A good article, below, from Tyndale House Publishers. Just thought it was well stated and concise. If you think "truth" is relative, I would ask you to consider the precepts this article speaks of. Don't base any decision on this article alone, but I would challenge you to very honestly consider your role, your place, in this world. I would challenge you to ask yourself how often you have thought something is absolutely right, or even wrong, and then realized your views had changed, or at least shifted, as time and circumstances changed. I know of no one who hasn't come to that realization; which begs the question ...is my, or your, truth sustainable? Is it reliable? If I'm really honest with myself, I have to recognize that many, many times, over my almost 40 years, what was "truth to me" was influenced by the circumstances around me, my environment, and my own needs at the time. I could ask someone else, and get a different perspective, or maybe an opposing view. This does NOT make me, or anyone else, a "bad person". It makes us... human. It also indicates a great need for a truth by which we can guide our decisions, our morals, our beliefs. You know the old saying.. "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." But the "something" you choose to stand for is very important, and if you truly stand on that "something" it will direct, to some degree, your future. The "truth" for which we decide to stand matters greatly, far more reaching than just you or I. Otherwise, what you and I view as appalling today will, by someone sooner or later, become appealing tomorrow.
-Steve
Absolute Answers
Have you ever heard anyone say that truth is relative? Maybe you’ve even heard someone say, 'Your truth isn’t necessarily my truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.' Ever say that yourself?
Some people think that truth and standards of right and wrong change from decade to decade or from person to person. They make choices based on society’s or their peers’ definitions of right and wrong. Like Judges 21:25 says, 'The people [do] whatever seem[s] right in their own eyes' (Judg 21:25). Does that describe anyone you know?
Magazines, newspapers, and Internet carry story after story about lifestyle choices: a unmarried couple who lives together before marriage ('After all, we’re in love'); a person who finally decides to break 'free' of the shackles of heterosexual life to explore his or her 'true' nature as a homosexual; a teen who just wants to be free to express his or her sexuality; a pastor who decides to bless the union of a same-sex couple--the list goes on. If you didn’t catch those, just wait for the follow-up talk shows and movies. Many of these choices are made in the name of tolerance and other forms of political correctness. Those opposed to these lifestyle choices are viewed as intolerant, especially if society gives them the green light.
Wondering what’s truly right or wrong? The Bible provides definite answers. The Ten Commandments and other laws reveal God’s standards of right and wrong. Take murder for example. God says no to that. What about adultery? Don’t even think about it. Stealing? Ditto. But honoring God and your parents are good moves.
Although times change, God’s standards never do. 'Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven' (Ps 119:89). 'The very essence of your words is truth; all your just regulations will stand forever' (Ps 119:160). Because God’s standards always are the same, some are quick to describe the Bible as old-fashioned or lacking in relevance. Others might ignore it because they resent being measured by its standards. What’s your view?
Friday, December 17, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Economy vs. Morality?
I'm going to write this ...taking not the high-road, but maybe a more journalistic perspective. Not because I don't have an opinion or conviction on the matter, but that is a perspective for another time, another forum.
This afternoon I was unable to find my usual lunch-time radio talk show. I still don't know where it has gone, frankly. While thumbing through the dial I came upon NPR. I have not, traditionally, been a frequent listener of National Public Radio, and since I couldn't find my usual talk-show ....I listened in on NPR. The topic of choice seemed to be the current economic situation and its effects on marriage, families, children, etc.
A caller's comments really, really struck me! I'll describe losely (though, I believe, accurately) what the caller said. The caller indicated she and her husband had opted for aborting a child ..though they already had other children (prior, I assume). I believe the caller also stated that her marriage ultimately ended in divorce. Financial strain was an obvious culprit ..both on the abortion decision, as well as the divorce.
Here's the comment that struck me. "I love my kids more than my own life, but we wondered if we were being financial and socially responsible in having another child." Now that part is almost an exact quote; a terribly close, but accurate, paraphrase.
I don't, normally, pick apart comments or statements made by folks. But this one was practically unavoidable.
1. Firstly, she stated that she loved her kids more than her own life. Granted, I think she was refering to the children she already had. But it also made clear her position on the validity of life of her un-born (now aborted) child.
2. Secondly, she questioned whether or not they (she and her former husband) were being financially and socially responsible. I'm tellin' ya' ...I didn't do it on purpose, but my mind IMMEDIATELY broke this portion of her comment into three areas of note. (a) Are they being "financially" responsible? Just how prevalent is the weight & balance, among married couples, of the financial responsibility of having a child as compared to the thought of whether or not an un-born child has a right to live? (b) The caller also questioned, in the same phrase, the "social" responsibility of having another child? One would have to nail down the specifics of this detail. Did she mean that it is possibly "socially irresponsible" to add another child to the world; over-population concern, or what? (c) Lastly, the fact that she questioned these things with the word "responsibile" tacked on. She had concerns of "financial" responsibility. Any parent reading this can relate with that concern. She had concerns of "social" responsibility. Again, without speaking, personally, with someone making such a statement ...it isn't hard, within the context of her statement, to imagine (or assume, if you will) the proposed concern. How would this affect her life, her husband's life, their marriage, and / or their social status ...if they had another child, another mouth to feed.
I wish you could have heard the conversation for yourself. The tone was almost "matter of fact". It was as if the topic was in regard to their personal stock portfolio, and the effects of a decision to buy, sell, etc. were at hand.
Here's the elephant in the room! The word "morality" NEVER came into the picture. This stunned me? An otherwise reasonable, rational sounding human stated... "....we wondered if we were being financially and socially responsible in having another child.", but didn't appear to question the moral obligation of their decision.
No doubt.... another mouth to feed, child to educate, to clothe... costs more money. No doubt... an additional child affects one's social life. I remember how much my wife and I felt that change after having 3 children. One child was a piece o' cake in terms of doing things you "used to do", and just hopping in the car and "going". A 2nd child only slowed that process a little. But having our 3rd child completely changed our perspective ...including our "social life". I can understand all that.
But isn't it striking that our society has come to the point that we can weigh the decision of the progression of, or termination of, the birth of a child by considering all these possible "life aspects" ...except for one?? This was an educated, seemingly intelligent human making these comments. No dregs of society. Has the economic woes of today forced us into a corner?? Hmmm.. there have been previous economic woes in our society; in our own country. Abortion wasn't a social option. It couldn't be factored in at all ....at least not as a viable, much less "legal", option. What has changed? When did we become so certain that aborting the birth process of a fetus was so definitely "an option"... that we don't even weigh in the "moral" aspect of it in a public conversation? Clearly, I do not know this lady and her former husband. I do not, and would not, pretend to understand their circumstances in life. Nor do I have any desire, at all, to place judgment on them. I have a large enough plank in my own eye. This question, this wonderment, is not about the lady on the radio. It is about "us" ...all of us ...as a society.
I guess I'd make a poor journalist. I think my opinion is bleeding through.
This afternoon I was unable to find my usual lunch-time radio talk show. I still don't know where it has gone, frankly. While thumbing through the dial I came upon NPR. I have not, traditionally, been a frequent listener of National Public Radio, and since I couldn't find my usual talk-show ....I listened in on NPR. The topic of choice seemed to be the current economic situation and its effects on marriage, families, children, etc.
A caller's comments really, really struck me! I'll describe losely (though, I believe, accurately) what the caller said. The caller indicated she and her husband had opted for aborting a child ..though they already had other children (prior, I assume). I believe the caller also stated that her marriage ultimately ended in divorce. Financial strain was an obvious culprit ..both on the abortion decision, as well as the divorce.
Here's the comment that struck me. "I love my kids more than my own life, but we wondered if we were being financial and socially responsible in having another child." Now that part is almost an exact quote; a terribly close, but accurate, paraphrase.
I don't, normally, pick apart comments or statements made by folks. But this one was practically unavoidable.
1. Firstly, she stated that she loved her kids more than her own life. Granted, I think she was refering to the children she already had. But it also made clear her position on the validity of life of her un-born (now aborted) child.
2. Secondly, she questioned whether or not they (she and her former husband) were being financially and socially responsible. I'm tellin' ya' ...I didn't do it on purpose, but my mind IMMEDIATELY broke this portion of her comment into three areas of note. (a) Are they being "financially" responsible? Just how prevalent is the weight & balance, among married couples, of the financial responsibility of having a child as compared to the thought of whether or not an un-born child has a right to live? (b) The caller also questioned, in the same phrase, the "social" responsibility of having another child? One would have to nail down the specifics of this detail. Did she mean that it is possibly "socially irresponsible" to add another child to the world; over-population concern, or what? (c) Lastly, the fact that she questioned these things with the word "responsibile" tacked on. She had concerns of "financial" responsibility. Any parent reading this can relate with that concern. She had concerns of "social" responsibility. Again, without speaking, personally, with someone making such a statement ...it isn't hard, within the context of her statement, to imagine (or assume, if you will) the proposed concern. How would this affect her life, her husband's life, their marriage, and / or their social status ...if they had another child, another mouth to feed.
I wish you could have heard the conversation for yourself. The tone was almost "matter of fact". It was as if the topic was in regard to their personal stock portfolio, and the effects of a decision to buy, sell, etc. were at hand.
Here's the elephant in the room! The word "morality" NEVER came into the picture. This stunned me? An otherwise reasonable, rational sounding human stated... "....we wondered if we were being financially and socially responsible in having another child.", but didn't appear to question the moral obligation of their decision.
No doubt.... another mouth to feed, child to educate, to clothe... costs more money. No doubt... an additional child affects one's social life. I remember how much my wife and I felt that change after having 3 children. One child was a piece o' cake in terms of doing things you "used to do", and just hopping in the car and "going". A 2nd child only slowed that process a little. But having our 3rd child completely changed our perspective ...including our "social life". I can understand all that.
But isn't it striking that our society has come to the point that we can weigh the decision of the progression of, or termination of, the birth of a child by considering all these possible "life aspects" ...except for one?? This was an educated, seemingly intelligent human making these comments. No dregs of society. Has the economic woes of today forced us into a corner?? Hmmm.. there have been previous economic woes in our society; in our own country. Abortion wasn't a social option. It couldn't be factored in at all ....at least not as a viable, much less "legal", option. What has changed? When did we become so certain that aborting the birth process of a fetus was so definitely "an option"... that we don't even weigh in the "moral" aspect of it in a public conversation? Clearly, I do not know this lady and her former husband. I do not, and would not, pretend to understand their circumstances in life. Nor do I have any desire, at all, to place judgment on them. I have a large enough plank in my own eye. This question, this wonderment, is not about the lady on the radio. It is about "us" ...all of us ...as a society.
I guess I'd make a poor journalist. I think my opinion is bleeding through.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
As A Man Thinketh
A couple of great quotes from James Allen. My dear mother-in-law gave this book to my son, but I started reading it and have found it very sensible and encouraging. By the way, the "son" to whom it was given is my 8 year-old. I don't know how much of this he can reasonably comprehend, but grand-ma was very impressed, as am I, that he can read so many of the advanced words. He is a very good with spelling and word recognition. He makes us very proud.
"We cannot directly choose our circumstances, but we can choose our thoughts and so, indirectly yet surely, shape our circumstances."
-James Allen (As A Man Thinketh)
"Those who are unprepared for the comprehension of a great purpose should fix their thoughts upon the faultless performance of their duty, no matter how insignificant their task may appear. Only in this way can the thoughts be gathered and focused and resolution and energy be developed, through which there is nothing that may not be accomplished."
-James Allen (As A Man Thinketh)
Monday, October 11, 2010
Baptism... Essential or Not??
Ok, this post, this question, is primarily for the Christ-following audience. Not that you will not gleen some insight if you are NOT a Christ-follower. But, admittedly, I fear that you would only face further frustrations toward "Christendom" if you do not read this with an open-heart and a mind for authentically seeking the truth. That said, let's talk about that old elephant in the room. YES!! There are most definitely some points, key points, upon which we "Christians" cannot agree. This only proves our human-ness. It does not, in any way, reflect on His Godliness. So, if you are not a Christ-follower, and want to have an A-HA!! I told you so... moment, then snub your nose at "me", a faulty, sinful creature. Please don't blame God for "my" questions. The disclaimers set in motion... let's get to the meat of the stated question.
If you're of the church of Christ persuasion (may be others, but this is the simplest, most obvious, delineation), then you likely adhere to the former; that baptism is an act "unto" salvation. That we "receive" salvation by the act of baptism; agreeing that salvation is a gift of God, and His grace, but baptism being a requirement to "receive" the free gift of salvation. We are to repent and be baptized for the remissino of sins. Save the translation argument of the word "for" ..for another day. Scripture references such as Acts 2:38, among others, would be supportive of this viewpoint.
If you're of a Baptist (again, there may be others, but this is the simplest, most obvious, delineation) persuasion ...then you likely adhere to the later; that baptism is an act of obedience, an identifying with Christ, following salvation ...which occurs after calling on the Lord; confessing with the mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believing in your heart that God raised Him from the dead.
I have a very dear friend who adheres to the church of Christ view. We have lunch together, and seek the truth together. I am grateful for him and we, in no way, "spar" over these topics. We agree that it is an area of disagreement ....and I just wanna' get to the bottom of it. And I believe there "is" a bottom to it. :)
From the church of Christ defense: I firmly believe that my brothers and sisters here simply want to honor, obey, and follow God's word as it is given to us, inspired, in Scripture. I will never, never consider this "foolishness", and have learned, via my friend, that this isn't even necessarily a "legalistic" attitude. It is, simply, an "obedient" attitude. If it were merely a matter of erring on the side of caution .....I'd flip to this view in a heart-beat ...based on what is known, arguments in translation inclusive, of Scripture. By the way... I wholly agree with my church of Christ friends on matters of elder leadership, denominationalism being far from Christ' intentions and hurtful to "the church". That, alone, may start another discussion. I'm all for it. :)
From the Baptist defense: However, I believe this idea of baptism, and its essential-ness, is "more" than a matter of a lesser of evils (forgive the pun), or erring on the side of caution. Most of the genuine believing, Christ-following Baptist brothers and sisters I know would also follow suit, drop their preconceived notions, and adhere in obedience if so warranted. BUT... to blindly agree to a precept such as baptism being essential to salvation means that the Baptist must disregard his / her belief that salvation is by grace, through faith. To simply "err on the side of caution" would be to disregard the view that God's atonement is solely from Him and no "good work" we may do, inclusive of the good work of baptism, should suffice. The Bsptist beleiver, a true Christ-follower, would not dare consider a slap in the face of God so easily. Not saying that is what it would be (a slap in God's face), but this would be the general perspective, I believe.
Now ....on to the conflict! I keep reading an often used statement, by church of Christ brothers, in relation to baptism and the thief on the cross. The statement is.. "How do we know the thief wasn't baptized years before by John or Jesus?" My only rub with this statement is that it certainly seems to contradict an attitude, toward Scripture, that church of Christ brothers also adhere to; that of Scripture either indicating a practice or belief be held, or that it is not ...and no assuming inbetween. The opposing / conflicting argument would be in relation to instruments in the worship service. Whether or not instruments should be allowed in worship, or if the Lord truly gives a flip, but is more interested in our motivation… I can take or leave. If in doubt… I would, as I have said many times, throw every instrument out the window ….simply to remove even the idea, or notion, as a distraction to worship, fellowship, edification, the strengthening and building up of Christ’ church ...and simply to honor my Lord and His mandates, wishes, or desires. This, to me, is a no-brainer! And I think I can be so bold as to say we would all agree that salvation does not “directly”, at least, depend on which of the two view-points one chooses (instruments or not). I say “not directly” only to make allownace that the hardened, prideful heart that might be dogmatic one way or the other ….may also not be humble enough to believe and receive the gift of salvation.
BUT!!!! What I don’t believe that a true Christ-follower will simply just take or leave is the matter of “what is required to obtain or receive salvation?” This is a far greater issue than that of instruments or no instruments. Even greater than having a designated "pastor" and being congregaton governed, or being elder lead.
That statement (How do you know the thief wasn't baptized years before by John or Jesus?), in and of itself, makes sense to me. It is certainly plausible that the repentant thief was indeed a back-slidden believer. To my knowledge, there is no way to know; no record one way or the other in Scripture.
But here’s my conflict. I have heard and read several accounts of the above statement, as a defense to the statement / question… “If the thief on the cross was saved, and to be with Jesus in paradise, then doesn’t this indicate baptism as a non-essential??”
From the same mouths stating ....“If Scripture doesn’t state it, then we do not assume it.” (e.g. musical instruments) I hear / read a possibility, a supposition, of "How do we know the thief on the cross wasn't baptized previously?" It is agreed that… nowhere in the New Testament is any indication given that there are instruments used in worship. Moreover, no inference that an instrument ever “was” ….unless you factor in Old Testament worship.
So, how can reference be made to even the remote possibility of an event (How do we know the thief never was baptized?) in a positive, or supporting, fashion… and at the same time state that no assumptions or assertions be made of Scripture? Implication cannot even be factored in ..in relation to the thief on the cross. To my knowledge, nowhere is it “implied” that the thief may have been baptized at some point. The evidence simply is not there. So, if we would not allow instruments in worship, based on implication or lack thereof, then shouldn’t the same rules apply for the matter of baptism and the thief on the cross? By the way, so that we don't get too hung up on the instrument issue, my church of Christ friend makes very clear that he is not dogmattic about this being right or wrong (instruments in worship), but if he cannot find evidence supporting the idea ...then he doesn't feel there is any authority by which to apply it. This would be true with instruments or anything else. But again, why would implication be made of the thief on the cross possibly being baptized at some prior time??
One who believes baptism is essential to salvation would not dare desire dishonoring God, or questioning His mandate, by even considering anything other than what God has required.
Likewise, one who believes baptism is NOT essential to salvation should, likewise, desire to honor God. The common view here is….. I wouldn’t want to apply a mandate to something which God did not, and therefore, undermine His gift of grace ….or in any way apply “good works” to the receipt of His gift of salvation.
That (a and b) is, honestly, the conflict, I believe. Any truly repentant Baptist I know would be willing to concede, in a heart-beat, baptism unto salvation …..”IF” it were clear that is what God mandates. But to take that view changes EVERYTHING! This is no easy switch! The Baptist mind, generally speaking, keeps going back to… “for by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
Discussion, here, would be wonderful, warranted, and desired. But please, let's not just re-hash what we already know about this difficulty. But if you have something new to add .....I know many a Christ-follower would be grateful.
"Is baptism essential to being saved, or is baptism an act of obedience as a result of being saved?"
If you're of the church of Christ persuasion (may be others, but this is the simplest, most obvious, delineation), then you likely adhere to the former; that baptism is an act "unto" salvation. That we "receive" salvation by the act of baptism; agreeing that salvation is a gift of God, and His grace, but baptism being a requirement to "receive" the free gift of salvation. We are to repent and be baptized for the remissino of sins. Save the translation argument of the word "for" ..for another day. Scripture references such as Acts 2:38, among others, would be supportive of this viewpoint.
If you're of a Baptist (again, there may be others, but this is the simplest, most obvious, delineation) persuasion ...then you likely adhere to the later; that baptism is an act of obedience, an identifying with Christ, following salvation ...which occurs after calling on the Lord; confessing with the mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believing in your heart that God raised Him from the dead.
I have a very dear friend who adheres to the church of Christ view. We have lunch together, and seek the truth together. I am grateful for him and we, in no way, "spar" over these topics. We agree that it is an area of disagreement ....and I just wanna' get to the bottom of it. And I believe there "is" a bottom to it. :)
From the church of Christ defense: I firmly believe that my brothers and sisters here simply want to honor, obey, and follow God's word as it is given to us, inspired, in Scripture. I will never, never consider this "foolishness", and have learned, via my friend, that this isn't even necessarily a "legalistic" attitude. It is, simply, an "obedient" attitude. If it were merely a matter of erring on the side of caution .....I'd flip to this view in a heart-beat ...based on what is known, arguments in translation inclusive, of Scripture. By the way... I wholly agree with my church of Christ friends on matters of elder leadership, denominationalism being far from Christ' intentions and hurtful to "the church". That, alone, may start another discussion. I'm all for it. :)
From the Baptist defense: However, I believe this idea of baptism, and its essential-ness, is "more" than a matter of a lesser of evils (forgive the pun), or erring on the side of caution. Most of the genuine believing, Christ-following Baptist brothers and sisters I know would also follow suit, drop their preconceived notions, and adhere in obedience if so warranted. BUT... to blindly agree to a precept such as baptism being essential to salvation means that the Baptist must disregard his / her belief that salvation is by grace, through faith. To simply "err on the side of caution" would be to disregard the view that God's atonement is solely from Him and no "good work" we may do, inclusive of the good work of baptism, should suffice. The Bsptist beleiver, a true Christ-follower, would not dare consider a slap in the face of God so easily. Not saying that is what it would be (a slap in God's face), but this would be the general perspective, I believe.
Now ....on to the conflict! I keep reading an often used statement, by church of Christ brothers, in relation to baptism and the thief on the cross. The statement is.. "How do we know the thief wasn't baptized years before by John or Jesus?" My only rub with this statement is that it certainly seems to contradict an attitude, toward Scripture, that church of Christ brothers also adhere to; that of Scripture either indicating a practice or belief be held, or that it is not ...and no assuming inbetween. The opposing / conflicting argument would be in relation to instruments in the worship service. Whether or not instruments should be allowed in worship, or if the Lord truly gives a flip, but is more interested in our motivation… I can take or leave. If in doubt… I would, as I have said many times, throw every instrument out the window ….simply to remove even the idea, or notion, as a distraction to worship, fellowship, edification, the strengthening and building up of Christ’ church ...and simply to honor my Lord and His mandates, wishes, or desires. This, to me, is a no-brainer! And I think I can be so bold as to say we would all agree that salvation does not “directly”, at least, depend on which of the two view-points one chooses (instruments or not). I say “not directly” only to make allownace that the hardened, prideful heart that might be dogmatic one way or the other ….may also not be humble enough to believe and receive the gift of salvation.
BUT!!!! What I don’t believe that a true Christ-follower will simply just take or leave is the matter of “what is required to obtain or receive salvation?” This is a far greater issue than that of instruments or no instruments. Even greater than having a designated "pastor" and being congregaton governed, or being elder lead.
That statement (How do you know the thief wasn't baptized years before by John or Jesus?), in and of itself, makes sense to me. It is certainly plausible that the repentant thief was indeed a back-slidden believer. To my knowledge, there is no way to know; no record one way or the other in Scripture.
But here’s my conflict. I have heard and read several accounts of the above statement, as a defense to the statement / question… “If the thief on the cross was saved, and to be with Jesus in paradise, then doesn’t this indicate baptism as a non-essential??”
From the same mouths stating ....“If Scripture doesn’t state it, then we do not assume it.” (e.g. musical instruments) I hear / read a possibility, a supposition, of "How do we know the thief on the cross wasn't baptized previously?" It is agreed that… nowhere in the New Testament is any indication given that there are instruments used in worship. Moreover, no inference that an instrument ever “was” ….unless you factor in Old Testament worship.
So, how can reference be made to even the remote possibility of an event (How do we know the thief never was baptized?) in a positive, or supporting, fashion… and at the same time state that no assumptions or assertions be made of Scripture? Implication cannot even be factored in ..in relation to the thief on the cross. To my knowledge, nowhere is it “implied” that the thief may have been baptized at some point. The evidence simply is not there. So, if we would not allow instruments in worship, based on implication or lack thereof, then shouldn’t the same rules apply for the matter of baptism and the thief on the cross? By the way, so that we don't get too hung up on the instrument issue, my church of Christ friend makes very clear that he is not dogmattic about this being right or wrong (instruments in worship), but if he cannot find evidence supporting the idea ...then he doesn't feel there is any authority by which to apply it. This would be true with instruments or anything else. But again, why would implication be made of the thief on the cross possibly being baptized at some prior time??
One who believes baptism is essential to salvation would not dare desire dishonoring God, or questioning His mandate, by even considering anything other than what God has required.
Likewise, one who believes baptism is NOT essential to salvation should, likewise, desire to honor God. The common view here is….. I wouldn’t want to apply a mandate to something which God did not, and therefore, undermine His gift of grace ….or in any way apply “good works” to the receipt of His gift of salvation.
That (a and b) is, honestly, the conflict, I believe. Any truly repentant Baptist I know would be willing to concede, in a heart-beat, baptism unto salvation …..”IF” it were clear that is what God mandates. But to take that view changes EVERYTHING! This is no easy switch! The Baptist mind, generally speaking, keeps going back to… “for by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
Discussion, here, would be wonderful, warranted, and desired. But please, let's not just re-hash what we already know about this difficulty. But if you have something new to add .....I know many a Christ-follower would be grateful.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Look out for that bus!!!!!
Whether you're a Christ-follower or not persuaded to follow Christ ....please hear my plea, my plight; from one needy human to another. Maybe you're a Christ-follower who believes, passionately, the object of your faith ...so passionately that you can't even fathom the idea of everyone you come in contact with not knowing what / who you believe? This is a good passion! I have great concern for a Christ-follower who does not have, or is not at least growing and striving toward, this sort of passion for Christ; a concern of indifference. You know the analogy.... if you were standing at the edge of a street, even at risk of being hit by an oncoming bus ...one would not even think of not warning that person! You would do whatever it takes to avoid danger for that person! Our passion for a saving knowledge of Christ Jesus comes with that kind of urgency!!
But there is a very, very important thing to remember!! The whole reason you would do whatever it takes to save that person, from pending doom, is because of the love you have for him / her ...a brotherly, compassionate love that refuses to stand by and allow harm to someone .....when you can possibly avert it, or provide a means by which to avert danger! God forbid ...that I would not passionately desire a friend, a brother, a sister avoid the loneliest existance of all ....that without Christ.
But what happens when that passion burns so hot that it "singes" those whom we want, so desperately, to reach with the truth of Jesus Christ? The goal is to "reach" those in the world who do NOT know Jesus Christ, and we must do that because we love people ....not merely because we've been told to.
Our "faith" is important. It is the evidence of things not seen, things "hoped" for. Our faith is our foundation when our love is fleeting. As Christ-followers... we, too, hurt. We, too, agonize over why our God allows circumstances in our lives, and the people we love. But we lean on faith, we place our trust in Him whom we cannot see, but trust in. Oh world ....please forgive me if I have ever been so arrogant, so puffed-up with pride that I would dare utter a pithy catch-phrase such as.... "I am not better than you, or anyone, just better off!" I DON'T WANT TO BE JUST "BETTER OFF"!!!! I want YOU to know the same loving, compassionate, passionate, sacrificial Lamb that knows me! Praise God .....He knows me, even before I was in the womb ....He knew me. I have given all I am, all I have, to Him ...the best I know how.
I cannot imagine loving Him ....while leaving you to sit in wonder about what the "truth" is, or if there is any absolute truth. I know Him. "He" is the way, and the truth, and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father except by Him! (John 14:6). If you're not a Christ-follower ....this is nothing more than a love-letter ....just to say that. I love you. Today isn't necessarily about winning you over. Today is about telling you that I love you, and more profoundly, Jesus loves you! He decided, for reasons I'm not altogether certain of, to use "me" to say, to you, that He loves you. No theology to sway you. Just mere words to express the greatest of these..... love.
But there is a very, very important thing to remember!! The whole reason you would do whatever it takes to save that person, from pending doom, is because of the love you have for him / her ...a brotherly, compassionate love that refuses to stand by and allow harm to someone .....when you can possibly avert it, or provide a means by which to avert danger! God forbid ...that I would not passionately desire a friend, a brother, a sister avoid the loneliest existance of all ....that without Christ.
But what happens when that passion burns so hot that it "singes" those whom we want, so desperately, to reach with the truth of Jesus Christ? The goal is to "reach" those in the world who do NOT know Jesus Christ, and we must do that because we love people ....not merely because we've been told to.
So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. -1 Corinthians 13:13
Our "faith" is important. It is the evidence of things not seen, things "hoped" for. Our faith is our foundation when our love is fleeting. As Christ-followers... we, too, hurt. We, too, agonize over why our God allows circumstances in our lives, and the people we love. But we lean on faith, we place our trust in Him whom we cannot see, but trust in. Oh world ....please forgive me if I have ever been so arrogant, so puffed-up with pride that I would dare utter a pithy catch-phrase such as.... "I am not better than you, or anyone, just better off!" I DON'T WANT TO BE JUST "BETTER OFF"!!!! I want YOU to know the same loving, compassionate, passionate, sacrificial Lamb that knows me! Praise God .....He knows me, even before I was in the womb ....He knew me. I have given all I am, all I have, to Him ...the best I know how.
I cannot imagine loving Him ....while leaving you to sit in wonder about what the "truth" is, or if there is any absolute truth. I know Him. "He" is the way, and the truth, and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father except by Him! (John 14:6). If you're not a Christ-follower ....this is nothing more than a love-letter ....just to say that. I love you. Today isn't necessarily about winning you over. Today is about telling you that I love you, and more profoundly, Jesus loves you! He decided, for reasons I'm not altogether certain of, to use "me" to say, to you, that He loves you. No theology to sway you. Just mere words to express the greatest of these..... love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)