Krissi

We do not live in a time of patriotic fervour, but I can imagine how it would feel to be at Dunkirk … or even at home during a war with your life contingent on the coordinated, patriotic fighting of your countrymen. Perhaps earthly citizenship would seem more important, then. The closest thing I have seen that mimes patriotic fervour today is the jingoistic championing of sports teams. I happen to live in a place where grown men put sports-teams flags behind their cars and trucks as well as paint huge symbols on them. On the days when a game is played, they all wear the jerseys of their team … ALL DAY … as if they, themselves were playing. I think this is excessive, but I know that many of them are Christians. Their citizenship is in heaven, not for their team, yet they toe that line a bit too closely … or so it seems. Personally, I’ve gone the opposite direction. My feelings toward the leadership of my own country borders on disgust – I do not respect them or think they are competent. In a very real sense, consequently, my citizenship is in heaven. As I watch my country decline and fall, I am comforted by knowing I’m a part of a greater collectivity, that of heaven. When the political class is an “enemy of the cross” my obedience and allegiance to Him and the awareness that my citizenship in heaven grows every stronger.

He’s only asking us to imitate his “pressing on” or “straining” toward the goal of knowing Christ. He wants us to do similarly, to press and stretch ourselves to know Christ relationally. He is NOT asking us to be like him as a Christian or a man, but, as ourselves, press toward Christ. I would never ask anyone to imitate me. In my opinion, this would be heresy. We are to imitate Christ only.

What is it like to be called upwards by God? Have you ever experienced this? What causes God's call to become dim in our hearing? How can we renew our hearing of his call? What is the content or specifics of this message or summons or call? I don't believe I have had the emotional experience -- the 'high' -- that many have written about in their responses to this question. My calling was subtle and quiet and took years to root. I''m assuming, here, that Pastor Ralph is referring to his third description of the prize, that is, the call to salvation. I look back on life and see that the times in which I was most self-promoting (and often happier, unfortunately) were the times when the calling in the sense of vocation was dimmed. I lost track of the real goal which has to do with determinedly focusing on Jesus and not the self, forcing myself to run the race as fast as possible and toward the mark. Today, I sense the strenuous nature of the Christian life, that to be called may involve my determined response, not merely a passive one. In other words, it's not just "accepting" Christ but doing everything possible to actively and exhaustingly pursue Him. The part of the question that asks how to renew the call troubles me because I'm not sure we renew it at all. If we're running a race and we get sidelined by our own selfish pursuits, we know what to do -- get back on the track and run! The specific content of the call can be to salvation, at the beginning of the Christian life, but later, after the sanctification process had continued for awhile, the call becomes to daily obedience and to a deepening knowledge of Him. I have found in my own spiritual walk that the call is less to DO something than to BECOME someone in Him. Early on, we're called to do something: later, we're called to be something/someone, that is, to establish a closer relationship with Him. The doing comes out of the being/becoming. I know this, but it's still difficult for me to not know what I'm supposed to do, to not have a clear goal toward which I can run. ,

Christianity is a remarkably forward-looking, almost futuristic religion. I am not to remember the past but rather strive for the mark, for the future. Life's a short race with a finish line. Even though I cannot see the finish line or even know where/when it is, my next step is illuminated seconds before I take it. I must always run toward the rising sun. I think, as a rule, that all remembering hinders my relationship with Him -- good or bad, positive or painful, sweet or sour. I am not to look back. Never to think of the past. Always to press forward. For this reason, I have removed all photographs, diplomas, etc. and have packed them away. This may sound extreme, but I need to concentrate on becoming, not being. For me, it is difficult not to recall the past because the past was so much better than the present. I must say that I hate the place I am in life. I remind myself that Jesus could change my circumstances in an instant if He so chose, but has not chosen to do so, so this must be His will for me as there are no moral avenues of escape. My buzzword is "persevere.” Just keep going. Sometimes God shuts all doors ... until one opens.

These are question with which I struggle often. The relationship I have with Christ is unlike the relationships I have with people. For one, I don't see him. In this way, it's like emailing someone from another country I'll never meet. Secondly, He doesn't talk back. Conversations have a give and flow, but with God, it's different. I talk frequently and too much -- He does not. Some people are blessed to hear his audible voice, but I have never heard Him. So, there's a bit of a tentativeness in my heart when I think he may be whispering to my soul that doesn't exist with flesh-and-blood human relationships. Thirdly, I don't wish for my friends to suffer or suffer with me. If I am hurting, I shield my friends from my pain, and don't try to involve them in it. I do things to try to mitigate their pain, but often there's nothing I can do other than hand them kleenex and cry with them. Our God is all-powerful, so why doesn't He doesn't take our pain and suffering from us, and not expect us to share His. Yes, this troubles me... -- I have an almost constant, running monologue with Jesus, telling Him whatever I'm thinking, asking Him to correct my thoughts or give me the words and ideas that I'll need to compete a project. I ask often for a changed character and to be more like Him ... except for the suffering. I've had enough of that! Is this a relationship? When people upthread speak of Jesus as their "friend" or even "best friend" it makes me feel as if my relationship with God is tepid and selfish. Do I "walk in His shoes"? Really, I don't know. Is this a "personal" relationship? Well, yes, but it's not like a marriage, for example, even a good one. For me, it's simply the case that there's a gap between God and myself that cannot be bridged. He's God ... I'm just a human. His thoughts are so much greater than mine that I"m not sure it's even possible to participate in them. We're talking about a "relationship" between an earth-bound human and God: should this be called relationship? I can understand deference, obedience, honour, worship, even desire, but the sort of intimate, back-slapping, God-is-my-buddy descriptions upthread are not something I've ever had.

I've known a lot of Jews who "religiously" observed hundreds of rituals, getting up every morning to put a box with a verse in it on their head -- tefellin -- eating kosher food, going to synagogue every morning so a "minion" of men can chant in unison ... etc. I don't think they thought of the law as giving them righteousness even though some of them were arrogant and looked down on Christians. Rather, they considered themselves "observant" and therefore good enough. In fact, the entire Chabad movement -- orthodox Jews -- is an attempt to reel in secular Jews bit by bit, by teaching them how to do the rituals and then telling them that a ritual done once is better than a ritual never done. The majority of American Jews are secular. So, a little bit of observance is not as good as frequent observances of rituals, but, well, God judges on a sliding scale. Just being a Jew is the only ticket to God needed. They don't think they have to be made right with God for they were born Jews and that's all God wants (... though keeping kosher would be nice ... and making sure the kid is circumcised on day eight is nice... and having a fancy Bat/Bas/Bar Mitzvah ceremony is lots of fun...) What I'm trying to say -- poorly, sorry! -- is that they don't have that binary attitude of righteousness and justification that Paul describes in the Bible. They don't think you're saved or unsaved by the law, but somewhere on a continuum. Being a Jew is their ticket to God and a secular or non-practicing Jew is still a Jew before God. I think this is why secularists have such a difficult time understanding the Christian belief of making a decision for Christ, which, after that moment, fundamentally changes our lives. Sanctification is gradual, true, but we're either saved or not saved, and such a dichotomy is a stumbling block to many outsiders to Christian faith. -- Society tends to judge Christians harshly as hypocrites because to the secular mind, a Christian cannot sin ... which doesn't make sense, but their expectation of Christians is artificially high so they can justify their own rejection of God.

I have a difficult time understanding this. First, I have no childhood religious background. I always thought it would be a blessing to be raised in the faith, to have a religious background and not be reflexively secular. I'd like to be reflexively Christian in my ethic and thought process. But here, having a strong religious upbringing is considered "Loss." Secondly, perhaps pride in one's adult Christian background is the issue. Sadly, I'm so far from the mark that I can't see it that way. Thirdly, this could be a generic sort of pride in one's accomplishments, degrees, prestige, class, etc., and not restricted to Pharisee-like status in the church. If it's taken out of the church context, (which Paul does NOT do in this passage), then it would apply to all of us. We all have things for which we're proud, sometimes deservedly, as we worked hard to get them. What Paul could be saying, then, is even the deserved accolades, accomplishments and advantages of birth are NOTHING compared to knowing Jesus. It is not only that Paul was given a family heritage, citizenship, orthodoxy, etc., and didn't deserve these advantages in life, but rather that anything Paul had done to enhance or improve himself as well as the advantages he undeservedly enjoyed, were worth nothing compared to having faith in Christ.

Pastor Ralph asked this question with reference to church, not individual even though it would be a lot easier to answer as an individual Christian. I used to be -- and my heart is still -- Anglican, a denomination that puts a lot of emphasis, unfortunately, on the exterior appearance, wealth and habits of worship. I think this denomination knows, deep inside, that only "circumcision of the heart" matters, but sometimes acts as if it's congregants have to queue in time to the circumcision of the flesh, to just do the rituals. It's quite possible to be truly circumcised in the heart while displaying some of the fleshly symptoms too. We have clay feet. individuals, like churches, are both worshipful in it's true sense while damaged and sin-bound. So, of the three evidences that Pastor Ralph of true circumcision, I think even my old Anglican church had some of them some of the time. 1. Sometimes worship was by the spirit of God. Is this supposed to mean Holy Spirit led? Are the gifts supposed to show up, here? 2. Often worship exulted in the glory of Jesus. The liturgy does this, actually -- an argument for liturgy! -- because it was written by some of the deepest, most spiritually mature Christians, long ago. It's hard to wreck the service of a liturgical church. 3. Rarely did the sinful nature of congregants go directly and overtly against God, particularly in worship. Though I wonder what certain individuals were thinking during the service, as a whole, the service was directed as planned and certainly not against God.

I can't imagine how difficult it must have been for this church of new believers. These new Christians had no templates or vision of what a church should be as they were the first generation of Christians. On top of that, their "top" leaders were imprisoned. This meant that the men who were capable of leading and teaching them were absent. They were, then, struggling in the dark. The return of Timothy and Epaphroditus after a long period of time without experienced leadership must have been a huge relief. No wonder they had been complaining, their position was difficult! From our perch in the 21st century, with millennia of teaching and the examples and stories of godly men and women, it's difficult to maintain a church. We have the advantage of history and hindsight and still bicker and backstab. Without scriptures, templates and leaders, the Philippian church was doing amazingly well, in my opinion. Selflessness is a life-long quest not something that some have and others don't. Some people naturally have characters that tend toward giving ... others do not. Timothy apparently had several lovely qualities that fit him for leadership at that time and place as did his friend Epaphrodites.

What is the significance of serving Jesus as a "slave" as opposed to serving him as a preference? What does it say about the quality of our service? Of our commitment? What is wrong with leaders who serve out of preference? I'm not sure I understand what Pastor Ralph means by "preference." I think He wants us to compare the service to God of a slave with the service of a free person. From I Corinthians: Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let it concern you -- but if you can gain your freedom, take the opportunity. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman. Conversely, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave.… God calls. We respond. We CHOOSE to respond and then subject ourselves to Him. Paul uses the metaphor of slavery to describe the degree to which we should subject ourselves to Him. I do not believe Paul intends the idea that slaves serve better, or more loyally, than those who are free. The fact that we have a choice, or a preference, makes our love of Him sweeter. To be able to choose God v. the allurements of the world is a form of self-sacrifice and love He surely values. The person who obeys is the one who had an alternative or option to disobey, not a slave who does not have that choice. In contrast, the obedience of a slave is like the obedience of a dog -- reflexive and not heart-felt. "to obey is better than sacrifice ..."

Sadly, no one mentored me – I grew up and remain surrounded by secular people. Though I prayed earnestly for many years for a mentor, I never got one and now, as a middle-age woman, it’s probably too late! The Holy Spirit is my mentor. Books written by long-dead Christians as well as information written by quite-alive Christians, such as Pastor Ralph, are my “mentors.” I find it amazing, to be honest, that I can pick up a book written in the late-19thC, for example, and find in it the answers to question I have or comfort in a difficult situation. As I read through the responses, I thought about what mentoring entails. Is parenting mentoring? Are conversations with young women or any younger person mentoring? Is evangelism mentoring? I would think that mentoring has to be a purposeful, deliberate taking on of the role of being someone's consistent spiritual advisor; if this is a correct definition, I am not mentoring anyone. Also, is mentoring a gift, something like the gift of evangelism? Are some people called to be mentors?

Selfless concern is rare in all of us, not just leaders. Selflessness -- dying to self -- is the apex of the Christian life and thus never attained. We do, slowly, approximate selflessness. We get better at dying to self, that is. Failure, isolation, intense study, more isolation -- this has been God's method of changing me. I had so much that needed to be changed that I can't think of one thing in particular that helped me selflessly love, which I do not do often or consistently. He is teaching me to not love people in an abstract manner, but in reality, to love the most unlovable people such as my atheistic father and not just great conversationalists! He's stripped me of all props in life, all the things I loved doing and being, and has reduced me to being a caretaker for an old man in his 94th year, my father. One would think that the time I have spent helping my father die -- several years, now -- would bring us closer, but this has not happened. Still, I know God has me here for a reason, to re-tool me so I'm ready to go wherever He wants and do whatever He wishes me to do after my father dies. That's my horrible story of being refined. It's painful, lonely, humiliating, and isolating. It's totally unfulfilling. I hate every moment of it. In my darkness and emptiness, I have nothing but God. I think this is a typical story, actually. God makes most of us walk through a long valley until we are able to climb another mountain range. I'm in that valley. His refinement.

Rain falls on the good and evil alike, on those who believe and those who do not believe in Christ. We all suffer. Furthermore, Christ's suffering on the cross, though horrific, was a rather common punishment at that time. Thousands of people were nailed to crosses and left to die. So I don't believe it's the pain and suffering that set apart Christ's suffering from those of other political prisoners, but our interpretation of that suffering that makes it meaningful. Similarly, many people have suffered greatly in life -- I'm not alone -- yet it is the interpretative grid over my own suffering that gives to me both meaning and significance. I can't offer anything to God. No human suffering attracts His attention ... nothing I do is good enough, no suffering I endure is deep enough. My life is tainted, even now, after I've become a Christian, by my sin nature. I will sin until I die. I sin as I suffer. I sin when I'm not suffering. Even my struggles are tainted by sin. I whine, moan and shake my fist at God, demanding to know WHY I'm going through this and WHY He hasn't delivered me or at least alleviated the pain. I receive no response. Divine crickets. So, the honour to God that suffering may be is oblique, at best. It's not the suffering that honours him, but the change in character that suffering produces. It's the slow diminution of sin that pleases Him. The ONLY value in suffering is in the change of character it causes. IF this is called a drink offering ... well, okay. I think of it as sanctification.

To hold fast is to be glued. We are supposed to be either glued to the Word of life (by the Holy Spirit) or be glued to it (by our own efforts). To hold forth is to evangelize. We are supposed to go forth/out into the world to talk about the Word of Life. The longer I study under Pastor Ralph the more I realize that my conception of church/fellowship/koinonia is hopelessly confused. When I read this, I immediately individualized it: I am to stay glued to the bible and I am to evangelize. The question, though, is how these two clauses relate to the purpose of the church, which I'm not sure about. That's a "WE" answer I can't give. If I view the church as a bunch of individuals as opposed to a unity, then the answer is easy -- individuals in church are to stay close to scripture as well as evangelize. If, however, I view the church as a thing, a whole ... well, does the church evangelize? No. Individuals evangelize. The pastor in his sermon evangelizes. There's no "we" here. The bottom line is I'm not sure how this relates to the purpose of the church.

I would think that shining like stars is a metaphor for standing out or against the backdrop, which in this case, is the culture and society in which the Philippians lived. I am mostly silent in church. I rarely interact and leave as soon as the service has ended. My problem is a lack of interaction, not complaining and arguing. I argue in print! I'm so disillusioned with church, at this point, that asking me what I should do do change is moot.

Until now, I assumed that this passage referred to something we do as individuals -- it never occurred to me that it had to do with the church -- particularly the clause which reads, " ... it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." I assumed God was working in ME, not the church. I personalized this verse. But Pastor Ralph clearly believes it is for the church, (does this mean that aspects of salvation are corporate, not individual?) The "YOU" who works out YOUR own salvation, is the church. It refers back to the "my dear friends" and has a nominative plural ending in the Koine. The implications of this are troubling, to say the least.

Yes, we're supposed to humble ourselves like Christ, but what does that really mean and what does it look like in our daily lives? Many years ago, I watched a man dragging a cross through the crowds of Mardi Gras in New Orleans. People were throwing stuff at him and stripping off their clothes in front of his eyes. Was his response humility-in-action or a strange sort of psychological self-abasement? Though God puts us in circumstances to humble us, this man put himself into a humbling situation. He was asking to be humiliated and debased. And so he was. We can't humble ourselves, therefore, as this man tried to do, but we can respond to our circumstances by accepting them as either 1) the answer of God, that is His will, or 2) a trial of God. And that's where the difficulty lies, and perhaps impatience. We ask ourselves, -- "Is this circumstance of God, or something I should 'correct' or 'improve' myself?" -- "Is this a trial or is Satan hurting me?" It's not always easy to know whether our circumstances are of Him or not. I imagine Joseph in the prison, languishing for years, wondering if he should escape or stay? He was a victim ... could this really be of God? Impatience comes from not knowing or believing that one's circumstances have been chosen by God. Joseph's imprisonment, year after year, must have been galling to him in times of weakness when he wondered if God had abandoned him or if this was "really" God's will. My experience is that impatience comes and goes as our faith that our circumstances are God's will wanes and waxes.

The question is whether He was simultaneously man and God, or sequentially God than man than God (again). In other words, did He give up his divinity when on earth, or did He retain it in some manner. I have no answer to this. The idea that God needed to be a human to understand humanity seems a bit stretched. It's more likely that He became human so we could understand Him. Honestly, since God is all-knowing and can make Himself accessible to us, I'm not sure that his form makes a difference. The fact that God became human, though, and actually taught us as a human, makes it far easier for us to understand and submit to Him. Having said this, when God needed to reach us prior to Jesus, He did. God spoke to Moses to give his revelation in the law, as well as numerous prophets and other people, so I don't believe that God "needed" to be human for us to hear from Him. If he wants us to know Him, He'll teach us or reveal Himself. Even now. The Christ event, then, has less to do with revelation as with salvation. God's revelation of Himself as human is only a small part of salvation. Jews and Christians disagree over the centrality/truthfulness of Jesus in His revelation: Jews, of course, believe that God's revelation prior to Jesus was sufficient. Though I know the creedal and traditional answers, I don't want to give them. I want to think outside the box, here, to question fundamentals by asking myself, "Now, why, again, did Jesus come in human form???"

As pastor Ralph pointed out, these verses start out with the statement, "In your relationships with each other have the same mind as Jesus..." so somehow, the subsequent words about Christ's nature prescribe how we relate to each other. Honestly, I do not understand this. Attempt one: We are to relate to each other with Christ's mindset which was one of humility, then exaltation. (I'm supposed to relate to you as a temporarily lesser human because I know, secretly, I'll be exalted?) Attempt two: We are to relate to each other with Christ's mindset which is one that could have demanded equality but instead chose inequality, therefore in the end, he became first over all. (I relate to you as if I'm lesser than you knowing I'm really the greatest, or will be???) No. These can't be correct. I'm confused by the clandestine nature of His humanity. He knew He was God and yet morphed into a human form (this tricked and confused us), even going as far as to endure incredible pain, and then whoosh, He went back up to heaven from where He had come. And, because He did this, we have an example of how to relate to each other?? My pea brain is overwhelmed. I have no idea what this passage means or how it shows me (other than humility) how to relate to other people. I'm sorry.

Some of the above comments have made me realize that I really don't know what church is supposed to act and look like. I thought I did ... but don't. Why is it structured this way? Why is it this size? Why is it that we, as congregants, work so hard to find a way to serve? Why do so many pastors feel targeted, even angry? Perhaps there was something fundamentally wrong with most of the churches to which I've belonged or attended. This statement isn't made out of my pride, but out of frustration and grief. Yes, more humility among the congregants and leadership would always be helpful, but I'm still not convinced that the way we do church in America or the West is the way it has to be done. Frankly, it seems a bit odd that the way church actually "works" isn't all that different than that of a secular corporation, civic club, social club, etc. Unchurched people may be doing church differently. I've known some amazing Christians who have given up on church and attend parachurch groups instead. There's a strong bias against this, particularly here, but the pejoratively named "Lone Ranger" Christian may have his/her place in the body, too. Solitude isn't a sin. Recently, when a woman who sold on ebay openly told me about her daughter's marital breakup, grandkids, etc ... it occurred to me that she was the most transparent, self-revealing person I had spoken to and prayed with in months. She said she could not "trust" or "be honest with" anyone in her church. The assumption, here, is that pride sabotages church unity, and obviously, this is true. But something else may be wrong. I can't put my finger on it. Just thinking.

I’ve never been afraid of what happens after death – whatever happens, happens! It’s not worth arguing over the various interpretations of the end. Eventually, we'll be with Him whether immediately or delayed. There’s a certainty about our eventual reunion with God that’s like a foundation or grounding for life. It’s a hidden knowledge, and like a foundation not something I see or think about. It neither comforts me nor energizes me. I fear dying before I got a chance to live. I want a big life before my certain death. I'm focused on now.

These passages speak to my huge fear that the closer I get to God and the more His Spirit sanctifies me, the more He will make me suffer, perhaps unto death. I can’t help but notice that the apostles all died horrible deaths. I fear this. I also fear suffering in itself. In my life there has been a undeniable connection between suffering and spiritual growth. I wish this were not the case, but it is, and since I am determined to fight the good fight and run His race as fast as I can, I predict more suffering. I am less afraid of being hurt by people than by God. This may sound sacrilegious, but it was God’s will that many died as martyrs and continue to do so. I was God's will that I suffered so greatly in the past few years. He could have changed my circumstances but did not. He even wills, at times, our painful deaths. He also seems to will the deaths of those who are closest to Him. The paradox of faith is that He pulls away and demands still more from the spiritually mature, and coddles the young in Him. The apostles were murdered, all but one; eleven of twelve. Those are not good odds. Rationally, this should be a disincentive to wanting to grow closer to Him, for the cost is just so high. Am I willing to suffer and die for Him? Yes, but I don’t want to. -- If “losing our life” is seen as a metaphor, then it makes sense that a metaphoric death yields abundant life. But, if we actually die, we obviously don’t have abundant life. We’re dead, after all. We do have the next life, in heaven, and I suppose that could be construed as an “abundant life.”," but when I think of life, I think of breathing, eating and loving on this earth, not in heaven. -- Stupidity, not fear, keeps me from being a clear witness. Also, spiritual immaturity.

I think our ability to rejoice is based on our ability to trust, which is difficult. In Paul's life, God's working-together-for-the-good meant he was brutally murdered. Perhaps this was the best case scenario in Paul's life, but this is hard to believe and I'm certain that Paul would have found difficult to believe that God wouldn't deliver him one more time. He trusted God. He trusted God to deliver him, and in a way, God did deliver Paul by taking his life. Paul prayed for courage. He mentioned his own death. He saw his own murder as God's purpose to which he had been called. And, he saw this as good. I'm having difficulties with this, admittedly. I have no problem with believing that God is all-powerful. He controls human history. He controls the events in my wee life. He counts the hairs on my head and is aware of every dead sparrow falling to the ground. But I do have a problem with this: " ... all things work together for the good." Was being brutally murdered for the good in Paul's life? We must believe this, or we doubt God's love for us. Lord, Help me know your love. Only if I can trust you to be loving toward me will I be able to rejoice. Amen.

From the standpoint of witness to others, you are much more credible when you are undergoing personal struggles, stress, and problems. Why is this so? Why was Paul's witness so powerful? What personal struggle are you going through that could enhance your testimony if you handled it right? One of my biggest fears, if not my biggest, is that I will be forced to endure what happened to so many in the Bible who drew close to Him, that I’ll be abandoned and left to die a gruesome death, that the God of love will become, to me, a God who turns away when I need Him the most. I confess this fear. As I read the first chapter of Philippians, I’m struck by how Paul hoped to be delivered in the end … either in life or death. He seemed to think God would deliver him and that he would, in the end, live. He was torn, he says, between desiring life and anticipating his own death. He thought it would be better for the church if he lived. This did not happen. Still, God promises to be with us. He promises to not give us more than we can bear. He also tests us and puts us through long periods of suffering to make us stronger in our faith. Paul’s faith must have been very strong at this time as he was so greatly suffering. In spite of Paul's obedience, strong faith, faithful witness and self-giving to others, he died a horrible death. In public, he could have been wearing his “game face” because he wanted to encourage the young church as well as witness to the Romans. Deep inside, perhaps he felt abandonment. But his testimony was “enhanced,” because he “handled it right.” We’re to be like Christ. On the cross, Christ’s final words had to do with his abandonment – forsakenness. Even Christ felt abandoned.

Discernment is trying to tease out of God His will in a particular circumstance. It’s predicated on the idea that God’s will is so unclear we must noodle around to “discern” it. Selfishness is certainly one reason why God’s will is unclear, but is not the only reason. The huge gap between God and humanity, a gap of ability and essence, is the real reason we do not know His will perfectly. I am troubled by the idea that God doesn’t make his will clearly known. Obviously, we cannot know His will in a specific situation unless He chooses to reveal it to us. There are many examples in scriptures where God’s will is clearly known, where God speaks with an audible voice. But most of the time, we are forced to decide if the little thought in our minds is ours or His or if the closed door is Satan’s blockage we should pray and push through or God leading us in a new direction. I don’t believe there’s a person on this site who would prefer the good to the best. That’s not the issue. The issue is knowing what is best … discernment. Honestly, I feel like a little kid at a pinata party, blindfolded and swinging my stick in the air, hoping to accidently hit the hanging pinata so I can grab some candy. I don’t know why God works this way. The standard answers always point the finger back at me. I'm the problem. I'm not spiritually mature enough to know His will. I need to study the scriptures more, pray more, wait, ask wiser people for advice, prevail in prayer with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, love Him more and now, be less selfish. Sigh. If God wants the best for me, He’ll show me what’s best and then enable me to pursue it.