Negative Holiness

Holiness—this word has been twisted and misunderstood more than many in the biblical lexicon. Modern society finds the concept of “holiness” unsavory at best—something akin to lima beans: you realize it might theoretically be good for you, but it still triggers your gag reflex. If the term is used at all, it’s usually only as an accusation or an insult. “Oh, he's so holy!” is not generally a compliment on someone’s spiritual maturity, but rather intended as an indictment against an obnoxiously self-righteous person.  Sadly, when we hear the word “holiness", we’re more likely to picture the Pharisees than Jesus. Even as Christians, the word often carries for us a vague feeling of burden and drudgery. And to be honest, most of the reason holiness has gained this distasteful reputation is probably the fault of Christians. 

Beginning in the 19th century, the so-called “holiness movement” started gaining popularity among certain groups of believers. Of course, Christianity has always had an ascetic fringe. But in modern society, it is largely this movement that has led to the association of the word “holiness” with moral prudishness, extreme and extra-biblical rules, a fixation on “avoiding the world”, and making oneself “perfect”. It’s important to note a couple things about these “holiness clubs”. First, they were born out of a theological underpinning which believed that man could, through rigorous moral effort, actually attain a state of sinless perfection—“total sanctification”. The power of the Holy Spirit in our lives can and should make significant changes. But a movement that says we can attain a state of sinlessness in the present life essentially denies the total depravity of man and claims for its proponents a level of spirituality that event the Apostle Paul did not ascribe to himself. (Php. 3:12)

Second, these holiness societies often demanded complete abstinence from even moderate alcohol use, tobacco, dancing, playing cards, the theatre and other “worldly” forms of entertainment. Of course, the fact that the Bible knows no such prohibitions didn’t dissuade the “holiness” advocates from insisting on them. They, apparently, wanted to be holier than God Himself—an endeavor which never works out well. And as with the Pharisees of old, it has ultimately done more to push people away from God than bring them near. Despite their misguided methods, the earliest groups were generally motivated by a desire for a deeper experience of God. But the modern residue of this movement—which still lives on in quite a few fundamentalist and Evangelical groups—clings to the self-imposed prohibitions yet with little real thirst to experience God. In addition, it’s notable that the “sins” these groups focused on were usually the more visible and “carnal” sins, rather than things like pride, gossip and unforgiveness which the Bible condemns at least as much as the others.

This is all tragic because, though the Bible calls us to holiness, this sort of pharisaic prudishness is not at all what God invites us to. Scripture speaks of the “beauty of holiness” but too often Christians have turned it into something grotesque. The word “holiness” in Scripture literally means to be “separated” or “set apart”.  We tend to think of this as being separated from sin, from the world, from fleshly habits, etc.  There certainly is that aspect to true holiness.  But it would be better to understand the meaning of holiness as “dedication”.  Scripture presents the “separation” of holiness not as primarily separation from something, but separation to something—or to Someone in the case of the Christian.  Holiness as the Bible defines it is, first and foremost, being wholly given to God, and only separated from those things which would hinder our intimacy with Him. 

Many Christians see holiness like celibacy: primarily concerned with what you abstain from. No wonder holiness seems so unattractive to modern society! But the picture of biblical holiness is that of a marriage, not of celibacy. Yes, the holiness of a marriage does include vows to separate yourself, to “abstain” from all other lovers, but the point of marriage is not in abstaining from something. The purpose of marriage is to fully devote yourself to your spouse—to cleave to them exclusively, to delight in one another and be one with them.

For too many Christians, the focus of “holiness” is in giving things up, avoiding this, or not doing that. They define holiness in almost completely negative terms.  But that’s not the point of holiness. Biblical holiness is not about self-denial for its own sake.  Biblical holiness is about complete union with Christ, cleaving to Him. And only as a consequence of the primary purpose do we deny those things that hinder our closeness with Him.  Holiness is not about what you give up, it’s about what you gain: intimacy with Christ. 

Defining holiness as avoiding sin is like defining marriage as avoiding adultery. While a marriage cannot be healthy when either spouse is involved in adultery, the lack of adultery in a marriage is no guarantee of a good marriage. There are plenty of marriages that, while no adultery is present, are still cold and loveless. Fidelity is a necessary condition for a good marriage, but it is not sufficient by itself to ensure a good marriage. And just as a good marriage is more than avoiding adultery, true holiness is more than avoiding sin—never less, but definitely more. This is the mistake of the Christian who defines holiness as primarily what he avoids, rather than Whom he enjoys.

We need to learn to see holiness not so much as a state of behavior, but as a state of relationship. The truth is that some Christians are so interested in “holiness” that they care nothing for Jesus. That is, their “holiness” consists primarily in looking at themselves and making sure they are up to par, rather than looking at Christ and delighting in Him. All of their “holiness” amounts to little more than glorified navel-gazing. This is like the husband who is fixated on being a good husband. He wants so much to have a good marriage—if only his wife would get out of the way and quit messing it up! Of course, the truly good husband is the one who is not hung up on how good of a husband he is, but who is fixated on loving, serving and being one with his wife. Similarly, the truly holy Christian is the one who thinks very little about his achievements in holiness, but thinks a great deal about loving and enjoying Jesus.

Of course, there are things we must deny in pursuing intimacy with God.  That is part of holiness, just as forsaking old lovers is part of marriage.  Jesus said in Mk. 8:34, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.”  There is an obvious element of self-denial in these words. But the end of the phrase is the point of everything that comes before it: to follow Jesus, to be with Him. We must realize that anytime the Lord calls us to “deny self”, it is not so He can deprive us of something, but so He can give us something so much better—Himself.  He asks us to let go of the stone in our hand only so He can fill it with bread. 

So let’s stop defining holiness primarily by what we give up and realize that the essence of true holiness is intimacy with Christ. If we have made the keeping of rules the measure of holiness—especially extra-biblical, self-imposed rules—let us repent of neglecting our Bridegroom. May we begin to define holiness not in terms of what we avoid, but of Whom we enjoy.

This article is based on an excerpt from my sermon on 1 Peter 1:13-16 “Holiness vs. Religion” available in Russian here. If you enjoyed this article and want to catch future posts, don't forget to subscribe to the blog.

personal faith and universal truth

so, i just thought i'd share some thoughts which i've been mulling over lately.  i don't take credit for them since primarily they are just some highlights out of a book that i've been reading by lesslie newbigin called the gospel in a pluralist society.  if this post sparks your interest, i'd suggest reading the book.

the topic is that of faith and truth (as the truly insightful have already gathered from the title :), and the relationship between them.  newbigin traces the roots of modern day nihilistic thinking to the 17th century philosopher descartes (pronounced day-cart).  you might not recognize the name, but chances are you have heard his most well known saying: cognito ergo sum (in latin), translated, "i think, therefore i am".  descartes was searching for a basis for truth that could in no wise be doubted.  he finally came down to the fact that if he is thinking, that proves he exists and therefore this is the uncontestable basis for all further knowledge. 

newbigin points out that this conclusion was one of the greatest mistakes of modern history.  what it effectively did was shift the basis of truth from divine revelation to man himself.  all of a sudden man was the ultimate authority for truth and critical doubt was exalted over faith.  what this does, what this ultimately leads to, is a world where no one can know anything.  the only belief that remains is that life is without truth outside of self, and therefore without real meaning.  in other words, nihilism.

what newbigin insightfully points out is that no one can doubt anything except on the basis of a firm belief in some other theory.  every time someone criticizes the christian faith (or any other belief system), it can only be on the basis of another, contrasting belief which is held a-critically.  he points out that in fact the humanistic atheist is just as dogmatic (and actually more so) as the christian he criticizes for claiming to have absolute truth.

very often the example of 5 blind men and an elephant is used by the atheist/agnostic to try to prove that no one faith is right.  the story (if you haven't heard it), is that a king brought an elephant to 5 blind men and told them to describe the elephant.  well, each one touches a different part of the animal, an ear, the trunk, the tail, a leg, the side and each gives a different description of the elephant as like a fan, a snake, a rope, a tree, and a wall, respectively.  the point is then made that they were all right in part, but no one had the whole truth.  newbigin points out 2 problems with this story.  1) there is a king who can see and is able to see all, including the true nature of the elephant.  when an agnostic says "the blind men are like all the different religions", we must say "well, that must make you the king!  how is it that you know ultimate reality well enough to determine that all the world's faiths are not correct?"  2) the real objection that the agnostic has is that someone claims to have absolute knowledge of the reality of the universe, absolute truth.

here newbigin discusses what the agnostic (or pluralist) means by this phrase "absolute truth" - in a word, it is the position of the king.  it is what descartes went searching for: something which could never be doubted.  newbigin makes the challenge that in this sense, we as christians do not have "absolute truth".  that is, we have not seen God.  and we cannot say that it is something which is impossible to doubt.  in fact our belief in Jesus as God and the Lord of human history is just that: belief.  it is faith.  of course the Bible is very clear about faith being the way that we enter relationship with God.  but newbigin challenges that modern christianity and apologetics have made a huge mistake in accepting the "reigning plausibility structure" of the modern west.  that is, that we often try to defend christianity in a way that never calls into question the modern dichotomy of facts (usually scientific) as public truth and values as mere personal beliefs.  he argues that without faith it is impossible to know anything.  even the scientist has great faith in all the training he received, the books he read, and perhaps most of all in the concept that the universe is rational and therefore possible to study.  but there is no physical evidence for that understanding; it is a belief.

in contrast to descartes' "cognito ergo sum", newbigin quotes the early church father st. augustine's "credo et intelligum", or in english "i belive in order to know" as the right understanding.  that is, that faith is the basis of all real knowledge.  the question obviously arises, "if our trust in Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior cannot be proven as "absolute truth" in the sense of something that cannot be doubted and if we do not have objective truth in the sense of the king in the parable of the elephant, what keeps someone, or us ourselves, from drowing in subjectivity and the attack that faith is simply personal preference?"

newbigin answers this by saying that our faith in Christ, though requiring a personal commitment (that it costs me something personally to believe) and therfore has a subjective element, is not merely "my opinion" because it is faith held with "universal intent".  that is, all knowledge requires this type of faith commitment (though some like descartes would like to dream of a type of truth that didn't require personal commitment to that truth to know it), but the christian truth to which we commit is one that claims to be true for all men at all times.  the truth that we have is not "objective" in the sense that it is exhaustive or without personal risk, but it is universal in its claim and scope and therefor not mere opinion.  the only thing availible without faith is nihilism (which, btw, is where many are headed and is reflected in much of the post-modern art and philosophy). 

well, i'll stop my book report now.   i myself have only read half of the book so far, but already it is, i think, fascinating and a great help in understanding how to find the right approach in witnessing to the agnostic/pluralist.  i highly recommend it for that reason, though i'll make the disclaimer that there are some things that he states, i.e., his understanding of in what sense the Bible is "the Word of God", apparent amillenialism, that i disagree with.  but that shouldn't stop one from gleaning from it what is insightful and edifying.  well, if anyone has read this book, or simply after chewing over the brief summary i've given here, i'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

super-mice, zombies and a brave new world

i'm sure you heard it on the news, or read it on the net.  it was the top story on google's news page yesterday.  i'm talking about the magic little discovery dubbed "the excercise pill".  if you happen to live in a cave in the desert.... well, then you're probably not reading this blog either, but if you've got access to technology and still mysteriously managed to miss the story, you can check out the new york times article here. 

basically the idea is that the pill "tricks" your muscles into believing they've excercised and they then produce a certain type of protein to "remodel the muscles".  they've already done a number of experiments and created super-lab-mice.  in the words of one of the leading doctors in the research on possible human application, "you are using a drug to move your own genetics to a more activated metabolic state."

hmm, using a drug to mess with your genetics to turn yourself instantly from couch potato to superman.  sure, that sounds harmless.  i recently watched a movie called i am legend starring will smith.  the basic plot line is: smart doctor comes up with dna-altering drug to cure cancer, the whole world takes it, 3 years later 90% of the world population is dead and most of those who survived have turned into psychotic zombies.  the movie is all about dr. neville (smith) trying to find a cure for the zombies and being the only human left alive in nyc.  i won't tell you the end, just watch it (i really liked it, btw).

the point being, it seemed like the miracle drug everyone had been waiting for.  it wasn't.  now, i'm not saying that people who take the excercise pill will turn into zombies (well... probably not :), but the point is that when something seems like its too good to be true, unless its the grace of Christ, it probably is.  especially when it involves messing with you own genetics. 

besides what seems to me to be the inherent stupidity in this concept, i find that it also demonstrates a fascinating trend in modern society.  "we don't want to excercise, so let's create a magic pill that we can swallow after our big mac and wash down with our diet soda that will trick our bodies into thinking we already have excercised!" if that's not the epitome of self-deception, i don't know what is.  the pill is being toted as the potential wonder-drug to cure obesity and diabetes.  now, please don't misunderstand me.  i do feel very bad for those with such conditions (i was nearly obese as a pre-teen) and realize that there are truly cases where these conditions are not the fault of those who have them.  i realize there are hereditary and hormonal factors, etc. that can cause these conditions, (so please don't comment telling me about this :).  however, when over 25% of america is now classified as obese compared to less than half that 20 yrs. ago, (think, that means its mostly the SAME PEOPLE who are now obese that weren't in the 80's) probably the problem has less to do with genes and more to do with our life-style.  you can watch an amazing graphic representation of the chage on wikipedia here.

the answer to this problem?  mess with our genes!  again, there may be a few legitimate uses for this drug out there, but sedentary excercise for the lazy and apathetic is not one of them.  some of the more perceptive doctors are agreeing that no pill will ever be able to "replace excercise", (though it would seem anyone with some common sense would be able to realize that even without a medical degree).  the interesting thing is i bet there are a LOT of people that would like for this little pill to fully replace excercise.  maybe one day science will come up with a pill to trick our bodies into thinking we've gone to the bathroom, slept, ate and had sex.... now that would be real progress.  just think, we'd never have to get off the couch again!  and isn't the goal of life to do nothing?

in high school i had to read aldous huxley's brave new world.  it was a commentary on where society was heading (fascinatingly, written in the 1930's). its about how this "utopia" was created where everyone is constantly over-entertained, drugged into states of passive contentment and finding purpose in promiscuous sex and consumerism.  people are genetically manufactured and have traded reality for "progress".  its horrifyingly predictive of where the world has gone and is continuing to go: everything is sterilized, mechanized, artificialized and revolves around instant gratification.

the sad thing is that this mentality can creep into the life of the church as well.  would we pop a Jesus-pill if it would make us be good Christians?  no hassle, no work, instant result.  sadly many Christians are out there looking for the "pill" in the form of some experience, some conference, some book, etc.  would we take something that would allow us to instantly escape the temptations, trials, and doubts we wrestle with? 

the fact of the matter is that, as Paul told Timothy, spiritual excercise is a lot like physical excercise (only vastly more important).  and just as no pill will ever be able to short-cut the road to true health, so there is not a short-cut to truly, intimately knowing Jesus.  "difficult is the way which leads to life and there are few who find it", Jesus said.  the way is hard.  fortunately, that way is one that has already been walked by Jesus.  it is one that He does not leave us to walk alone, but walks with us hand in hand.  however, we will fall, we will fail, we will get broken.  but i would rather sin and brake and fall on Jesus than be perfect without Him.

well, i suppose i'll end with that.  just some late-night musings.  what do you think, would you take the pill?

thoughts from a public restroom

last week lena, abby and i went to kharkov to share thanksgiving with all our friends in "the armpit of ukraine" as we affectionately refer to it as, along with the hoffs coming up from dnepro.  it was a great time and good to be there and get to visit vanessa in the hospital (we are so glad you're home now, nessie!) 

well, while we were there visiting vanessa, on our way out of the hospital i had to use the bathroom.  i went into the public one on the first floor (for visitors as opposed to patients) and the trash can next to the pot was overflowing with paper covered with fecal matter, the toilet was leaking around the base with some rancid, old rag mildly containing the flow and general squalor.  now, having lived in ukraine for almost 6 years, i am used to these kinds of bathrooms.  you learn to pee while holding your breath after a while (i personally think they should make it an olympic sport :).  but what made me laugh was that in this restroom was a brand new, shiny, polyvinyl "euro-window".  now, for those in the states who don't know, this is like a status symbol in ukraine that you're moving up in the world.  as i held my breath and did my thing, i thought about the people that will walk by that window outside and think "hey!  i bet this is a nice place inside!"

what struck me about it all is how representative this little toilet-room is of how we often live our lives.  we invest lots of effort and resources into making sure that people walking by us think we've got it together, that we are on our way up.  when in all reality, inside there might be a smelly load of.... well, you get the picture.   we want to make sure people see us as those who are always at church on time, carry a large Bible with us... whatever it is that we feel will give the outward image of godliness, when in reality we neglect the real issues in our hearts.  on the inside we might be reeking.  Jesus used a similar illustration about the pharisees "you are like whitewashed tombs which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones".  i know its too easy for me to get sucked into the game of making the exterior presentable while the inside continues to rot.  may our first concern be always what's inside, what God sees.  i heard a quote a while back that i think sums it up well "much of the misery in the world would be alleviated if people were more concerned with being rather than seeming." 

in addition to my last post:  it seems that many people who've commented and others i've talked to lately about the health care issue are all for a universal system and see the benefits....  well, the fact is, its not gonna happen by wishful thinking.  now, i'm not advocating picketing dc unless that's your thing, but if you're interested, take 30 seconds to fill out the petition info at this link that will automatically be forwarded to your congressperson expressing your support HR676 - the universal health care act.  if you wanna see change, click here to do something about it. 

oh!  and a huge praise report: we've FINALLY got a facility for our church to meet in!  we are working on renovations now and hope to have the first service there in a couple weeks.  i'll try to get some pics up soon.  tom has a few small one's up at his site.  click here to see them.  keep praying for Jesus to lead us through this process and to be glorified in even greater ways!

and here a couple pics of abby trying on my winter boots... she hopped in them herself.

what would Dr. Jesus do?

imagine a place and time where if your house caught on fire a call to 911 would not be enough to give you hope.  imagine that one had to purchase "fire insurance" for one's home (and i don't mean to replace lost goods).  imagine if firefighting was a competitive business market with different providers.  and imagine if upon arriving at the scene of a fire, before letting even a drop of water fly, the firemen would first stop to check if you were insured by their particular brigade, and if they discovered that you were not insured or insured by another company, they would simply hop back on the truck and drive off into the night as your possessions roasted to a crisp and loved ones writhed to an agonizing death.  does that sound like a world you'd like to live in? 

to us in the 21st century such a tale seems cruel and impossible.  allow human beings to suffer a miserable death simply because they haven't signed up for the right company's services?  to put the dollar above the worth of a human life?  for-profit emergency rescue?  "absurd!" we cry.  quickly we recognize the attitudes and ideas involved in such a scenario as inhumane, mercenary and down-right evil.  but in fact, that is the way that things used to be in the not-so-distant past, both in the US and many other western countries. 

until the late 19-th century and early 20-th in some US cities, fire brigades were a paid service that one had to buy insurance for.  as different brigades formed and competed for business, there were even cases where one brigade would obstruct another brigade's arrival to the scene of a fire.  soon people began to see the dangerous road they were headed down and cities began to make firefighting a government service, a basic provision of life for each and every citizen. 

but have things really changed in america?  now imagine a different scenario:  a man who discovers he is dying of cancer walks into a hospital.  his situation is indeed life-threatening, but before a doctor will even step within 10 ft. of him, he must prove that he is a subscriber to an insurance company.  and if he is subscribed to a company that particular hospital does not accept, he is sent out.  and if he has no insurance?  will he be left to writhe to an agonizing death at home in his bed as the victims of a fire in less enlightened days?  protect and save human life... for profit!?!?  yet, where are the cries of "absurd"!  how come americans have come to accept this as a perfectly normal part of life? 

ah, but let's go back to our original story:  what if that same fire brigade upon arriving, finds that the house ablaze is indeed one of its clients.  yet, before expending any of its energy or water it discovers that your house had hazardous electric wiring before you bought your insurance policy.  imagine then that despite the fact that you are its client, the brigade still turns around and drives off into the night because your house had a "pre-existing condition" that you did not warn them about before purchasing their insurance. 

thankfully things never got that bad with the fire dept. but in the states people are all too familiar with that excuse from health insurance companies.  is it not just as mercenary that the insurance companies are willing to sacrifice human life to generate more profit?  is it not sickeningly ironic that places with names like "good samaritan", "st. luke's", and even "holy redeemer" are ready to turn away a dying man whose life they could easily save, simply because he cannot cough up the ridiculous amount of money they ask?  somehow i don't think that's the same "good samaritan" Jesus spoke about, who gave out of his own pocket to care for a wounded fellow human being. 

the US is the only country of the industialized nations that does not supply health care to its citizens as a basic human right.  US citizens pay the highest per capita average for health care IN THE WORLD, and yet in a 2000 worldwide study by the World Health Organization, the US ranked only 37 out of 191 countries in overall health care; beat out by even columbia, morocco and costa rica. (read the article here) 

you may have noticed on my "currently watching" michael moore's sicko which is about the health care system in america.  now, i'd like to give the caveat that i do NOT agree with the huge majority of mr. moore's political stances and generally lop-sided, partisan rhetoric.  however, the information in this movie is VITAL for every american to stop and think on.  (and he takes a swing at hill as well as george w. in the film)  if you watch it, try to forget the other things he's produced and just take it as-is and weigh it in your own mind.  the information about the fire dept. is not mentioned in the movie.  that was my own research.  this documentary simply made me interested to find out about the situation. 

i think its interesting that i've not not heard one single american evangelical christian i know talk about this issue.  plenty about prayer in schools, abortion, immigration laws and other such hot-button issues.  but doesn't callously allowing men to die, denying them the treatment that could save their lives just to make one's wallet thicker seem a crime on the same level as abortion?  if Jesus were a doctor (and indeed He is the Great Physician) would He let that happen?  there are ways to get involved and find out more.  if you're interested, google: "US National Health Insurance Act" (also known as HR676 - read full text here) - a bill in the House of Reps. now that has gained much momentum in the last few months which proposes health care for every US citizen as a basic human right provided for by the government.

i live in a country with a "universal health care" system and though there are flaws it is pretty great to be able to go to the pharmacy and know that i can purchase just about any kind of drug i need for under $6.  its nice to be able to go to the hospital whenever i feel i need to without worry about if my insurance company will cover the cost.  when we first moved to svitlovodsk i got sick with something crazy and had a fever of 104 (40C).  my wife call the "ambulance" and they came within 20min. and administered the shots i needed to bring the temperature down and gave me a prescription to get.... for FREE.  ukraine's flaws with its health care system are largely a result of lack of resources and rampant corruption in the government in genereal (both problems which are absent in the US).  and even with all its problems, the concept itself is pretty great.  watch the documentary, check out the subject matter, take a stance.  peace out.

btw, i'd be very interested to hear people's thoughts on this.

bruised reeds and profit yields

i was reading in Matthew 12 today where it quotes from Isaiah about Jesus saying, "a bruised reed He will not break, and smoking flax He will not quench."  those lines really hit me as i read them.  i thought to myself, "how often is that not the attitude i have, that Christians in general have?"  its so easy to relate to people with what i'd call a utilitarian christianity; a cold, mechanical and morbidly logical approach to others.  see, utilitarianism (for those who are unfamiliar with that idea) says "the greatest good for the greatest amount of people with the least amount of pain".  sounds nice, right?  but it stresses the actual "utility" or usefulness of an object, action, or person to the exclusion of other assets.  it is the basic law employed in economics and business today: an object/action's intrinsic worth is measured by its "profit yield", how much money it will make you.  and if it is an endeavor whose yield doesn't outweigh the risk of failure or justify the time/resources put into it, the endeavor is canned. 

"gee, i didn't expect to get an economics lesson out of Matthew 12" you might be thinking.  you're right: you won't.  see, that is the way that this world thinks.  it is the way that we think, whether we realize it or not.  we've been taught it since grade school and its only gotten worse from there.  especially in the profit driven, corporation-ruled 21st century in which we live it seems near impossible to even consider another approach.   but Jesus' way of thinking is decidedly different.  i'm not trying to debate one economic system/philosophy over another here (i actually hated economics in school).  the issue that  concerns us as Christians is when we allow this utilitarianism to leak over from our wallets and infect our relationships with other human beings; when this philosophy begins to dictate not merely where we put our savings (albeit also an important spiritual question) but how we treat our neighbor.

so now we come back to the words written to describe how Jesus relates to people, words spoken by the Father Himself to describe His Son: "a bruised reed He will not break and a smoking flax He will not quench."  think about those pictures in your head for a minute.  a "bruised" reed - that is, the stalk of a plant that has been crushed.  some careless passer-by has trampled it in his rough haste, or perhaps it has been rolled over by a cart carrying what some merchant thought to be more precious... or a number of other scenarios that could have damaged the tender plant.  and then picture a man coming by and seeing this bruised reed.  now, i know if this was me my tendency would be to simply, without hesitation, take that limp, crushed, barely-hanging-on-to-life stalk and snap it clean off.  after all, its highly doubtful that the reed will recover from such a blow, and to try and nurse it back to health would take an immense amount of attention, time, care.... and in the end it'd still be possible than nothing would come of it.  wouldn't it be easier to just go on to the next reed and try to do a better job of protecting that one?  really, what kind of man would go to all that trouble with such a great investment of himself and such an unsure chance of success?   Jesus, that's who.  with each of us who has been trampled, crushed, beaten aside by those who are too busy, too greedy or just not watching Jesus does not snap us off, but slowly, patiently pours over us His love and care to nurse us back to health.

the "smoking flax" - the smoldering wick of a candle or oil lamp.  it was burning bright at one point, but for one reason or another that fire has gone out.  there is now only a faint, phantom hint of what used to be.  perhaps the wind of a storm has picked up and extinguished the flame.  maybe the flame was smothered by something set on top of the lamp, or maybe its just come to the end of the wick.  now, think far back in your minds to the days before bic lighters...  even further back to days before matches.  it was not a simple task to get a smoking flax burning again.  the person who set himself to this had to blow and blow with all his might till he was blue in the face.  again, why not just let it go out?  why expend so much for what seems like such a little (and unlikely) result?  but Jesus is that Man who came and comes to each of us as the weight of the world has smothered us, as the storms of life have diminished our blaze to weak glow, when we are at the end of our wick, and He lovingly works on us, pouring out His own life till we find ours again. 

i am so thankful that Jesus does this, is this.  if He were not so nurturing and patient, i would be without hope.  but here's the question: do i pour over, pour out to others in the same way?  or in a utilitarian fashion do i just say "he's too much trouble, forget it"?  am i snapping off bruised reeds, brothers and sisters who are barely hanging on?  am i ready to just let those whose fire's gone out lose the last glow of life, or will i breathe what life is given me into them and pray they might ignite once more?  it costs much, the result is unsure if not unlikely, and if successful, the outcome is not something that will impress most people in our utilitarian society, even the all-too-utilitarian church.  not one for the economics textbooks.  but that is who Jesus is.  that is what it means to walk like He did, to experience Him working through me.  God, give me a heart to neither break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax. 

thoughts on prayer

God desires to speak to us, to meet with us at all times, in all activities.  He wants us to experience His presence in every little thing we do, to be led by His voice.  but so often we have trouble hearing amidst the racket of a noisy world.  it is not that we don't want to hear Him, but that we cannot pick out His voice amongst the myriad of other, lying voices we are bombarded with.  how can we escape this cacophony to find the One Voice which we truly thirst to hear?

God speaks to us at all times, but i believe it is in the quiet place of prayer that God tunes our ears to the sound of His voice, so that when we are amidst the noise of the world, we will be able to pick His out of the crowd.  Jesus did promise that His sheep know His voice.  a flock of sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd even amidst a crowd of other shepherds because they have come to know His voice as they roam the pastures with him, listen to him talk with them and call them in the still grasslands when there is no one else around.  then when they are brought into the city, even among all the noise, they can still recognize him. 

so often the Bible exhorts us "keep silence before the Lord", "be still".  yet how often do we pass by this frequently repeated command?  as if because it is a command to cease doing, it is any less worthy of our obedience?  and when we do come to the place of prayer, is it often with so much noise of our own.  somehow we've been led to believe that unless we are saying something during our time of prayer, rattling off some need or request, then we are largely wasting time.  i would challenge you that the truth is actually the opposite: unless we are keeping silence before the Lord in prayer, listening to His voice, we are largely wasting time. 

sometimes i think we are just afraid of what He might say if we gave Him the opportunity.  perhaps our machine-gun prayers are more evidence that we do not trust the goodness of our God, or what He might say (or not say) given the chance.  i think we've all been in a situation where we are with someone we are not entirely sure if we can trust and the conversation suddenly hits a lull.  usually we start to frantically search for some topic, ANY topic to alleviate the awkward silence.  however, contrast that with a true friend - you are totally comfortable, even happy just to sit in that person's presence without trying to force any conversation.  you could sit for minutes or even hours without a word and feel no hint of awkwardness because you are convinced of that person's love for you.  are we convinced of the Lord's love for us?  and if so, why do we deal with Him as with someone whom we are not sure about? 

we need to learn to keep silence and listen to the Voice of Love which desires to speak words of life into our hearts, to refresh, encourage, strengthen and bless us.  that Voice is speaking constantly if only we would listen, but before we can listen in the crowd, we must come to the silent grasslands and learn its sound.  anyway, just some random thoughts on prayer on Rosh Hashanah.

the serpent's trap

we all know the story of eve's temptation in the garden of eden: how satan twisted God's Word and got eve to doubt what God had said, how eve misquoted God's command, etc.  but here's something that we possibly don't often think about: what was he tempting her with?  paul writes in 1 Tim. 2 that eve was deceived and so fell into transgression, whereas adam was not deceived and chose sin willingly.  that implies that there was not a full consciousness of sin in eve's poor decision, and certainly not a desire for it.  it follows that satan could not have been tempting her with something evil or sinful, as she had no sin yet.  so what was the temptation?

satan's temptation to eve was contained in the phrase "in the day you eat of it, you will be like God".  now i think we often read that and think that satan was tempting eve to "be her own god", to cast of the shackles of the Lord's rule and rebel.  i used to assume that was the meaning.  but that doesn't fit with the idea that eve was deceived.  the deception implies that what she was doing she thought was a positive thing!  the temptation was for eve to be like God - in the sense of being god-like, or we might say "godly".  surely it is a good thing to be like God!  i believe eve's desire was not to rebel and be her own lord, but to be become more like God. 

but here is the problem, here is the serpent's subtle trap: he says, "you can be like God, and all you have to do is eat the fruit".  but the fact is, eve was already like God!  she was created in his likeness and image!  the trap was to trick eve into believing there was something else she had to do to be like God, when God Himself had already made her like Him!

satan's ways have not changed.  today he still tempts us with the same deception, one which exploits our good desires (only present by God's Spirit in us) to be more like Him.  satan slithers up and says, "yeah, you can be godly, more holy, and all you have to do is add this fruit or that fruit"  "you just need to bear this fruit in the ministry or have the fruit of doing that work, THEN you will be holy, godly, like Jesus".  the deception in this is that Jesus has already made us like Himself by the blood shed for us on His cross!  we are already made anew in His image by His grace.  we have been made the holiness and righteousness of God in Him!  but satan would have us (mind you all the while with good intentions) mistrust God's completed work by making us think we need to add something to it for it to be complete.  don't let the serpent speak his lie into your heart today.  simply be still and know that Jesus has already made you holy, godly by His great grace.  as paul wrote to the corinthians, "lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."  (2 Cor. 11:3)  so enjoy the simplicity of Christ and the beauty of His completed work!