Recently I submitted a resume to a church in Tempe, looking for a "Worship/Creative Arts Pastor." Not surprisingly, I've perusing their website trying to learn what I can about them. They have a few sermons online, both audio, and also some video, so I've been listening to sermons while doing my paperwork.
Today, I was listening to a sermon preached on their "Team Sunday." You can view it here. One thing stood out to me. It's one of those statements that was just sort of nestled in to the rest of the sermon, but it jumped out at me...
The pastor was talking about how Christ came to serve, not to be served, and how He called us to follow His example. I'm not sure what it was, but the truth of that just hit me hard. We live in a culture built on consumerism. Every day we are bombarded with advertisements, people trying to sell us their products, and we are daily put in the position of having to ask the purveyors of these products, "What is your product going to do for me? Why is it worth buying?" Or, "What service will you provide that is worth purchasing?" We are fixated day-in, and day-out on what others will do for us, what will benefit us. As Christians, we are called to have a different attitude - what is it that I can do for YOU? What service can I provide to you, to bless you, to make your life better/easier?
Jesus didn't come to "get," but to "give." He didn't come to sell a product either, but to give away what was rightfully his to keep - out of love.
This is our duty, our job, every day of our lives: to look for ways to serve, to give, to bless. To ignore the ways in which we can "get" from people. Jesus even said that this attitude extends to our enemies as well. "Bless those who curse you." We are to live a life with an outward flow, so to speak.
Here's the challenge: let's do something, ANYTHING for someone else today. Let's bless someone, whether they deserve it or not. Whether we feel like it or not.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
A non-Calvinists view of Calvinism - part 2
This is part two of my "series," A Non-Calvinists view of Calvinism. Technically it's part three, because I did a "part 2," to "part 1," though really "part 2," was more like "part 1b" or something, which makes this the REAL "part 2" of the series.
...
Unconditional Election
Again from www.Reformed.com:
The doctrine of Unconditional Election insists that God's foreordination of people for salvation work the same way. He might have picked the kid next door, but he picked me. Some will protest this idea by saying, "His selection isn't arbitrary! He chooses people as He wills His choices are according to what pleases Him." However, this is frankly a non-answer. The child who calls out, "Goose," instead of "Duck," did so "according to his will," but the choice was nevertheless arbitrary.
The fact that individual merit cannot be factored into the equation, insists that God be arbitrary in His selection. But this causes us to define "merit." The above definition of the doctrine includes this statement, "...not based upon his looking forward to discover who would 'accept' the offer of the gospel." Later in the definition, the author stresses the importance of personal faith, saying that this is the 'responsibility' of the believer. I commend the author for conceding this point, but can't help but to see a significant contradiction here. If God does not select people by looking ahead to see who will 'accept' the Gospel (a.k.a. believe the Gospel), why is it the responsibility of the individual to believe, since without that initial, arbitrary election from God, they would never believe in the first place (and though we haven't gotten there yet, Calvinism also says that everyone who is elected, WILL believe). So, according to Calvinism, individual faith is the believer's responsibility, and also the necessary evntuality of election. The author used the word "tension," to describe the tenuous relationship between God's sovereignty, and man's responsibility. I actually do acknowledge this tension, but I think in this particular instance, it is being used as a cover for inherent contradiction, not tension.
Lastly, the Bible is very clear that faith is non-meritorious. For a Calvinist to say that God takes no merit into account when He predestines a person for salvation, not even looking forward to see who will believe, they are saying that somehow faith itself constitutes merit on the part of the individual. But over and over, Paul says, "You are saved by grace through faith." If faith can be reckoned as meritorious, then this frequent statement of Paul is nonsense. If we are saved by God's unmerited favor, through the meritorious act of faith, then we're not really saved by grace at all! But instead, Paul clearly says, "It is of faith, that it might be by grace..." God chose to save people through faith, so that no merit could be ascribed to the saved individual. Why? Because when we believe, we aren't actually doing anything - we are embracing what was already done by Christ for us.
And for good measure, the Bible is also clear that God predestines "according to His foreknowledge." See 1 Peter 1:1-2, and Romans 8:29. This means He chooses based on what He knows.
...
Unconditional Election
Again from www.Reformed.com:
Pardon my sarcasm, but the idea that God is in heaven, playing a cosmic and catastrophic game of divine "eeny, meeny, miney, mo," really is impossible for me to accept. The above doctrine insists upon arbitrary selection (since God cannot take into account the 'merit' of any person). Let's hang out for a while on this concept of "arbitrary." The idea of an 'arbitrary' selection is something like this: you go to the grocery store to pick up a bag of tortilla chips. You get to the aisle, and there are somewhere around 20 bags of each particular variety of torilla chip. You personally don't have any preferences as to which brand you buy, so you arbitrarily choose Tostitos. Furthermore, you decide to pick out one bag of Tostitos out of the twenty on the shelf. This selection, too, is arbitrary. There is no rhyme or reason to your selection. You might have picked a different brand of tortilla chips, or you might have selected a different bag of Tostitos, say, the one directly to the left. It doesn't matter. The choice was arbitrary.Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).
This doctrine does not rule out, however, man's responsibility to believe in the redeeming work of God the Son (John 3:16-18). Scripture presents a tension between God's sovereignty in salvation, and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. Both are true -- to deny man's responsibility is to affirm an unbiblical hyper-calvinism; to deny God's sovereignty is to affirm an unbiblical Arminianism.
The doctrine of Unconditional Election insists that God's foreordination of people for salvation work the same way. He might have picked the kid next door, but he picked me. Some will protest this idea by saying, "His selection isn't arbitrary! He chooses people as He wills His choices are according to what pleases Him." However, this is frankly a non-answer. The child who calls out, "Goose," instead of "Duck," did so "according to his will," but the choice was nevertheless arbitrary.
The fact that individual merit cannot be factored into the equation, insists that God be arbitrary in His selection. But this causes us to define "merit." The above definition of the doctrine includes this statement, "...not based upon his looking forward to discover who would 'accept' the offer of the gospel." Later in the definition, the author stresses the importance of personal faith, saying that this is the 'responsibility' of the believer. I commend the author for conceding this point, but can't help but to see a significant contradiction here. If God does not select people by looking ahead to see who will 'accept' the Gospel (a.k.a. believe the Gospel), why is it the responsibility of the individual to believe, since without that initial, arbitrary election from God, they would never believe in the first place (and though we haven't gotten there yet, Calvinism also says that everyone who is elected, WILL believe). So, according to Calvinism, individual faith is the believer's responsibility, and also the necessary evntuality of election. The author used the word "tension," to describe the tenuous relationship between God's sovereignty, and man's responsibility. I actually do acknowledge this tension, but I think in this particular instance, it is being used as a cover for inherent contradiction, not tension.
Lastly, the Bible is very clear that faith is non-meritorious. For a Calvinist to say that God takes no merit into account when He predestines a person for salvation, not even looking forward to see who will believe, they are saying that somehow faith itself constitutes merit on the part of the individual. But over and over, Paul says, "You are saved by grace through faith." If faith can be reckoned as meritorious, then this frequent statement of Paul is nonsense. If we are saved by God's unmerited favor, through the meritorious act of faith, then we're not really saved by grace at all! But instead, Paul clearly says, "It is of faith, that it might be by grace..." God chose to save people through faith, so that no merit could be ascribed to the saved individual. Why? Because when we believe, we aren't actually doing anything - we are embracing what was already done by Christ for us.
And for good measure, the Bible is also clear that God predestines "according to His foreknowledge." See 1 Peter 1:1-2, and Romans 8:29. This means He chooses based on what He knows.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Total Depravity - part 2
It is fascinating to me how passionate people are about this particular theological subject. Within twenty-four hours of my last post, I had two comments from people I don't even know! I thought it might be good to clarify, and answer some of the points brought up in those comments, before moving on to the other points of Calvinism.
First of all, I was not attempting to be exhaustive in the previous post about Total Depravity. I was attempting simply to deal with the aspects of that particular doctrine that I found somewhat fallacious, or maybe just incomplete. "aworthydiscussion" said,
I believe in the basic premise of Total Depravity, that all men are completely wicked, enemies of God, hostile to God, dead in trespasses and sins, etc. I disagree, however, with the conclusion that this depravity precludes our ability to hear, understand, and believe the Gospel when it is preached. I believe that all people (not just the 'elect') have the ability to respond to God, but only the 'elect' actually do respond. And again, I don't believe that man "has the ability to respond to God in and of himself," because I believe that man has nothing in and of himself! Even his ability to reject God, is a gift from God!!
And in response to Stan - I hope I can be as magnanimous in my response as you were in yours - whether talking about a 'revelation from God' or 'spiritual life,' the question still remains: when is this 'spiritual life' given, and through what means?
I think we are essentially dealing with an equivocation of terms here, Stan. Calvinism still essentially says that there must be a moment of 'divine intervention' where God imparts that life (I agree up to this point), but that this life comes as an act of immediate, supreme sovereignty, that requires nothing of the recipient (not even faith), and which the recipient is powerless to resist (now we're into Irresistible Grace and Unconditional Election). What I say, and what I believe the Bible clearly teaches, is that it is the faith of the individual that releases the immediate grace of God - faith in the message preached. This ascribes no merit to the person, per Ephesians 2:8, 9 & Romans 11:6. I have heard Calvinists insist that if it were required for a person to believe in order to be saved, than that would mean that we somehow earned God's favor. Yet Paul is VERY clear that individual faith is the means by which we receive grace. 'Faith' and 'works' are mutually exclusive. "It is by faith, and not by works," how then can we call faith a work???
To sum up:
First of all, I was not attempting to be exhaustive in the previous post about Total Depravity. I was attempting simply to deal with the aspects of that particular doctrine that I found somewhat fallacious, or maybe just incomplete. "aworthydiscussion" said,
"Saying that man doesnt need divine intervention to respond to God puts you in the pelagian camp which says man has the ability to respond to God in and of himself."First of all, allow me to reiterate a point from my previous post. I never said that we don't need divine intervention from God to respond to Him, exactly the opposite. My point was that God provided that divine intervention for everyone in Jesus Christ, and now we need to look to Him to be saved. Thus the divine intervention we need is part of the finished work of Christ. We don't need further intervention beyond what Jesus did. To say that we do, diminishes the perfect and complete work of Christ. Furthermore, I did concede the point that we need the Holy Spirit to draw us to God. However, I would also emphasize the point that the Holy Spirit draws all men to God, but some don't listen. This is part of His present ministry in the world.
I believe in the basic premise of Total Depravity, that all men are completely wicked, enemies of God, hostile to God, dead in trespasses and sins, etc. I disagree, however, with the conclusion that this depravity precludes our ability to hear, understand, and believe the Gospel when it is preached. I believe that all people (not just the 'elect') have the ability to respond to God, but only the 'elect' actually do respond. And again, I don't believe that man "has the ability to respond to God in and of himself," because I believe that man has nothing in and of himself! Even his ability to reject God, is a gift from God!!
And in response to Stan - I hope I can be as magnanimous in my response as you were in yours - whether talking about a 'revelation from God' or 'spiritual life,' the question still remains: when is this 'spiritual life' given, and through what means?
I think we are essentially dealing with an equivocation of terms here, Stan. Calvinism still essentially says that there must be a moment of 'divine intervention' where God imparts that life (I agree up to this point), but that this life comes as an act of immediate, supreme sovereignty, that requires nothing of the recipient (not even faith), and which the recipient is powerless to resist (now we're into Irresistible Grace and Unconditional Election). What I say, and what I believe the Bible clearly teaches, is that it is the faith of the individual that releases the immediate grace of God - faith in the message preached. This ascribes no merit to the person, per Ephesians 2:8, 9 & Romans 11:6. I have heard Calvinists insist that if it were required for a person to believe in order to be saved, than that would mean that we somehow earned God's favor. Yet Paul is VERY clear that individual faith is the means by which we receive grace. 'Faith' and 'works' are mutually exclusive. "It is by faith, and not by works," how then can we call faith a work???
To sum up:
- I believe that all men are completely wicked by nature, by choice, and by divine declaration.
- I do not believe that our wickedness means that we are unable to understand and accept the basic Gospel message (the "natural man" can understand nothing more of God than this, but he can understand the Gospel, cf. 1 Cor. 2, distinction of "the mature" - what did he preach to the others? 1Cor. 2:2).
- I believe that the person of Jesus Christ, and His completed work on the cross is the 'divine intervention' from God that allows all men to be saved.
- I believe that faith is the means of receiving God's grace - and that faith is ultimately a choice.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
A non-Calvinists view of Calvinism
In the interest of being forthright, I confess that these next few blogs will be a refutation of the 5 points of Calvinism. The five points of Calvinism are easily remembered by the acrostic TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints.
That being said, let me introduce Point 1: Total Depravity.
Taken from www.Reformed.org...
What makes this doctrine difficult to utterly reject, is that there are strands of truth running through it. After Peter made his famous confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God," Jesus immediately responded with, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven" (Matt. 16:13-17). Clearly, Jesus connected Peter's confession with revelation from God. The simple truth is that revelation from God is necessary for us to acknowledge Christ's identity. Another passage says, "...no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit" (1Cor. 12:3).
Here is the problem. Calvinism insists that what man needs is an immediate revelation from God at the time that the individual hears the Gospel. The concept that is far more consistent with scripture is that Christ's teachings, example of life, and sacrificial and atoning death are themselves God's revelation to man. We don't need some sort of supernatural and immediate revelation from God to embrace the message of Christ's atoning death, we just need to hear the message and believe it.
In Romans 10, Paul talks about the Christian's duty to preach the gospel because, "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. But how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed, and how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher?" According to this verse the only thing necessary for salvation is to believe in the message preached, not an immediate, direct revelation from God.
Conclusion: though our minds may be depraved, and though revelation may be necessary in order to believe the gospel and be saved, that revelation has already been given and is available to all who will believe.
Practical application: everything God has revealed is yours. You don't need some fantastical revelatory experience in order to own it. God has already given it. Furthermore, everyone of your friends, family members, loved ones, acquaintances can be saved if they hear the truth and believe. Shouldn't you be telling them the truth?
That being said, let me introduce Point 1: Total Depravity.
Taken from www.Reformed.org...
The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 1:2-5).Basically this doctrine teaches that man is so wicked, so thoroughly depraved, that were the Gospel to be presented to him clearly and intelligently, his depraved mind would be unable to comprehend it, and thus would be utterly unable to be saved. The caveat is (in Calvinistic thinking), that the only way, then, to be saved is to hear the gospel while simultaneously receiving divine revelation from God as to it's meaning. Only with this intervention of Divine wisdom can any person truly hear, understand and accept the gospel message and be saved. Conversely, without this revelation from God, one will never understand the gospel message, and thus never be saved.
What makes this doctrine difficult to utterly reject, is that there are strands of truth running through it. After Peter made his famous confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God," Jesus immediately responded with, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven" (Matt. 16:13-17). Clearly, Jesus connected Peter's confession with revelation from God. The simple truth is that revelation from God is necessary for us to acknowledge Christ's identity. Another passage says, "...no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit" (1Cor. 12:3).
Here is the problem. Calvinism insists that what man needs is an immediate revelation from God at the time that the individual hears the Gospel. The concept that is far more consistent with scripture is that Christ's teachings, example of life, and sacrificial and atoning death are themselves God's revelation to man. We don't need some sort of supernatural and immediate revelation from God to embrace the message of Christ's atoning death, we just need to hear the message and believe it.
In Romans 10, Paul talks about the Christian's duty to preach the gospel because, "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. But how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed, and how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher?" According to this verse the only thing necessary for salvation is to believe in the message preached, not an immediate, direct revelation from God.
Conclusion: though our minds may be depraved, and though revelation may be necessary in order to believe the gospel and be saved, that revelation has already been given and is available to all who will believe.
Practical application: everything God has revealed is yours. You don't need some fantastical revelatory experience in order to own it. God has already given it. Furthermore, everyone of your friends, family members, loved ones, acquaintances can be saved if they hear the truth and believe. Shouldn't you be telling them the truth?
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Church was GOOD
So I went to church last night. As is to be expected, there was a much smaller crowd than usual, but still a great fervency in worship. According to a few different people at the church, that fervent worship is sort of a growing thing - apparently the church has not always been so passionate in their worship, but of late has sort of grown into it. It's a very encouraging thought!
But I digress...
The worship was good, but the sermon was fantastic! The pastor preached a sermon called "Jesus the Baptizer." His sermon was about the "Promise of the Holy Spirit/Baptism into the Holy Spirit." Now this church is unapologetically Pentecostal, so a sermon of this topic is to be expected from time to time. But unlike many Pentecostal churches, he didn't preach a sermon about tongues. Thank God! He preached the true message of the Holy Spirit, took us to more scriptures than I really had time to follow, and made an argument for the doctrine of the subsequent filling of the Holy Spirit that few classically trained theologians would have been able to argue.
Here's the basics of what he preached:
Well, I don't want to recreate the message, but it was great. He did ultimately get around to the tongues issue, which is frankly necessary for good Bible exposition since tongues is an integral part of the experience of receiving the Holy Spirit in the New Testament (cf. Acts 2:4, Acts 10:44-46, Acts 19:6). But his emphasis was on the power issue. We need more of God's power in our lives, and this is how God ordained that we should have it. He concluded the message with a very practical exhortation to the church to 'yeild to the Spirit.' That when the Spirit begins to move, don't resist, but give in. He talked about the importance of Jesus becoming more real in our lives, of God's presence manifested more in our lives. It was profound...
I had a good time at church yesterday...
But I digress...
The worship was good, but the sermon was fantastic! The pastor preached a sermon called "Jesus the Baptizer." His sermon was about the "Promise of the Holy Spirit/Baptism into the Holy Spirit." Now this church is unapologetically Pentecostal, so a sermon of this topic is to be expected from time to time. But unlike many Pentecostal churches, he didn't preach a sermon about tongues. Thank God! He preached the true message of the Holy Spirit, took us to more scriptures than I really had time to follow, and made an argument for the doctrine of the subsequent filling of the Holy Spirit that few classically trained theologians would have been able to argue.
Here's the basics of what he preached:
1. We receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at the time of salvation. 1Cor. 12:13. From this time the Holy Spirit is in us, abiding with us.He took us to several scriptures in the Old Testament in which we observe Holy Spirit coming upon someone, and they immediately begin prophesying. The sheer volume of scriptures he was able to produce to show this was staggering. The basic point he was making, is that the Holy Spirit doesn't come quietly upon a person. When all the power, all the holiness, all the virtue of God in the Spirit falls upon a person, somethings gotta' give!
2. The baptism into the Holy Spirit is a separate event in the believer's life where the Holy Spirit comes upon them. Luke 24:49. It is through this experience that the recipient receives power to live for God, to do the work of God, etc. The early Pentecostal slogan was "Power for service."
Well, I don't want to recreate the message, but it was great. He did ultimately get around to the tongues issue, which is frankly necessary for good Bible exposition since tongues is an integral part of the experience of receiving the Holy Spirit in the New Testament (cf. Acts 2:4, Acts 10:44-46, Acts 19:6). But his emphasis was on the power issue. We need more of God's power in our lives, and this is how God ordained that we should have it. He concluded the message with a very practical exhortation to the church to 'yeild to the Spirit.' That when the Spirit begins to move, don't resist, but give in. He talked about the importance of Jesus becoming more real in our lives, of God's presence manifested more in our lives. It was profound...
I had a good time at church yesterday...
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The Book of Acts
This book has always been one of my favorite books in the Bible. The first time I ever got serious about Bible reading, and the first time I actually made a commitment to read the Bible daily, I was seventeen, and I chose to start with the book of Acts.
I have probably read this book through more times than any other single book in the Bible. Each time I gain new insight. Each time I see a new element of the Gospel conveyed. I think the reason I like it so much, is that it is simply the story of real people living out their faith, and their calling.
I was impressed today by the story of when Barnabas and Paul went to Lystra, preached the gospel, healed a guy, and then the people of the city started saying that they were the gods come down in human form. Barnabas was Zeus, and Paul was Hermes. They almost sacrificed to them!
As weird as it may be, this passage encouraged me. It shows that even our best efforts at serving God, our most valiant attempts to please Him and to make Him known, sometimes go awry. Now, I've never had people try to worship me, but I have felt the frustration and disappointment that come with toiling in ministry, spending hours in prayer, and painstaking preparations, only to feel like it was all in vain, and that nothing worthwhile came out of it...
Of course, you're probably waiting for the silver lining in the story. The sad part is, that there isn't one. The story ends by the Jews convincing this crowd that Paul and Barnabas were bad, so they stoned Paul and left him for dead. What did they do next? They went home. The mission trip was over.
I have experienced what I consider to be some profound failures in my life and ministry. I'd be willing to bet that Paul would chalk this one up as a failure too.
The reality is that serving God isn't always rosy, it isn't always fun, and it doesn't always seem to work out. But Paul didn't quit. Not too much time passed before he decided to go back over all the cities he had previously visited, and see how the churches were doing. He went back to Lystra. He met a young guy named Timothy there. Now for 2,000 years we've been reading the letters that Paul wrote to this young man. Imagine if Paul had given up? Imagine if he had decided to skip Lystra on his second trip. After all, he wasn't very well received the first time.
The point is, don't quit. Failures are inevitable. Hardships are inevitable. But God is bigger than all of it.
I have probably read this book through more times than any other single book in the Bible. Each time I gain new insight. Each time I see a new element of the Gospel conveyed. I think the reason I like it so much, is that it is simply the story of real people living out their faith, and their calling.
I was impressed today by the story of when Barnabas and Paul went to Lystra, preached the gospel, healed a guy, and then the people of the city started saying that they were the gods come down in human form. Barnabas was Zeus, and Paul was Hermes. They almost sacrificed to them!
As weird as it may be, this passage encouraged me. It shows that even our best efforts at serving God, our most valiant attempts to please Him and to make Him known, sometimes go awry. Now, I've never had people try to worship me, but I have felt the frustration and disappointment that come with toiling in ministry, spending hours in prayer, and painstaking preparations, only to feel like it was all in vain, and that nothing worthwhile came out of it...
Of course, you're probably waiting for the silver lining in the story. The sad part is, that there isn't one. The story ends by the Jews convincing this crowd that Paul and Barnabas were bad, so they stoned Paul and left him for dead. What did they do next? They went home. The mission trip was over.
I have experienced what I consider to be some profound failures in my life and ministry. I'd be willing to bet that Paul would chalk this one up as a failure too.
The reality is that serving God isn't always rosy, it isn't always fun, and it doesn't always seem to work out. But Paul didn't quit. Not too much time passed before he decided to go back over all the cities he had previously visited, and see how the churches were doing. He went back to Lystra. He met a young guy named Timothy there. Now for 2,000 years we've been reading the letters that Paul wrote to this young man. Imagine if Paul had given up? Imagine if he had decided to skip Lystra on his second trip. After all, he wasn't very well received the first time.
The point is, don't quit. Failures are inevitable. Hardships are inevitable. But God is bigger than all of it.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Practicing God's Presence
A few simple thoughts...
As I read more of this book, and as I become more enamored with the principles it contains, I have realized a few things. First, as I have attempted to practice God's presence (more often than not, I fail to practice His presence), I have often felt like the annoying pet, constantly at the heels of his Master; or the child who keeps tugging at his father's shirt, ceaselessly seeking an audience. Brother Lawrence talks about remaining in "holy conversation" with God. I realize I don't know how to do that. I feel more like a nuisance than anything (though I know God does not see me as a nuisance). Perhaps on some level, this is part of that command to come to God like little children.
Another thing I've noticed, more negative than positive, is that Lawrence seemed utterly unconcerned for the world around him. He only cared to be in God's presence. This is a noble desire, but I think a greater desire would be to assist others in finding God's presence, specifically those who are currently without access to God through Christ. I guess this is a typical problem when you become a monk. Monks basically remove themselves from the world in order to wholly devote themselves to God. Noble, but misguided, I think. God wants us to be wholly devoted to Him, but to remain in the world, where that devotion could transform others.
So, I believe in the premises of this book: 1) that we are called to total, unceasing devotion to God; 2) that such devotion requires a great deal of grace from God; 3) that remaining in constant fellowship with God is the most efficient means of grace to that end.
I, now, would add that once we have attained that blissful state of "constant abiding," we need to take His presence into the world, to others. We need to take His grace, His power to a world that is desperate for Him. Better yet, we should practice both simultaneously. The one would feed the other. Our inward communion with God would foster a greater concern for the world around us, and give us greater access to the resources in God's storehouse. Conversely, the more we observe God at work in the world around us, the more we experience Him using us to transform others, the more we will be driven to those secret times with Him out of love.
As I read more of this book, and as I become more enamored with the principles it contains, I have realized a few things. First, as I have attempted to practice God's presence (more often than not, I fail to practice His presence), I have often felt like the annoying pet, constantly at the heels of his Master; or the child who keeps tugging at his father's shirt, ceaselessly seeking an audience. Brother Lawrence talks about remaining in "holy conversation" with God. I realize I don't know how to do that. I feel more like a nuisance than anything (though I know God does not see me as a nuisance). Perhaps on some level, this is part of that command to come to God like little children.
Another thing I've noticed, more negative than positive, is that Lawrence seemed utterly unconcerned for the world around him. He only cared to be in God's presence. This is a noble desire, but I think a greater desire would be to assist others in finding God's presence, specifically those who are currently without access to God through Christ. I guess this is a typical problem when you become a monk. Monks basically remove themselves from the world in order to wholly devote themselves to God. Noble, but misguided, I think. God wants us to be wholly devoted to Him, but to remain in the world, where that devotion could transform others.
So, I believe in the premises of this book: 1) that we are called to total, unceasing devotion to God; 2) that such devotion requires a great deal of grace from God; 3) that remaining in constant fellowship with God is the most efficient means of grace to that end.
I, now, would add that once we have attained that blissful state of "constant abiding," we need to take His presence into the world, to others. We need to take His grace, His power to a world that is desperate for Him. Better yet, we should practice both simultaneously. The one would feed the other. Our inward communion with God would foster a greater concern for the world around us, and give us greater access to the resources in God's storehouse. Conversely, the more we observe God at work in the world around us, the more we experience Him using us to transform others, the more we will be driven to those secret times with Him out of love.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The Practice of the Presence of God
So, I meant to keep a running blog to discuss this book. It hasn't happened. I'm into the last section of the book (called 'Discussions'). The previous section was several letters that Brother Lawrence had written to various people (usually Nuns - and even more usually one particular Nun).
I think I have enjoyed the letters the most, even though they were extremely redundant. He even talks about this redundancy saying that some people get annoyed with the fact that he never talks about anything else but the Presence of God. He says once, "If I were a preacher, I would preach nothing but the practice of the presence of God." But it is precisely this redundancy that I loved. Why? That basic principle of learning - repetition. I heard once that a study showed that you have to hear a thing 19 times before it is committed to memory. By the end of these letters, I feel that I fully understand what Brother Lawrence was getting at, and the methods he prescribed for attaining this kind of a life.
The first thing I noticed that he said over and over, was that he acquired this constant abiding with God, not through enormous spiritual exercises, fasting, etc., but through small, frequent acts of devotion. He even talks about how he had forsaken some of the more common spiritual disciplines (he doesn't specify, but I assume he means times of prayer, maybe), as he saw them as only a means to an end, and since he already was in God's presence, he didn't need them.
He frequently encourages the recipients of his letters to turn to God frequently throughout the day, remember His presence, say a few words like "God, I am wholly yours," or "I desire nothing but You." He doesn't give any sort of scripted prayers, only instructs that a few words be spoken "that love will produce."
He also encourages that small prayers be lifted up before the beginning of any activity - whether it be chores, daily work, meals, even before spiritual exercises like prayer, or Bible reading. In this way, he teaches the Practice of the Presence of God. These moments of turning inward are the practice, these are the difficult part, these are things that require discipline.
-----
He makes another frequent statement that caught my attention. He says that we should never pray for God to relieve our suffering, but instead to give us the strength to endure it. In other words, we should never pray, "God get me out of this!" but instead, "God get me through this!" I think this is powerful. We Americans hate feeling uncomfortable. We have all turned into the princess in the "Princess and the Pea," story. The slightest bit of discomfort makes us squirm. But imagine how much character we would gain if we learned to patiently endure our sufferings. Isn't that what the Bible tells us to do anyway?
I think I have enjoyed the letters the most, even though they were extremely redundant. He even talks about this redundancy saying that some people get annoyed with the fact that he never talks about anything else but the Presence of God. He says once, "If I were a preacher, I would preach nothing but the practice of the presence of God." But it is precisely this redundancy that I loved. Why? That basic principle of learning - repetition. I heard once that a study showed that you have to hear a thing 19 times before it is committed to memory. By the end of these letters, I feel that I fully understand what Brother Lawrence was getting at, and the methods he prescribed for attaining this kind of a life.
The first thing I noticed that he said over and over, was that he acquired this constant abiding with God, not through enormous spiritual exercises, fasting, etc., but through small, frequent acts of devotion. He even talks about how he had forsaken some of the more common spiritual disciplines (he doesn't specify, but I assume he means times of prayer, maybe), as he saw them as only a means to an end, and since he already was in God's presence, he didn't need them.
He frequently encourages the recipients of his letters to turn to God frequently throughout the day, remember His presence, say a few words like "God, I am wholly yours," or "I desire nothing but You." He doesn't give any sort of scripted prayers, only instructs that a few words be spoken "that love will produce."
He also encourages that small prayers be lifted up before the beginning of any activity - whether it be chores, daily work, meals, even before spiritual exercises like prayer, or Bible reading. In this way, he teaches the Practice of the Presence of God. These moments of turning inward are the practice, these are the difficult part, these are things that require discipline.
-----
He makes another frequent statement that caught my attention. He says that we should never pray for God to relieve our suffering, but instead to give us the strength to endure it. In other words, we should never pray, "God get me out of this!" but instead, "God get me through this!" I think this is powerful. We Americans hate feeling uncomfortable. We have all turned into the princess in the "Princess and the Pea," story. The slightest bit of discomfort makes us squirm. But imagine how much character we would gain if we learned to patiently endure our sufferings. Isn't that what the Bible tells us to do anyway?
Saturday, August 16, 2008
More on the Prosperity Gospel
I read something interesting in Luke today. In Luke 12:15, Jesus says, "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." Then only a few verses later, starting in verse 22, Jesus goes on to say how we shouldn't be anxious about the things we need; that God will supply our needs if we seek His kingdom first.
Proponents of the prosperity gospel tend to start with, "God will supply all my needs," and quickly move to, "God will give me the things I want." But here, Jesus begins with a warning against the danger of covetousness, and then assures His people that God will take care of them. Interesting
Proponents of the prosperity gospel tend to start with, "God will supply all my needs," and quickly move to, "God will give me the things I want." But here, Jesus begins with a warning against the danger of covetousness, and then assures His people that God will take care of them. Interesting
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Can You Lose Your Salvation?
Yes.
Now that you know my opinion, allow me to share the reasons why I believe this to be the correct answer.
I am tempted to quibble over the word ‘lose,’ here. Part of me really dislikes that word because it feels too passive – almost like it’s saying that you can lose your salvation like you lose your car keys. I don’t believe that the Bible teaches this. However, I do believe it is possible to forfeit your salvation, or become disqualified. I believe that this can happen either through blatantly rejecting the truth, or through negligence. So, here’s my new title:
Can YouLose Forfeit Your Salvation?
The issue ultimately comes down to a question of God's sovereignty. Those who purport that it is impossible for a true child of God to ever fall away from Christ, come to that conclusion through a series of theological ideas and presuppositions. Here are at least a few of them:
First. God is sovereign. God's sovereignty is His absolute right, and absolute power to do anything He wants. Absolute power means that there is nothing outside of His ability. He created the universe with His word, and so for Him to modify that universe in some way, great or small, is nothing. Absolute right means that He is completely justified in whatever He does, even if we don't understand the reasons. If I were to so choose, I could go outside right now and take a baseball bat to my car, and beat the crap out of it. Even though it seems bizarre, even unthinkable that I would do this, it remains my right to do so if I choose. Why? Because it's MY car. The universe and all it contains belong to God alone. Therefore He is completely justified in whatever He chooses to do with it. That is the simple definition of "sovereignty," as it pertains to God.
Second. Every true believer was "predestined," or "elected" for salvation based on God's sovereignty. This simply means that God, long before we ever existed, essentially made a predetermined choice that we would be part of His kingdom. This is Biblical. Read Ephesians 1. However, where most Calvinists then make a leap, is in saying that His sovereignty overrides our free will. That, essentially, we would not have ever chosen God unless He had made us choose Him. This is actually part of their core theology. Calvinism uses the acronym TULIP to help define their doctrines. The "T" of TULIP stands for "Total depravity." This means that we are so fallen, so wretched, so sinful in our minds that we could never come to a place of accepting the Gospel without direct intervention from God. Second, the "I" of TULIP stands for "Irresistible grace." This means that when God calls a person, they will be unable to resist His calling.
I disagree with these conclusions. I do believe that we are totally depraved, but not so much that we are incapable of choosing or comprehending God! I believe that God put within man an innate understanding of His existence, "that we might feel after Him," (Acts 17:27). I believe that God presents to us the choice of following Him, and then the ball's in our court. In other words, I believe in the value and reality of human free will, and I think it is something God created...
The real issue is not whether God is sovereign or not. The real issue is: If God is truly sovereign, is man truly free? It's a profound question, and it can get you all twisted up in your thinking if you're not careful. Here's my humble solution.
I believe it is a misunderstanding to think that God's sovereignty demands a kind of micro-managing of the universe. That every drop of rain that falls, every gust of wind, every human encounter, every choice, is something directly and specifically influenced by God so that there could not have been any other outcome. Yet, I think on some level this is what Calvinism demands. That God's sovereignty means that nothing ever happens that God didn't directly intend to happen. The only problem with this, is that we know it to be false! Through scripture, and through life experiences, we observe a world that is truly fallen and depraved. Every day, people are doing things that offend God. The Bible says that sinful people are "storing up for themselves wrath against the day of wrath." God's anger is building toward sin, and one day His full wrath will break forth upon this wicked world, and wash all sin away. In fact, that's an even easier way to explain it - the existence of SIN proves that God's creation is not under a tyrannical, exacting sovereignty. We all do things that God would rather we not do, and yet He remains sovereign. How?
Think of it in mathematical terms. Calvinism sort of demands that God's sovereignty be a simple equation, like,
One of those 'variables' is human free will. The equation still equals 1, (i.e. God is still sovereign) but it's not so simple as we would think. In God's sovereignty (His absolute right, and absolute power to do anything), He created a race of people who have the power to make choices, either for good or bad - without consulting God first! God created a race of people who could make choices against Him, and against His will. Even though this must create an unimaginable divine frustration, it places such an incredible dignity on every human, that it is almost unthinkable. God, who is able if He so desires, to sway the will of every one of His creatures; who could have, if He so chose, created a race that was utterly obedient, decided instead to create a race with the capacity for disobedience, sin, malice. He created a race so endowed with free will that people could actually choose to become atheists, to deny the one truth that binds the whole universe together! For more on choice see my other blog on Choice.
Here's the other thing. On top of His sovereignty, God is omniscient. This means, quite simply, that there is nothing outside of the realm of God's knowledge. Not even the future. God has perfect knowledge of everything, with intimate detail. Jesus told us that God knows the number of hairs on our heads (Matt. 10:29-31). The Bible also says that God knows the number of the stars in the sky, and has a name for each one (Psalm 147:4). It is utterly impossible for us to understand this attribute of God. Everything God does is based on this ultimate knowledge of all things, past, present and future.
This means that before He ever said, "Let there be light," He could see, with perfect clarity, the whole of human history. He saw Abraham, Joseph, and Moses and Jesus, and Paul; He saw the crusades, He saw Luther nail his 95 theses to the church door. And God saw me. Insignificant me. And He knew me perfectly, even then. God knew that when the Gospel would be presented to me, I would embrace it, and I would love Him. He knew all of that long before He said, "Let there be light." THIS is the basis of predestination...
The key question for those who try and teach hardcore predestination, is this: "Is the election arbitrary?" In other words, was God simply playing a cosmic game of "Eeny, meeny, miny, mo" when He chose me? Or was there some sort of rational, sensible selection process. Well, the Bible tells us in 1Peter 1:1-2.
PS - I recognize that I didn't actually get to the idea of 'losing your salvation.' Maybe in another blog.
Now that you know my opinion, allow me to share the reasons why I believe this to be the correct answer.
I am tempted to quibble over the word ‘lose,’ here. Part of me really dislikes that word because it feels too passive – almost like it’s saying that you can lose your salvation like you lose your car keys. I don’t believe that the Bible teaches this. However, I do believe it is possible to forfeit your salvation, or become disqualified. I believe that this can happen either through blatantly rejecting the truth, or through negligence. So, here’s my new title:
Can You
The issue ultimately comes down to a question of God's sovereignty. Those who purport that it is impossible for a true child of God to ever fall away from Christ, come to that conclusion through a series of theological ideas and presuppositions. Here are at least a few of them:
First. God is sovereign. God's sovereignty is His absolute right, and absolute power to do anything He wants. Absolute power means that there is nothing outside of His ability. He created the universe with His word, and so for Him to modify that universe in some way, great or small, is nothing. Absolute right means that He is completely justified in whatever He does, even if we don't understand the reasons. If I were to so choose, I could go outside right now and take a baseball bat to my car, and beat the crap out of it. Even though it seems bizarre, even unthinkable that I would do this, it remains my right to do so if I choose. Why? Because it's MY car. The universe and all it contains belong to God alone. Therefore He is completely justified in whatever He chooses to do with it. That is the simple definition of "sovereignty," as it pertains to God.
Second. Every true believer was "predestined," or "elected" for salvation based on God's sovereignty. This simply means that God, long before we ever existed, essentially made a predetermined choice that we would be part of His kingdom. This is Biblical. Read Ephesians 1. However, where most Calvinists then make a leap, is in saying that His sovereignty overrides our free will. That, essentially, we would not have ever chosen God unless He had made us choose Him. This is actually part of their core theology. Calvinism uses the acronym TULIP to help define their doctrines. The "T" of TULIP stands for "Total depravity." This means that we are so fallen, so wretched, so sinful in our minds that we could never come to a place of accepting the Gospel without direct intervention from God. Second, the "I" of TULIP stands for "Irresistible grace." This means that when God calls a person, they will be unable to resist His calling.
I disagree with these conclusions. I do believe that we are totally depraved, but not so much that we are incapable of choosing or comprehending God! I believe that God put within man an innate understanding of His existence, "that we might feel after Him," (Acts 17:27). I believe that God presents to us the choice of following Him, and then the ball's in our court. In other words, I believe in the value and reality of human free will, and I think it is something God created...
The real issue is not whether God is sovereign or not. The real issue is: If God is truly sovereign, is man truly free? It's a profound question, and it can get you all twisted up in your thinking if you're not careful. Here's my humble solution.
I believe it is a misunderstanding to think that God's sovereignty demands a kind of micro-managing of the universe. That every drop of rain that falls, every gust of wind, every human encounter, every choice, is something directly and specifically influenced by God so that there could not have been any other outcome. Yet, I think on some level this is what Calvinism demands. That God's sovereignty means that nothing ever happens that God didn't directly intend to happen. The only problem with this, is that we know it to be false! Through scripture, and through life experiences, we observe a world that is truly fallen and depraved. Every day, people are doing things that offend God. The Bible says that sinful people are "storing up for themselves wrath against the day of wrath." God's anger is building toward sin, and one day His full wrath will break forth upon this wicked world, and wash all sin away. In fact, that's an even easier way to explain it - the existence of SIN proves that God's creation is not under a tyrannical, exacting sovereignty. We all do things that God would rather we not do, and yet He remains sovereign. How?
Think of it in mathematical terms. Calvinism sort of demands that God's sovereignty be a simple equation, like,
1 = 1.
But the reality is that there are many variables in this equation.2x + 3(x - 5y + 6) = 1.
One of those 'variables' is human free will. The equation still equals 1, (i.e. God is still sovereign) but it's not so simple as we would think. In God's sovereignty (His absolute right, and absolute power to do anything), He created a race of people who have the power to make choices, either for good or bad - without consulting God first! God created a race of people who could make choices against Him, and against His will. Even though this must create an unimaginable divine frustration, it places such an incredible dignity on every human, that it is almost unthinkable. God, who is able if He so desires, to sway the will of every one of His creatures; who could have, if He so chose, created a race that was utterly obedient, decided instead to create a race with the capacity for disobedience, sin, malice. He created a race so endowed with free will that people could actually choose to become atheists, to deny the one truth that binds the whole universe together! For more on choice see my other blog on Choice.
Here's the other thing. On top of His sovereignty, God is omniscient. This means, quite simply, that there is nothing outside of the realm of God's knowledge. Not even the future. God has perfect knowledge of everything, with intimate detail. Jesus told us that God knows the number of hairs on our heads (Matt. 10:29-31). The Bible also says that God knows the number of the stars in the sky, and has a name for each one (Psalm 147:4). It is utterly impossible for us to understand this attribute of God. Everything God does is based on this ultimate knowledge of all things, past, present and future.
This means that before He ever said, "Let there be light," He could see, with perfect clarity, the whole of human history. He saw Abraham, Joseph, and Moses and Jesus, and Paul; He saw the crusades, He saw Luther nail his 95 theses to the church door. And God saw me. Insignificant me. And He knew me perfectly, even then. God knew that when the Gospel would be presented to me, I would embrace it, and I would love Him. He knew all of that long before He said, "Let there be light." THIS is the basis of predestination...
The key question for those who try and teach hardcore predestination, is this: "Is the election arbitrary?" In other words, was God simply playing a cosmic game of "Eeny, meeny, miny, mo" when He chose me? Or was there some sort of rational, sensible selection process. Well, the Bible tells us in 1Peter 1:1-2.
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,Notice those two important words - according to. Those two little words say a lot. They tell us that our election was in fact not arbitrary. It was based on God foreknowledge, God's perfect understanding of all things that will ever happen. He looked through time, saw those who would embrace the Gospel message (though anyone could have), and sort of 'marked' those who would accept Christ. If we understand election this way, than the idea that some are elected to salvation (based on His foreknowledge) and some are elected to judgment (also based on His foreknowledge) is not so difficult a concept to accept. No one's free will is violated, and neither is God's sovereignty. It's win - win...win.
To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
PS - I recognize that I didn't actually get to the idea of 'losing your salvation.' Maybe in another blog.
Monday, August 11, 2008
A Rant
Recently I was at a church where I heard the prosperity doctrine preached. It disturbed me. I honestly just cannot understand how people are able to buy that crap! I have no problem with someone believing God to meet their financial needs (God knows I have done a lot of that in the past few months!). What I have a problem with, is the doctrine that basically says that the manifestation of a godly life, or a life of faith, is the presence of wealth in the life of the believer. This preacher actually tried to teach that "prosperity" was part of the atonement. He taught that when Jesus died on the cross, he was stripped of every possession, and in this was was made "poor." Then he quoted 2 Cor. 8:9, "...that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich."
To be fair, the context is talking about money and giving, etc. However, Paul never makes the leap to say that we are guaranteed wealth because of the cross!!! He is urging this church to give financially, and he uses the churches of Macedonia as an example, saying that they basically made themselves poor by "giving beyond their means." And THIS is the context in which Paul uses Christ as the ultimate example of making Himself poor for the sake of others. He wasn't preaching that Christ will make us rich!! He was preaching that we should follow Christ's example of impoverishing ourselves in order to bless others! What a beautiful scripture, and how horrible it is made by those who preach this filth!!
Furthermore, I nowhere does this verse say that Christ gave up his wealth on the cross! I think the clear interpretation would be that He was rich in heaven, but gave up the wealth of heaven when He came to earth. Why do I think this is the accurate interpretation? Because other scriptures back it up...
Philippians 2:6-8
Amateurs.
To be fair, the context is talking about money and giving, etc. However, Paul never makes the leap to say that we are guaranteed wealth because of the cross!!! He is urging this church to give financially, and he uses the churches of Macedonia as an example, saying that they basically made themselves poor by "giving beyond their means." And THIS is the context in which Paul uses Christ as the ultimate example of making Himself poor for the sake of others. He wasn't preaching that Christ will make us rich!! He was preaching that we should follow Christ's example of impoverishing ourselves in order to bless others! What a beautiful scripture, and how horrible it is made by those who preach this filth!!
Furthermore, I nowhere does this verse say that Christ gave up his wealth on the cross! I think the clear interpretation would be that He was rich in heaven, but gave up the wealth of heaven when He came to earth. Why do I think this is the accurate interpretation? Because other scriptures back it up...
Philippians 2:6-8
Amateurs.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Spiritual Maxims - #2
"We must keep our eyes fixed on God in everything we say, do or undertake. Our goal is to be the most perfect adorers of God in this life as we hope to be throughout all eternity. We must make a firm resolution to overcome, with God's grace, all the difficulties inherent in the spiritual life."Here is paragraph two of Brother Lawerence's Spiritual Maxims. Of all the various points he makes in this chapter, I think this one both makes the most sense, and best sums up all the others.
First, "We must keep our eyes fixed on God in everything..." I think a great scripture to illustrate this is Colossians 3:1-2. It reminds us to constantly be seeking those things which are above, instead of being constantly distracted by those things which are below. Here, Brother Lawrence, wisely, does not say that in doing this we should cease doing the earthly tasks we are charged with, but rather that in them, we should have our minds steadfastly fixed on God. Whether at work, at home, or whatever, we should maintain a constant awareness of God's very real presence with us.
Second (and my personal favorite), "Our goal is to be the most perfect adorers of God in this life as we hope to be throughout all eternity." Psalm 27. Psalm 84. David said that he only had one thing to ask of the Lord - that he could dwell in His courts forever and gaze upon His beauty. In other words, the one thing David craved more than anything, was Presence. He wanted to be WITH God always, face-to-face. I wish that my ONE desire was that. And yet, this is what Practicing the Presence of God is all about. It is about coming to a place where the awareness of God permeates your life in every area, from the mundane to the magnificent.
The thing that really catches me is that word "adorer." I want to be an "adorer" of God. I'm not sure I even know how exactly to adore anything! When I hear the word "adore," my mind immediately goes to ponytailed girls in circa 1950's poodle skirts, swooning over the High School quarterback as he walks by in his letter jacket...Why? I don't know. As bizarre as it may seem, I don't think that image is so far off the mark. Shouldn't we sort of "swoon," in a spiritual sense, in God's presence? Shouldn't we be so distracted when He "walks by" that everything else sort of fades away, and our eyes are fixated on Him? Weird, I know. I never want to become complacent about God's presence! I want to be awed by Him as often as possible. I want to "gaze upon His beauty all the days of my life."
The one last thing that stuck out to me in this was how he made reference to us being "the most perfect adorers of God in this life as we hope to be throughout all eternity." The idea is profound. Think about how you will worship God in heaven...Think about how fixated you will be. Think about how nothing will be able to distract you from His glory. Think of the love you will feel. That's how we ought to be now - or at least, it ought to be our goal to be like that now.
Let's be perfect adorers of God today!
The Conquest of the Soul
This is an old teaching that I came up with years ago, but was reminded of today in my Bible reading. The reminder came from Deut. 7:22, "The Lord your God will clear away these nations before you little by little. You may not make an end of them at once..."
The wandering nation of Israel has been traipsing through the wilderness for forty years, and here they gather, at the banks of the Jordan river ready to cross over and inherit the land which they have been hearing about since the day they left Egypt a generation ago. This land was God's promise to them. God has told them that He would give them this land, and yet here He tells them, essentially, that the fulfillment of this promise will be a long, arduous and difficult task. If God wanted to, He could just pull a "Sodom and Gomorrah" on these nations, and burn them up with fire and brimstone from heaven. But He doesn't. The Israelites will have to fight. They will have to obtain the promise "little by little." One victory at a time. Sounds a lot like life...
The Conquest of the Soul is a teaching I developed (but yet have never actually taught) that discusses, from a theological perspective, this very idea, using the Israelite's Conquest of Canaan as a backdrop. In a very real way, we are at war every day against the influences of the world, against the devil, and against ourselves to obtain the promise of God. We are "working out our own salvation," day by day, painstakingly, to obtain the fulness of the salvation which God has promised. Our victory is sure, so long as we keep our eyes on Jesus, so long as we do things God's way. But despite the "sureness" of our victory, we will still have to fight.
One of the more famous verses from the book of Joshua (the book that chronicles the Conquest of Canaan), is this: "Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, just as I promised to Moses." (Josh. 1:3). We Christians love quoting this verse. It makes victory sound easy doesn't it. "Just walk on it, and it's yours!" However, looking at the Hebrew puts a new spin on it...
daw·rak is the Hebrew word which in many places is translated, "bend the bow," as in "bow-and-arrow." Thus the idea of "treading" here doesn't mean "walk," but more like "war march." Thus, "wherever your foot marches to war, I will give you," is a more complete interpretation.
So, God's command to Israel was not to "walk around" and "claim" the land, but rather to "go to war" and "conquer" the land. The first is passive, the second active. It is the same in our lives. It is foolishness to look at the defeated areas of our lives and assume that we can just "claim the victory." If there are "enemies in your land," you've got to "drive them out"! You've got to go to war!! You've got to do some treading!!
Okay, that's a good introduction. More to come!
The wandering nation of Israel has been traipsing through the wilderness for forty years, and here they gather, at the banks of the Jordan river ready to cross over and inherit the land which they have been hearing about since the day they left Egypt a generation ago. This land was God's promise to them. God has told them that He would give them this land, and yet here He tells them, essentially, that the fulfillment of this promise will be a long, arduous and difficult task. If God wanted to, He could just pull a "Sodom and Gomorrah" on these nations, and burn them up with fire and brimstone from heaven. But He doesn't. The Israelites will have to fight. They will have to obtain the promise "little by little." One victory at a time. Sounds a lot like life...
The Conquest of the Soul is a teaching I developed (but yet have never actually taught) that discusses, from a theological perspective, this very idea, using the Israelite's Conquest of Canaan as a backdrop. In a very real way, we are at war every day against the influences of the world, against the devil, and against ourselves to obtain the promise of God. We are "working out our own salvation," day by day, painstakingly, to obtain the fulness of the salvation which God has promised. Our victory is sure, so long as we keep our eyes on Jesus, so long as we do things God's way. But despite the "sureness" of our victory, we will still have to fight.
One of the more famous verses from the book of Joshua (the book that chronicles the Conquest of Canaan), is this: "Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, just as I promised to Moses." (Josh. 1:3). We Christians love quoting this verse. It makes victory sound easy doesn't it. "Just walk on it, and it's yours!" However, looking at the Hebrew puts a new spin on it...
daw·rak is the Hebrew word which in many places is translated, "bend the bow," as in "bow-and-arrow." Thus the idea of "treading" here doesn't mean "walk," but more like "war march." Thus, "wherever your foot marches to war, I will give you," is a more complete interpretation.
So, God's command to Israel was not to "walk around" and "claim" the land, but rather to "go to war" and "conquer" the land. The first is passive, the second active. It is the same in our lives. It is foolishness to look at the defeated areas of our lives and assume that we can just "claim the victory." If there are "enemies in your land," you've got to "drive them out"! You've got to go to war!! You've got to do some treading!!
Okay, that's a good introduction. More to come!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Worship is like...sex?
I've been thinking a lot about worship lately. Mainly because I've been doing a lot more of it recently. I have been experiencing a wonderful closeness with God lately that I can hardly explain. It's like a switch got turned on, or something. I feel that sort of panting after God that Psalm 42 talks about. I've been reading my Bible a lot more, I've been praying more, and from my heart. I'm experiencing those random moments where I just have to stop for a second to praise Him under my breath for His goodness. It's truly wonderful.
Scott basically called me a girl because I suggested that he sing "Lovely Are Your Dwellingplaces" by Hillsong at church, in which the chorus just repeats, "I love You, I love You, I love You." He's right. It is sappy. But I feel sappy lately. I go before God and all I want to do is pour my heart out in love. I just want to be with Him.
So there's the backdrop. That's why I've been thinking about worship lately...
About a week ago I started thinking about how many churches have become unhealthy in their worship. The most obvious way that congregational worship becomes unhealthy, is with a loss of passion or zeal in worship (perhaps the church never had it in the first place!). But that one's obvious. I was more thinking about the churches that maintained a sense of passion, but a sort of false, or better, misplaced passion. I've been to many churches where the people saw the worship service as an opportunity to receive some blessing from God. This sounds alright on the surface, but is that really to be our focus in worship?? Should we sing and lift our hands in order to somehow persuade God to give us some blessing? Isn't worship supposed to be our response to God for the blessings He has already given?! This thought changed my worship. I began offering myself to God without any expectation of blessing or a sense of His presence. It was my offering to Him. It was a sacrifice. To be sure, I think this is a better approach to worship than a "gimme" approach. Then I read this blog...
In it, this worship leader talked about his distaste for the "Audience of One" theology, because he thought that the idea of God as a "passive recipient" of our worship was incorrect. I am inclined to agree. This of course challenged my thinking. As mature as I thought I was being in my "sacrificial" worship, I realized that it still placed God as being the "audience" of my worship. I was performing, He was spectating. Here is where he introduced the idea that the Bible shows worship to be more like...sex.
As risque as this may seem, he supported it with scripture.
Obviously, sex is a physical act, and worship a spiritual one - so hopefully that clears up a lot of the potential weirdness for you right there. But think of the parallels. Sex is beautiful (when it is between married partners). It is as intimate an encounter as two humans could ever have. It is the ultimate expression of human love, for which there is no equal. Isn't our worship sort of like that? In what other act or expression is more love, devotion, passion, or intimacy toward God shown than when we surrender ourselves to Him in worship?? But here's the concept that really sold it for me...
If we view worship like sex (it's weird for me too, so relax), then the image of God as a spectator vanishes. God becomes a participant in our worship. We give, and God gives. We receive, and God receives. When we worship, we enjoy each other in an intimate spiritual exchange. It's beautiful. Thus worship is less like me preforming for God, and more like me inviting Him to an passionate encounter (or rather, I am responding to His invitation). It's wonderful.
My worship has changed again. Now I expect God to show up. I invite Him. I enjoy Him, and I delight in the knowledge that He is enjoying me as well.
It may be risque, but until a more perfect explanation comes around, I'm running with it.
Scott basically called me a girl because I suggested that he sing "Lovely Are Your Dwellingplaces" by Hillsong at church, in which the chorus just repeats, "I love You, I love You, I love You." He's right. It is sappy. But I feel sappy lately. I go before God and all I want to do is pour my heart out in love. I just want to be with Him.
So there's the backdrop. That's why I've been thinking about worship lately...
About a week ago I started thinking about how many churches have become unhealthy in their worship. The most obvious way that congregational worship becomes unhealthy, is with a loss of passion or zeal in worship (perhaps the church never had it in the first place!). But that one's obvious. I was more thinking about the churches that maintained a sense of passion, but a sort of false, or better, misplaced passion. I've been to many churches where the people saw the worship service as an opportunity to receive some blessing from God. This sounds alright on the surface, but is that really to be our focus in worship?? Should we sing and lift our hands in order to somehow persuade God to give us some blessing? Isn't worship supposed to be our response to God for the blessings He has already given?! This thought changed my worship. I began offering myself to God without any expectation of blessing or a sense of His presence. It was my offering to Him. It was a sacrifice. To be sure, I think this is a better approach to worship than a "gimme" approach. Then I read this blog...
In it, this worship leader talked about his distaste for the "Audience of One" theology, because he thought that the idea of God as a "passive recipient" of our worship was incorrect. I am inclined to agree. This of course challenged my thinking. As mature as I thought I was being in my "sacrificial" worship, I realized that it still placed God as being the "audience" of my worship. I was performing, He was spectating. Here is where he introduced the idea that the Bible shows worship to be more like...sex.
As risque as this may seem, he supported it with scripture.
1 Cor. 6:16-17 - "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two shall become one flesh.' But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him."
Eph. 5:31-32 - " 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."These, the book of Hosea, Song of Solomon, as well as countless times in scripture where God refers to worshiping other gods as "adultery," or "whoring after other gods," show that there is some truth to the idea that worship is somehow symbolized in sex.
Obviously, sex is a physical act, and worship a spiritual one - so hopefully that clears up a lot of the potential weirdness for you right there. But think of the parallels. Sex is beautiful (when it is between married partners). It is as intimate an encounter as two humans could ever have. It is the ultimate expression of human love, for which there is no equal. Isn't our worship sort of like that? In what other act or expression is more love, devotion, passion, or intimacy toward God shown than when we surrender ourselves to Him in worship?? But here's the concept that really sold it for me...
If we view worship like sex (it's weird for me too, so relax), then the image of God as a spectator vanishes. God becomes a participant in our worship. We give, and God gives. We receive, and God receives. When we worship, we enjoy each other in an intimate spiritual exchange. It's beautiful. Thus worship is less like me preforming for God, and more like me inviting Him to an passionate encounter (or rather, I am responding to His invitation). It's wonderful.
My worship has changed again. Now I expect God to show up. I invite Him. I enjoy Him, and I delight in the knowledge that He is enjoying me as well.
It may be risque, but until a more perfect explanation comes around, I'm running with it.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Practice of the Presence of God - Spiritual Maxims
The first section of this book is titled, "Spiritual Maxims," and the paragraphs are numbered. I guess I'll just start with #1.
Lawrence then ties this scripture with 1Cor. 13:13, with "faith" as the obvious pivot point. I'm not completely convinced that there is a clear logical connection between these two passages. I think that Lawrence's statement is true, only if you slightly modify the definition of "everything" for each of the individual virtues. I think that moving mountains is a thing which faith can accomplish, not so much love, or hope. Yet there are also things which only hope can accomplish, likewise love. I believe his emphasis is mostly on the fact that these three virtues are given the greatest preeminence in scripture, and thus we ought to strive to excel in these above all others. Perhaps he is trying to communicate that if the least of the three virtues can accomplish the moving of mountains, imagine what the greatest of the three could accomplish!
------
The other thing that stood out to me was this: "All the baptized who are true believers..." Lawrence was Catholic, and it is interesting that he would acknowledge that some might be baptized who were not true believers. I think they just got the process backwards. We really shouldn't baptize people unless we are convinced that they are true believers.
That's paragraph one. The primary spiritual maxim herein contained:
Persevere in the practice of faith, of hope, and of love and all things will be possible for you, for God will smile upon you.
"1. Everything is possible for one who believes, still more for one who hopes, even more for one who loves, and most of all for one who practices and perseveres in these three virtues. All the baptized who are true believers have taken the first step along the way of perfection and will become perfect as long as they persevere in the practice of the following maxims."The first phrase, "Everything is possible to one who believes," comes from Mark 9:23, where Jesus tells his disciples that if they would simply believe, they could move mountains. He then kind of melds 1Corinthians 13:13 into this idea - "So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." It seems he must have thought something like this.
"Paul says that love is the greatest of these three virtues, and it stands to reason that the second in the list is second greatest. So if all things are possible to the one who practices faith, than it must also be true of the one who practices these greater virtues..."First of all, Jesus is not saying in Mark 9:23, "If you have faith in the mountain, you can move it." Neither is Jesus saying, "If you have faith in yourself, you can move a mountain." Nor as many postmoderns would say, "If you have faith - in anything! OR IN NOTHING!" Jesus is obviously preaching faith in THE ONE TRUE GOD to perform the impossible. Thus, the one who completely trusts in the power of God, can with God, accomplish anything. If only we really believed that scripture!
Lawrence then ties this scripture with 1Cor. 13:13, with "faith" as the obvious pivot point. I'm not completely convinced that there is a clear logical connection between these two passages. I think that Lawrence's statement is true, only if you slightly modify the definition of "everything" for each of the individual virtues. I think that moving mountains is a thing which faith can accomplish, not so much love, or hope. Yet there are also things which only hope can accomplish, likewise love. I believe his emphasis is mostly on the fact that these three virtues are given the greatest preeminence in scripture, and thus we ought to strive to excel in these above all others. Perhaps he is trying to communicate that if the least of the three virtues can accomplish the moving of mountains, imagine what the greatest of the three could accomplish!
------
The other thing that stood out to me was this: "All the baptized who are true believers..." Lawrence was Catholic, and it is interesting that he would acknowledge that some might be baptized who were not true believers. I think they just got the process backwards. We really shouldn't baptize people unless we are convinced that they are true believers.
That's paragraph one. The primary spiritual maxim herein contained:
Persevere in the practice of faith, of hope, and of love and all things will be possible for you, for God will smile upon you.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The "Younger Brother" Theme
Okay, so I finished reading Genesis yesterday using my "Intensive" Bible reading plan (which I am absolutely LOVING, by the way). An interesting pattern stood out to me. It is one I have seen before, but was reminded of again this time around.
Let me set this up just a little. As most Christians know, Hebrew culture places a large emphasis on the "firstborn son." The firstborn son is the heir, he is the head of the family once the patriarch dies, etc. However, despite this very clear cultural idiom, it seems that over and over, especially in Genesis, God by His sovereign will chooses the younger son over the elder. Some quick examples:
All right, let's dig a little deeper. Another element that is fascinating about this, is that in none of these scenarios is the younger son somehow more worthy of God's favor, or of divine blessing. Though many have tried to explain it, I see nothing to indicate why Abel's sacrifice was accepted, and Cain's not, except for the fact that God simply decided that it would be so. Ishmael and Isaac are maybe a little easier to figure out, but still it had nothing to do with the virtue or worthiness of Isaac that he was chosen. Jacob was actually less worthy than Esau, since he tricked his older brother out of both his birthright and blessing by deceit (yet this outcome had been foretold before they were even born!). And again, with the story of Manasseh and Ephraim, Jacob, seemingly led by divine impulse, crossed his hands and blessed the younger with the "right hand" blessing instead of the elder . Thus, time and time again the younger brother receives the blessing that should have been given to the elder, and he receives it, not through his own merit, but by God's grace alone.
Paul deals with one of these stories in Galatians 4:21-31 (you should read it on your own). In it, he essentially presents an allegorical/typological interpretation of the story, comparing these two mothers and their children with the two covenants. God made a promise to Abraham that he would have a son by Sarah. When the promise lingered, Abraham attempted to fulfill the promise with Hagar. A son was indeed born, but not according to the promise. In this allegorical sense, Ismael was a child of the flesh, a child begotten by human works. Whereas Isaac was simply a gift received through grace. Do you catch the parallel?
The first covenant was a covenant of Law - of works. The second a covenant of grace - of Promise. There is not one thing that a person can do to earn Christ's salvation or to procure it for himself; he must simply receive it as a gift from God's hand. He must believe the Promise of God - as Abraham did - if he is to be made righteous.
So I've come to recognize that any time there is a clear pattern in scripture, there is usually some sort of prophetic message that God is trying to communicate through it. With this younger-over-elder-son pattern, I believe that God is communicating a truth about the two covenants he has made with man. The covenants are like two brothers, and the younger is the accepted brother.
Like Cain and Abel, the sacrifices of the younger brother are accepted over that of the elder. And the elder despises and persecutes the younger.
Like Ishmael and Isaac, the younger brother was begotten by promise, not by works.
Like Esau and Jacob, the younger brother, by grace, receives the favor of God, despite the fact that he is far more sinful and far less deserving of it. Again the older brother despises the younger because he is favored (but they ultimately experience reconciliation - another prophetic message?).
Like Manasseh and Ephraim, God disrupted the natural course and "crossed his hands," so-to-speak, to bless the younger over the elder.
What an awesome God we serve! How awesome is His word! How grateful we should be day-by-day that He has saved us by His grace!!!
Well, I'm off to church...
Let me set this up just a little. As most Christians know, Hebrew culture places a large emphasis on the "firstborn son." The firstborn son is the heir, he is the head of the family once the patriarch dies, etc. However, despite this very clear cultural idiom, it seems that over and over, especially in Genesis, God by His sovereign will chooses the younger son over the elder. Some quick examples:
- Cain and Abel. Gen. 4:1-5
- Ishmael and Isaac. Gen. 17:15-19
- Esau and Jacob. Gen. 25:23
- Manasseh and Ephraim. Gen. 48 :12-14
All right, let's dig a little deeper. Another element that is fascinating about this, is that in none of these scenarios is the younger son somehow more worthy of God's favor, or of divine blessing. Though many have tried to explain it, I see nothing to indicate why Abel's sacrifice was accepted, and Cain's not, except for the fact that God simply decided that it would be so. Ishmael and Isaac are maybe a little easier to figure out, but still it had nothing to do with the virtue or worthiness of Isaac that he was chosen. Jacob was actually less worthy than Esau, since he tricked his older brother out of both his birthright and blessing by deceit (yet this outcome had been foretold before they were even born!). And again, with the story of Manasseh and Ephraim, Jacob, seemingly led by divine impulse, crossed his hands and blessed the younger with the "right hand" blessing instead of the elder . Thus, time and time again the younger brother receives the blessing that should have been given to the elder, and he receives it, not through his own merit, but by God's grace alone.
Paul deals with one of these stories in Galatians 4:21-31 (you should read it on your own). In it, he essentially presents an allegorical/typological interpretation of the story, comparing these two mothers and their children with the two covenants. God made a promise to Abraham that he would have a son by Sarah. When the promise lingered, Abraham attempted to fulfill the promise with Hagar. A son was indeed born, but not according to the promise. In this allegorical sense, Ismael was a child of the flesh, a child begotten by human works. Whereas Isaac was simply a gift received through grace. Do you catch the parallel?
The first covenant was a covenant of Law - of works. The second a covenant of grace - of Promise. There is not one thing that a person can do to earn Christ's salvation or to procure it for himself; he must simply receive it as a gift from God's hand. He must believe the Promise of God - as Abraham did - if he is to be made righteous.
So I've come to recognize that any time there is a clear pattern in scripture, there is usually some sort of prophetic message that God is trying to communicate through it. With this younger-over-elder-son pattern, I believe that God is communicating a truth about the two covenants he has made with man. The covenants are like two brothers, and the younger is the accepted brother.
Like Cain and Abel, the sacrifices of the younger brother are accepted over that of the elder. And the elder despises and persecutes the younger.
Like Ishmael and Isaac, the younger brother was begotten by promise, not by works.
Like Esau and Jacob, the younger brother, by grace, receives the favor of God, despite the fact that he is far more sinful and far less deserving of it. Again the older brother despises the younger because he is favored (but they ultimately experience reconciliation - another prophetic message?).
Like Manasseh and Ephraim, God disrupted the natural course and "crossed his hands," so-to-speak, to bless the younger over the elder.
What an awesome God we serve! How awesome is His word! How grateful we should be day-by-day that He has saved us by His grace!!!
Well, I'm off to church...
Saturday, July 12, 2008
The Practice of the Presence of God
This is a fantastic book, and I'm finding that it is difficult to read more than a few paragraphs before my mind is racing with thoughts. I figured this would be a good outlet.
However, before I even get into it, I'm going to criticize it (but only sort of). Coming from a Pentecostal background, I have seen first hand how easy it is to get so focused on a certain aspect of the Christian faith to where you begin to think it is the ONLY aspect of the Christian faith, or at least the most important. Pentecostals get caught up in "supernatural experiences." Visions, dreams, healings, speaking in tongues, prophecies, hearing the voice of God, the "anointing," and various "manifestations of the Spirit" (which may or may not be 'of the Spirit' at all).
This Practice of the Presence of God could potentially produce the same unbalanced response. Why? Because is sounds so wonderful (just like seeing an angel, or laying your hands on a sick person and seeing them recover). All of these things are wonderful things, and should any of us experience them, we should feel supremely blessed and thankful. But what if our times of prayer began to be overtaken by requests to heal others? What if we started focusing on the scriptures that talk about healing to the neglect of the rest of Scripture? What if we became obsessed with people like Benny Hinn, or others like him? What if we started gauging our level of spiritual maturity (or worse, others) by our ability to heal the sick?! "People who are really close to God will heal the sick. Thus, people who don't heal the sick must not be close to God." You get the point.
Second, I think it is easy to misinterpret what Brother Lawrence means by "the Presence of God." In American church culture, the presence of God is really more like a feeling than anything else. Most Christians will acknowledge the theological reality of God's abiding presence with us, but still will say things like, "God's presence is here!" when they start to get goosebumps, or whatever. I once heard my friend say, "I feel the presence of God all over my arms!" What he meant was, "I have goosebumps." Did he really mean that God's presence was on His arms only?? I doubt it, but that is how we've interpreted "God's Presence." Brother Lawrence has a slightly different idea. I believe that when he speaks of "the Presence of God," he is speaking more of an acute awareness of the reality of God in our lives. An awareness of the God who dwells within us. I mean, think about it. God lives inside you! (That is, if you trust in Christ). He is with you always! He is with you right now as you are reading this. He fills the room where you are sitting. He has you wrapped in His presence as we speak. He is there, and His plans for you are in His thoughts. He is loving you, guiding you, jealous for you RIGHT NOW. You don't need Him to "send" His presence, you simply need to enter into it.
Perhaps in pondering those few thoughts, your awareness of God increased for a moment. Perhaps you were filled to some extent with an increased level of awe. Peace. Contentment. Love. THAT'S what brother Lawrence is talking about. Sometimes that will translate into an "experience." Sometimes it won't. But can't we all agree that a more constant awareness of God's presence is a good thing? Now THERE is something you can PRACTICE. Maintaining a constant awareness of God's presence in your life, from the most mundane chore to the most sublime pleasure.
There's my intro...
However, before I even get into it, I'm going to criticize it (but only sort of). Coming from a Pentecostal background, I have seen first hand how easy it is to get so focused on a certain aspect of the Christian faith to where you begin to think it is the ONLY aspect of the Christian faith, or at least the most important. Pentecostals get caught up in "supernatural experiences." Visions, dreams, healings, speaking in tongues, prophecies, hearing the voice of God, the "anointing," and various "manifestations of the Spirit" (which may or may not be 'of the Spirit' at all).
This Practice of the Presence of God could potentially produce the same unbalanced response. Why? Because is sounds so wonderful (just like seeing an angel, or laying your hands on a sick person and seeing them recover). All of these things are wonderful things, and should any of us experience them, we should feel supremely blessed and thankful. But what if our times of prayer began to be overtaken by requests to heal others? What if we started focusing on the scriptures that talk about healing to the neglect of the rest of Scripture? What if we became obsessed with people like Benny Hinn, or others like him? What if we started gauging our level of spiritual maturity (or worse, others) by our ability to heal the sick?! "People who are really close to God will heal the sick. Thus, people who don't heal the sick must not be close to God." You get the point.
Second, I think it is easy to misinterpret what Brother Lawrence means by "the Presence of God." In American church culture, the presence of God is really more like a feeling than anything else. Most Christians will acknowledge the theological reality of God's abiding presence with us, but still will say things like, "God's presence is here!" when they start to get goosebumps, or whatever. I once heard my friend say, "I feel the presence of God all over my arms!" What he meant was, "I have goosebumps." Did he really mean that God's presence was on His arms only?? I doubt it, but that is how we've interpreted "God's Presence." Brother Lawrence has a slightly different idea. I believe that when he speaks of "the Presence of God," he is speaking more of an acute awareness of the reality of God in our lives. An awareness of the God who dwells within us. I mean, think about it. God lives inside you! (That is, if you trust in Christ). He is with you always! He is with you right now as you are reading this. He fills the room where you are sitting. He has you wrapped in His presence as we speak. He is there, and His plans for you are in His thoughts. He is loving you, guiding you, jealous for you RIGHT NOW. You don't need Him to "send" His presence, you simply need to enter into it.
Perhaps in pondering those few thoughts, your awareness of God increased for a moment. Perhaps you were filled to some extent with an increased level of awe. Peace. Contentment. Love. THAT'S what brother Lawrence is talking about. Sometimes that will translate into an "experience." Sometimes it won't. But can't we all agree that a more constant awareness of God's presence is a good thing? Now THERE is something you can PRACTICE. Maintaining a constant awareness of God's presence in your life, from the most mundane chore to the most sublime pleasure.
There's my intro...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
