Matthew 15:18-20 "But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false, witness, slander. These are what defile a person..."
In the greater context of this passage, we see that Pharisees (and all other people really) like to look alright on the outside. We like to make sure we have it all together. The Pharisees liked to do "ritual washings", our own taste might lend itself to other outward things, but the point of them is the same. Do we look like we have it all together?
There's nothing wrong with looking like things are alright. The problem is that things aren't, and we don't care how bad they get inside, as long as we are ok on the outside. It did not matter to the Pharisees if they dishonored their mother and father (v. 5) as long as they washed their hands in front of their peers. It was worth more to them for other Pharisees to say, "what a righteous man", than for God to say "what a righteous man." Better not to eat with , tradition-breaking, dirty, ceremonially unclean mits than to eat with clean hands and a morally filthy, law-breaking heart. We may not have the same traditions, but we have the same heart.
Our morality shows this, because of the excuses we make. "I wouldn't have done that if it wasn't for him or her." "I'm usually not like that". "It was just a bad week for me, and I was stressed." All these excuses are really attempts to maintain control of the "outer", while neglecting the inner. We are really saying, "let me wash the dirt off my hands, and ignore the guilt of my heart. Let me make an excuse for my actions, and ignore the engine that spun it out in my chest." Circumstances and temptations merely reveal the moral imperfections in our hearts. They do not cause them. Pornography does not cause lust in a man's heart, it merely reveals it. We might say, "I wouldn't have ever watched that unless my friend put it on TV for me. Then I was hooked." We are really washing our hands, and ignoring our heart. It is true that certain sinful actions happen in some people that do not happen in others. Not all of us act like Adolph Hitler, and we write it off saying that he was abused and that's why he was so bad. The abuse did not cause the sin, it merely allowed it an escape. Most people have a "brake" that keeps some actions from happening, abuse and sin merely break the brake, they do not cause the sin to come be in our hearts. That sin has been there from Eden on.
We must realize the absolute moral poverty within our hearts to fight sin. We must not blame it on the moral poverty of our circumstances. It is true that sometimes we must leave our circumstances because they hold temptations too great. (1 Ti 6:11, 2 Ti 2:22, 1 Co 6:18, 10:14) But to merely run from those temptations and not acknowledge the root of their power in our hearts is worthless. We must realize it is our heart that has the problem. We are the deviation from God's standard, not our atmosphere! We are the defilement. Not that person who makes me angry. Not that drive who flicked me off. Not the sex-saturated pop culture. Not these unwashed hands, but this uncircumcised heart!
It is not the fault of the God of the Universe, it is not the fault of the false god of this world even, but the guilt lies in the false god of this body.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Government
It's kind of my "kick" right now to be cynical about our government. I don't like it (the government). I don't like either party. I don't like any of our candidates for president either. I am too old-fashioned for any of our present politicians to interest me.
Our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Constitution are based on something called Natural Law. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights from their Creator..." The government of our country did not see themselves as granting any man freedom. Re-read that....they did not think they were GIVING anybody rights. They believed they were merely allowing them to have the rights they had naturally by virtue of being created "human" by God Almighty. The government was a caretaker over the rights of society, not the granter of rights.
Our government today believes and behaves by the premises of Positive Law. This view says that whatever the government "posits", or declares, becomes law by virtue of the power and authority of our government. So the government grants rights to its citizens. Infants do not have the right to live until they are granted that status as "alive" (which is why our morally bankrupt government allows abortion). The child has no "natural" right to live until the government says it is alive. That is why many state lawmakers in California think they can tell homeschooling parents how to raise their children. They believe they can force parents to send their children to a public school where they will become indoctrinated with the ideas they want them to believe, not the ideas the parents believe.
As long as our government continues to operate under the basis of positive law, they will continue to tread more immoral ground regarding the issues of infant right to life, genetic engineering, etc. As long as they see themselves as the granter of liberty and not the caretaker of inalienable right, they will bear my reproach. I will obey them, because unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. But I will pray for short terms...whoever wins.
Our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Constitution are based on something called Natural Law. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights from their Creator..." The government of our country did not see themselves as granting any man freedom. Re-read that....they did not think they were GIVING anybody rights. They believed they were merely allowing them to have the rights they had naturally by virtue of being created "human" by God Almighty. The government was a caretaker over the rights of society, not the granter of rights.
Our government today believes and behaves by the premises of Positive Law. This view says that whatever the government "posits", or declares, becomes law by virtue of the power and authority of our government. So the government grants rights to its citizens. Infants do not have the right to live until they are granted that status as "alive" (which is why our morally bankrupt government allows abortion). The child has no "natural" right to live until the government says it is alive. That is why many state lawmakers in California think they can tell homeschooling parents how to raise their children. They believe they can force parents to send their children to a public school where they will become indoctrinated with the ideas they want them to believe, not the ideas the parents believe.
As long as our government continues to operate under the basis of positive law, they will continue to tread more immoral ground regarding the issues of infant right to life, genetic engineering, etc. As long as they see themselves as the granter of liberty and not the caretaker of inalienable right, they will bear my reproach. I will obey them, because unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. But I will pray for short terms...whoever wins.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Opera and Glory
Someone showed me one of the best videos I have ever seen on YouTube. Here's the link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DelJrP3P7tA
Here's the synopsis:
The guy comes on stage and is a little nervous. The judges obviously are not expecting much. Then he nails the piece and blows the whole crowd away. British people are crying! That is saying a lot.
I think it is interesting that every single person in the audience recognized two things: beauty and excellence. Something can accidentally be beautiful. It can be beautifully constructed, yet not by the skill of excellence, but just by chance or beginner's luck. A two-year old can paint a beautiful picture, but it comes from accidentally not mixing all the colors together in an attempt to eat them. Real beauty is accentuated by excellence. When a disciplined, skillful painter combines all the colors and textures on a canvas to make a picture, a different sort of beauty emerges. Beauty becomes compounded and intensified by excellence. Like this opera piece, people can all recognize beauty. C.S. Lewis, and many ancient philosophers thought it was morally upright to look on beauty, and be moved by it.
I believe they were correct. If we are not moved by beauty, something is amiss morally inside of us. Now, if we are not crying "Encore Paul! Encore!", I do not think that is a sin. But if we are not moved deeply by beauty (natural, moral, and aesthetics/art) that deadness of heart betrays the numb condition of our moral affections. We are trivial, banal, conceited, and irreligious of God's glory displayed in creation and through mankind's natural talents for creativity. (Just on the flip side, there are many people who would cry at the Opera and still be as ruined morally as those who cannot recognize beauty, this is merely one diagnostic, not the only).
At the root of our hearts, we are not moved by the beauty of the Person of Christ. "He has no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him." We do not applaud for his excellence, we do not stand for his skill, we do not notice the innate beauty of the one who created all capacity for artistic beauty to be a small reflection of his self-possessed majesty. Why? Because our hearts are trivial, banal, conceited, and irreligious of God's glory in the person of Jesus Christ. Many religions notice the beauty of Jesus in his morality and treatment of people, but they do not worship Him. The sacrilege of that mindset is like walking up to the judges of "Britain's Got Talent" after Paul Potts performance and waving a drawing your two-year old made of your pet cat. It is out of place to appreciate the subjective beauty of your child's artwork (however genuinely precious to you), in a place where the objective beauty of music is being applauded. How wrong-headed for us to appreciate the subjective beauty of ourselves over the objective beauty of God's glory in this; the theatre of His existence.
Here's the synopsis:
The guy comes on stage and is a little nervous. The judges obviously are not expecting much. Then he nails the piece and blows the whole crowd away. British people are crying! That is saying a lot.
I think it is interesting that every single person in the audience recognized two things: beauty and excellence. Something can accidentally be beautiful. It can be beautifully constructed, yet not by the skill of excellence, but just by chance or beginner's luck. A two-year old can paint a beautiful picture, but it comes from accidentally not mixing all the colors together in an attempt to eat them. Real beauty is accentuated by excellence. When a disciplined, skillful painter combines all the colors and textures on a canvas to make a picture, a different sort of beauty emerges. Beauty becomes compounded and intensified by excellence. Like this opera piece, people can all recognize beauty. C.S. Lewis, and many ancient philosophers thought it was morally upright to look on beauty, and be moved by it.
I believe they were correct. If we are not moved by beauty, something is amiss morally inside of us. Now, if we are not crying "Encore Paul! Encore!", I do not think that is a sin. But if we are not moved deeply by beauty (natural, moral, and aesthetics/art) that deadness of heart betrays the numb condition of our moral affections. We are trivial, banal, conceited, and irreligious of God's glory displayed in creation and through mankind's natural talents for creativity. (Just on the flip side, there are many people who would cry at the Opera and still be as ruined morally as those who cannot recognize beauty, this is merely one diagnostic, not the only).
At the root of our hearts, we are not moved by the beauty of the Person of Christ. "He has no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him." We do not applaud for his excellence, we do not stand for his skill, we do not notice the innate beauty of the one who created all capacity for artistic beauty to be a small reflection of his self-possessed majesty. Why? Because our hearts are trivial, banal, conceited, and irreligious of God's glory in the person of Jesus Christ. Many religions notice the beauty of Jesus in his morality and treatment of people, but they do not worship Him. The sacrilege of that mindset is like walking up to the judges of "Britain's Got Talent" after Paul Potts performance and waving a drawing your two-year old made of your pet cat. It is out of place to appreciate the subjective beauty of your child's artwork (however genuinely precious to you), in a place where the objective beauty of music is being applauded. How wrong-headed for us to appreciate the subjective beauty of ourselves over the objective beauty of God's glory in this; the theatre of His existence.
Monday, December 17, 2007
To esteem or to sin
C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man comments that:
"Until quite modern times all teachers and even all men believed the universe to be such that certain emotional reactions on our part could be either congruous or incongruous to it--believed, in fact, that objects did not merely receive, but could merit, our approval or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt."
Lewis here is fighting the tendency to regard all emotions as subjective by modern thinkers. If I see a waterfall as big as Niagara cascading down a cliff with a thundrous roar that makes my own thoughts seem unable to voice their praise to its majesty, any thing I say about the cataract by modern esteem is labeled as subjective. There is no objective reaction to a merely "materialistic" waterfall. It is merely the process of gravity working on water, albeit on a larger scale. The "thing in itself", i.e. the naked physics of waterfalls, do not have anything to do with emotional responses in the creatures, those are provided only by the creature.
Lewis' view is that a waterfall that impressive "merits" our esteem. To not be moved by the roaring conduit of water is to sin against being human. It is a mark of sanity to be moved by what is moving, to love what is lovely, and to hate what is abhorrent. The "thing in itself" is not naked physics, but a panorama of God's creative glory on display. It has a being bigger than mere physics can expound, and for a person to not see the glory of God dancing on the water as it cascades over the spillway is to blind our eyes to what is our rightful response: worship not of waterfalls, but of God.
I think, though Lewis would disagree with many of their implications, this view is in complete accordance with the Puritans. They believed certain things merited the utmost love just by their own "being-ness". They believed Christianity was a religion of heightened affections over the glory of God revealed in nature and in Scripture, and to fail to let one's affections be raised by it would be tantamount to blasphemy, or profaning the glory of God by holding it as trifling and flimsy.
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived...For although they [men] knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
To not properly love what is lovely ruins mankind on many levels. Henry Scougal says, "love must needs be miserable, and full of trouble and disquietude, when there is not worth and excellency enough in the object to answer the vastness of its capacity."
To illustrate, if I refuse to pin my awe on that massive waterfall, and instead try to be fascinated by a mud puddle, I make for myself a level of misery as great as the waterfall is above the mud puddle. For whatever lesser object I set my approval on, I transgress against my created nature to behold that which is great. I don't choose whether or not to "esteem" the waterfall, I respond to its being by either praising or sinning. I do not grant God a measure of worship, I either worship with all my heart or sin with the level of my heart that does not rise up in praise.
Not where the wheeling systems darken,
And our benumbed conceiving soars!—
The drift of pinions, would we hearken,
Beats at our own clay-shuttered doors.
The angels keep their ancient places;—
Turn but a stone, and start a wing!
‘Tis ye, ‘tis your estrangèd faces,
That miss the many-splendoured thing.
Francis Thompson "The Kingdom of God"
"Until quite modern times all teachers and even all men believed the universe to be such that certain emotional reactions on our part could be either congruous or incongruous to it--believed, in fact, that objects did not merely receive, but could merit, our approval or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt."
Lewis here is fighting the tendency to regard all emotions as subjective by modern thinkers. If I see a waterfall as big as Niagara cascading down a cliff with a thundrous roar that makes my own thoughts seem unable to voice their praise to its majesty, any thing I say about the cataract by modern esteem is labeled as subjective. There is no objective reaction to a merely "materialistic" waterfall. It is merely the process of gravity working on water, albeit on a larger scale. The "thing in itself", i.e. the naked physics of waterfalls, do not have anything to do with emotional responses in the creatures, those are provided only by the creature.
Lewis' view is that a waterfall that impressive "merits" our esteem. To not be moved by the roaring conduit of water is to sin against being human. It is a mark of sanity to be moved by what is moving, to love what is lovely, and to hate what is abhorrent. The "thing in itself" is not naked physics, but a panorama of God's creative glory on display. It has a being bigger than mere physics can expound, and for a person to not see the glory of God dancing on the water as it cascades over the spillway is to blind our eyes to what is our rightful response: worship not of waterfalls, but of God.
I think, though Lewis would disagree with many of their implications, this view is in complete accordance with the Puritans. They believed certain things merited the utmost love just by their own "being-ness". They believed Christianity was a religion of heightened affections over the glory of God revealed in nature and in Scripture, and to fail to let one's affections be raised by it would be tantamount to blasphemy, or profaning the glory of God by holding it as trifling and flimsy.
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived...For although they [men] knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
To not properly love what is lovely ruins mankind on many levels. Henry Scougal says, "love must needs be miserable, and full of trouble and disquietude, when there is not worth and excellency enough in the object to answer the vastness of its capacity."
To illustrate, if I refuse to pin my awe on that massive waterfall, and instead try to be fascinated by a mud puddle, I make for myself a level of misery as great as the waterfall is above the mud puddle. For whatever lesser object I set my approval on, I transgress against my created nature to behold that which is great. I don't choose whether or not to "esteem" the waterfall, I respond to its being by either praising or sinning. I do not grant God a measure of worship, I either worship with all my heart or sin with the level of my heart that does not rise up in praise.
Not where the wheeling systems darken,
And our benumbed conceiving soars!—
The drift of pinions, would we hearken,
Beats at our own clay-shuttered doors.
The angels keep their ancient places;—
Turn but a stone, and start a wing!
‘Tis ye, ‘tis your estrangèd faces,
That miss the many-splendoured thing.
Francis Thompson "The Kingdom of God"
Saturday, December 15, 2007
The dead lay still in the cold earth
I am reading C.S. Lewis' "Ransom Trilogy", which are stories that encapsulate the writings in his book The Abolition of Man. He deals here with the de-humanization of Western culture by modernization.
We have become even more dehumanized since he was alive, having continued this trend. And we see it everywhere. Abortion is a procedure that doesn't even take into account in its description its implication for human life. We talk about disasters and famines in respect to their geo-political ramifications and in numbers. We don't believe anything unless there is a statistic behind it. We have become moral adding machines...and moral is about to fall off the title.
Lewis believes the problem with this tendency to dehumanize and scientifically explain or justify all of our experiences is the abolition of what makes us human. He believes emotion and sympathy are too vital to the human soul to always be validated by our rational side. This is not how we learn or live, merely calculating and weighing all things objectively as they fit towards everything else.
He gives an example of military units. Many units have a flag, or a standard, or an emblem that they use to promote a sense of identity and pride. During the heat of battle, Lewis knew that all the rational information in the world would not keep a soldier in the trenches during hours of bombing. (He fought in WWI). What kept soldiers there, fighting, was not rational; it was something far deeper and more simple. "Don't let the flag fall boys, forward! forward!" No scientist can explain why an emblem could stir such fortitude and emotion in the human soul to endure the savage nature of war for a mere flag, but it worked.
No equation can explain how emotion and inanimate objects bleed together and we feel love for a simple spot of ground just because our dead loved ones lay there for a while. But it is utterly human to experience these illogical draining of ration and intellect and emotion and passion into one another's tanks. Pure, cold, hard logic; humanity cannot stomach it. It has produced the vile dictatorships of the 20th century, it has neutered our poetry into a study of semantic domains and linguistic influences rather than just experience the image for what it is worth.
I'm afraid our culture does not even know how to live without someone pounding us over the head with our own soulish nakedness. We deconstruct our literature, we shackle our businesses with rate of returns, and we sacrifice our marriages for efficiency. Morality is the chief victim of this exchange. We no longer even know why good is better, we go by pragmatism.
Despite all of my criticism, I am all slice and no stitch tonight. I will have to think on this more until I even can think of how we could possibly change it on a societal level. We are too entertainment sodden. It starves a boys soul to be brought up on a Wii rather than on Lord of the Rings. A boy needs dragons to kill in his imagination, not a button to press to defeat pixels. I am unsure our music can even carry themes strong enough to change culture anymore, it is produced to maximize profit rather than to be prophetic. I think we are done for. We've burned the very lifeboats culture had built in to save us.
We have become even more dehumanized since he was alive, having continued this trend. And we see it everywhere. Abortion is a procedure that doesn't even take into account in its description its implication for human life. We talk about disasters and famines in respect to their geo-political ramifications and in numbers. We don't believe anything unless there is a statistic behind it. We have become moral adding machines...and moral is about to fall off the title.
Lewis believes the problem with this tendency to dehumanize and scientifically explain or justify all of our experiences is the abolition of what makes us human. He believes emotion and sympathy are too vital to the human soul to always be validated by our rational side. This is not how we learn or live, merely calculating and weighing all things objectively as they fit towards everything else.
He gives an example of military units. Many units have a flag, or a standard, or an emblem that they use to promote a sense of identity and pride. During the heat of battle, Lewis knew that all the rational information in the world would not keep a soldier in the trenches during hours of bombing. (He fought in WWI). What kept soldiers there, fighting, was not rational; it was something far deeper and more simple. "Don't let the flag fall boys, forward! forward!" No scientist can explain why an emblem could stir such fortitude and emotion in the human soul to endure the savage nature of war for a mere flag, but it worked.
No equation can explain how emotion and inanimate objects bleed together and we feel love for a simple spot of ground just because our dead loved ones lay there for a while. But it is utterly human to experience these illogical draining of ration and intellect and emotion and passion into one another's tanks. Pure, cold, hard logic; humanity cannot stomach it. It has produced the vile dictatorships of the 20th century, it has neutered our poetry into a study of semantic domains and linguistic influences rather than just experience the image for what it is worth.
I'm afraid our culture does not even know how to live without someone pounding us over the head with our own soulish nakedness. We deconstruct our literature, we shackle our businesses with rate of returns, and we sacrifice our marriages for efficiency. Morality is the chief victim of this exchange. We no longer even know why good is better, we go by pragmatism.
Despite all of my criticism, I am all slice and no stitch tonight. I will have to think on this more until I even can think of how we could possibly change it on a societal level. We are too entertainment sodden. It starves a boys soul to be brought up on a Wii rather than on Lord of the Rings. A boy needs dragons to kill in his imagination, not a button to press to defeat pixels. I am unsure our music can even carry themes strong enough to change culture anymore, it is produced to maximize profit rather than to be prophetic. I think we are done for. We've burned the very lifeboats culture had built in to save us.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Can prayer move mountains?
This is a preview of what I am going to speak on this upcoming week at my friend's BCM service. When Jesus says in Matt 21:21 that if we have faith we can move mountains, we can't make a blanket statement across all of our prayer requests and say, "If I have faith it will happen." As a kid I had my heart crushed several times because certain prayer requests weren't answered although I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that God would answer them. I didn't receive swords, pet dragons, a brother, or anything of the sort despite my impeccable record for having faith as small as a mustard seed.
We have to take verse 21 and see the context of chapter 21 in Jesus' ministry. Jesus entered Jerusalem triumphantly in verses 1-11. In verses 12-17 he cleanses the temple of the money-changers and the salesmen proclaiming that it is a house of prayer, not of thieves. In verses 18-22 he curses a fig tree and teaches on prayer as a kind of afterthought (this afterthought is my main text). From verses 23 and onward to the end, most crucial to understanding what is going on, we see Jesus and the religious leaders arguing over who has the authority to do what. Jesus pronounces a parable on them that builds until verse 43 with the statement "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits."
That statement is the most important for understanding the passage on prayer, because we see the teaching on prayer hanging on the end of an incident where Jesus curses a fig tree because there is no fruit. In the scheme of chapter 21, the fig tree becomes an enacted parable where Jesus, seeing the fruitlessness of Israel symbolized in the fruitlessness of the fig tree, curses it as a sign that Israel will soon be cursed and withered, and as he teaches later the "vineyard" or Kingdom of God will be given to another nation.
So the teaching on prayer is right on the heels of this enacted parable. The context of chapter 21 is that Israel is rejecting Jesus' authority, and thereby showing the root of the fruitlessness; rebellion to God. This rebellion will not thwart the kingdom, because it will be given to another nation who will bear fruit unto God. So no sane person in this context would think God is teaching me how to ask and believe in order to get a big mansion or a nice car. This isn't a teaching on "Santa" God.
What it means for the church is that if there is a mountain between you and the fulfillment of Jesus' mission on earth (to bring all nations into Him), then that mountain will be traversed or moved for the sake of Christ. If a mountain of opposition comes against your mission to spread the name of Christ throughout the world, God's inexhaustible power will meet and defeat that mountain in order that Christ's name will be spread.
It doesn't mean I can get what I want from God for no reason except that I asked in faith, it means my requests must be in line with Gospel ends in order for it to apply.
An army is in my way? No big deal, God moves mountains. I don't speak the language? No big deal, God can teach it if I need it now or He can allow me to learn it. A stubborn, fruitless church has possession of all the money to send out missionaries and they are sitting on it? No big deal, God can shake it out of them.
We have to take verse 21 and see the context of chapter 21 in Jesus' ministry. Jesus entered Jerusalem triumphantly in verses 1-11. In verses 12-17 he cleanses the temple of the money-changers and the salesmen proclaiming that it is a house of prayer, not of thieves. In verses 18-22 he curses a fig tree and teaches on prayer as a kind of afterthought (this afterthought is my main text). From verses 23 and onward to the end, most crucial to understanding what is going on, we see Jesus and the religious leaders arguing over who has the authority to do what. Jesus pronounces a parable on them that builds until verse 43 with the statement "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits."
That statement is the most important for understanding the passage on prayer, because we see the teaching on prayer hanging on the end of an incident where Jesus curses a fig tree because there is no fruit. In the scheme of chapter 21, the fig tree becomes an enacted parable where Jesus, seeing the fruitlessness of Israel symbolized in the fruitlessness of the fig tree, curses it as a sign that Israel will soon be cursed and withered, and as he teaches later the "vineyard" or Kingdom of God will be given to another nation.
So the teaching on prayer is right on the heels of this enacted parable. The context of chapter 21 is that Israel is rejecting Jesus' authority, and thereby showing the root of the fruitlessness; rebellion to God. This rebellion will not thwart the kingdom, because it will be given to another nation who will bear fruit unto God. So no sane person in this context would think God is teaching me how to ask and believe in order to get a big mansion or a nice car. This isn't a teaching on "Santa" God.
What it means for the church is that if there is a mountain between you and the fulfillment of Jesus' mission on earth (to bring all nations into Him), then that mountain will be traversed or moved for the sake of Christ. If a mountain of opposition comes against your mission to spread the name of Christ throughout the world, God's inexhaustible power will meet and defeat that mountain in order that Christ's name will be spread.
It doesn't mean I can get what I want from God for no reason except that I asked in faith, it means my requests must be in line with Gospel ends in order for it to apply.
An army is in my way? No big deal, God moves mountains. I don't speak the language? No big deal, God can teach it if I need it now or He can allow me to learn it. A stubborn, fruitless church has possession of all the money to send out missionaries and they are sitting on it? No big deal, God can shake it out of them.
Friday, November 2, 2007
A taste of Christ
The only reasonable ammunition against sin is a clear and strong perception of the glories of Christ through His word and His Spirit. One who is held firmly by this excellence, perceived and enjoyed, will not darken the palette of his or her mind with the lesser pleasures of the flesh as long as the strong and clear fragrance of Christ is present. The temptation to sin many times will not even gravitate the desires of such a person, being mortified to an extent that the pursuits of the world may call, but like water off a ducks back they will roll right off the mind of such a person. If this perception can be maintained through discipline and regular spiritual exercises, the battle against sin is won. The battle is lost when we smudge the glory of Christ on the mirror of our mind with things that do not reflect Him properly. It never happens quickly, but slowly inch by inch the flesh takes back as the affections cool for Christ.
A Christian never runs straight to a "big" sin from this mindset; it is always a little negligence that pulls us away from Christ. Like Peter, we notice the waves, and then we begin to sink. Pride comes before the downfall. The affections cool before sin ensares. Here's where I'm pulling from:
"But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."
A Christian never runs straight to a "big" sin from this mindset; it is always a little negligence that pulls us away from Christ. Like Peter, we notice the waves, and then we begin to sink. Pride comes before the downfall. The affections cool before sin ensares. Here's where I'm pulling from:
"But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."
James 1:14-15
There are three steps to any sin given in these verses: First we have a desire. Then we are tempted and lured by it. Then we sin.
So here's what I'm thinking, If we fight the battle against sin in the desire phase...we can win more easily. There is nothing to lure us and entice us, there is nothing to tempt us. A man living in a house full of half-naked posters of women is not able to purify his desires. His desires have gasoline poured on them at every occasion. Desire must be guarded, and purified. It usually accomadates what it spends the most time around. What you plant in the mind, blooms in the heart. Guard the heart, for it is the wellspring of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
