They do not cry out to me from their hearts but wail upon their beds. They gather together for grain and new wine but turn away from me. --Hosea 7: 14 NIV
I found this verse by chance the other day, and it struck me as being terribly appropriate for this modern generation of "seekers." It is so often said that it is good to be in a constant state of seeking God, and frequently I think people believe that if we say we have "found Him," we are really saying that we've "got God all figured out," in essence, that we have limited God and what He can be. Is this really true?
Naturally, there are things of God that are unknown to us, and may always be in this life. For instance, I think it serves no beneficial purpose to demand of God an explanation for why He makes the decisions and laws that He does (Job 40). God is God, not us, and He does not owe us an explanation, nor do we have the power to force Him to give us one.
On the other hand, God has explained Himself to us, very thoroughly, in the Bible. Why? Because He wants us to know His opinions of things, to know what motivates Him, and to know that His intentions are good toward us. This is all a part of His overture to welcome us into a real, personal relationship with Him.
If we spent years hanging out with a family member, friend, spouse, or date, would we still say that we were "seeking" that person, or would we say that we knew that person? If we said we knew that person, would it mean that we had somehow limited what that person could be by knowing him/her? Surely not.
It seems very clear to me that it is better, in God's opinion, for us to know Him and not just to know about Him, and that He fully believes that it is possible to know Him without somehow limiting Him. Let us be reminded of Jesus' words, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened" (Matthew 7: 7, 8 NIV). This verse is not just about asking for food or things; it is about seeking God's face and finding it. They hadn't invented automatic doors at the time Jesus spoke those words, so I have to assume a person was going to open that door!
Has anything changed about God? Certainly not! It is written, "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows" (James 1: 17 NIV).
If God hasn't changed, and yet we feel distant from Him, as if we cannot know Him, then it must be that we have somehow changed. Like the people in Hosea 7: 14, we might be crying out on our beds because we feel cut off, but we are not telling our Best Friend about our problems. No wonder He seems unknowable--we have stopped speaking to Him!
Also, for those of us seeking God's presence and blessing in our lives, as symbolized by the grain and new wine in Hosea 7: 14, we can know those things as much as we can really know God. However, we cannot find them when we try to separate them from God Himself and His presence. We cannot really find them in the presence of others or anywhere in this physical world.
Would we invite someone to a party, take the gift that person brought, and then tell that person to "get lost"? Surely not. In the same way, if we are looking for God, let us find Him; and when we do, let us invite Him in and get to know Him. Though we may never know "all about Him," we haven't limited Him. In reality, all the time we spend running away from knowing God just limits ourselves.
Until next time, stay savvy!
P. S. --Since many of these weekend posts have not exactly been "trivial" in nature, I have decided to continue the "Weekly Trivia Files" under the new series name, "Weekly Snippet." Trivia will be tagged as such for better reference.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Challenge the High Places
Lately I have been re-reading the records of the kings of Israel and Judah, which make up the majority of the second book of Kings in the Bible. This makes for some interesting reading, but there is very little in there that I feel is directly applicable to my readers' needs or the message of this blog.
However, there is one detail, frequently repeated, that I have given a lot of thought. Frequently, the Bible records, "[Fill in a king's name] did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and walked in all the ways of his father, David," but later the recorder notes, "but the high places were not removed."
Just what was a high place? An ancient "high place" was a shrine, often with an altar, that was built at the top of a hill or mountain. There, people gathered to have pagan, riotous festivals and make sacrifices to idols, or to the sun, moon, or stars. There are still "high places" today in many parts of the world. See my previous post that goes into greater detail on this subject.
I perceive this editorial note as a complaint, on the part of the one writing it down, and really on God's behalf, that the King in question had failed to fully execute his job as leader. Each king who had this written about him knew God and had obeyed God. He had personally gone against the pressure of peers and the "fashionable" practices of idolatry in his time. However, each of these kings had refused to take a strong stance against idolatry where those outside of his household were concerned. They had followed God faithfully, but they had never challenged others about what they were doing, and God had a problem with this.
In fact, this is the key difference between modern Christians and ancient kings. The kings of Israel and Judah were leaders, and they had both the power and the mandate to set the religious tone of their nations. We, on the other hand, have not been given that kind of a mandate. Our mission is the spoken message (Matthew 28: 18-20). That is our job, and like the kings of old, we ought to do it, so that it does not stand as a mark against us when history is being written.
It is still legal, and is not shameful, to say "I disagree," or "what you say offends me," or even add, "I am not joining you because...." These few little words are immensely powerful. They challenge the existence of every "high place" in the world. In fact, the effects of these words last longer, and have a clearer intent, than any law or action against another religion, because they challenge the "high places" in the heart, and not just on the hill. As the Bible records, "Through patience a ruler can be persuaded, and a gentle tongue can break a bone" (Proverbs 25: 15 NIV).
King David, who was the pattern for later kings, wrote, "I do not hide your righteousness in my heart; I speak of your faithfulness and salvation. I do not conceal your love and your truth from the great assembly"(Psalm 40: 10 NIV). David thought it was important to share his relationship with God with everyone; he was both a model for them, and a leader of them. He made a point to tell others about what he thought, and I take this verse as a clear challenge to "the great assembly" to follow his example. This is something that his descendants did not appear to continue. I read little proof, even "between the lines," that they spoke out against the prophets of Baal and all the other deities. There seems to be more proof that they had a tolerant attitude, even a kind of openness, toward everything that was happening. The spiritual welfare of the nation around them suffered during their reigns. Could this be a contributing factor?
At this point, I cannot say anything more about the king's silence on the "high places" issue without jumping into pure speculation. I can, however, say that I take this charge against the righteous kings very personally, and I can see proof outside those passages that God does not approve of the way they looked the other way in their day.
I see the complaint about the "high places" as a challenge to Christians today to speak out against the overly-tolerant attitude we have been taught to have these days. We know some things are wrong; we know God and we know nonsense. Now is the time to share what is between our ears with the rest of the world. God has made us accountable, because we know what is right, and He will take it up with us if we stay silent.
This charge has been written against us, "When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood," (Ezekiel 33: 8 NIV). Therefore, I must speak. I am bound to speak out. The "high places," whether on hill tops or in a sinner's heart, are no laughing matter.
However, there is one detail, frequently repeated, that I have given a lot of thought. Frequently, the Bible records, "[Fill in a king's name] did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and walked in all the ways of his father, David," but later the recorder notes, "but the high places were not removed."
Just what was a high place? An ancient "high place" was a shrine, often with an altar, that was built at the top of a hill or mountain. There, people gathered to have pagan, riotous festivals and make sacrifices to idols, or to the sun, moon, or stars. There are still "high places" today in many parts of the world. See my previous post that goes into greater detail on this subject.
I perceive this editorial note as a complaint, on the part of the one writing it down, and really on God's behalf, that the King in question had failed to fully execute his job as leader. Each king who had this written about him knew God and had obeyed God. He had personally gone against the pressure of peers and the "fashionable" practices of idolatry in his time. However, each of these kings had refused to take a strong stance against idolatry where those outside of his household were concerned. They had followed God faithfully, but they had never challenged others about what they were doing, and God had a problem with this.
Bringing it Home: Our Own High Places
First, before I explain my point, I have to make it clear that I am not suggesting that Christians today should react violently against the non-Christian religious influences in the society around us. This is illegal, and the Bible instructs us to "submit [ourselves] to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established" (Romans 13: 1-3 NIV). I just want to summarily state that I do not want to promote that kind of behavior with this blog.In fact, this is the key difference between modern Christians and ancient kings. The kings of Israel and Judah were leaders, and they had both the power and the mandate to set the religious tone of their nations. We, on the other hand, have not been given that kind of a mandate. Our mission is the spoken message (Matthew 28: 18-20). That is our job, and like the kings of old, we ought to do it, so that it does not stand as a mark against us when history is being written.
It is still legal, and is not shameful, to say "I disagree," or "what you say offends me," or even add, "I am not joining you because...." These few little words are immensely powerful. They challenge the existence of every "high place" in the world. In fact, the effects of these words last longer, and have a clearer intent, than any law or action against another religion, because they challenge the "high places" in the heart, and not just on the hill. As the Bible records, "Through patience a ruler can be persuaded, and a gentle tongue can break a bone" (Proverbs 25: 15 NIV).
King David, who was the pattern for later kings, wrote, "I do not hide your righteousness in my heart; I speak of your faithfulness and salvation. I do not conceal your love and your truth from the great assembly"(Psalm 40: 10 NIV). David thought it was important to share his relationship with God with everyone; he was both a model for them, and a leader of them. He made a point to tell others about what he thought, and I take this verse as a clear challenge to "the great assembly" to follow his example. This is something that his descendants did not appear to continue. I read little proof, even "between the lines," that they spoke out against the prophets of Baal and all the other deities. There seems to be more proof that they had a tolerant attitude, even a kind of openness, toward everything that was happening. The spiritual welfare of the nation around them suffered during their reigns. Could this be a contributing factor?
At this point, I cannot say anything more about the king's silence on the "high places" issue without jumping into pure speculation. I can, however, say that I take this charge against the righteous kings very personally, and I can see proof outside those passages that God does not approve of the way they looked the other way in their day.
I see the complaint about the "high places" as a challenge to Christians today to speak out against the overly-tolerant attitude we have been taught to have these days. We know some things are wrong; we know God and we know nonsense. Now is the time to share what is between our ears with the rest of the world. God has made us accountable, because we know what is right, and He will take it up with us if we stay silent.
This charge has been written against us, "When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood," (Ezekiel 33: 8 NIV). Therefore, I must speak. I am bound to speak out. The "high places," whether on hill tops or in a sinner's heart, are no laughing matter.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Weekly Trivia Files: Confession and Repentance
Lately I've been getting a little off-topic on this blog, and that's something I wanted to change today. So I asked myself last night, "Christians in the world today need to know __________." This post is the result of that thought.
I have noticed a problem lately with the confusion of two common concepts in the Christian doctrine: confession and repentance. Have you ever noticed this? The problem is that they describe two separate activities, and they aren't interchangeable.
We cannot have repentance without confession, because how can a person change from one attitude toward another if no one knows about it (no accountability)? Further, how can a repentant attitude be permanent if there is nothing risked or lost, or any other reason to turn away from a path?
On the other hand, true confession cannot exist without repentance. It makes no sense to acknowledge that something is wrong and yet have no desire to make it right again. If a person confesses something and yet holds onto it anyway, it becomes obvious that the confessor is justifying an indefensible point. This situation cannot exist indefinitely; ultimately, confession results in a second action, that is, a decision to repent or to rebel.
I have noticed a problem lately with the confusion of two common concepts in the Christian doctrine: confession and repentance. Have you ever noticed this? The problem is that they describe two separate activities, and they aren't interchangeable.
Confession
-- Defined as, "openly to acknowledge the truth in anything...to concede or allow" according to the 1987 edition of The New International Dictionary of the Bible. There are two key aspects of confession: openness and accountability, and the truth that risks something.- On the first point, if you confess only in your heart, you have really taken no action whatsoever. It isn't confession unless someone else hears what you have said/believed/known in your own mind.
- On the second point, it isn't confession unless you are telling the real, unvarnished truth. This is the hard part about confession. You have to stick your neck out and tell the truth, even though not everyone will appreciate the gesture. Some might even hate you for it. In effect, because confession is about telling the truth and not "softening" that truth to make it more palatable to yourself or others, confession makes you lose something. At the least, confession makes you risk something. It is not true confession if it is not risky or costly to tell the truth about something.
Repentance
--The New International Dictionary of the Bible defines it as, "the process of changing one's mind...human repentance is a change for the better and is a conscious turning from evil or disobedience or sin or idolatry to the living God." There are two aspects to this concept, as well: an attitude change, and the positive nature and aim of that change.- On the first point, repentance is a change in attitude. If there is no real change in a person, that person has not repented, according to the definition of the word. Repentance is an action, a turning away from something, and it requires a commitment to maintain this new attitude.
- On the second point, it isn't repentance if it isn't a positive change toward seeking out good (that is, the living God and His nature and approval), and a conscious rejection of evil. If someone changes, but it is away from what is good, that is rebellion and disobedience. Furthermore, if someone changes (turns away from) their lifestyle of blatant disobedience and rebellion toward a more subtle disobedience, that is not repentance, either. A change from really bad to less-bad is not a conscious rejection of evil; it's actually a conscious attempt to perpetuate evil by veiling it under the evil of a lie.
We cannot have repentance without confession, because how can a person change from one attitude toward another if no one knows about it (no accountability)? Further, how can a repentant attitude be permanent if there is nothing risked or lost, or any other reason to turn away from a path?
On the other hand, true confession cannot exist without repentance. It makes no sense to acknowledge that something is wrong and yet have no desire to make it right again. If a person confesses something and yet holds onto it anyway, it becomes obvious that the confessor is justifying an indefensible point. This situation cannot exist indefinitely; ultimately, confession results in a second action, that is, a decision to repent or to rebel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)