Krissi

Most Western Christians are unaware of their own religious idols and therefore have no idea how they function in the mind of a believer. For example, Christians have idols that they’ve renamed icons, art, jewelry, the sacred, or religious representation. Religious jewelry can function as a talisman if merely touching the jewelry, like a rabbit’s foot, is thought to confer strength. I knew someone who fingered her cross during exams, as if this would help her memory. The need to substantiate or make into physical form the object of faith or belief is very deeply rooted in the human psyche. It’s ancient. Constitutive. It takes effort to be aware of our icons and then overcome them. We’re more subtle, today, but still we have idols. An idol isn’t just something we value more than God, as if it were a misplaced priority. It’s not something we put before God in our affection – something that wrongly takes “first place” in our heart. An idol doesn’t have to substitute for God but it must contain God in ways that other objects do not. For example, holy ground, the sanctuary of the church, secretly worn religious jewelry, even the prayers of a religious hero or pastor! We are like the woman who crawled toward Jesus to touch his garment who treated Him as an idol whose clothing was “charmed.” It’s the idea that there are special places where God resides … His “divine ground.” There’s a lot of this in church today and among more educated people. Conferring divine power into things or places is a temptation. Perhaps we do this because it's easier/safer to go to God obliquely rather than directly confront Him, to see his backside rather than His face. Because I felt His presence strongly in a place, I had to fight the emotional (irrational) association of God with that place. I don’t think it is wrong to have a place that helps me clear my mind and focus on Him as long as it doesn’t function as an idol. Several years ago when I bottomed out in life, I would hike to the top of a mountain that looked out over a “fourteener” – a mountain more than 14,000 feet in elevation – because being up there comforted me: birds fighting the upsweeping wind were inspiring, strangely, and I felt as if I had left below me, literally, a horrible life. I would escape up, up and up to “my spot” every day. There, I prayed. At one point, however, I stopped going. The need remained but it was met internally. This took years. It’s important that I can feel God’s presence at all times, places and situations. In the near future during which I am certain I’ll need to feel His quiet presence, the cultivation of reaching toward Him in crowds, secular places, among evil people, etc., will be greatly needed. I don’t expect to have the luxury of a quiet time in a safe, sacred place. Right now, I’m studying Orthodoxy, the Eastern branch of Christianity. They have icons galore, imagery within the church and outside of it, and home shrines. This is part of the legitimate way they express their faith. It’s limiting, however, which is why there is such a strong and corrective tradition of mysticism in that branch of Christian faith. They escape the concrete/idols with mystical, intense experiences of God that transcend not only place and object, but space and time. The Christians in that branch don’t need to “throw out” their icons and images but rather outgrow them.

Holiness means to be cut away from the main thing – kadosh. I don’t read Hebrew but I believe that holy derives its meaning in juxtaposition to profane (sacred v. profane). Since most things are profane, holiness must be rare. Somehow, we’re to understand holiness as perfection cut away from imperfection. In our lived lives, we become holier incrementally and only partially. The Wesleyan doctrine of achievable perfection is just too big of a stretch -- it's an impossibility. I've never met a Christian who has lived a holy life for even a millisecond. Who is without sin? Sin is a fact of life, even after salvation. Thus, sanctification is sin's gradual removal. To the degree we improve ourselves, it's the work of the Holy Spirit in us, but as I write this, I know that we, too, have a role in our own sanctification -- willingness, submission, determination, self-exposure and a desire to be more pure. Yes, holiness should be an aim, but this is a distant aim on a bullseye on a target almost out of sight. Frankly, it's such an inconceivable goal that perhaps we should focus on achieving, with the assistance and power of the Holy Spirit, a goal more proximate, such as not wanting vengeance in a very particular situation or with a named person.

Of course we can do things on our own. We can accomplish quite a bit, in fact -- think of secular people who have been great inventors, political leaders, etc. They didn't rely on God to get things done. When we become Christian, we don't lose our abilities and strength. These native talents and abilities persist, but now they're submitted to God. We use them differently. In the bigger things of life, we ask first ... move later. The possibilities we face are: We can do it ourselves but are asked, by God, to wait, restrain ourselves, or just not do it. We can do most of it ourselves but need God to "finish the job" We can't do it at all. It's beyond our ability. If it gets done, it's wholly His working. Personally, in my life, I'm always tempted to DO SOMETHING, not wait for God. Waiting is difficult for me. God gives His green lights after long delays, it seems. I don't think I've ever been tempted to expect God to do something for me but there have been many times when the ratio between my labor and His work has not been calculated correctly. In my experience, most of the time God expects me to do what I can do, but only after waiting and praying. It's not pride that makes me want to do something but the sight of a need or a circumstances that has to be "straightened out" which I could do. God is teaching me to sit back and NOT DO what I want to do. I'm chomping at the bit. When He knows I'll move too quickly, He shuts doors and makes it impossible to accomplish anything. Believe me, this is a hard lesson. Some say that what we do is really of God because He controls the world and has created us the way we are -- thus, anything we do is ultimately traced back to Him. This is a compelling argument but it doesn't ring true in daily life. When I do something, particularly a mundane chore, I'm doing it. Not God. I feel the compulsion and set myself to do the task. Most things in life are done prayerlessly because they have to be done and compose the backdrop of life. I don't ask God for permission or the correct timing to do the dirty dishes. I just do them. Why? Because I can ... and they are.

Achsah's so-called “full” inheritance is the land she had been given before she asked for water – the springs were in addition to her inheritance. In other words, she asked for more than she was entitled to. She must not have felt that her inheritance was enough, or, maybe, she could have been looking to the future and staving off any problems that could arise if she didn’t have a stable source of water on her property. I’m looking for property right now so understand how important is a source of above-ground water, particularly in an arid desert. The strongest woman in the scriptures I can think of is the woman who simply wouldn’t stop harassing the judge until he ruled justly … in her favor. This had nothing to do with her gender but much to do with a tenacious personality and ability to cling to what God could do if He so chose.

Caleb treats his daughter like a good to be bartered, using her as a motivational "carrot" in a contest to determine who would best overwhelm and presumably genocide Kiriath Sepher. In a time of war, one desires victory not defeat so this aspect of Caleb's behavior makes sense. He wanted to win. But the fact that he had a contest suggests that he wasn't worried about the outcome of the battle (otherwise he would have been more involved). It's outcome was assured either by God or by the ease at which this land could be taken. Thus, I think this was a ploy to get the soldier's competitive juices flowing or to encourage feelings of solidarity, (in the war between Western powers and Russia now taking place in the Ukraine, men who destroy tanks are given a substantial financial reward.) Caleb could have given these men a raise, put on their shoulders a star or two (made them generals) or given them land. Instead, he chose to hand over his daughter to the man who could plot, scheme and genocide better than the rest. This is neither preparation for being a good husband nor preparation for being a good judge. Furthermore, winning on the battlefield is not necessarily connected to strong faith for "successful" war-leaders have been both thugs as well as godly men. This contest only proves physical strength and a willingness to be brutal on the battlefield; it suggests Othniel was a competitive man. My hunch is that this was arranged in advance, that Caleb had several nephews who were in on what was about to happen. He wanted to keep power in the family, to assure the continuance of his bloodline. The contest may have been a sham which functioned to juice the competitive spirit of the men who fought under his nephews. The girl was probably very young and quite familiar with the brutality of her society, one that used children and woman as rewards for successful fighting. I pray she was a willing bartering chip, or at least one who didn't know better. The most poignant victims in this story are the people of that area who were slaughtered. Their fate isn't even mentioned: they're not even a footnote in this historical narrative. Think of the generations of people who had lived on that land, tilled it, tamed it, planted it and raised their families on it. We must not forget them.

Caleb was making a case to get the land he wanted. He invoked God’s name as a surety for his claim to the land. Since he had been sent with Joshua by Moses and had disagreed with the negative, timid and faithless report of the ten spies, he alone merited the privilege (with Joshua) of making the first claim to land. Caleb also said that the Lord had promised him this specific land: “Give me the land that the Lord promised me that day.” Thus, Caleb had heard from God Himself that a particular area would be his. Perhaps I’m alone in this, but I have great compassion and pity for the victims of this land grab – the families who had lived on this land, cultivated it, built generational houses and considered it home … only to be murdered or driven out by land-hungry Israelites. In the sixth commandment, God had ordered Israel not to murder. The murders of the people on this land were not accidental killings. This was genocide. Perhaps this commandment only covers Israelites? This must be. After all, Caleb “followed the Lord wholeheartedly,” even going so far as to build an altar to celebrate the murder of the people who once lived on that land. And God honored this. “The Lord is with us.” This isn’t just about “bald ambition.” Caleb’s audacious claim creates the possibility of genocide as God’s will. -- “Lord, I am revolted and horrified. You are a God of love ... right? Help me understand.”

We can follow the Lord wholeheartedly only after we have heard His command clearly and believe He has given us a promise. Only then can we follow. This seems to be the most difficult step, that is, hearing His command/promise and being certain it is of Him and not the whispers of our own minds or extraneous pressures. When we have the confidence that the Lord’s will is “X”, the decision to do/say/be "X" becomes clear – we decide to obey or disobey. Often, however, we doubt the command itself which makes obedience to that command much more difficult. Following the Lord wholeheartedly, assuming we have heard His command and have zero doubt in its provenance, is done incrementally. We're told to step toward the fulfillment of the promise, to take small steps in a particular direction, usually without knowing where the next step will be. We know the promise (which is just a goal) but not how to get there. This is revealed slowly, step by step. These steps are acts of faith. So, following the Lord wholeheartedly has two components – knowing His direction or goal (the promise) and willingly “stepping out in faith” toward that promise. Joshua, Caleb and the ten knew the promise. In their minds, it was clear what God wanted to do. Their reconnaissance into Canaan was merely strategic, not intended to confirm the promise. I find it interesting that God left to them the strategy of conquering, rather than guiding them slowly into the land. God tested them with strategic ignorance. Had God not tested them with the spectre of giants, the inner faith-weakness of the ten would not have been revealed. No one would have known that the ten initially doubted the promise. Joshua and Caleb differed from the ten because they were certain that God had given them a promise. They were certain in His character, that that promise would be fulfilled if they obeyed. I see the problem of the ten a bit differently than does Pastor Ralph for it seems one less of fear than doubt. The ten didn’t really believe the promise. They went into Canaan on spiritual fumes … on memories of old promises that had been fulfilled. They were not deeply convinced that God had spoken again, in their time. They didn’t completely believe God's promise. Faithlessness angers God. He had given them a gift and had told them to “go get it,” but when they went to retrieve the gift that had already been promised to them, their faith-resolve went limp. In my wee experience, every promise is met with resistance. God promises something and then makes us crawl over glass to retrieve His promise. There’s always that sort of testing. The challenge He puts before us has to be overcome. And during this overcoming stage which is, in reality, the seizing of the promise, He goes silent and pulls away. He lets us toughen in our faith as we walk blindly and in solitude toward the next step, praying and hoping that our steps are directed by Him and are not of our own volition.

All the links are broken, but I remember Munger who died at the beginning of this millennium, I believe, and vaguely remember his allegory of cleaning each room of our spiritual house. The point was that our entire "self" has to be sanctified, even "closets" and hidden places. As each place is cleansed, we move onto the next. Unfortunately, sanctification isn't like calling Merry Maids -- the house never becomes completely spotless. I clean and clean ... But, it does get a bit cleaner. And as rooms are put into order, our ways of thinking clarify, particularly our thoughts about God. I care deeply about the process of sanctification. I want my house -- my "inner man" -- to be as clean as possible: this is as clean as I permit the Holy Spirit to make it. It does seem to be the case, however, that rooms I thought were well cleaned, when I walk through them later, reveal places that still need to be scrubbed. Thus, sanctification is a never-ending, somewhat frustrating process -- the deeper I scrub, the more tenacious dirt I find.

The passages in Joshua mirror the progression in a growing/maturing Christian life. The external manifestation of persistent sins can often be dealt with, but underlying attitudes or needs that created that sin are much more difficult to excise. I think that's what is meant, here, by compromise. This is a life-long battle. Again, we are able to control the sins themselves with effort and prayer. Usually this means NOT doing something we're already doing, or tempted to do. It's a negative prohibition, as are many of the Commandments. In my experience, it's easier to stop doing/thinkng something evil than to start doing something godly ... though I'm not sure why. Those hidden, well-buried propensities no one sees are the compromising sins that must be dealt with. As Pastor Ralph suggested, when those deeper sins or sinful tendencies are not uprooted, their roots tend to grow deeper. The sin becomes firmly planted in the soul. Thus, we need to deal with these sorts of sins. Some of those sins disappear as God changes the heart in ways imperceptible to us -- others have to be constantly monitored and prayed over. Ultimately, The Holy Spirit is responsible for the transformation of our "inner man." This is not something we can do. We can ask for help and set the stage, but in the end, we are not on that stage -- He is.

It's unfortunate that this was written in 2016 and not today -- 2025 -- because these same scriptural commands have been quoted by contemporarily Israelis as justification for slaughtering Palestinians who admittedly acted badly (slaughter/hostages) but, frankly, their slaughter was not as "complete" as that of the Israelis. Is it correct to take passages from Joshua and apply them to the war taking place today, which the Israeli leadership is doing?? Are they prescriptive or descriptive? Or, do we study this book as history, as what God once did ... and don't assume that this is what God wants us to do today?

The Israelites did all they could humanly do, it seems. They trudged up and down mountain ranges, probably without food or water. And, most importantly, they plunged into battle. God made it easier for them, or even possible for them, to prevail. Panic … hailstones … surprise attack timing … and, the clincher which was that the sun didn’t set which enabled them to finish the battle. Joshua knew he was going to prevail because he was certain that God had given Him a promise that no man will be able to stand up against him during his lifetime. That’s quite a promise. It’s an assurance of success in every endeavor. Compare this to the obedient apostles in the New Testament who followed God closely yet were martyred. God let men prevail over them in this life. (Why, Lord?) The question of our role and God’s role is fascinating. The bible has two scenarios (and a fuzzy grey area in-between): first, God performs a miracle that does not involve our participation or assent; second, God expects us to do all we can do to bring the “miracle” to fruition. The Joshua story fits in the second scenario. Here, the army was expected to expend all its energy toward accomplishing God’s will. For example, to climb and descend a twenty-one mile path through mountains required a healthy, in-shape military force. They had to have been ready for this sort of exertion. Prepared, that is. So, how am I to be prepared for my battles? This is where knowing the will of God comes into play. God has not assured me of anything specific as He did with Joshua. Furthermore, since I don't know where God is leading me, I’m unsure how to prepare for whatever is upcoming; I cannot prepare SPECIFICALLY. I can prepare in general ways – I can prepare spiritually, that is. I can pray. I can intensify my study and worship of Him. I can give more … talk more … write more, of/to Him. I feel as if I’m doing this, but know I can always do more. There is a point, though, as with Job, where I come before Him and tell Him I can’t do any better on my own accord, and if He wants more, He’ll have to enable me to do more. -- I pray to know His specific will in these circumstances so I can best prepare for what may be coming. I pray, too, that someday I will hear His voice clearly state that “no one will be able to stand up” against me until I die.

Good morning! Joshua, amazingly, forgot to consult God before several important decisions or events. After all he'd experienced and learnt, he neglected to do something he knew he had to do -- he knew success was contingent on being in the stream of God's will. This is an admonition -- we, too, can neglect the lessons we thought we had learned well, those lessons that had been drilled into our brains by God Himself, the lessons hard learned by suffering and failure. Thus, we have to be vigilant, to fight complacency and the tendency to assume we know what God is doing. We don't know how Jesus prayed when He was alone before the first blush of morning light. I assume he was talking to God as if God were there, enjoying the banter and being totally in synch with what God was saying and doing. I doubt Jesus struggled to hear His voice. But ... maybe I'm wrong. Jesus knows what it is to be a human. He suffered our lives and weaknesses. So maybe He was pleading with God to answer His prayers as well as struggling to hear His voice clearly? I've noticed in my not-very-successful Christian life that at the times I most need to hear from Him, to have guidance or feel His comfort, God pulls away. It's not a question of NOT spending enough time with God in prayer but rather, perhaps, a problem with knowing how to reach Him when I'm desperate. Only in retrospect can I see He was there. Perhaps He pulls back because He wants me to "press in," to struggle even harder to earn a glimpse of His presence? What happens is this: because I'm not completely certain of His will, and because time is crowding my need to make a decision, I look to see what doors are open, and tentatively walk through one of them. Right now, no doors are open, or no doors that I want to go through. I have pleaded with Him to open a "better" closed door, the door I want, the door of escape/happiness/peace, but that door has remained slammed shut. In this way, circumstances are coercing me into doing that what I do not want to do even though I want to be obedient. I want to follow His will. I really do. Yet ... yet ... so many visions and dreams are unfilled. I feel I'm wasting my life. (I'm sorry, but this is what I really think.) I keep waiting for the joy, peace and sense of purpose that God promises ... and waiting ... and waiting. I simply cannot believe that the life I'm living, the one I'm forced to live out of obedience, is His perfect will. I hope this time is preparation for another assignment and not the end of the road with Him.

Many years ago, I was told that taking the Lord’s name in vain meant uttering an expletive that included His name. So many people curse habitually using God’s various names that the meaning of the curse has been lost. It’s become common speech. This seems to be part of the meaning of taking the Lord’s name in vain, but not all of it. A flippant mention of His name demotes His holiness publicly. We're to extol God, not mock His name. We’re to take God seriously. Using His name as a way of proving our sincerity or seriousness also takes it in vain. We cannot conjure up God to validate our promises, that we really really intend to keep our words, no fingers crossed. If we didn't take God's name in vain, our word, alone, would be enough. Promises are taken lightly because language itself has become a tool to confuse, propagandize and censor. When people don’t use words to convey a message, but instead use words to manipulate or obscure the truth, words themselves lose meaning. Shady promises do this, too. When a country signs a treaty, for example, it should expect to abide by the terms of the treaty. But Western diplomats, in particular, increasingly jettison their loyalty to past words and treaties – Minsk 2 comes to mind – which makes all words meaningless. In response, a foreign minister of a country with whom we had signed treaties described Westerners as “not agreement capable.” This mean our words or promises are not reliable. In other words, we’re liars. It's particularly egregious when Western politicians put their hand on the bible to promise to serve the country when in their minds they aim to harm us. That's a promise using God's name behind it through the medium of His word. I] I travel often, or used to. I've notice that to the the non-Western world, the West represents Christianity (even though our leaders worship a secular non-God) just as India represents Hinduism, Italy Roman Catholicism, and Iran Shia Islam. When others see us lie without concern about what we’re doing, it becomes a slur on our faith, not just on our country or us as individuals. Our faith condones lying, in their eyes. This makes mission work more difficult. When we carry the baggage of dishonest business practices, treaty-breaking diplomacy and constant lying/propaganda we're telling those in non-Christian lands that our faith and our God are corrupt.

Greed is an attitude. It's not a mere desire for more, more and more. Anyone can have that attitude. When poor people cling to the little they have, they’re not trusting God to resupply their need – they’re greedy out of need. When wealthier people stuff their investment accounts, garages and vacation homes, they too are not trusting God to return to them what they’ve given away The principle (as I poorly understand it) is to empty our vessels quickly so God will refill them, thus ensuring a divine supply. The more we retain, the less we are trusting Him to care for us in the future. I must confess that I’ve emptied my vessel of most everything and am still waiting for God to refill it, as promised. At times, I fearfully doubt in His willingness to notice my need and fulfill His side of the promise All people are captives of greed to some degree or another. This has nothing to do with being from one or another country. All income groups, too, can be captive to greed. My solution to greed, coveting and fear/lack of trust -- which as I mentioned hasn’t “worked” yet -- is this: Just give it away. Empty your vessel. Let God refill it. This is the principle of Divine Supply – the more you keep, the less you’ll get from God; the more you give, the more opportunity God has to supply your need.

The downstream effect of a person’s is rarely isolated to just that person –cascading, unintended effects impact those around him like gradually expanding circles around a pebble thrown into a still lake – so it makes sense that a family, set of friends and, in rare cases, a nation, would be impacted. Sin doesn’t “stay put.” But it’s a far stretch to claim others are responsible for the sin of a particular person and therefore should be punished as if they themselves had committed the sin – “community guilt.” God is surely able to figure out who sinned and who did not sin. He does not hold innocent people responsible who had nothing to do with the original sin. Again, I’m not questioning if sin has secondary effects in a community but only stating that the community should NOT be held responsible for the sins of individual members. Thirty-six Israelites were murdered/died because of one man’s greed in the Joshua/Achan story. How can this be just? If they all were complicit in his crime, then, yes, they should be similarly punished, but the text doesn’t mention this. As an aside, I am the only Christian in my extended family and do not feel responsible for the sins of my sons … father, etc. I have never felt responsible for their behavior even though it has impacted me greatly. I think the NT is simply different than the OT in this regard, perhaps reflecting the Greek mindset for which it was written, even though it includes examples of so-called “household salvation”. Household salvation is the opposite of “community guilt”. When a household is saved, the ripple effects are positive – the entire household comes to faith because of one member. But, admittedly, this is very, very rare. Almost all people Jesus and the disciples witnessed to were saved as individuals who were quite capable of making personal commitments to Him. Individuals should take sin seriously. This does not create a legalistic atmosphere. The only legalism possible is in a community-guilt scenario. When sin is individualized, the judgement is made against oneself, not others. If we concentrated on our own damaged characters, we’d not be so eager to convict others. Individualism actually corrects the undergirding of a legalistic spirit. Frankly, I think the “I’m sorry for the sins of my ancestors …” (who owned slaves or were rapacious capitalists or whatever) is just a ridiculous show-boating, attention-getting technique. Its public nature belies its manipulative core. Corrupt politicians are often the first ones to publicly – always publicly – confess sins their ancestors may have committed. The bottom line is that no one can confess sins on behalf of another. This is a foundational concept in Christian thought. We must stick to our own sins which are surely greater than we admit and let God sort through the sins of others.

I am extremely troubled by these passages, particularly in the light of the slaughter that is happening now in Israel and it's surrounding lands. I do not believe God commands us to murder. That's my bottom line. Furthermore, the idea that genocide is uncommon today is laughable -- it's happening all the time. We never "evolved" morally past genocide. ONly faith keeps murderous impulses at bay. Our desire to excuse the behavior of the Joshua and the Israelites makes light of the larger principles of scripture which is to serve all people sacrificially in order to being them to Christ. The verses quoted in the question -- denying ourselves ... the crucified life -- obviously point to non-violent resistance if we resist at all. We are to die rather than kill. The NT does not negate the OT. (Could it be the case, then, that God did not order the slaughter but later writers redacted the passages to justify their actions? Or, perhaps they thought they heard from God when what they were listening to was their own evil bloodlust and greedy desire for other people's land?) There must be an explanation. I read the four appendixes (the CT article referenced at the bottom of the fourth is behind a paywall, btw). The arguments posed aren't convincing. We, as Christians, are surrounded by pagan/secularists and live in a highly secular state in which Christian values are routinely disregarded. Secularism is a religion that competes with Christianity. A godless religion. It is not a religiously neutral stance but a Christian-hostile religion. Westerners living in secular states are under the authority of unbelievers. So, is our faith corrupted through syncretism or is it strengthened by persecution? We do not seek to murder secularists because they're perverting our faith with their demands. When we pass by the rainbow flags ... the ones that dot the UN building, the EU building and the State Department, should we plot their demise or pray for the lost? If we had to get rid of the people who do detestable things, Western countries would be instantly gutted of 90+ percent of citizens. Slavic countries have a different version of church-state relations: the Eastern Orthodox merge, almost seamlessly, the church into the state (or vv). Yet, these de facto theocracies tolerate the presence of other religions. Though a non-trivial percentage of their populations are either secular or Muslim they maintain a state preferred/supported religion, Orthodox Christianity. To worship differently, there, is not treason. It's just controlled. I'm not trying to "impose a modern century ethic on a Bronze age situation," but rather, believe that God's commands are timeless and unchanging. If murder is sin in the NT, it was sin in the OT as well. Hermeneutically speaking, principles within scripture interpret particularly troublesome verses -- scripture interprets scripture. The principle here is to bring life to the lost, to bring people to Christ, not to kill them in anticipation of our own weakness and tendency to syncretize. If we're tempted by the pervs next door, then buck up our faith. Learn to resist in His strength. Don't kill the pervy neighbors! Modern bans on genocide don't work not because we've evolved, but because we're static -- our nature never changes -- all people are sinful. This includes, sadly, many people today who think they're murdering in the name of God. Furthermore, if murder is NOT sin, then we have no excuse to NOT murder secularists and detestable people in our midst -- but this is obviously wrong. We can and should be devoted to God and spreading the gospel without murdering. We can be strong when confronted. We should die rather than murder.

I just checked my info to figure out what question I should be answering and realized I skipped this one. So, out of order, I'll answer it. -- God fights my battles for me when and if He chooses to. That's all I know. I may be one of the "Blessed Christians" for whom He fights or one of the "Sufferers" who don't feel His presence or victory. Since I don't know what He'll do, my role is to submit. To accept my condition whatever it is. To carry on as if there's a purpose to suffering. To hope for a happy ending in this life, for a change in how He regards me. Maybe these words are NOT intended for us but only for Joshua? Just yesterday when I was reading Spurgeon, I wrote these words in my devotional notes: Spurgeon: No promise is of private interpretation: it belongs not to one saint but to all believers. All the promises of God are "Yea" and "Amen" in Christ Jesus, and as He is ours, every promise is ours if we will but lie down upon it in restful faith. Use thy LORD's words as thy pillows, Lie down in peace. Dream only of Him. See the angels coming and going upon Him between thy soul and thy God, and be sure that the promise is thine own God-given portion and that it will not be robbery for thee to take it to thyself, as spoken specially to thee. IS THIS TRUE???THIS IS THE CRUX of the matter, Lord. Is his a valid hermeneutic? How can I take another’s promise as my own? Aren’t there promises for some people at some times, not me? PLEASE help me understand this. Please give me wisdom.

The length of time they spend circling the city -- seven days -- means nothing. Either we look through the Bible for other events that took seven days and draw tenuous conclusions, or just admit that God's timing isn't intended to reveal secret, hidden messages. There's a strange tendency among some subsets of Christians to look for occult-like messages or symbols in biblical clothing, timing, numbers, colors, etc. I don't think this contributes to understanding. Furthermore, it tends to send us down rabbit trails or thought and study, away from the clear and obvious meaning which we should pursue. The ark represents God's presence. In the ancient mind, God dwelled in places, in groups of rocks or mountain tops. Mostly, God dwelled in a temple and, most specifically, in the ark. So, to carry the ark around the enemy city is to surround it by the presence of God. I do not think a well-timed earthquake brought the walls down nor do I believe that the shout of the people had anything to do with the tumbling of the walls. First, God's miracles are not limited to timing. His miracles include the substance of the miracle itself and do not require a natural or scientific explanation. Second, God Himself brought the walls down. He did so when He chose. God is/was the mechanism, the prime mover, so to speak, both in substance and timing. The noise is a classic example of psychological warfare as was the daily circling of the city in silence ... with shofars. The Israelites were wearing down trapped urbanites using suspense and fear, preparing their minds to be confused and panicked when the walls came down. It worked. Joshua obeyed God by performing, very publicly, this odd act of psychological warfare without understanding what he was doing or knowing how it fit together. This wasn't a secret performance for Joshua put his reputation on the line by forcing the troops and priests -- leaders and fighters -- to engage in a silly ritual without explaining to them what it meant. Joshua's faith was such that he obeyed God to such a degree that he would lead his people to do this. This was a test of faith. Joshua and the people passed this test. Note that God had carefully shown Joshua to be their God-chosen leader, thus prepping them for this test of faith.

1. I have heard this verse interpreted to mean that God is not partisan so does not take sides in political disputes. Perhaps, in many petty disputes, this could be the case however in some disputes there is clearly a Christian/good side and an evil/bad side. God's justice demands He takes the side of the victims of injustice and geopolitical greed for power. I pray that I side with God against injustice, war, murder, greed and so much else that characterizes many governments today. 2. I don't know who was the warrior. It could be an angel. It could be a sighting of God Himself -- theophany. 3. Any encounter with God requires submission and humility. We are not God and in His presence we melt into servitude. 4. It is difficult to submit to God when we don't trust Him. Deep inside, we're unsure if He will be good and forgiving or will strike us down. Both aspects of God are true in the Bible. God struck down, for example, ananias for not revealing the truth about the sale of land or the poor man who touched the arc, but forgave the woman at the well who did not confess her past until confronted. To us, God's response seems incomprehensible. We simply don't know what aspect of God will confront us, so we hesitate to submit. This makes little sense because God has His way whether we submit to Him or not. Many talk about pride as our motive for not submitting. This is obviously true. But it's also true that we don't readily submit because we don't really trust the place God will take us. Will He martyr us? Will He cause us more pain in life? Or, will He save and protect us, tucking us under His wing? We don't know the answer to this and thus we fear and distrust. Most Christians deal with their own mistrust by pretending God is always loving toward His people but then they collapse when life goes sour. They can't square a good God with our suffering. Unmerited evil cannot be explained. So our thoughts are in tension ... in limbo. We vacillate. I don't think putting our heads in the sand about suffering is the answer. We need to confess that God is bigger than our understanding without deciding that goodness is His overriding characteristic. Which brings us to Joshua's question -- are you on our side or their side? Will you cause our death or their death? It's an understandable question, isn't it? At first, Joshua seemed not to know that the man was some sort of heavenly appearance of God or an angel. But if Joshua did sense that something was unusual, that the man in front of him was God or an angel, then that question also makes sense. Joshua wanted to know what aspect/characteristic of God was presenting.

I don’t know how to answer these questions. For many of us, the delay between work and reward is long, often decades. Furthermore, work can be many steps removed from the provision it earns. We're sustained in this interim period by God ... assuming we're doing His will. Let say you’re a furniture designer. You have spent years getting to a high enough level in the corporation where your designs can actually become furniture. Today is a glorious day: you’re sitting at your desk staring at a huge sheet of clean paper. But, it will take more than two months to come up with a good design … and this after 25 years of climbing the ladder. Later that afternoon, you go out and buy a salad for lunch. The connection between the salad and your labor is tenuous, isn’t it? It’s not like you are a farmer who puts seed into the ground and expects to harvest it that year – your seed has gone into hard, unproductive soil for 25+ years without harvest. During that time, you were paid a pittance. You worked hard. Very hard. And, you had nothing to show for it: no savings, no material goods, no family, etc. Just a salad. Is this manna? Is this waiting for a future crop? I don’t know. -- We may assume that our daily labor has covered the cost of food and life, or we may attribute our own survival to God Himself. Both may be simultaneously true as it's difficult to tease out what is the consequence of labor and what God has gifted us with. All I know is that long, grinding years of work without any achievement/satisfaction makes the “manna” we get not satisfying. We're alive ... no more. Thus, I understand the grumbling of the Israelites. Their manna wasn’t connected to what they did (because they had nothing to do?); it wasn’t a reward for labor. It was a gift. A freebie. Freebies tend to demoralize – work should be difficult as well as ennobling, or at least satisfying. We’re put here to work. To labor. We grow in character and in our ability to give to others when our work reaps reward. When our work isn’t connected to reward, we feel less-than-a-man/woman of God. We may even feel shunted by God. I’ve seen manna work in the heart of people two ways. On the one hand, those who suddenly inherit money feel a guilt and sense of unworthiness that actually cuts away at their ability to work. Receiving freebies is like this. Manna literally dropped from the sky which severed the connection between work and reward. I don’t think manna is good for us, particularly as a long-term provision. It’s not good for our character. It tends to make us forget how to work. On the other hand, some of us work hard without seeing a smidgeon of reward. We're the "anti-manna" camp which similarly had the connection between work and reward severed. We feel a sense of unworthiness, particularly when people tell us we should strike out in a different direction because, obviously, we’re failing. Those who work hard yet don’t see results feel both unworthiness and failure. Would God ask us to fail? He may. -- I'm emerging from many years of a living hell. During those years, I had enough to eat and a roof over my head but nothing more. Life was empty, aimless and bleak. Today, I continue to have provision, which I trust Him for, but more importantly, I have hope. My circumstances have changed. Glimmers of light now poke through the grey clouds that once engulfed me. If God is willing, He can reconnect work/giving/sacrifice and reward in my lifetime. I pray this happens. I pray that my labor produces fruit, that I don't wither on the vine, unpicked and well-hidden.

God’s work is continual – the past morphs into the present and future -- but it also is heading toward an endpoint ... it has direction. Thus, it is the future to which our hope is attached, not the past. To look back – to ritually remember the past – keeps our eyes from staring into the future where hope is to be found. I just read Sidney Mead’s incredible book (1963) entitled “Errand into the Wilderness,” an intellectual history/story of the early American church. The book compares European and American Christian “mindsets” and concludes with the idea that as Europeans look back to their glorious pasts, to turning points or defining events, Americans, in contrast, look forward, having little to remember (comparatively) and much to hope for. Europeans memorialize the past both in deed (boxer day) and memorial structure (cathedrals, military graveyards.) Americans have an increasing number of make-believe holidays such as Thanksgiving which has become de facto family gatherings. It could be the case that cultures that look to the past tend to become mired in their past and therefore unable to change or make forward progress. For example, Europe has been in a long slide backward for at least three generations, but still get all teary-eyed over monarchs! Other backward looking cultures (Islam comes to mind) also tend to cling to memorials (Dome of the Rock) to the point that these memorials either lose their purely religious significance and become historic fixations or become idol-like things to worship. Furthermore, it seems that countries/cultures which are improving, growing and becoming greater have fewer memorials and celebrations than those that are in decline. The West is in decline, obviously. Perhaps this can be seen in the growing number of paid federal holidays, for example, or the increasing number of new memorials in DC (Vietnam war, etc.) After awhile, the past becomes crowded with foggy and meaningless memories which hold back by riveting us to a historical event or happening that is less and less salient with every passing generation. Mere opinion: it’s good to know/understand the past but not memorialize it or come up with calendar celebrations. We should know our histories, then put that book down. As Christians, we are to look forward, to have very little on earth and to keep our eyes focused on the future. He is coming again, after all. Our roots on earth are to be light, not deep – our real home is heaven. This is NOT the Jewish mindset, btw. Jews rarely look forward – frequently look back. All Jewish celebrations are of the past. To most Jews, the future bodes ill. “Remember the Shoah” is not just a command with the purpose of instilling guilt in non-Jews but also a way of creating in-group solidarity and hatred of the “other” among Jews. The idea of a shared past is a substitute for the Holy Spirit which, in the Christian community, is the true force that binds together. Christians don’t need a mythic past to bind us. We have His Spirit. It is simply the case that scripture and the Christian life are full of clean breaks that have cut us off from the past – set us FREE from the past: Christ, Himself, was a clean break from the past; our salvation is clean break. To sum, the past is to be known, not memorialized.

First, the desire to find a natural explanation for miracles submits to the dominant way of thinking in society -- secular thinking -- for whether or not a secular explanation exists for a supernatural event should not concern a Christian. For those of the world, though, miracles without explanation are riveting and unnerving. The guy whose leg suddenly grows seems more miraculous to an unbeliever than a mudslide, for example, which can be explained. (I write this as someone who has never seen a miracle.) Second, the idea that some miracles have worldly explanations except timing is most amazing to those for whom the timing is important. An Arab on the shore of the river looking at a mudslide would probably not be as impacted by the event as an Israelite whose about to cross it. Third, miracles have extra potency if they can be predicted. Magicians tell us to look over here, that they'll pull something out of their hat, and when they do what they say they're going to do, we're surprised ... and try to figure it out. Essentially, Joshua did this. But he did it with their participation which is the crucial difference. The Isrealites had to believe in the upcoming miracle enough to "step out in faith" toward it. Without the faith of the Israelites, there wouldn't have been a miracle. I'm not sure "what kind of faith" this was. Populist faith? Faith that defers to the wisdom and chosenness of the leader? The Israelites must have had total confidence in Joshua's words as they themselves were not privy to God's speech. Obviously, putting his reputation on the line by saying what God will do in advance would enhance Joshua's credibility as a leader. I'm beginning to see that this is the purpose of miracles, either to lead people to Christ in salvation or to lead believers closer to Him in their walk. Miracles seem to have less to do with their recipients than with those who observe and learn. There's a public nature to miracles, or many of them. They display God. Private miracles happen as well but their purpose is known only to the recipient-believer. In these, God mercifully reaches down to grant an answer to prayer or solve a problem that we may not have known even existed. I wonder, at times, if we are swimming in a sea of unacknowledged miracles.

I don’t consecrate myself before major undertakings or changes in direction, but perhaps I should. This makes me think … The Israelites were about to have their lives upended forever – they were entering the promised land … finally. Thus, God wanted them to be spiritually attuned and ready for this event. Though I don’t see how clean clothes and no sex purifies them, perhaps in their mind and culture, cleanliness on the outside indicted holiness on the inside. I recall Moses being asked to remove his shoes when on “holy ground” – standing in the hot, rocky desert was what God wanted. Muslims remove their shoes in their temples today. In other Christian traditions and in an earlier time in Western Christianity, monks and priests lived an “aesthetic” life. Life, itself, was to be consecrated by giving up or abstaining that which give them pleasure. They ate very little. Slept infrequently. Had hours-long prayers. They owned nothing and seemed to want for nothing. They didn’t marry and weren’t supposed to have sex. The idea was self-denial in order to concentrate on God in an undistracted manner. Other religions emphasize asceticism as well. In the New Testament, John the Baptist wore rough clothes and ate weird food as a part of his prophetic calling. Many of the prophets of the OT, too, had similar aesthetic lifestyles. There must be some sort of logical connection between getting close to God in a mystical way and self-denial, though I can’t explain it. I tend to think that Western Christianity has moved beyond acts of consecration and aestheticism. I tend to think, therefore, that the symbolic acts of faith don’t matter as long as the heart is correct before Him. But, historically, this has not been the case: outward acts have symbolized or somehow suggested holy consecration. Wearing hats or covering a woman’s hair comes to mind. It’s not a sin to NOT cover/cut hair, but is there some value in doing these acts? I think the point of aestheticism is to overcome the base desires and replace them with higher ones. I’m writing myself into circles, here. Sorry.

During the past several years, these questions would have struck at my heart but now I’m fully ready to move on. The time of grinding preparation is coming to an end. Finally. Nothing is holding me back except developing my character which always needs improvement. I’m so very eager to hear His voice, take steps forward and be fully in the center of His will as I trod His path. I no longer need to know His destination, a big change in mentality and trust. I actively prepared myself for change even though I don’t know what that change will entail. I have sold my house, moved to another city, given away almost all my assets, spent hours studying and writing and am learning to pray more and more deeply – I have left Sittim, that is. I have made myself available for Him to use as He sees fit – I am camping by the Jordan. “Here I am, Lord … Send me!!!” Hurry!

Lying is permitted if we must be motivated to further His kingdom through our lies. This is a slippery slope, I know, for once one lie is permitted, the door is cracked for others. Some of us may work in professions that are predicated on lies, deception and creating an untrue impression. Most lawyers lie habitually, for example. Most people who work for advertising agencies lie about their product or service, or deceive people into desiring something they don’t need. Intelligence agencies lie as a matter of course. Speechwriters and politicians lie all the time. It's part of their job description! The line between lying and persuasion is thin. There are lying occupations. One of the intelligence agencies in my country has three or four hundred (!) professional propagandists. They know the truth but lie anyway, not only to the people in foreign countries they’re trying to bamboozle, but to us, the citizens of their own county. Bill Clinton famously spoke of lying as “misspeaking” as if it his lies were accidental. He said his lies were justified, “It’s just sex …”. In a day of AI and the ability to “tailor” information, the ability to create photographs that are all-but-real, or text that is false but seems true … is this lying wrong? I would think so. But it’s done all the time. Increasingly so. Most importantly, how do we protect ourselves from lies? We’re surrounded by media falsehoods coerced by the government. These are deceptions. Outright lies. We have no protection unless we ask the Lord for discernment and shielding. We use our minds to figure out what’s true and untrue, but often it isn’t enough without Him. We must pray for His protection. Rahab’s lies furthered the kingdom by continuing the line of Christ. She aided the Israelites by helping them do the mission God had assigned them to do. She may not have known this, so may have instinctually lied to the government bureaucrats who knocked at her door because she knew what sort of people they were and the evil power they represented. Still, yes, I think her lies were justified in this case. I don’t think there is a pattern we are to follow, but Pastor Ralph's questions give me pause because lying to people who hate us and want to harm us may be increasingly necessary. Would I lie to live another day? Would I lie to protect my sons from persecution and harassment? If so, where must my lies stop? When do I tell the truth and let God handle the consequences? Would I deny my faith? We cannot claim that we only lie to “bad” people for we cannot make that determination. We are not Muslims with the concept of Taqiyya which allows them to lie, deceive and harm non-Muslims to protect/further themselves. This is vile and I can’t imagine it is God’s will for Christians to act in such a manner. Maybe we should flip the script and say to ourselves, when MUST we tell the truth? 1. We must never lie to God – He does not lie to us. God never lies. We cannot lie about God either. IN the NIV the verb in the 3rd commandment is translated “misuse.” 2. Also, in the commandments God commands us to not give false testimony against our neighbors. 3. Perhaps we should tell the truth under oath, though, again, President Clinton infamously lied under oath, was impeached, and then everyone carried on as if nothing happened. When the judicial system is that corrupted, are we obligated to participate truthfully in it? We must, therefore, tell the truth to the government if the government is honorably inclined. We must be savvy with the truth when swimming in a sea of lies. 4. I would think we must truth-tell to those we love and should trust – our spouses and families and close Christian friends. But even this has limitations. 5. We shouldn’t engage in gratuitous lies – no “white lies” – but lie only in situations that are extreme exceptions to the rule of truthfulness. If we lie, we should do so for a good reason, prayerfully and submitted to God. It may not be wrong to lie to build someone else up and, perhaps, to save our lives. As I type answers to these questions, I realize that lying is far more of a grey area than I had previously realized. This is troubling, to say the least. Increasingly we will be put in situations that makes truth-telling detrimental. We’re in the post-Christian, post-truth West! Lying is way of life to the United States government. Even Russian President Putin said that United States diplomats have lied to him so many times that he believes them to be “non-agreement capable.” IN other words, he can’t believe anything we say -- our treaties and promises are as slippery as water to him. (Think: Minsk 2.) Shunning, ignoring and asking for proof are consequences of lying. I don’t want to go down this path.