Krissi

I love it that "dwelling in the house of the Lord" is a metaphor for drawing ever-closer to Him. It's a plea to know Him better, more intimately, to have a real relationship with God I pray this often. I don't see much difference between "seeking His face" and "dwelling in the house of the Lord." Both are expressions that describe David's desire to be very, very close to God. Like David, at this very moment, I am being pursued by "enemies." It's difficult, to say the least. My stomach is in knots and I'm struggling to believe, against all logic and reason, that God WILL rescue me. Verses 11/2 mean a lot right now -- "...lead me in a straight path because of my oppressors .. (who are) false witnesses ... breathing out violence." I am, and have been, clinging to this very verse: "I am confident I will see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living ... wait for the Lord." To me, this means I'll be rescued -- even vindicated -- in my lifetime, not after death; "in the land of the living." I need to wait. Just wait. In strength and trust. And be confident (trusting) that God will show His benevolent, loving side to me and that my suffering will finally end. I do not think it is coincidence that this verse was today's lesson. It feels as if God is telling me that I'm praying correctly, that the verse I pray to God so fervently is the one that He will honour. "Do not hide your face from me ..." Please, Lord, do not hide your face as I wait to see your goodness.

If our bodies are members of Christ, then anything we do that harms us physically is sinful. The rule is that abusing/misusing one's body is akin to harming Christ. I feel uncomfortable putting sins on a sliding scale, as if some are worse than others, because sin is sin, right? Well, yes, but in reality, some sins, even if undiscovered, seem to poison the body/soul more than others. Sexual sins are of this category. Gluttony, for example, may be a lesser sin than, say, sexual sins. Perhaps this is because sexual sins are often hidden. I have never heard a sermon on gluttony though I've heard many sermons on sexual sin. Gluttony cannot be hidden so pastors avoid confronting congregants who may already feel insecure about their weight. Yet overweight and unhealthy habits harm the body, too. According to the rule, obesity harms Christ. If you stand in the vestibule of any church and watch congregants walk in, you'll see a good number of overweight individuals who have diseases associated with obesity such as diabetes. Some are church leaders, on the vestry or are elders in the church. In the church I attend, a man who is very active, a leader and regular attender of the men's group weighs more than 300 pounds ... easily. Yet he is a spiritually deep and mature godly man who loves Jesus. He knows his weight is a matter of self-discipline but hasn't been able to master it. Having said this, I still think cavorting with prostitutes is more consequential in one's Christian life than gluttony, but maybe I'm wrong. Both harm Christ.

In this difficult season of life, I've been searching for answers, thinking deeply and writing far too much! Somewhere I read that more prayers are answered when we pray God's words back to Him. This seemed like a good idea. God's words are not supposed to return void. Though I'm afraid of putting God to the test, last weekend, I started praying God's prayers back to Him, inserting my specific circumstances and asking Him to do today what He has done in the past. I prayed Psalm 86, a prayer for help. "Listen to me, Lord, and answer me, for I am helpless and weak ... loyal to you. You are my God so be merciful to me ... Listen, Lord, to my prayer; hear my cries for help. I call to you in times of trouble because YOU ANSWER MY PRAYERS ..." I am waiting for Him to answer my prayers.

In the concluding prayer, David asks God to examine his heart. His heart includes both his conscious thoughts and his unconscious desires and urges. He asks God to examine the parts of himself he cannot control -- in Freudian terms, his unconscious/subconscious self. Satan works in the parts of us we neither control nor understand. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit abides there too. It is in our hearts that the biggest battles take place, the ones over which we get anxious. Search me, God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. Those anxious thoughts ... David has already searched himself and confessed which he thought to be sin. Now, he wants God to search further, to go into the deeper, more limbic parts of himself. He wants to be totally pure. I find it interesting that David asks God to search his heart right after telling God that he can't get away from him, that God surveilled and therefore knows every act and thought. I pray the same. Below is the "Collect for Purity" in the Anglican liturgy done weekly: Almighty God, to you all hearts are open, all desires known, and from you no secrets are hid: Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of your Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love you, and worthily magnify your holy Name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

We're all sinners, "gross" or not. "Lesser" sins are just as disgusting to God as the "gross" ones, though the impact of horrible sins in our lives can be greater and the road to sanctification longer. I remember talking to a woman who said that she had a difficult time thinking of sins to confess, that in her daily life, she didn't think she sinned. I was flabbergasted. Perhaps I'm a bad or guilt-ridden person, but during the day -- any day -- my thoughts are not pure or holy and therefore I have sinned. I never reach the point of sinlessness. There's always something to confess. So the gospel is very good news for me, a continual sinner. I am grateful that God forgives me and need that fresh start. As a child, I used to enjoy cleaning the boards at the front of the classroom on which my teacher had written. The next day, those boards would be scribbled on again, but the point is that there was a daily purification, an clean slate. That's a metaphor: When we confess, Jesus cleans that off our boards so that, at the beginning of a new day, we start fresh and don't have to deal with the mess made the prior day. Sin tends to be additive. It we don't confess, it mounds up and overwhelms, defining us and not permitting a means of escape. The more I mature in Him, the more important it seems to immediately confess and "clear the air." Delayed confession is not good. So Jesus' sacrifice on the cross has done two things -- it was a one-time saving experience that made it possible for the daily cleansing of sins subsequently committed. The continual cleansing by the Spirit keeps me close to God and makes this cycle of sinning and forgiveness possible.

God communicates to us both through His creation, vs 1-6, and His law in vs 7-13. We are passive recipients – listeners and watchers – of this divine communication. In nature we see God; as we read the law we become aware of His will and perhaps His character. In both we experience joy. And, in both we are awestruck. I like your phrase “bask in God’s Word.” That’s a good mental image, that we passively absorb God’s word like a beachgoer absorbs the rays of the sun. I have been awestruck by nature many times, but I’ve never had the same experience when studying the Old Testament laws. I’ve noticed that secular people can have a similar awe-struck feeling when in nature, particularly when there’s a vista. Christians see God’s communication more clearly in the law. The psalmist also experiences an increased awareness of his own sin, vs 11-13. Somehow, he moves 1) from being awestruck in nature to 2) marvelling at the wisdom in the law to 3) wanting to be more pure, even sinless. He wants to be blameless. Innocent of transgressions. In the last verse, 14, David asks God to be pleased with his worshipful admiration of nature and the law as well as his awareness of his own sin. He’s asks God to accept his words and be pleased by them. He then refers to God as a rock (stable, secure, unchanging, unmovable) and his Redeemer (perhaps prefiguring Christ but more likely referring back to his own sins, or his desire to be “more sinless.”)

The bible clearly teaches that homosexual acts -- and other acts such as anger, stealing, adultery, etc. -- are wrong. The bible also teaches, however, that the mental processes that lead to these acts are wrong. Every sinful act was preceded by thinking of that sin. If good and honorable deeds are done, that person must have had good and honorable thoughts. If, however, sinful and dishonorable deeds are done, that person must have had sinful and dishonorable thoughts. We do not say to a thief that it's okay to think about stealing as long as you don't pilfer. Similarly, we should not excuse homosexual thoughts that are not acted on as "innate" or "natural." Those thoughts alone are sin. THINKING about behaving in a sinful way without actually doing is still sin. L.u.s.t., for example, is thinking without acting. It is sin. A big part of the process of sanctification is the purification of thought processes that have never been acted upon but are still latent within us. For me, it's anger. When I don't behave in an angry manner but am still, within, seething with anger, I have sinned. God looks at my heart as well as my words/deeds. He judges me on the purity of my interior life. There is no mind-body gap, as if my mind can be impure while my deeds pure. Right now, I happen to be extremely angry about something that was recently done to me. I know that my response -- anger -- is wrong. I have confessed and have asked forgiveness for my thoughts of retribution, even vengeance. But outwardly, I'm pure. I have done nothing. Said nothing. No one would suspect anger. My unexpressed anger is sin. Remember Descartes: "I think therefore I am." Though most of Cartesian philosophy is a bit off, on this point he was right: paraphrased it means We are what we think. True, we must show love and tenderness toward all Christians all the time. All of us are all on the road to sanctification, after all. We don't need to cave to the dominant culture's ways of thinking. We are to be salt and light in darkened and tasteless culture. This starts within. Why is repentance important, Pastor Ralph asks? Because we all have impure thoughts and deeds. Every thought or deed that is impure must be brought to the foot of the cross, exposed, lamented and then given to Jesus for His forgiveness.

I'm excited about these new lessons. Thank you, Pastor Ralph! -- This poem describes God's glory and majesty primarily in the context of creation. It teaches us to look at nature to see His power. God's nature is so powerful that we should regard it as majestic or praise-worthy. Humanity is described in the context of both nature and the heavenly order. Humans are over nature yet below angelic beings. The psalmist also promises us a stronghold against His enemies (Satan and demonic beings) which he describes as a foe and avenger. What this psalm teaches about Christ is unclear. The later NIV translation doesn't include SON OF MAN, but instead, uses the words "human beings" (which seem very different): 4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? If it were "Son of Man," it would clearly point to Christ, but since the NIV translators have changed the translation to "human beings," I'm not sure it points to Christ at all. Our responsibilities are "to consider," that is, to meditate on his created order and our middling position in it, to look at nature with awe and accept our role as "rulers over the works of (God's) hands." ’What does this stewardship role entail? I'm not sure. I do like the process of gardening: growing vegetables from seed and watching them emerge from the soil. Perhaps there is more that should be done.

I suppose it would "hurt the Christian cause" if the judge and jury knew that they both were Christians, but why would this come out in a courtroom? -- Believers should hold themselves to a higher standard than unbelievers. We need to turn the other cheek, not press forward in court. We need to swallow our pride and anger and be humiliated. If both parties were willing to be humiliated, there would be no dispute to resolve for both would rather give in than fight. The issue of Christians taking other Christians to court could be one of pride. -- I was once in a church that voted to leave its denomination because the denomination had decided to ordain women and gays, change the hymnal to "inclusive language," and force Sunday School material that was decidedly on one side of the political ledger. In response, the church voted to join a related, more conservative denomination. Immediately, the old denomination attempted to seize the church building and assets. Unfortunately for them, there were several top-notch lawyers in the congregation who hatched a plan to load up the church with debt thus making it impossible for the denomination to seize it. (The denomination was unable to afford high debt payments.) All of this took place both inside and outside civil courts. I felt very uncomfortable during this mess. The anger in the church was palpable -- the anger in the denomination over one of it's largest churches leaving was equally potent. In the end, when the church left the denomination, it kept it's buildings and funds, but only after it went through the court system. Successfully. Was there an alternative? I don't know for certain, but don't think so. -- This may not be a good response to Pastor Ralph's question which had more to do with individuals in the church, not the church itself.

This cuts to the bone. I've been a Christian for many years but associate almost exclusively with non-Christians. This isn't by choice but by circumstance -- the people God puts in my path are atheists. This includes family: my father and children. As my father dies (I am caring for him now) he openly mocks Christians and God, yet I continue to serve him. My oldest son, amazingly, turned his life to Christ a few weeks ago. I can see God working in him already, shifting his goals and morals, thus sanctifying him. He's the only Christian in my life. All believers are called to minister to those around them. I do not believe that people cross our paths via happenstance -- if anyone comes into my little sphere of acquaintances, I regard this as God's appointment. This includes secular people, obviously. I feel called to minister to a certain subset of people to whom I hope to have access, again, after my father dies. All are secular. Although sexual sins, drinking, drugs, greed, idolatry, swindling ... are common among them, I have learned to step back and away without rejecting them. Amazingly, they were protective of me, shielding me from their own worst behavior, language and tendencies. Perhaps they intuited that I loved them, genuinely and purely. I miss the presence of secular people in my life right now. Deeply. Paul's notion that we shouldn't eat with seculars, in my opinion, not only opposes Jesus' teaching but contradicts his own behavior. More importantly, it opposes Jesus' behavior. Though Jesus had a circle of "Christian" friends, He was never their peer but their teacher. No one with whom Jesus associated was a believer, though many were Jews. Only after the Spirit came at Pentecost did the apostles instantly transition to true faith. Before that, they were swimming in conflicting cultural and religious ideas and values. The fact is that Paul, like Jesus, associated with seculars. He was constantly offending and angering people, making converts and arguing with the politically and socially powerful of his time. I have no doubt that Paul ate with seculars, too. Peter's dream of unclean animals comes to mind, here -- Acts 10. God showed Peter, in a dream, that he was supposed to eat with non-Jewish people. The point of that dream isn't the abrogation of Jewish dietary laws, but to command Peter to stretch beyond the behavioural walls that kept Jews associating with only Jews. Peter, like Paul, was commanded to eat with Gentiles ... the "seculars" of his time. -- Pastor Ralph asked, "Why make a decision between believers and unbelievers?" This is the ultimate binary, isn't it? Either one is saved or not saved, Christian or secular. There's no grey-scale in salvation. Though sanctification, after salvation, is ALL grey-toned, salvation is predicated on the black-and-white idea that a person is either a believer or an unbeliever. We are to witness to unbelievers. Christians who never leave the womb of the church thus associate exclusively with other Christians, find it difficult to witness because they never meet seculars and have no idea how to relate to them. They're afraid of the world. They've retreated to safety. They may be afraid of their own untested sinful tendencies. Is there a risk involved in associating with seculars? Yes, of course. But that risk lessens with time and experience. One doesn't become "immune" to temptation but it simply ceases to be interesting. There's no draw. No temptation, after awhile. We all have weaknesses and must avoid situations in which those weaknesses could be manifested, but really, shunning secular people because we could potentially fall into temptation seems the opposite of what Christ has called us to do. Of course, we'll be tempted. So, do we run away or buck it up with the Spirit's assistance? Do we face down Satan or run back to our cloistered churches? We're told we won't be tempted beyond what we can handle. We either believe this or not. In my wee experience, Christians become toughened by temptation, suffering and adversity. Suffering is a huge part of growth. So are mistakes. We grow only in the heat of His crucible and His hottest crucibles involve secular people. Sorry about this long-winded response. Comes from the heart ...

Jews today, when they celebrate Passover, remove all traces of yeast from their homes. I don’t know why they focus on this food, in particular, but it’s an ancient practice and like all behaviors in traditional Jewish ceremonies, is highly symbolic. Whether yeast symbolizes sin, separating from non-Jews, self-control … or whatever, I’m sure Paul knew what it meant to Jews in his time, as did Jesus. Clearly, yeast had negative connotations.

The fact that so few have been excommunicated is quite telling, really -- our church could be too morally weak to do this. But I'm not sure, in the West, if excommunication would be effective even if the church was morally stronger. The sinful Christian would just go to another church, leaving his/her old church before the excommunication occurred. People church hop for many reasons including feeling "uncomfortable" in churches with a more stringent vision of morality. So, if the sinful Christian left one church for another, the elders in the first church would be freed from the unsettling task of excommunication and that person himself would have found another church. Frankly, I think the reason why churches don't excommunicate is that often -- though not always -- egregious sins in a church have been committed by the pastor or church leaders and covered up by those around him. It's not the congregation that "sins boldly" but those who are in charge, who should be, presumably, the ones excommunicating. It's difficult for ordinary congregants to expose corruption at the top of their church; far too easy to point fingers at a powerless and nameless peer. Also, I think the reason why we no longer excommunicate, or do so rarely, is that we're smitten with this Christian version of tolerance -- "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Those were Jesus' words to the Pharisees who were condemning an adulterous woman. We are to be like Christ. We all sin.

There’s a reason why gays call their social movement “Pride” – this deflects any residual shame previously associated with such behavior. Tolerance is the premier public virtue today, which means, essentially, that Christians keep their morality to themselves, never critiquing the values and goals of secularists. The head of the EU, Ursala von der Leyen, recently claimed that non-Westerners “… envy us for our values …” She said this against the backdrop of American public support for mutilating children who think they’re another gender, displays of graphic, large and blue/yellow (Ukraine colors) male members on the streets of Germany, twerking in public buildings in London, and replacing all national flags in front of the UN building with rainbow gay flags. I disagree vehemently with those who write, here, that secular people in the West have no values. They most certainly have “values.” They fight for their values. Even die for them. The church completely lost the “culture war” after a half-hearted fight. We just threw in the towel and walked away. Rather than contest secularism, compromised Christian churches jumped on the elitist bandwagon and championed gay ordination, etc. Entire denominations fell to sexual perversion. Evangelical-like Churches which still uphold traditional or biblical morality mostly do/can not voice their values in a culture that openly persecutes them. At this point, Christian outreach is one-on-one. Back to basics! We must talk to others about Christ and morality behind the scenes and quite carefully. We MUST be salt and light to all individuals who meet us, to show Christ by our actions and speak of Him with soft, wise words.

Paul loved Timothy and, I presume, Timothy faithfully imitated his mentor Paul. Wasn't Timothy the man with the ulcers (?) for which Paul recommended he drink a bit of wine to relax? If so, it's amazing that Timothy has strengthened inwardly to the point where Paul can send him on a stressful mission. I pray to be sent on a mission though I've been in a holding pattern for several years. There's a wonderful phrase that explains how God equips us for missions -- God's callings are God's enablings. This means that whatever He calls us to do, He gives us the strength and ability to accomplish it. I believe this. So Yes YES YES I want to be called to fulfill a sensitive mission. Eagerly so. I'll go wherever He sends me, (preferably not to a neighbor!) This does bring to mind a related topic which is this: Can we ask God to send us on a particular mission that we feel particularly suited for or at least interested in, or must we wait patiently and passively for our number to be called?

Paul displays a curious mixture of love and guilt-rendering (in a way, his is a classic expression of passive-aggression). On the one hand, he acts with extreme humility and self-abasement as he describes the suffering he endured. At the same time, and on the other hand, he talks lovingly to the Corinthians. He expresses himself indirectly, then, unwilling to simply say outright, "You have been disloyal to me and have abandoned the gospel meaning and message ..." He speaks in a round-about way, using sarcastic, pitiable words: "scum of the earth ... " etc. Perhaps he thought the Corinthians would change more quickly or deeply if he didn't confront them directly. I have to admit that this turns me off. I read Paul's words as those of a man who loves God and is called to be an apostle ... but is still a man. Like Peter denying Christ, Paul is not perfect. One of his faults may be the way he reverts to this sort of extreme rhetoric when angry or hurt. -- My ministry has been among very secular people whose minds are so channeled by anti-religious presuppositions that their knee-jerk reaction to anything resembling the gospel is viciousness. Unlikely people, however, have come to know Him through the Spirit's prodding and pulling. God harvests between the weeds.

Paul is a mature man, not only in Christ, but emotionally, thus able to blinker himself from the criticisms of other men/women and discipline himself to focus on what God has called him to do. Few men are like this but the ones that are have this steely core that some people interpret as a "leadership quality." It is not. It's the ability to follow Him. I think Paul is making a point when he says he doesn't judge himself. He's trying to tell the reader to let God make the judgment, but clearly, from his other writings, Paul is very introspective and self-critical. He holds himself to a high standard and grieves when he "misses the mark." No one would speak of missing the mark unless that mark was clear and known. I was about to write that I'm relieved God judges me by my motives rather than my successes, but then a little inner voice questioned my motives, too. My motives are not always pure. Yes, God is harsh. He must be to keep righteousness intact. Western Christians tend to emphasize God's love, but His justice and righteousness are mentioned more often in the bible. I see God's standards as exacting and difficult to reach. I constantly question my own fitness to be used in His kingdom and crave His forgiveness. My life is and has been difficult, to say the least; I tend to feel punished or neglected by God. I think it's a human tendency to view personal calamities as a consequence of something we have done -- think Job! -- rather than the circumstances He put in our lives to mature our character and mold us into His image. Still, the idea that God purposely puts us through pain and suffering, loss and disappointment, to correct our character is difficult to stomach. His love -- not judgment -- is easily questioned by someone who has suffered for many years without respite or evidence of answered prayer.

Practically, we, as Christian workers, are stewards of what He has given us authority over on earth. In one sense, we have, through Him, authority over everything -- in a more down-to-earth sense, however, our authority extends to that within reach or power. Over whatever little we have and however few we know we are stewards. I think the problem with "faithless" stewards is often one of conflicting demands. If we are stewards over, say, our churches' finances and have multiple people from the church claiming their "share" of the pie, it's difficult to know how to spend wisely this money. Stewardship isn't always cut-and-dry. It can be as nuanced as the people impacted by it. Two claimants may have compelling demands. Both. The steward, then, tries to adjudicate between two good options both of which can't be met. "On the one hand ... on the other hand ..." the logic or correct answer isn't clear to him. I have not personally been in this position, but I know people who have. The effect on the church was a lack of direction and focus. Leaders torn between competing demands often make poor decisions or evade decision-making altogether. I suppose this is a form of unfaithfulness but in reality it's a leader trying valiantly to be faithful and true to his calling but unsure how to do it and therefore unwilling to make decisions. The remedy is prayer. Begging God for clarity. Asking Him to close doors and guide clearly. Telling Him that a decision has to be made and that you want to make it with as much integrity as possible. Telling God that you want to be used in greater things ... want to pass this test and move on to the next.

It's best, in my wee opinion, to leave a church to find a more congenial/faithful congregation than become mired in nasty and bitter church politics. I did this. Quietly, I walked away. I didn't make a fuss. I didn't say anything to anyone. Others made a similar, uncoordinated decision. A church is as strong as its members' spiritual depth. Sometimes, when congregants walk away, the remaining members are purged of troublemakers and are strengthened by their absence; at other times, when congregants walk away, the remaining members are so depleted of deep and mature Christians that the church sputters and folds. In the West, the physical landscape is littered with shuttered churches that have been turned into private residences, community theatres and restaurants. Although this grieves me, I do see how this churn can be healthy. It's easy to accuse those who leave of "hurting the church" but that's often not the case. It it quite possible that the church hurt them. In the case of my church, two new churches were started by former members, both of which have called new pastors to lead them. The old church struggles on. It's pastor just announced his retirement and, from the sidelines, I'm eager to see if the pastor chosen to replace him will be a godly, deep man. My litmus test to determine the motive and right spirit of a person who leaves a contentious church is as follows: Did he/she leave quietly? Did he/she leave gently without hurting anyone directly? Was leaving an ego-play or was it done humbly? Was leaving done for spiritual or important theological reasons? Did he/she continue to pray for the church's revival and restoration after leaving?

Interesting question. Since I’m somewhat peripheral to the church where I live, now, I fail the test. But, recently I was living in a foreign country where I became active in one of the most vibrant, spiritually healthy churches I have ever attended even though it was in the centre of a very secular city. One sign of a church’s quality is it's notable difference with the prevailing culture. This is hard to describe, but I felt the cultural difference straightaway. When a church is built correctly from the top down it feels like a spiritual oasis in a parched desert. While there, I started thinking about how I could contribute, what I could do, who I could serve. I wasn’t prompted or pushed … no committee came to me with a list of things to check (this happened recently). Mine was a true desire to serve. Spontaneous service. In retrospect, my desire to serve was consequent to years of bible study and prayer as well as a dogged determination to not give up in spite of truly horrendous circumstances. I do not feel particularly gifted spiritually. I have no idea what God will be calling me to do, at this point. But I’m glad I had the experience of going to a truly God-filled church, one that had been well built – a first.

Although some Christians think that denominations are a sign of disunity, I see them as a consequence of spiritual vitality. Tepid Christians do not care enough about doctrinal differences to argue or divide, but Christians who are growing and passionate about their beliefs tend to seek congregations that are filled with people who worship and think like themselves. Thus, the very Protestant tendency to splinter and re-form is, in my opinion, a sign of spiritual vitality, not weakness. (I write this as an Anglican!) Also, the huge push for ecumenism that took place back in the 1970s through 2000, or so, was a "progressive" reaction to the declining fortunes and congregations in the major oldline denominations. It didn't help. I'm not sure why having a Lutheran minister give the eucharist in a Presbyterian church could somehow revive that church, for example, but that seems to be what oldline denominationalists were thinking. From the standpoint of a congregant, their own church "feels like" a stand-alone institution. Any connections with the broader denomination are far less important than the felt connections with individuals within the church. The abstract idea of the "universal church" doesn't comfort the suffering or feed the hungry, after all. Thus, each congregation is, in practice, an independent group ... a functionally non-denominational church. We don't need to tear down any barriers. The 1960s have ended, praise God. We need to strengthen each congregation where it is and form stronger relationships between individuals within the church.

I do not know what most Christians really think about heaven; most probably have a pop-cultural understanding of it. My understanding of heaven is also shallow, I confess. It's not something I have thought much about until recently. In despair at His delayed answers to my prayers have I begun to forward to death and eternal life. His eternal reign initiates the final act in the drama of creation. When He begins to reign, time is no more, death is no more and suffering is no more. The “foreverness” of his reign is as mindboggling as its peace. King of Glory means there is no person or thing more glorious.

In regard to hungering for him, I'm a responsible young adult, but not a seasoned old one! I strive to learn and spent hours in the morning studying; the test of my learning is maturing in Him, becoming like Christ. I'm supposed to reflect Christ in my daily life and frankly, I'm not sure I do this well. I should desire the word more. And more. And more. Living as if Christ was the ground of my subconscious, something the percolates up naturally, is the goal. I shouldn't have to "turn to Him" but be looking the same direction as He. It shouldn't be an effort, but instinctive. -- I am not a jealous person but have other flaws. I also rarely quarrel because I bottle up my thoughts. Thus, I think I'm adult in these particular regards. Very self-controlled. To grow to the next level? I know what it will take to mature in Him -- suffering and pain. Growth has always involved intense suffering, at least in my life. There's no easy slide to the next step.

Jesus purifies and refines his church not as an aggregate but through individuals within it. He purifies individuals within the church by inflicting on them intense suffering. Our characters are thus tested. I pray to pass the test. That's the pain of refinement. It hurts to be charred in His smelter, to suffer as the dross is burnt off. I wish that we could all be sanctified more gently, through purification as opposed to refinement, but that's not how the Christian life works, at least in my experience and observation. It would be much easier to sacrifice than suffer, but in the New Testament, we suffer after Christ's suffering in the furnace of affliction. I believe in the last days, when we're put through the final burning, the holy and good we've done and been will remain, and the sinful and partly sinful aspects of our character will be burnt off. Something will remain.

I understand well the metaphor of the Spirit circulating in one’s mind. Right now, I have a blood infection. When the infected blood circulates throughout my body, my thinking became jumbled: as the antibiotics kill the microbes, my thinking is clarifying. So in a very real sense, I know what it is to have something circulating in my mind. -- On many occasions, I have prayed to have His mind, to understand His will and do it. In this sense, I'm praying for the "more" of the Spirit to be in me. Are there people or times of life in which the Spirit comes in extra amounts? I ask this because I think the mind of Christ increases within us as we age in Him, that we become increasingly like Him, for having the mind of Christ is a metaphor for Christlikeness. I should be able to connect the idea of "the mind of Christ" to His spiritual gifts, but am unable to do so. Perhaps as we think more like Him, He indwells us more, taking up more space in our minds. Yet we always hold back a bit of ourselves, willfully. That's sin nature which is never utterly eradicated by the presence of the Spirit. As the mind of Christ slowly creeps into us like a barely perceptible ocean tide, it brings spiritual gifts that have floating on it's crest. I am waiting for these gifts.

The cynic in me thinks that by speaking poorly Paul was "packaging" himself as an outsider to the culture, perhaps to emphasize Christianity's essential differences with the culture. A more charitable explanation would be that Paul was battling pride. True humility among very talented men/women is hard to come by because very able people tend to rely on their own abilities, strengths and expertise. Paul was a famous trained rabbi! He knew how to argue well. He was able to speak well. He had a good mind. He must have jettisoned his own abilities and social station for a reason, then -- he was trying to depend solely on spiritual gifts and power and not his own natural talents and abilities. But why? Had Paul been a bit more confident in his own humility, he may have been willing to submit his own abilities for God's glory. I do not think that God only calls us to do things in which we're not gifted. Could Paul have reached more people had he been spiritually confident enough to use the rhetorical techniques of that time? Reaching people "where they're at: is not a sin. Only pride is. The danger of repackaging the message is two-fold. First, the message itself becomes diluted or altered. Second, the messenger becomes the focus, not the message. Paul denied his own gifts. He refused to speak well and competently. He had that option but refused it. Could the Holy Spirit worked WITHIN Paul's abilities and talents -- Yes, I think so. But Paul chose a safer route, one less morally challenging, which was to not do his personal best, but let the Spirit guide His words. He thus humbled himself by choosing NOT to not winsome and clever, erudite and articulate. The cynic in me thinks that by speaking poorly Paul was "packaging" himself as an outsider to the culture, perhaps to emphasize Christianity's essential differences with the culture. A more charitable explanation would be that Paul was battling pride. True humility among very talented men/women is hard to come by because very able people tend to rely on their own abilities, strengths and expertise. Paul was a famous trained rabbi! He knew how to argue well. He was able to speak well. He had a good mind. He must have jettisoned his own abilities and social station for a reason, then -- he was trying to depend solely on spiritual gifts and power and not his own natural talents and abilities. But why? Had Paul been a bit more confident in his own humility, he may have been willing to submit his own abilities for God's glory. I do not think that God only calls us to do things in which we're not gifted. Could Paul have reached more people had he been spiritually confident enough to use the rhetorical techniques of that time? Reaching people "where they're at: is not a sin. Only pride is. The danger of repackaging the message is two-fold. First, the message itself becomes diluted or altered. Second, the messenger becomes the focus, not the message. Paul denied his own gifts. He refused to speak well and competently. He had that option but refused it. Could the Holy Spirit worked WITHIN Paul's abilities and talents -- Yes, I think so. But Paul chose a safer route, one less morally challenging, which was to not do his personal best, but let the Spirit guide His words. He thus humbled himself by choosing NOT to not winsome and clever, erudite and articulate.