Thoughts on Seminary Week 2

1 Most of our struggles exist not because of the difficulty of the whole but because we fear the first step.
2. We all talk about how isolated we are in our culture but we never seem to change it. In two weeks I've butted into conversations with dosens of total strangers and to my great surprize everyone seems to have enjoyed it.
3. Some of the most profound conversations will happen with the people you least expect it from.
4. I can't drink coffee and walk at the same time.
5. I can however endure the inquisitive looks of those who notice a somewhat conspicuous coffee stain on my shirt.

sDg
JTE

Thoughts on Seminary: Week 1

Obviously starting out this new season of life, time for writing has given way to reading for assignments, reciting Greek paradigms and late night theology cramming. Nonetheless this is my little attempt to keep my mind above the mire of assignments, papers, discussions, chapels, presentations, and books, to share just a few thoughts on little moments of insight each week of my seminary experience.

1. Learning a new language is tough, but not nearly so tough as I thought. I wish fear hadn't kept me from trying to learn the biblical languages earlier
2. I've been way too cynical in the past. I've seen that Christian community when truly attempted, truly works. It's not perfect, but by God's grace it is glorious.
3. Why didn't anyone in South Dakota tell me that cock roaches are that stupidly big in real life?
4. When surrounded by those with the same skills, I'm am remarkably unremarkable.
5. Being remarkable really has nothing to do with happiness.

sDg

JTE

Does it work?: Discerning internal hurdles to sharing the gospel

When I was in middle school I remember particularly hating the day when the school counselor would stop by our homeroom for "critical thinking and personal development". "Critical thinking and personal development" consisted largely of asking odd and confusing hypothetical questions; If you were stranded on a desert Island what 3 items would you take with you? Which is more important to take into an unknown cave the match book or the spade? Who walked into the bar first, the priest, the rabbi, or the minister? Ok so that last one wasn't really one asked me in middle school, but you get the point. Theses questions were supposed to develop our critical thinking skills. Most of us remember them as foolish because they're content was so distant. The likelihood of flying on a doomed fedex freighter and becoming best friends with volleyball for 4 years is the stuff of Hollywood, not daily life.

The ridiculousness of these questions isn't the only reason I hated critical thinking questions growing up. Unbeknownst to me at the time I was growing up in inchoate postmodernism. Now before you scream "buzzword!" lets take a step back from what postmodernism has come to mean to where it began, or more accurately before it began.

Modernism grew out of the industrial revolution, as society in the west suddenly found unprecedented control over our environment. In the space of one generation we went from regional mobility with the proliferation of the automobile around 1907 to putting a man on the moon in 1969. In less than one lifetime we mastered nationwide electricity, the proliferation of indoor plumbing, massive jumps in health and wellness, and just a few years later the beginnings of the information revolution. Walt Disney's "Tomorrowland" became "Todaysville" and a quaint "Yestertown" almost overnight. With man gaining so much unforeseen power so quickly it was inevitable that self confident optimism would emerge as home, car, work and play became decidedly "modern".

Irony of ironies, it was this optimism in human achievement that would become fatalism in less than one generation. As technology was exploding and making more things work, western thinking largely followed along those same lines. That which was important, was that which could make things work. It was in this time that we saw the birth of the centrality of math and science in our curricula, a role philosophy and rhetoric held in earlier models. Philosophy and rhetoric do not invent washing machines, microwaves, and automobiles. As we dove deeper into the 20th century however our very thinking became inculcated with the pragmatism our technology dependent lives demanded. Soon the gatekeeper of our thinking was changed from the cardinal question of philosophy "Is it true?", to the cardinal question of science "does it work?".

This change in large part explains the amazing agnosticism of our age. I refer not only to the agnosticism toward belief in God, which has grown massively, but toward everything in life. The babies of the babyboomers and beyond have proven to be later and less likely to get married, less involved in their communities, in essence less likely to care about anything. The problem lies in the fact that the gate-keeping question of "does it work?" is insufficient to the task of the kinds of questions we face everyday. Pragmatism, the technical term for "does it work?" thinking, is not sufficient to answer whom should I marry? what community involvement will have the greatest value? why do I exist?. The pragmatism that was necessarily born of modernism left an entire generation believing these questions simply could not be answered. It was this absence of an idea, rather than a presence of one, that was dubbed post-modernism.

It was this ideological vacuum that I found myself in as a middle-schooler trying to answer those "critical thinking" questions. Without knowing it at the time, the reason myself and my fellows hated those questions so much was because we didn't have a philosophy in which to answer them. When framed, as they so often were as "what would you do if...?" questions, the "does it work?" philosophy aborts if the question is not immediately applicable.

The problem is as Christians we have to be able to answer the questions a generation doesn't have the philosophical base to ask. God is not God because he works, but because he is true. Because he is true, he does work, but the latter is not sufficient to precede the former. We cannot allow our inherited and insufficient philosophical scaffolding prevent us from building a robust view of the God who is, and whose being is not dependent on his doing.

If we shy away from asking the deeper questions of life because of "does it work?" frame of reference is painfully stretched, we will be ourselves insufficient to the task of applying the gospel to our own lives and the lives of others. The gospel will "work" in that it will show the fruit of righteousness, however it will not "work" in the sense of pure pragmatism. The gospel will not make you monetarily richer, easier going, or better looking. (eg. yours truly)

In truth we are seeing several generations of people who are already tired of hearing the answer to the question "does it work?". They've lived through broken homes, families, churches, and friendships that didn't work and now they're searching for something more. We as Christians must be the people who can tell them what that is. We must be the people who can see beyond "what works" to "what is true".

sDg

The Top 20 Albums You Never Thought to Buy

I thought it would be fun to take a break from my usual writing on theology and Christian living and take a few blog posts to talk about my other great passion music. Ever stumbled upon an album and wondered where this artist was your whole life? The fact of the matter is modern music promotion isn’t designed to promote the newest and hottest not the classics and greats; even less so albums that are hidden gems that don’t immediately sell well. Often great albums are overlooked by the masses because they are out of their time or just simply because they didn’t advertise well. Well no longer! Here they are (in no particular order) the top 20 albums you probably never thought to buy.

1. Unforgettable, with Love- Natalie Cole

Genre: Jazz, Big Band

Year: 1991

Label: Elektra

Now arguably this album shouldn’t make this list at all. After all an album that has sold 7 million copies hardly qualifies as an “album you never thought to buy” however I never cease to be amazed by how many people under 30 have never even heard of it. Natalie Cole released the album to pay homage to her father, jazz legend Nat King Cole. As such the casual or new jazz listener may hear many songs they know, but didn’t know were Nat King Cole standards.

The Youtube age has given the title track “Unforgetable” a great deal of staying power, and the track is deeply touching as father and daughter do the duet they never had the chance to do in life. However, listeners who only explore this title track will miss some of the best this album has to offer. Natalie does wonderful covers of “Orange Colored Sky”, “Smile”, and oft overlooked classic “Avalon”. Natalie made her career in throaty R & B but she proves she has the pipes for Jazz, with a tender handling of “Mona Lisa”.

In addition the band arrangements are perfect big band. Never simple, but not too ornate to cover the singer, these arrangements give the listener the feel that “this is what big band should sound like”. Even more so, the players do the tunes great justice, showing particular mastery on “This can’t be love”.

This album offers some hidden benefit as well. If you’re new to Jazz and big band, this album is a great primer. It offers 22 big band vocal classics with great players and arrangements, for less than the price of a pizza. And to top it off it’s all new recordings so it will be easy listening for the casual listener who has a bit of trouble listening to older jazz albums due to their recording quality. All around an album that shouldn’t have been forgotten.

… next week R&Bappella?

(c) Jamin Eben 2011

Momentary Geek Out

The blog has slowed down a good bit lately because of my graduate studies. Learning Hebrew doesn't leave much time for waxing eloquent about the theological flavor of the week. In the long run I hope it will make me a much better thinker and writer over all. So in lieu of doing my own good thinking I divert to an entirely non-theological thought on film making from very possibly the most underrated film maker of our time. Irvin Kershner. Most well known for directing "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back", 'Kersh' as his friends called him never made it big in hollywood. For the person willing to seek out his movies however he made some amazingly moving and thoughtful films. His perspectives on film making are almost lost on hollywood today, so I thought it might be refreshing to air a few of them out here. From an interview with sound and vision magazine (www.soundandvisionmag.com) Kershner talks about what really makes movies good, and where Star Wars (read all of Hollywood) has gotten off track....

Were you chosen to direct specifically because you would give more humanity to the characters?

We never talked about that. I was just supposed to make a terrific film, one that was better than the first one. But how do you make a terrific film? Do you put in more action than the first one? No, action is not what it's about. It's about characters, and caring about them. And that's where I wanted to put the emphasis - on the people.

Do you think that the new Star Wars films have moved too much toward the technology and away from the characters?

Who am I to comment when the audience loves them? But I feel that maybe George is sacrificing some of the potential for drama - the interior drama that that kind of film needs - for the terrific technology. I mean, he's getting giant scenes, thousands of robots rolling along and things flying around. They are amazing. To me, though, they're nothing to do with emotion. And I also wonder about Yoda. I think maybe Yoda should have been kept a little bit closer to what I had, a man who says, "Don't get angry. If you get angry, you're going to lose." Now he gets angry. This is a different interpretation. But nobody knows the subject better than George, so if this is what he feels it needs, that's it. The audience likes them, the kids love them, and they do have a look that no other films have.

----

You know Kershner, may he rest in peace, was right. He was right, the fans liked them, but not nearly in the culture shifting way the original films were received. And I think he's right in his assessment. A culture that constantly sees things bigger, faster, angrier, and more powerful, doesn't necessarily understand itself better.

I'm done geekin out. Time to go study vowel points.

Doing good to get to Good News

What is the best way of sharing the Gospel? Everyone involved in missions needs to be asking this question. The bible mandates that all Christians be involved in missions in some light, so it follows that every Christian should be asking that question. In our time my generation (20-30-somethings) have found a new and broad answer to that question. Call it emerging, call it missional, call it ywam or venture or anything you like. The model is basically the same; Meet needs, emotional and physical, to gain the right to present the gospel. It certainly is a good model and one that has seen beautiful work being done from the plains of Africa to the streets of New York. Here's the catch. It isn't the only way, our brothers and sisters from times past haven't always seen it as the dominant way, and it's arguably not the most widespread biblical way. So it becomes worth asking, How can we best use God's resources to spread God's news? It behooves us to take some time and a good dose of humility as we answer.

The bible shows many different models of presenting the gospel. Some of them involve meeting a felt need, others ongoing relationship, and some with almost no prior contact and only proclamation. In our generation a great deal of emphasis has been placed on a model that emphasizes a certain introduction. Usually involving some form of building relational capital, be that through friendship, or some sort of good will gift (feeding programs, schools etc.) These programs are absolutely wonderful, but as in all human endeavor not without the presence of indwelling sin. (Is 64:6) Knowing our greater temptation to blindness and pride when we are doing God's work, we shouldn't be too defensive to examine even our Gospel sharing method.

You may wonder why some, especially older, pastors seem less gung-ho about this new missional movement then most of us twenty-somethings. First this in itself should give us pause. God gave us generations in the church not so the younger could correct the older (though in a fallen world there is a place in humility for that to happen) but mostly for the older to correct the younger. The command to honor our parents carries to our spiritual elders and doesn't stop magically at age 18. I'm sad to say "young missional emergents" have often been guilty of making broad sweeping statements about "the church" often making unfair generalizations about the very people who taught us what we know of the Gospel. So first, if many faithful Christians of the past generation have hesitations with the missional movement, we need to stop being prideful and at least listen. No you aren't smarter than your parents, and yes God still expects you to listen to old folks even if you have been through 4 years of DTS.

Secondly there is always a temptation to pride in any movement. Movements are not evil. In our age it has become somewhat vogue to be part of "non-movement" movements. Just like the non-conformist t-shirts of a few years back, someone had to get a bunch of non-conformist to buy them all alike, in the same way our "non-movement" missionalism has a tendency to at times look an awful lot like a movement. That said there's nothing neccesarily wrong with that. Many of the most wonderful changes in the church have come out of bonified self proclaimed movements (eg. the reformation). With organization however comes temptation; specifically to pride. For example: you feel called to go on a missions trip. You send out letters to folks in your home church and circle of influence, and by God's grace you raise enough money to go. You go to Africa (picking on myself here) and there see some of the terrible poverty that ravages the third world. Holding children and meeting these foreign faces breaks and rebuilds your worldview. It's a wonderful God given experience. Then you go home. After a few weeks you find you now have a judgmental streak you never noticed before. You notice the guy at church who drives a hummer rather than a hundai like you. He must not understand poverty. Why does the preacher wear thom's rather than tom's, doesn't he know there are people without shoes? And without knowing it you and I can slip into a judgemental attitude toward many of the same people who sacrificed to provide for our mission work. With just a few days watching God work, we've now tried to take his job.

Thirdly, and perhaps most dangerously there is in emergent missionalism a temptation to be ashamed of the Gospel. Let me explain. In the first century after Christ has risen from the dead the apostles start working out the implications. This rabbi Jesus has proven that the kingdom to come won't be based on this kingdom. The implication is that everything in this life pales in comparison to the importance of the next. They sell their property and explode on the world giving up everything they have here to gain a life where Christ is going. They give their lives, proclaiming the world, dying in poverty or by the sword. Fast forward to our day and age. We often see missions more categorized by program than proclamation. Why?

Partly we have adapted to our culture. This is in many ways good. Contextualization without compromise is wonderful. However often I meet young people relying on the program because of a good deal of fear. Fear most of all that without some sort of programatic build up the gospel simply won't be received. I've heard phrases like "if we don't meet their needs they simply won't listen to us" or "we have to build relationship or the gospel won't mean anything". While these are true in many situations they are a far cry from the gospel boldness exhibited by the apostles. They seem to have no stock at all placed in whether or not people respond. Peter proclaims in the synagog imediatly after pentacost, a message saying in essence he doesn't expect them to respond. Jesus himself says some have ears to hear and others don't, even saying the gospel has been veiled from some. Even more the bible itself proclaims the intrinsic power of it's message saying it "will not return" without accomplishing exactly what it was meant to (Is 55:11). With such power at our backs do we need to fear that we need some other in to present this message? Furthermore if all in this life will burn and usher into eternity in the next, have we not every reason to shamelessly point to the Gospel as the only true and enduring need?

I am not saying we should stop using good deeds to usher in and adorn the gospel. Far from it, they will know we are his by our love. However, we need to take great care that in our effort to show love, we don't exalt loving over Jesus. Think with me for a moment, have you ever felt ashamed that all you had to give was the gospel? When feeling led to talk about Christ have you ever felt like you had to earn the right? When seeing photos of those joyful poor in third world countries who seem to have nothing but Christ do you feel sorry for them, rather than righteous envy for their spritual riches? I think there is a great danger in young missional evangelicals becoming ashamed of their gospel. We wouldn't say it that way, but when pressed we're uncomfortable if we can't provide the gospel and something else; The gospel and food programs, the gospel and schools, the gospel and comunity improvement. The world has suckered us into believing that the Gospel isn't gift enough in itself to justify stopping people in their tracks.

Paul specifically warns us not to be ashamed of the gospel. In fact in his ministry he met very few felt needs. He had no feeding programs or improvment projects. He healed some, but not a great many. He traveled, preached, and started churches, and specificaly told people not to be ashamed that the only good they had to give was in the next life not this one. Where does this leave us? Love people. There is no alternative. Give like crazy, if you have internet to read this you are what would technically be called by world wide standards "Stinking filthy rich" but never, never, never be ashamed to present the gospel. It is far more refreshing than clean water, far more saving than medical care, far more important than community improvement. Far more precious than any other service you could ever offer. It is the power of God to salvation. In closing I found these words from pastor Thabiti Anybwile very helpful as we think about this multifaceted and deeply important question.
-----------------------
I once heard a dear brother in the Lord express his ministry philosophy, in part, with this formula:

"Good deeds leads to good will which creates platform for Good News."

I don't think it's original to him; he mention an author I didn't recognize. I suspect he's not alone in holding this veiw of things. And, again, this is a very dear brother in the Lord.

When I heard my brother articulate this point of view, instantly I was thinking, No, it's:

"Good News creates a new people who do good deeds that lead to good will."

In other words, good deeds and good will are not needed to accredit the gospel or give the gospel power. Acceptance of the gospel isn't fundamentally a matter of how well we adorn the gospel. Faith rests on the power of God, not the persausiveness of men. Moreover, the gospel has long had its effect in areas where good will evaporated in the heat of persecution and hatred.--

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabile/2011/05/10/which-way/

------

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

sDg

(c) Jamin Eben 2011

The Me-nifesto

We are out for me

I am out for me

I must listen to me

Feel me

look out for me

Why not no one else will

though I do expect them to

I will look to me to make me happy

I will look to me to make me fullfiled

I will look to me to love me

and if I fail to fulfill any of these things,

I will certainly not blame me

I will not see me as selfish

At least not as selfish as he is

at least not as bad as she is

at least not as uptight as he is

Me is just good enough to deserve a good life

Maybe even heaven, tian, or nirvana

what ever I choose

because no one knows better than me

everyone better than me is amazing

everyone worse is a disappointment

I will love me

forgive me

provide for me

and expect you to do so too

Why wouldn't you?

Don't you like me?

I can't see why not?

I like me

well most of the time I like me

and when I don't like me,

I will work to like me

I will spend time liking me

I let me tell me I forgive me and love me

I will let me lead me

After all the best truth is to follow my heart

so me is a perfectly good guide to me

Me is the lord of my domain

me is the captain of my soul

the sovereign of me is me

unless something bad happens to me

then it wasn't my fault.

I wonder why I have trouble finding people to love me

I wonder if they too are looking out for me

Luke 9:23-24 (NIV) Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it."

sDg

© Jamin Eben 2011

Philosophy Geek Humor

The new Nirvana advertising campaign slogan: BUT WAIT, THERE'S LESS!

sDg

(c)2011 Jamin Eben

"I Don't Know Myself"

There's no humor intended in that title. In fact, it's a phrase I've heard from several friends in the last few months; Always coupled with a bit of sadness. On the surface it seems the impossible statement, how could we feel in effect, unable to know ourselves? Yet this seems to be the tacit goal of our culture. "Be who you are" and yet how often do we find our efforts, often wrapped in the garments of some subculture, look, or relationship, to, in the end, never quite satisfy. Whatever I am, I am more than my labels, more than my group, more than my stereotype whether I like it or not. I am more than the sum of my parts, and I cannot seem to figure out the math.

If you struggle to understand yourself, it might either bring you great joy or great distress to know you are in the grandest of company. From the great to the least, all struggle to understand themselves. Often it is the most self defined in our culture that in the end cannot find any "self" to hold on too. (the latest exploits of Charlie Sheen would seem to lend themselves to this interpretation) We are left looking deep inside and wondering why we are lost without our latest identity (the person, the group, the look, the job) or striving on to make a new one. Or as likely much of both. We are identity addicts, staring at the bottom of the bottle of unfulfilled life roles.

Where did we derail? Why can't the only self aware being on this planet manage to deal with his own self awareness? Why? He was never meant to do it himself.

The king of the reformation theologians, John Calvin, opens his magnum opus(1) with this one twice inverted thought: Without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self. Read it again. Without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self. No knowledge. None. We grasp at an ever growing chasm between ourselves and true knowledge of ourselves without first understanding God. Perhaps you don't believe in a God. Perhaps you do,l but deep down you know, you don't know him as you should. Either way, humor me for a moment.

If there is a God, assuming anything by such a definition must be a creator in some shape, he must have had a hand in our creation. If so it seems particularly peculiar that he would choose to make a creature of self awareness. Certainly such a creature seems to have the makings of unique origin. A favored existence. The one creature that shared the amazing special bond with its creator of perceiving and changing its own world and interpretation. A creature that by its very thinking creates a perception of its own world. A creature that by very nature of it existence has an inseparable bond with its creator, and yet has the ability to truly change, not only exist. What if that creature were to turn its back on that bond. By some ill event to have its vision clouded. The base as it were removed from the statue so that the perception is now unbounded. He would feel definitionless, floating, unable to understand his own ablility to change himself. Without the core truth of why he his what he is, he can never truly master his own spirit.

I think we know it is true.

Perhaps this is why we so long to be known. Whether through workaholism, or being too quick to relationships, we need to be known. We feel alone in a crowded room, and lost in a lonely one.

If this is all true, then there is a great hope. The God, knowledge of whom is the only solution to our problem, has chosen to reveal himself.

Hebrews 1:1-3 (NIV)

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

He chose a people, he wrote a book, and ultimately he ripped open the heavens and came himself. God has revealed himself. His name is Jesus. He offers not only the knowledge of God, which would only serve to condemn us because of our mistakes, but also the path to God. He offers a real lasting relationship of growing knowing and being known.

You need not look to your self any longer. You may know that you are known.

Psalm 139

For the director of music. Of David. A psalm.

1 You have searched me, LORD,

and you know me.

2 You know when I sit and when I rise;

you perceive my thoughts from afar.

3 You discern my going out and my lying down;

you are familiar with all my ways.

4 Before a word is on my tongue

you, LORD, know it completely.

5 You hem me in behind and before,

and you lay your hand upon me.

6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,

too lofty for me to attain.

7 Where can I go from your Spirit?

Where can I flee from your presence?

8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;

if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.

9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,

if I settle on the far side of the sea,

10 even there your hand will guide me,

your right hand will hold me fast.

11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me

and the light become night around me,”

12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;

the night will shine like the day,

for darkness is as light to you.

13 For you created my inmost being;

you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

your works are wonderful,

I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you

when I was made in the secret place,

when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.

16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;

all the days ordained for me were written in your book

before one of them came to be.

17 How precious to me are your thoughts,a]" style="font-size: 0.75em; line-height: 0.5em; ">[a] God!

How vast is the sum of them!

18 Were I to count them,

they would outnumber the grains of sand—

when I awake, I am still with you.

19 If only you, God, would slay the wicked!

Away from me, you who are bloodthirsty!

20 They speak of you with evil intent;

your adversaries misuse your name.

21 Do I not hate those who hate you, LORD,

and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?

22 I have nothing but hatred for them;

I count them my enemies.

23 Search me, God, and know my heart;

test me and know my anxious thoughts.

24 See if there is any offensive way in me,

and lead me in the way everlasting.

New International Version, ©2011 (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica

sDg

(1) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Westminster John Knox press, ed. John T McNeill (c) 1960

(c) Jamin T. Eben 2011

Why Go to Church?

Do you go to church to get something, or to meet someone? I'm afraid the "League of Tyndale" hit the nail on the head with this humorus but a bit too true assesment.

We need God's wrath to forgive

An amazingly succinct telling of this deep truth by pastor and writer Kevin DeYoung on his blog. If you've ever been sinned against in a way that you think is impossible to forgive. If you lie awake at night beating yourself up because the pain is too great for you to "just get over it" this beautiful truth is for you. THE BIBLE DOESN'T ASK YOU TO GET OVER SIN! I know the all caps thing is technically poor form in internet world but I desperately want Christians to understand. The cross is not just freedom from your own sins, but freedom for sins committed against you. God is your defender. Here's Kevin's words.

"we need God’s wrath in order to forgive our enemies. The reason we can forgo repaying evil for evil is because we trust the Lord’s promise to repay the wicked. Paul’s logic is sound. “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Rom. 12:19). The only way to look past our deepest hurts and betrayals is to rest assured that every sin against us has been paid for on the cross and or will be punished in hell. We don’t have to seek vigilante justice, because God will be our just judge.

If you submit your life to the cross of Christ he is not only your savior but also your defender. You can take shelter at the cross. Here's another amazing resource on this subject by John Piper. Stop trying to get over it, dive in to Christ and let him handle it.

sDg

Unexpected Joy in Loneliness

Presented at South Canyon Baptist Church. Sunday Jan 30th.

http://southcanyonbaptist.org/media.php?pageID=6&itemID=1

What to do with the superbowl after the superbowl

Incredibly helpful thoughts from Pastor/Leader C.J. Mahaney from his blog last year

"Sometime after the game-that same evening or the next day- its helpful for a father to draw his child's attention to the game in light of eternity. It's also helpful for us as fathers to be reminded of an eternal perspective. Apart from those few who listen excessively to sports talk radio, this game will be quickly forgotten. Let me ask you this- who won the Super Bowl even five years ago?

The day before the 1972 Super Bowl, Dallas Cowboy running back Duane Thomas said, "if it's the ultimate game home come they're playing it again next year?" Some players seem to get it. Sadly, many fans don't.

More recently Tom Brady, quarterback of three Super Bowl championships, is quoted in a 60 minutes interview saying "Why do I have three Super Bowl rings and still think there's something greater out there for me? I mean, maybe a lot of people would say, "Hey man, this is what is." I reached my goal, my dream, my life. I think, "God, it's got to be more than this." I mean this isn't, this can't be what it's all cracked up to be."

I anticipate that in a week or two, after the Super Bowl has been won, the champions will experience this same dissatisfaction. As Augustine said, "You [God] made us for yourself, and our hearts find no peace till they rest in you.""

Pastor Mahaney wrote this for fathers, and super bowl super fans, but as I read it it hit me we all have something we try to make- as Brady would say it- "all this is cracked up to be". Whether it be the dream job, the dream girl (or guy), the dream victory, or the dream buisness, everything seems empty the morning after. To point us back to Augustine's enduring quote and reverse it, our hearts will find rest when we rest in God.

Government, Gospel and Glenn Beck: What's a careful Christian to do?

Sometimes working in Christian radio it's hard to know what to say. When a local Christian ministry pays to bring in Glenn Beck, it becomes very hard to know what to say. Beck has united conservatives, yet divided Christians. What are we to do with the government, the gospel, and Glenn Beck...

A self professed Mormon, Beck, has a way of making people, especially conservative Christians ask questions. The world hasn't had much time to get to know the television and radio host who has rocketed from obscurity to fame in less time than it takes most people to finish college. Starting his career in radio at a young age, Beck's life story is a winsome one of fall and redemption. A struggle with alcoholism, the loss of a marriage in his addictions, finding faith in a Mormon church, finding sobriety and a rise from obscurity to reporting for CNN, and ultimately to super-stardom as the reigning king of tea party sympathizers. To say he was a man in the right place at the right time would be true, but not sufficient. Beck is a skilled communicator, an inspiring orator, and a passionate journalist, in the purest sense of the word.

In his own words his journey really started four years ago in 2006 when he first started investigating the roots of progressivism. Since that time progressivism has become enemy number one for Beck, who attacks it at every turn in his history lecture like television program, with his ever present and now iconic chalkboard, and in passionate and clever monologues on his nationally syndicated radio show. Since the beginning of that journey four years ago, Beck has found himself with a broad and passionate viewership, the number three most listened to radio show, and an increasingly leader like role in this new conservative movement.

Beck has changed with the times as well, drastically changing the format of his fox news show last year; in his own words, “closing the book” on exposing progressivism and moving to a very reserved almost conversational program block. Increasingly Becks shows have started to feel less like a “news” show, and more like a table talk, or even counseling sessions. In a move that was perhaps most shocking to the news world, Beck threw off the mantle of secularism that had become an unquestioned guest of journalism over the past three decades. Suddenly Americans were seeing a television personality talking personally, pervasively, and passionately about his own faith. Furthermore Beck treats faith with a loving fairness, not the cold calculated specimen like approach that has come to be expected in journalism. And finally to add insult to injury, Beck dared to invoke the name of Jesus Christ in his discussions about faith.

Beck is an understandable breath of fresh air for Christians, who had grown accustomed to treatments of Christ in media, varying from the cold and compartmentalized views of commentators like Bill O'Reily, who claims faith yet says it cannot have bearing on daily decisions, to aloof and passive aggressive like Bill Maher who's treatment of faith can best be seen in the words of Karl Marx who so famously dubbed it the “opiate of the masses”, to the outright venom from those like Rosie Odonell who compared voting Christians, to violent jihadi Muslims. In this atmosphere it should come as no surprise to news executives that real people of faith would be attracted to someone who really talks about faith.

In addition Beck talks about history, another distinctive that is all too distinct in media in our time. Though he has had a few noted foibles in his reporting of history, he has created an ongoing narrative where he has been careful to cite sources, involve scholars, and trace trends. In a world under the tyranny of novelty, Becks love affair with history has been, and indeed should be lauded and emulated.

Indeed much more good could be said about this radio host turned leader. There is much that makes Beck worth following. Even more credence is given to his leadership when we see what he is fighting against. In a time when the ruling elite is largely statist and all but exclusively secularist, one could find a plethora of good reasons to fall in line. Many Christians have done just that. To add fuel to their fire are Becks own statements. On his show when pressed on the subject of his Mormon faith he has emphasized his relationship with Jesus Christ. Saying at one point “Jesus saved me! That's all there is Jesus saved me!” (exclamations added). Many Christians have pointed to this as vindication that Beck believes the truth, and should bear the mantle of a movement. They have argued that Beck is some sort of hybrid, to pardon the flipancy a “Mormon light”. Does it matter? Could we join with Beck if he were a hindu or an animalist? Before we address these questions let us be careful not to dismiss the caution of our brothers and sisters in Christ and try to understand why they might be hesitant to embrace Glenn Beck.

Without question the most pressing matter on the minds of most Christians who would shy away from Beck is Mormonism. Mormonism is no laughing matter. It is has been the fastest growing bastion of falsehood in the last American century. Most Americans are largely ignorant of it's written doctrines and distinctives which has given way to a marketing slogan from the Later Day Saints that says in paraphrase, “we are just distinct Christians”. Can we believe this? Can there be a salvation in Mormonism, perhaps a Mormonism light? Lets consider some of the basic tenants. Mormons believe that God is not all powerful, not triune, nor is he eternal. He grew into Godhood through having spirit children. Both Jesus and Satan are spirit children of God, Jesus being given a body through God physically coming to earth from another planet to impregnate Mary through a physical sexual relationship. Christ death on the cross was not a true death, nor was it for the remission of sins. On first hearing most Christians are taken aback by these doctrines. And well we should be. It becomes apparent very quickly, if one holds to any of these basic LDS doctrines the Gospel begins to crumble.

One might very well say that Beck is not a Mormon theologian, therefore aught we not judge him on his own words rather than those of the Mormon Church? Yes and no. Before we take a look at the yes let's consider the no. Beck has openly and unabashedly affiliated himself with the Mormon church on multiple occasions. His affiliation is not accidental, or even subtle. In addition Beck prides himself on being a reading man. He often calls viewer to find the truth, and to know what they believe. Do we allow ourselves to think that Beck has used a different standard with his own beliefs? If he has it is to his shame! If he hasn't we cannot sever his ties to the Mormon Church! On the one hand how can we extol a man who has not followed his own words to know deeply his own faith. So much of Beck's message is one of deep devotion to faith, can we take his words if he has not made the effort to know his own faith? If this is not the case and Beck has deeply studied his faith, than how could he be both devoted to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and publicly associate with the group that preaches that Jesus came to earth as the product of an incestuous relationship of a demigod with a Jewish girl? We should not be quick to dismiss these questions, nor should we shy away from asking them. The Bible is clear we are accountable for our associations.

What of Beck's own words? We'll take a look at some of these in just a moment, however first let's answer the question. What of it? If the enemy of my enemy is my friend should we have any care what his faith is? Again both yes and no.

In his wonderful and still applicable book, “the City of God” the great theologian Augustine points out two cities to which we has citizenship; the earthly city and the heavenly city. Each citizenship comes with responsibilities inherent to it. Augustine skillfully lays out the perils of mixing or misunderstanding these two cities and rights of citizenship. In this earthly city we can stand along side many of different faiths to defend justice and righteousness. Right scales are an honor to God, regardless of the religion of the recipient. Standing together against things like abortion, injustice, and tyranny is beyond important. However we have a second, and indeed greater citizenship that is our first priority, and it is with this citizenship that my concern for Glenn Beck deepens.

At this time we'll take a deeper look at the words of Glenn Beck. Some are quick, because of statements from Beck on Christ like the one mentioned above, to pull his influence quickly into the realm of the second city. They say he has spoken truth. Has he? Truth can be tricky, in that a little truth with no context, can quickly become no truth at all. Beck has said Jesus saved me. When he says this what does he mean he has been saved from? Does he mean the same type and essence of salvation that you or I might? These might seem like needlessly picky questions, however if eternity is on the line, need we be any less than sure? Others have done a wonderful job of taking a comprehensive look at Beck's statements on faith (1), but to clarify Becks statements on Christ let's consider his words from the recent Constitution Challenge Rally held in Rapid City (10/26/10). After a one hour speech that I found largely inspiring and informative, Beck saved statements on faith for the last. He spoke of invoking the name of God, referring to the story of Moses in Exodus chapter 3.

1Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.2There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.3So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up." 4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses! And Moses said, "Here I am." 5 “Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." 6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. 7 The LORD said, "I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. 8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 9 And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them. 10 So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt." 11 But Moses said to God, "Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?" 12 And God said, "I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain." 13 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" 14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am .This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

You would be hard pressed to find another passage in the old testament so dedicated to God's identity. How did Beck interpret God's identity in our lives. If you can forgive a paraphrase as no transcript has been released to my knowledge, Beck said this is God's offer of power to us. It is our chance to invoke God's name to fill in our identity “I am a teacher, I am a father, I am Good!”. A God who by his power empowers us to change our identity for the better. Certainly that is a type of good news. But is it The Good News?

The Gospel as it is delivered to us in the scriptures has a much different take on our core problem. We are not good people with an identity crisis. We are sinful, enemies of God (Rom 3:10-16). We need to be saved, not from mediocrity, poor fatherhood, or even alcoholism, but first and foremost we need to be saved from the Righteous justice of God. A justice that must be exercised against all men, as much to vindicate the sins done against us as the sins we've done to others, and foremost to vindicate God. This righteous justice is called hell. It is the place we deserve to go. All other problems are just symptoms of the cancer that eats at our souls. We are sinners and we need a savior. Before we can ever talk about better lives, we need to be right with God, or life isn't worth living. The good news is that Jesus paid for these sins. Paul sums it up in the following verses in Romans 3.

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

This rightness with God, and the freedom in life that comes with it comes through repentance and complete submission to Jesus Christ as savior and lord. That is the Gospel we preach. Is that the gospel that Glenn Beck preaches?

I would submit, at best, it is very hard to tell. At the very least we need to know that “I AM” the holy YHWH did not reveal himself to Moses so that you might be a better I am, but rather to call out a people, to bring to earth a savior, that we might all worship the great “I AM”

So what do we do with Glenn Beck? We pray that he will find true gospel and have the boldness to proclaim it. We lovingly press these questions to bring clarity to light as it pertains to the gospel, knowing that eternity is in the balance. We use his words as opportunities to bring the true gospel to light. We stand beside him as often as conscience allows in matters of social change.

But we may never, again I say never, blur the gospel to avoid a disagreement. May a movement, an ideal, even the country itself be damned before we damn the world by forsaking the Gospel.

sDg

(1) www.albertmohler.com, http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4080

Who is oppressing whom?

I don't often do formal apologetic writing. I leave that task to others better informed and equipped for the task. However, every once and a while I see an argument that must be addressed as one person or another attacks faith with often presumptuous, vitriolic, and often uninformed arguments. Often because we don't have the research to prove such a statement is wrong, we end up bending to ridiculous and unfounded statements. One of these often leveled against Christians is that religion has been used to control and kill. It is itself at fault for things like the inquisition and the crusades.We often find ourselves backpedaling and apologizing in grand strokes for historical movements we hardly understand just to retain some semblance of perceived "witness" within a conversation. Certainly we need to admit our faults and sins to the world, but does it help to apologize inordinately for situations that are highly involved, and guilt perhaps incorrectly assigned. I say resoundingly no! The true church must be honestly defended in truth, or our witness is useless. If we do not believe the true church a better state of affairs than the world, then we have no reason to witness at all. Now the highly politically fueled background of the crusades, and shared guilt with the advancing Muslim world aside, I found this quote by former presidential advisor Richard John Neuhaus incredibly helpful in brining some sanity to otherwise diaphanous discussions about historical guilt.

Those who belive the record of the secular enlightenment is spotless compared to that of the church are essentialy in denial. Those who tell the story this way overlook the fact that in three hundred years the inquisition had fewer victims than were killed in any given afternoon durring the years of Stalin's purges and Hitler's concentration camps

Does Your Church Do This?

Coming Soon I'll be launching a new feature on KLMP the Light radio. It's called the Book-Nook and its a chance for our listeners to hear from authors as we discuss important new books. Our first book is "What is a healthy Church" by Mark Dever. Mark is an author and pastor of Capital Hill Baptist Church on, you guessed it, Capital Hill in Washington DC. He's also the founder and leader of Nine Marks Ministries, who's purpose is to help churches become more healthy. Is your church a healthy church? I found this passage particularly interesting...

"If a healthy church is a congregation that increasingly displays the character of God as his character has been revealed in his Word, the most obvious place to begin building a healthy church is to call Christians to listen to God's word... Fundamentally this means that both pastors and congregations must be committed to expositional preaching...Sometimes people confuse expostional preaching with reading a verse then preaching on a topic loosely related to that verse. Yet when a preacher exhorts a congregation on a topic of his choosing, using biblical texts only to back up his point, he will never preach more than what he already knows... Expositional preaching reqires more than that. It requires careful attention to the context of the passage, because it aims to make the point of the biblical text the point of the sermon. When a preacher exhorts a congregation by preaching a passage of Scripture in context-where the point of the passage is the point of his sermon- both he and the congregation will end up hearing things from God that the preacher did not intend to say...When [this isn't done] it hampers growth, ensuring [the people] will never mature beyond the level of the pastor. The church will slowly be conformed to the image of the pastor, rather than the image of God."

Who are we conforming to? Who are we leading others to be conformed to?

Should I be reading this?

I often wonder if I should write a blog. The world is filled with the words of fools, and often I too am foolish. Yet I do stand wholly convinced the truth of God is knowable and should be more often discussed extolled and shared among us. I found this little poem from the end of John Bunyan's pilgrims progress to much describe my efforts in writing as well. May we all strive too be so humble as Bunyan was.

What of my dross thou findest there, 

be bold To throw away, 

but yet preserve the Gold; 

What if my Gold be wrapped up in Ore? 

None throws away the Apple for the Core. 

But if thou shalt cast away all as vain, 

I know not but 'twill make me Dream again.

sDg

The church is the bride of Christ...

not to put words in God's mouth but i think some people might get to heaven and have God say "welcome my child, enter into your inheritance, and while you're here let's talk about how you've been treating my wife"

Is scripture about thinking or feeling?

I've seen and heard a lot of talk lately about Christianity and the bible in particular surrounding this idea of thinking or feeling. I often get accused of cogitating my way out of a good day. In the same token you might describe someone else as loveydovey, when they seem thoughtless in their affections. I found this wonderful quote from the very passionate, very thoughtful C.J. Mahaney. I think he helpfully removes what is perhaps a false dichotomy. This is transcribed to I pray you'll forgive if I misplace a word or two, I trust it is true to its intent:

"What you hear with these men (bible teachers) is the public display of private devotion. Too many of us want the public without the private... there is a relationship between thinking and feeling. That relationship needs to be brought to all of our attention...If you don't think deeply you're not going to feel deeply... what I hope is transfered from listening to these men is an appetite to read, which is a labor. It will not be immediately rewarding. It will be eventually rewarding by the spirit of God"- C.J. Mahaney addressing the keynote panel at the resolved 2010 conference.

Now should you be tempted to think Pastor Mahaney is simply saying this as a "passionless egghead" as I am occasionally accused of being, I would beg you to listen to his recent address at the aforementioned conference on meeting the real Jesus. http://vimeo.com/13217746 I believe you'll find this man and the ministry he has been given are about as real and transparent as you can get.

Past Musings Vol 3: The Hatred Love Demands

The past days have brought increased feedback on the blog, which I love by the way. This is called the market on purpose and I desire your ideas, even correction. Several times since "Is God in a Blues Riff" one of my past writings has come up on conversation. It was origionaly posted on January 12, 2008, and I think it is perhaps still the one that most affected myself, so I humbly re-present it to you here for your thoughts.

The Hatred Love Demands

One of the joys of being a musician is the benefit of sharing in the joys of special and important days in the lives of friends and family. This Saturday I had the distinct honor of performing for the wedding of an old family friend. Weddings are always interesting for me to observe. As a person who looks forward to officiating them in my future, I often ponder what the makeup of a wedding ceremony should be. As I look into the crowd I often wonder if the people in attendance truly grasp the immensity of what they are about to see taking place. At some weddings I wonder if the people on the stage realize the immensity of what is taking place. As an attendee at a wedding you stand to witness one of the few actions of mankind, that was ordained by God, and the only one Christ uses to describe his church. The comparisons of the God-Church and Husband-Wife relationship in the bible are pervasive and poignant. God has given us a window into his mind in marriage, that is hardly rivaled in any other of our daily observations.

The parallels are as I've said pervasive and therefore far too massive to approach, however as I sat among the crowd today, one hit me especially. In what is traditionally called the declaration of intent, the minister offers a kind of pre-vow to the couple, after which the true “wedding ceremony” can begin. While the terminology is archaic the recitation is probably quite familiar to you. Here is an excerpt, “to have and to hold, forsaking all others till death do you part”. Now the last part, of this the last line of the declaration, is perhaps the best known in wedding liturgy. “Till death do us part” has served as the tagline for more than 11 films, as well as 3 television series, as well as being mentioned in countless songs and printed on millions of wedding trinkets. Indeed in this day and age wherein 1 million marriages fail every year, till death do us part is an important consideration. However it is the clause before this that struck me today. “forsaking all others”

Should it not strike us as odd that such a line should be included. A wedding day is hardly a day of forsaking. In fact we go to a great deal of expense and planing to gather our nearest friends and relatives. Perhaps for the more discerning the reason is obvious in retrospect, but for the average American Joe writing a description of marriage, forsaking probably wouldn't be the first thing to come to mind. We think of marriage, and correctly, as the joining of lives. In fact in the last ten years it has come into vogue to modify the unity candle tradition, to leave both individual lights aflame, to give representation to each members individuality. While I'm sure in the correct context this change could be made without ruining the truth behind the tradition, it shows evidence of a greater misunderstanding; especially if we are to use marriage as a picture of God.

The traditional wedding liturgy wasn't written arbitrarily. In fact it would surprise many people to know that it wasn't written by people who would have necessarily been the most directly involved in weddings. Most of our traditional wedding liturgy is taken from “The Book of Common Prayer”, it was written by church leaders, many of them theologians, to insure that priests, rectors, and pastors (all names for essentially the same thing in different denominations) used careful words to describe this union; the truth about which is so desperately important to God. Make no mistake, the words “forsaking all others” are not arbitrary, and serve to give us a look deep into the truth about marriage, and thus the heart of God.

To forsake is to give up both title to, and influence from the thing being forsaken. It is to say that any cords of duty, friendship, emotion, or commitment, are void in light of this new vow. The implications are huge. This vow places the marital relationship on a plain in which no other earthly relationship may encroach. Many marriages in our generation would be saved if more people took the time to defend the borders of that plain. That means that as a married person, steps have to be taken to make sure other relationships do no grow to close. In our free emotion society, logical barriers in relationship seem quite archaic, but than again, we are a generation that has more failing relationships than any other in the measured history of such things. The words of Solomon at the end of Proverbs 4 to “guard your heart” go mostly unheeded.

I've stated, I realize without much evidence in this note, that God has given marriage as a window into his economy of life. What then does this simple line teach us about Gods economy? Is there in Love intrinsically some sort of hate? Christ thought so,

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters- yes even his own life- he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)

Tough words for the new follower. In a way, like this wedding vow, it is understood that love includes a forsaking of other affections. It is at this point, that if we are truly honest, we will cry out at God. Why should we have to forsake other things to follow him. Is he not the God who gives all good things. Why would he give and take away. Isn't that just like the mischievous child who tantalizes the cat with the toy he knows he will never truly give. The more “pious” among us will have the answer of Job, that “the lord gives and takes away” and basically he's big enough that we can't talk back. This is desperately true, but its not the whole story.

The essential belief here is the value of Gods love, over whatever is being forsaken. As that married couple says that all other friendships pale in comparison to their relationship of vow. I cannot convince you of God's worth, I can only say that if you seek him truly its awesome depth will become more than apparent. The problem, especially for those of us who already believe in God's amazing worth, is the forsaking of all else. Once in my life I thought I had done just that. You may be thinking the same right now as you read this. I know what I thought. I knew I could be poor for God, give of my earthly possessions. I knew I could be uprooted for God, with a willingness to go to the ends of the earth. I even gave God my hopes and dreams, most of them as you'll see, as he changed my course through time. I thought that nothing would usurp my love for God. That was till God decided to take someone I loved.

I had somehow built into my mind that God would somehow never ask for my relationships. You see somehow I thought those were spiritually off limits of his dividing knife of dedication. These relationships were gifts from him were they not? He would never take those? The truth of this marriage vow, is that love without forsaking others, is not really true passionate love. Certainly we can love multiple people at once. We can even show a type of general good will to the world at large. But there is a love, that God reserves for himself, to be reflected in the love of marriage that is unlike any other. And essential to its make up is a holy hatred.

What I had failed to realize, is that our relationships actually pose the largest risk to our spiritual life. What is love? That question is large and complicated. What do I love? Now that question is simple. When something wonderful or inversely horrible happens in your life who do you think first to call? This is probably the person you love most. In a larger spiritual sense, when life gives you trouble, where do you go for comfort? If you're still not sure of the love-idols in your life answer this. “everything would just be ok if________” If you have an answer, chances are you have an Idol.

To love God means that we turn to him as our first source of comfort. If we call anyone, or anything, before him we are not showing true love. Like a marriage vow for spritual life, we have made a commitment to forsake all other forms of comfort. God is the God of all comfort, but unless we realise that any other comfort we see comes from him, its like falling in love with a valentines card, and ignoring the valentine. Is it any surprise, that for our own good, God sometimes has to surgically remove these other forms of comfort in order for us to see his heart. It is when we doubt all else that we truly have the capacity for faith. It is in comfort that faith and love meet. The man who gives up all for the maker of all will find that he has lost nothing.

Forsaking all others, for death shall not part us.

sDg