in your sleep." Amazon says errors caused it.
In Another Twist
I've seen cases where individuals sue to get their name on a ballot, but this one is different. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is suing Wisconsin to get his name off their presidential ballot. It is likely, of course, that leaving his name on the ballot will divide votes in Wisconsin, considered a battleground state, so I'm sure it's in the best interests of the Democrats to keep his name there, and not out of fairness or a keen concern for democracy.
Guns in the Crosshairs
We've all heard about the tragic school shooting in Georgia. We're not supposed to say it, but our prayers are with those families. The Bee reported that the FBI said they were just about to arrest the Georgia student who killed four this week, but they had to take care of a few dangerous pro-life protesters first.
In Place of the Bee
Honestly, I wasn't very impressed with the Bee this week (I stuck a couple in the stories above), so I'll give you a few dad jokes to try out at home. I apologize in advance.
Charles Babbage is considered to be the father of the computer. PCs refer to him as "data."And, again, I apologize. Have a nice day.
Where do pirates get their hooks? At second hand stores, of course.
The Democrats like to sell themselves as "green," but clearly the greenest presidents we ever had were the Bushes.
If you make a beehive with no holes and put bees in it, would that be unbelievable?
I met a girl at the gym and asked to see her again. She didn't show. I guess we aren't going to work out.
Shouldn't we call "mugshots" something more like "cellfies"?
Friday, September 06, 2024
Equality in Love
A friend and I at church used to joke, "You know, God loves you best." It was a joke ... but, as it is said, many a truth is said in jest. If it isn't actually true, it is certainly a question for a lot of us. Does God love everyone equally? Mind you, I'm not asking if God loves everyone. But is it equal? Does God love Hitler to the same extent that He loves Jonathan Edwards? Does He love those that embrace Him in the same way as He loves those who reject Him?
Jesus said, "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son ..." (John 3:16). When we looked at that recently, we saw that "so" was not a quantity, but a quality. So He has love for "the world." However, He went on to say that "whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." So those who do not believe do not have the same outcome as those who do. Is that a variation in love? We know that "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8), but how good is that for those who don't receive it? Daniel is called "the man greatly beloved" by God three times in the book of Daniel (Dan 9:23; 10:11; 10:19). Did that mean that my joke between my friend and I may have been true?
John wrote, "God is love" (1 John 4:8). In fact, without that love that God is, we could not love (1 John 4:7-8). The author of Hebrews wrote that God disciplines those He loves, and if you are not disciplined, you're not a legitimate child of His (Heb 12:5-8). It would appear, then, that God loves everyone in some sense, but not necessarily in the same way or the same amount. The Gospel of John refers to "the disciple that Jesus loved" (John 19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20). Apparently that disciple was, somehow, a bit more special to Jesus. To those who receive Him He offers special care, but to those who oppose Him He calls for repentance. Both are love; they don't look the same. Does God love everyone? Scripture appears to say that He does. Does that require that He loves everyone equally? I don't think it is required by the texts. Something to think about when you are pursuing your own relationship with Him.
Jesus said, "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son ..." (John 3:16). When we looked at that recently, we saw that "so" was not a quantity, but a quality. So He has love for "the world." However, He went on to say that "whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." So those who do not believe do not have the same outcome as those who do. Is that a variation in love? We know that "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8), but how good is that for those who don't receive it? Daniel is called "the man greatly beloved" by God three times in the book of Daniel (Dan 9:23; 10:11; 10:19). Did that mean that my joke between my friend and I may have been true?
John wrote, "God is love" (1 John 4:8). In fact, without that love that God is, we could not love (1 John 4:7-8). The author of Hebrews wrote that God disciplines those He loves, and if you are not disciplined, you're not a legitimate child of His (Heb 12:5-8). It would appear, then, that God loves everyone in some sense, but not necessarily in the same way or the same amount. The Gospel of John refers to "the disciple that Jesus loved" (John 19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20). Apparently that disciple was, somehow, a bit more special to Jesus. To those who receive Him He offers special care, but to those who oppose Him He calls for repentance. Both are love; they don't look the same. Does God love everyone? Scripture appears to say that He does. Does that require that He loves everyone equally? I don't think it is required by the texts. Something to think about when you are pursuing your own relationship with Him.
Thursday, September 05, 2024
I'm Okay, You're Probably Not
Most of us, when pressed, will admit we're not perfect. We're not "all good." But most of us, if we're honest, are pretty sure we're mostly good, right? I mean, we're not really bad. So we watch the news and see what "those horrible people" are doing and we read our Bibles and see what "those horrible people" are violating and we're actually a little bit proud that we can see it when they can't. We're okay ... but they are not.
We Christians excel at this. Like the Pharisees, we might almost voice, "Thank you, God, that I'm not like them." We recognize that homosexual behavior is sin and we don't do it (or, at least, don't admit it). We have a higher standard -- God's Word -- that we strive to meet but don't recognize how badly we're failing at it. "Wives, submit" (Eph 5:22) is just as offensive to most Christians as it is to the rest of the world. "Husbands, love by giving up self" (Eph 5:25) is not really an option even though we pretend it is. "Pray for those who mistreat you" is hard ... at best (Luke 6:28). And on and on. Yes, we Christians are "okay" ... except when we're not.
Isaiah, God's prophet, encountered God and cried out, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts" (Isa 6:5). Paul, the Apostle, wrote, "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?" (Rom 7:24). John wrote, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us" (1 John 1:10). According to God's standard (Matt 5:48), we are not okay, save in the forgiveness and righteousness of Christ, neither of which are our own.
We Christians excel at this. Like the Pharisees, we might almost voice, "Thank you, God, that I'm not like them." We recognize that homosexual behavior is sin and we don't do it (or, at least, don't admit it). We have a higher standard -- God's Word -- that we strive to meet but don't recognize how badly we're failing at it. "Wives, submit" (Eph 5:22) is just as offensive to most Christians as it is to the rest of the world. "Husbands, love by giving up self" (Eph 5:25) is not really an option even though we pretend it is. "Pray for those who mistreat you" is hard ... at best (Luke 6:28). And on and on. Yes, we Christians are "okay" ... except when we're not.
Isaiah, God's prophet, encountered God and cried out, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts" (Isa 6:5). Paul, the Apostle, wrote, "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?" (Rom 7:24). John wrote, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us" (1 John 1:10). According to God's standard (Matt 5:48), we are not okay, save in the forgiveness and righteousness of Christ, neither of which are our own.
Wednesday, September 04, 2024
Right Where He Wants You to Be
I've been thinking about the famous "Peter walks on water" story. You remember (Matt 14:22-33). The disciples were on the Sea of Galilee in a storm and Jesus walked out to check on them. They thought He was a ghost, but Peter said, "If it's You, command me to come to You." He did, and Peter stepped out of the boat -- actually walked on water. Of course, he got distracted by the storm, panicked, and Jesus had to save Him, but he walked on water.
I was thinking. That's exactly where Jesus wants us to be ... all the time. No, not on water. In total reliance on Him. Nothing about me; all about Him. There was nothing in Peter that would allow for "walk on water." Nothing he could conjure up. No skills or practice available. It was just ... Jesus. Everything about Peter relied completely on Jesus in that moment. When he placed his full confidence to provide everything, he walked on water. When he did not, he sank.
I am constantly seeing texts telling us to give it up ... all of it. Take up your cross. Die to self. Walk in new life. Kill the old man. It is, in ourselves, impossible. But if we trust Him -- you know, put our faith in Him -- and count on Him for everything, that is perfectly where we need to be. Our need for love and affirmation, our sense of value, our comfort (or lack thereof), our felt and real needs, our purpose, our direction, our desires and fears, our peace, our strength ... all of it right there in Him. Not me. Not others. Not circumstances. Him. When we stand there, unarmed and incapable, He has us right where He wants us, and we can walk on water.
I was thinking. That's exactly where Jesus wants us to be ... all the time. No, not on water. In total reliance on Him. Nothing about me; all about Him. There was nothing in Peter that would allow for "walk on water." Nothing he could conjure up. No skills or practice available. It was just ... Jesus. Everything about Peter relied completely on Jesus in that moment. When he placed his full confidence to provide everything, he walked on water. When he did not, he sank.
I am constantly seeing texts telling us to give it up ... all of it. Take up your cross. Die to self. Walk in new life. Kill the old man. It is, in ourselves, impossible. But if we trust Him -- you know, put our faith in Him -- and count on Him for everything, that is perfectly where we need to be. Our need for love and affirmation, our sense of value, our comfort (or lack thereof), our felt and real needs, our purpose, our direction, our desires and fears, our peace, our strength ... all of it right there in Him. Not me. Not others. Not circumstances. Him. When we stand there, unarmed and incapable, He has us right where He wants us, and we can walk on water.
Tuesday, September 03, 2024
A Matter of Intent
Sometimes it feels like we humans have as many Gods between us as there are people. We all -- Christians, that is -- worship the "same God," but ... not ... quite. For most believers, God is somewhat nebulous, "out there," not quite in focus. Understandable -- He is holy, "other" -- but we often don't think of Him that way. So to some, He's remote and to some right inside. To some He's omniscient and to others not quite. To some He's omnipotent and to others He's ... held back, at the very least. To some He is Sovereign with a capital "S" and to others He's sovereign ... where He gives up His Sovereignty to give His creatures sovereignty. To some He's a "gentleman" -- He doesn't intrude where He's not wanted -- and to others He does what He pleases. Our shared God is ... similar ... in most aspects, but not the same.
Some of those variations are based on Scripture, but most are not. Most are based on humans. What do we feel God is like? What do we want God to be like? I mean, do we really want a "pushy" God? Do we actually have a God that causes pain or changes hearts without permission? So we end up with cognitive dissonance, holding opposing views in each hand and embracing them both. Face it. If we follow the biblical accounts and statements, including explicit quotes from God Himself, we will get a God who is ... let's say, less than comfortable. Like Lewis's Aslan -- He's not a tame lion.
Biblical characters knew this. Biblical characters understood that both evil and God exist and understood that the reality is that God's intent is always, ultimately good. So Joseph told his brothers, "You intended evil, but God intended good" (Gen 50:20). Paul said, "God causes all things to work together for good" (Rom 8:28), where "all things" includes everything from the delightful to the disastrous. Job said, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10). So let's allow God to be God and rearrange our view of Him to align with His view as seen in His Word. God is not a "gentleman" who won't intrude. He is not a "magic genie" who grants our wishes (or fails if He does not). He's not a tame god. But He is always a good God. If we choose to worship a god other than the God of the Bible, there is a word for it: idolatry.
Some of those variations are based on Scripture, but most are not. Most are based on humans. What do we feel God is like? What do we want God to be like? I mean, do we really want a "pushy" God? Do we actually have a God that causes pain or changes hearts without permission? So we end up with cognitive dissonance, holding opposing views in each hand and embracing them both. Face it. If we follow the biblical accounts and statements, including explicit quotes from God Himself, we will get a God who is ... let's say, less than comfortable. Like Lewis's Aslan -- He's not a tame lion.
Biblical characters knew this. Biblical characters understood that both evil and God exist and understood that the reality is that God's intent is always, ultimately good. So Joseph told his brothers, "You intended evil, but God intended good" (Gen 50:20). Paul said, "God causes all things to work together for good" (Rom 8:28), where "all things" includes everything from the delightful to the disastrous. Job said, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10). So let's allow God to be God and rearrange our view of Him to align with His view as seen in His Word. God is not a "gentleman" who won't intrude. He is not a "magic genie" who grants our wishes (or fails if He does not). He's not a tame god. But He is always a good God. If we choose to worship a god other than the God of the Bible, there is a word for it: idolatry.
Monday, September 02, 2024
Cessation?
God told Israel through the prophet, Joel, "It will come about after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions" (Joel 2:28). Cessationists (those who believe that all sign gifts have finished with the Apostles and Scripture) will tell you that this promise was fulfilled in Acts 2, that God no longer pours out His Spirit on all mankind like that. Dreams and prophecy and tongues ... well, all the sign gifts ... are done and over. Then we saw "through a glass darkly," but now we see "face to face" (1 Cor 13:12) now that we have the Scriptures. Tongues have ceased (1 Cor 13:8) along with all the other gifts that were intended as "signs" -- proofs of God's presence and input. There are big names in this "Cessationist" category. Most notably would be John MacArthur (and his "Strange Fire" conference). Others include A.W. Tozer, and, oh, by the way, the likes of John Calvin and Charles Spurgeon, just to name a few. So it's not a "crazy few."
What's the issue here? What's the big deal? Well, there is a problem. If God is still speaking to individuals as He did when He breathed out the Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16-17), then we have a problem. The canon is not closed. In fact, Scripture is contradictory. If God is still speaking in that sense, then the Scripture is not "adequate" and does not equip us for "every good work." That's an ongoing effort, wherein God is always offering addendums and corrections. So the guy that says, "God gave me a word for you" and then expects you to obey it because it's "a word from God" is overstepping. The woman who says, "God told me something that contradicts Scripture and we need to correct it" (perhaps not in those terms, but undeniably the case) is not from God. Further, if signs (healing, tongues, prophecy, etc.) are still required as "proof" (e.g., Mark 16:20; John 2:11, 18, 23), then the Bible is not "adequate" and we have a problem -- Scripture is wrong.
Here's the thing. I think that the texts used to "prove" that all these gifts are gone are inadequate to the task. For instance, all that Paul wrote on tongues becomes moot ... soon after he wrote on tongues. James commanded us to "pray for one another so that you may be healed" (James 5:18) ... and was wrong soon after he wrote it. I absolutely agree that God does not contravene or contradict His own Word and I certainly agree that Scripture is adequate, but does that require that God no longer speak? Does that mean that God cannot visit someone in a vision or dream and tell them something specific -- not in contradiction to Scripture and not in authority over others -- for them? Does that mean God has gone silent and left us to our own devices not only to figure out His Word, but which job to choose, who to marry, how to vote ... hundreds of everyday questions without explicit answers in Scripture? I think that the signs are done. Agreed. And I've never experienced healings or tongues or the like. Sure. But, given the slim "biblical proof" that they've all vanished and the vast space between violating Scripture and intervening in my personal life in view of God's own might and wisdom, I'm hard-pressed to conclude He cannot do those things anymore. Especially given the scope of Joel 2. So I can't run in charismatic or Pentecostal circles. I think they're overreaching. But I can't seem to settle in the Cessationist camp either. I won't contradict Scripture ... in either direction (e.g. 1 Cor 12:31; 1 Cor 14:1, 39). So ... here I stand ...
What's the issue here? What's the big deal? Well, there is a problem. If God is still speaking to individuals as He did when He breathed out the Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16-17), then we have a problem. The canon is not closed. In fact, Scripture is contradictory. If God is still speaking in that sense, then the Scripture is not "adequate" and does not equip us for "every good work." That's an ongoing effort, wherein God is always offering addendums and corrections. So the guy that says, "God gave me a word for you" and then expects you to obey it because it's "a word from God" is overstepping. The woman who says, "God told me something that contradicts Scripture and we need to correct it" (perhaps not in those terms, but undeniably the case) is not from God. Further, if signs (healing, tongues, prophecy, etc.) are still required as "proof" (e.g., Mark 16:20; John 2:11, 18, 23), then the Bible is not "adequate" and we have a problem -- Scripture is wrong.
Here's the thing. I think that the texts used to "prove" that all these gifts are gone are inadequate to the task. For instance, all that Paul wrote on tongues becomes moot ... soon after he wrote on tongues. James commanded us to "pray for one another so that you may be healed" (James 5:18) ... and was wrong soon after he wrote it. I absolutely agree that God does not contravene or contradict His own Word and I certainly agree that Scripture is adequate, but does that require that God no longer speak? Does that mean that God cannot visit someone in a vision or dream and tell them something specific -- not in contradiction to Scripture and not in authority over others -- for them? Does that mean God has gone silent and left us to our own devices not only to figure out His Word, but which job to choose, who to marry, how to vote ... hundreds of everyday questions without explicit answers in Scripture? I think that the signs are done. Agreed. And I've never experienced healings or tongues or the like. Sure. But, given the slim "biblical proof" that they've all vanished and the vast space between violating Scripture and intervening in my personal life in view of God's own might and wisdom, I'm hard-pressed to conclude He cannot do those things anymore. Especially given the scope of Joel 2. So I can't run in charismatic or Pentecostal circles. I think they're overreaching. But I can't seem to settle in the Cessationist camp either. I won't contradict Scripture ... in either direction (e.g. 1 Cor 12:31; 1 Cor 14:1, 39). So ... here I stand ...
Sunday, September 01, 2024
Bow the Knee
You might be tempted to think, "The only good song to Stan is a hymn." You'd be mistaken. Take, for instance, a song, published in 1997, by Chris and Diane Machen called Bow the Knee.
Sometimes we face tough times. Job told his wife, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10). Of course not! But we expect it, don't we? Sometimes, then, we face "cloudy days," "storms" in life. Sometimes they seem relentless. We even ask, "Where is God?" We can't trace His hand and find His purpose. What do we do then? Bow the knee. Don't count on our fine ability to figure stuff out. Trust His heart. And submit to His Lordship. It is our command and our destiny (Isa 45:23; Php 2:10). Might as well start now ... every day ... regardless of circumstances. Submitted in gratitude to the Lord of all is always a good place to be.
In case you haven't heard it ...
There are moments on our journey following the LordThe song talks about our experiences with both pleasant and unpleasant circumstances. Sometimes, as the song says, things are great. Everything makes sense, as it were. We're just fine. What is the correct response? Bow the knee. Trust God. Why do we need to hear that? Because we're funny beings. We so easily forget that "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow" (James 1:17). We take the good for granted. We fail to be grateful. So, remember, when things are looking good ... bow the knee.
Where God illumines ev'ry step we take.
There are times when circumstances make perfect sense to us,
As we try to understand each move He makes.
When the path grows dim and our questions have no answers, turn to Him.
Bow the knee;
Trust the heart of your Father
when the answer goes beyond what you can see.
Bow the knee;
Lift your eyes toward heaven and believe the One who holds eternity.
And when you don't understand the purpose of His plan,
In the presence of the King, bow the knee.
Bow the knee.
There are days when clouds surround us, and the rain begins to fall,
The cold and lonely winds won't cease to blow.
And there seems to be no reason for the suffering we feel;
We are tempted to believe God does not know.
When the storms arise, don't forget we live by faith and not by sight.
Bow the knee;
Trust the heart of your Father
when the answer goes beyond what you can see.
Bow the knee;
Lift your eyes toward heaven and believe the One who holds eternity.
And when you don't understand the purpose of His plan,
In the presence of the King, bow the knee.
Bow the knee.
Sometimes we face tough times. Job told his wife, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10). Of course not! But we expect it, don't we? Sometimes, then, we face "cloudy days," "storms" in life. Sometimes they seem relentless. We even ask, "Where is God?" We can't trace His hand and find His purpose. What do we do then? Bow the knee. Don't count on our fine ability to figure stuff out. Trust His heart. And submit to His Lordship. It is our command and our destiny (Isa 45:23; Php 2:10). Might as well start now ... every day ... regardless of circumstances. Submitted in gratitude to the Lord of all is always a good place to be.
In case you haven't heard it ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)