Krissi

There are seasons of life when we have an excess of financial blessing … and other seasons when we are poor or less financially blessed. In the past, when I had much more, I anonymously gave, but as I look back, I should have given more. What did I receive from giving, is your question? Perhaps there were spiritual blessings of which I was unaware. Honestly, I don’t see any connection between my giving and His blessing of me, particularly with regards to financial blessings. I do see, however, a connection between my giving and the blessing of others. The one who gives may not be the one who gets. And that's okay! I’m in a position, now, where the support I am able to give is mostly labour which I try to give freely and generously. I give, thus, my time. I give my words. I give what I know and think. That’s what I have, now, to give. I believe God uses and honours these small gifts in unknown ways.

The difference between slave and saint may have to do with our ability to choose, that is, our free-will or volition. A slave does not have the ability to make choices or determine his actions. He may think he's making decisions, but his paths and future has been mapped out for him. A saint chooses Christ therefore chooses to let God determine his actions. He is, in a very real sense, making decisions (with the Holy Spirit's involvement.) In my wee opinion, the slave/saint dichotomy refers to the mystery of human free-will, that simultaneously, we're both slave and free, and in freedom choose to be His slave again.

The ordinary Israelite would have felt much more secure because of Gideon -- no longer would he have to thresh in winepresses! Security, then, was Gideon's primary gift to Israel. He was, after all, a military leader which the angel called a "mighty warrior," not a religious or political leader. In his realm, that of military engagement and securing the borders of Israel, Gideon was quite successful. I still believe that what many on this site regard as harsh revenge was God's will. Note that Israel's state was one of peace for many years. Had Gideon let those men survive, the peace of Israel could have been threatened. We will never know. The impact of ephod-worship was felt less by the Israelites who lived during Gideon's lifetime than those who lived after his death. Religious apostacy takes time to filter through the population and settle in the minds of the people. Today, the actions of our corrupt and incompetent political class are similarly destroying the culture and morality of the people, albeit slowly. Moral devolution is generational: yesterday's ephod-like corruption is making it's cultural impact today, just as today's corruption will poison the minds and souls of our children and grandchildren.

A snare is a HIDDEN trap. That’s it’s essence. If it were easily visible, it wouldn't be a snare. Snares are not traps we’re aware of, but those that catch us because they're obscured or hidden. When I think of a snare, I think of clear netting strung between two two trees into which birds blindly fly. This ephod, though, wasn’t hidden. It's power was in it's visibility. It entrapped the Israelites because they believed it to be one thing when it was another – they thought of it as a means of worshipping Yahweh even as it pulled them away from the worship of Yahweh. In other words, the thing itself became the locus of worship. As Pastor Ralph mentioned, extravagant European cathedrals have this same effect when the beauty of the cathedral draws eyes away from, not toward, the God for whom the cathedral was erected. Sometimes we see sin belatedly, particularly when it mimes the good. Success, for example, can either be a sign of God’s favour or the outworking of wrong priorities which arise from putting success ahead of God. It’s easy to miss seeing success as sin because it's simply not sin in all cases at all times. I'm not saying sin is relative, but only that the way it appears to us can be misleading. Visual or artistic beauty is like this, too. It mimes the good. The ephod could have been seen as a symbol of God's favor and deliverance ... ... but, in the shiny beauty of the gold ephod, Israelites saw a marvelous example of human creativity, which they admired and worshipped. Worshipping what humans make can be idolatry; marvelling at great art or architecture, for example, tends this direction, at least for me. Sin is often the wrapping of a tendency; it's the thin path that leads to a wider path. Enticements to the thin path, such as this ephod, are the trap to which this verse refers. A piece of cloth, even if made of gold, is morally neutral. There’s nothing explicitly evil in this object. What made it sin was the way the Israelites substituted the thing for God Himself – that's the pattern of their cyclical apostacy. Gideon’s sin was not making the ephod. His sin was his utter blindless, lack of awareness -- lack of love? -- and unwillingness to shield his “weaker brethren” from their tendency to be diverted or entrapped easily and cheaply, from the worship of the one, true God.

The Holy Spirit beckons, prods and convicts, not me. Ultimately, the Holy Spirit brings wanderers home, too. Christians can be used to reel in other Christians who have wandered, but only after the Holy Spirit has convinced the wanderer that he/she needs to return home.

I had an acquaintance who displayed in his home a long, golden scarf which he wrapped around and across a large vase. It's gold had been made into thick threads and then woven into yellow silk. I was surprised at it's heaviness. When I picked it up and put it over my shoulders I felt it pull downward on me, like a backpack! It's possible, then, to weave actual gold into a garment. Westerners rarely turn to another religion, as was done in Gideon's time, but to secular substitutes for God. This "adultery" is less obvious and deniable than if a golden calf propped in our living room, but no less real. Very few marriages survive adultery -- mine didn't! -- which is why our marriage to God has to be protected from unfaithfulness. Faith, like marriage, can be shattered and destroyed. Personal temptations? Well, yes.

1. Oil is symbolic. 2. Without faith, prayer is talking to yourself. So, in a very real sense, a prayer of faith is the only true prayer there can be. Having said that, it seems that faith isn't something you have or don't have, like wearing a hat and taking it off, but something that grows within you from something small, like a mustard seed, to something larger. The implication here is that only prayers offered to Him with "big" faith will be heard. I just don't believe this. I believe God hears the pleas from those whose faith is faltering, too. 3. Personally, the notion of confessing sins to another human makes me squeamish as I simply don't trust anyone, even other Christians, with personal information. In the Catholic church, anonymity is assured with the confessional box. The priest sits on one side with a screen separating the sinner from the priest who mediates between God and the sinner. The priestly-mediation aspect of Catholic confession is, in my opinion, wrong, as Christ is the only mediator we need. But the practice of confession in Catholic churches leads me to think that the idea of confessing sins to each other is also wrong as our confessions are to God and our forgiveness assured by Christ's death on the cross. In no place is it necessary for another human to intervene. Thus, though it may be psychologically healthy to confess to another Christian, it's not spiritually necessary: we confess to Him alone. Neither is anointing with oil necessary. The only thing that matters, in the context of healing, is faith, and as is mentioned in Ephesians, faith, in itself, is a gift of God. So much of Christian faith is recursive.

It may not be weak faith that hinders healing, but God Himself. WE do not know if it is God’s will for that person to be sick or die or to be healed and live. This is not faithlessness or “not believing in the power of God,” but, rather the opposite, it is submitting our wills and understanding to the power and sovereignty of God by meekly submitting to His will in all circumstances. God is sovereign. He is sovereign if the elders are men of weak faith. He is sovereign if they are men of tremendous faith. His sovereignty doesn't change. He knows when and who is ill and dying and could heal with or without our prayers, but does not heal in some cases. Ultimately, we pray because we think He will enter into history in response to our prayer. But, really, does God’s will ever change, or seem to change, because of prayer? Or, do we delude ourselves into thinking that the forward motion of God’s unfolding plan slightly veered to the right or left because we asked Him to do this? The purpose of prayer may be to align our will with His, and not to get Him to do things for us, or to change His mind or the thrust of human history.

God rules. God saves. We are His instruments which occasionally He chooses to use. It's sin to elevate ourselves to the point where we think God must work through human intermediaries for He can, and often does, work outside humanity to accomplish His will. Gideon had heard God's voice. He had been elevated, by God, as an instrument of divine purposes. He had been doing what God told him to do. When offered political power (Does this remind you of Jesus in the desert being tempted by Satan?) he declined it because it was not something God had told him to do. So far, the battles, political murders and victories were God-directed -- being crowned as king, however, would NOT have been God directed. Gideon had the humility, then, to decline kingship as he awaited God's next commands. I wonder if this was a test of Gideon's obedience and humility.

In James, the sick person is supposed to initiate the prayers of others. Of course, praying alone is efficacious as well -- a person does not need the prayers of others to reach God with his or her petition. And, it isn't the case that alone we're only to bring God the little stuff; we should come to Him directly with big things like the need to be healed. God answers the prayer of the solitary. When Elijah ran away, defeated and alone under a bush, God healed him through the ministrations of angels. Elijah didn't even ask for healing ... in fact, he asked to die. Since God can heal without our prayers, or without the prayers of elders, and, in the case of Elijah above, proactively healed Elijah so he could continue his prophetic ministry ... why do we pray for healing? I'm confused. If God needs us on the earth, He'll keep us alive. If not, we get to go home to heaven. I'm backing into the belief that healing miracles have very little to do with the actual healing, but are rather prompts for deeper faith and reflection or a means by which unbelievers are brought into the kingdom. This could explain Jesus' statements about faith in the context of healing. In the larger scheme of things, our prayers or those of the elders are not about healing, but about believing increasingly deeply in Him. Do you believe ... Just believe ... Everything is possible for one who believes ...

The Bible does not condemn Gideon for this act so perhaps seeing Gideon as vengeful isn't how we're supposed to understand this. God certainly ordered his military men and leaders to slaughter entire cities and people in other places in the bible, so death, even brutal death, isn't necessarily out of His will. I'm unsure, but am leaning toward thinking that Gideon's act was a just obligation (though I question his judgment in asking his son to kill two men.) In the next paragraph, Gideon says that he and his sons will not be king, that only God is king, so he's clearly in line with God's will here. Yes, Romans says not to avenge ourselves, that He will avenge us, a comforting thought.

I'm not sure where the line is between asking God for something, or to have one's circumstances changed, and complaining. Is what David said complaining? My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? I can see how complaining isn't true prayer, but can also see that legitimate complaints and petitions can be thought of as complaining, too. Old Jerry above said that complaining suggests a lack of love for God, or a lack of trust in His love, which seems like the deep answer to the question or the ultimate cause of complaining. Just thinking through this ...

Gideon’s behaviour may appear like fury and raw retribution to us, but in God’s economy, the men of Succoth and Peniel deserved it for there is no condemnation of Gideon in scripture. He was a warrior for Christ. What he did must have been merited, God-sanctioned and just. What Pastor Ralph describes as a “dark side” may be exactly what God requires of all of us. We tend to think of God as soft, forgiving, loving … and, yes, He is all these things but he’s also just and right, and his justice at one point killed all humanity (Noah). Gideon wasn’t seeking revenge for himself, but for his troops and God. The question I have is this: Could there be times in my own life when God asks me to act like Gideon? Is violence in His name just?

It seems that the more we want something, the more difficult it is to patiently wait for it, even Christ's return. Patience and long-suffering seem to be attributes of a mature Christian.

We have Midianites in our midst today. I'm not certain God is calling us to destroy them, but if and when He does, I hope we will share His hatred of immorality as did Gideon and completely devastate God's enemies.

There is no spiritual danger in either comfort or luxury as long as it’s not a demand, as Pastor Ralph put it, but rather a consequence of good investing, talent, delayed gratification and hard work. I’ve been on both sides of this equation – I’ve been very wealthy and very poor. Right now, I’m poor. There’s nothing wrong with wealth. Absolutely nothing. For the spiritually weak, wealth does enable sin – it’s easier to get in trouble or be pride-filled if wealth comes suddenly or is unfamiliar. The spiritually strong, however, view wealth as a gift just like any other of His gifts (health, talent, family …). They are thankful for His bounty, quietly giving it away and living simply without ostentation. Obviously, God has no problem with wealth. Abraham and Job, for example, were specifically rewarded by God with great wealth … God promised them wealth as a spiritual dividend, so to speak, for long-time obedience, trust and faith. God sees wealth as good, as a reward, as something to be enjoyed, not avoided. The spiritual danger of wealth is the same as the spiritual danger of anything which used properly is good and improperly sin. Sex comes to mind. Sex in marriage is beautiful and necessary; sex outside of marriage is sin. It’s not the sex qua sex that’s the problem; similarly, it’s not wealth that’s the problem. If a Christian can’t enjoy wealth without selfishness, then the selfishness is the problem, not the wealth. It is simply the case that most wealthy people are wealthy because they’ve earned or merited it. Very few are lottery-winning slobs, trust-fund babies, or sports/entertainment louts. Yes, some wealthy people pursue money relentlessly without self-consciously reflecting on their priorities and attitudes. And there are prideful wealthy people, too. Many, in fact. Again, it’s the character of the man or woman that matters to God, not the trappings of life like wealth. Having said that, some people work very hard for very little, yet I don’t believe God has condemned them because they're poorer. For them, life’s rewards are elsewhere – family or health, for example. Personally, I gravitate toward people who have chosen occupations that give great satisfaction and pleasure without a lot of financial reward. For them, the reward of doing what they love is far greater than being paid well for work detested or disliked. They've made that calculation when they chose that occupation. Theirs was a good decision. (I’d rather be a poor poet than a bond trader any day.) Extra credit: People in third-world countries should not be juvenilized and treated as if they cannot make decisions that affect their own future. If they choose to make more money and leave an agrarian lifestyle, they are fully responsible for that choice. Young girls and boys working in sweatshops in China, however, are NOT responsible for their condition therefore any Christian who buys good made by child labour is guilty of perpetuating their misery.

Your map was helpful. The three tribes from whose help he originally asked were to the north; Ephraim was to his south. It seems as if the battles were fought on his own territory, or that a bit north, not to the south. Just thinking about this strategically, it makes sense that he didn't use the Ephraimites (sp?) until he needed them. Until the enemy escaped to the South through his own territory into that of the Ephraimites, he didn't need their help. Better to keep your allies rested and ready, no? Besides that, the Ephraimites would have had to trod through his own territory, potentially hurting his own tribe. To wait until the enemy was at Ephraim meant that the Ephraimites were fighting on or nearby their own territory, which would have been familiar and a much easier battle with a more likely victory. It could be that the Ephraimites were miffed, not because they weren't called earlier, but because their northerly neighbour just had a major victory. Gideon's reputation was enhanced. His "stock had risen. And there they had been, sitting it out, not sharing in the victory, out of the limelight. If this is the case, it makes sense that they were easily mollified with some ego-gratifying compliments. Gideon was wise to build the Ephraimites up in their own eyes. Strategically, he defused a potentially disruptive situation. Spiritually, it's always good to build up those who criticize you, even when they're wrong, but particularly when they're right.

"We need to be in tune with God. If we feel led to go in a certain direction we can never be 100% sure it's God's will for us. I don't know anyone who has heard the voice of God tell them exactly what to do. Most of us muddle through life drifting in and out of God's Will. It's a rare Christian indeed who unwaveringly walks the path God prepared for him/her with a clear vision of where they're going." These wise words are from Guitar Jim, above. I don't know how to link to them. -- I am so convicted by this question. I'm a planner. Since I can remember, I've set goals and plotted my way toward them. Actually, it's worse than this because I'm in love with both graph paper and excel spreadsheets and actually chart my progress toward goals EVERY DAY. Not kidding. I'm totally convinced that without goals, I won't get anywhere, which perhaps is the point of James. Maybe we're not supposed to have plans and goals? Maybe plans and goals are like material goods that we're to hold lightly? I'm thinking of the apostles who had no more than the clothes on their back, no plans or expectations or thought of the future. They weren't stocking their IRAs for when they're old, but rather completely and totally relying on God for daily sustenance as well as daily goals. Is this what we're supposed to be like? If so, it's a chimera. I suppose I could be homeless and penniless and utterly dependent on God BY CHOICE, but, frankly, I don't want to live like this. Would I be willing to live like this if I clearly heard Him tell me to? Probably, but like Guitar Jim said above, we muddle through life not completely certain that the voice in our head is our own or the Holy Spirit. There's both a humility required both in planning and in submitting -- we can get them both wrong! Or, right. I suppose this is the wishy-washy-ness that Pastor Ralph asks about, that the humility I have before my own plans as well as knowing His plans is such that I become tentative in all I do. I hold my plans lightly, but still plan. I submit strongly, yet still allow for the real possibility I got His directive wrong. What's does "stepping out in faith" mean, really? Is it having the guts to plan, announce the plan and then humbly say I'm wrong ... or right? Is it having the courage to say I heard God tell me to do something, and then, perhaps, have to say, "oops ... got it wrong again?" If pride is the problem, it's all relative. If I went to a church in which everyone was, say, very poor, and I told them that I felt God telling me to start a new company, borrow the money ... whatever, they'd probably think I was proud and arrogant, but if I went to a church composed of wealthier people, it wouldn't be arrogance, would it? It would be typical behavior; no big deal. So perhaps the antidote to arrogance -- which I'm learning now -- is to only talk to people who would have compassionate understanding of how I hear God's voice as well as make my own plans. Sorry for the long post. This hit a sore spot.

Gideon's ruse was to pretend to have more troops than he had, by approaching at night and making sounds and light that suggested many more soldiers than actually existed. God had reduced his soldiers to a mere 300 -- he could have had more, but didn't. This may be to prove to Gideon and the Israelites that God Himself was backing them up. His ruse was to pretend to be better than he was. The confusion happened subsequently. Gideon didn't aim to confuse but to deceive. I can understand the blowing of the shofar (very loud) and bringing light in a circle around the city, but really don't understand the breaking of jars. What did that accomplish? Is it symbolic? God's ways are not ours. Gideon wasn't really asked to fight, but to deceive -- other men are asked by God to fight in the traditional way. This was God's inexplicable will in this particular situation. The take-away, for me, is that God may ask me to do something totally bizarre and irrational rather than follow the predictable path, and that I must obey without flinching or questioning. I hope I hear His voice correctly!

It's a small step from criticizing a decision, ideal, interpretation or policy to criticizing the person who defended or made that decision, etc. There are ideas and ideals worth defending, however -- the goal isn't to walk away from contention but to "fight nice," to defend an ideal without criticizing the person who holds that ideal. Perhaps, at times, it's tempting to criticize others because the stakes are high and the truth has to be defended? At other times, criticism has a unnecessarily cutting edge, particularly when done out of anger or pride -- that would be the "bad mouthing," of which Pastor Ralph speaks. Of course, the person being criticized may need a bit of introspection and self-examination, too. People in leadership should be held to a higher standard which could involve defending one's perch as well as the experiencing the painful growth that inevitably occurs when unfairly and unjustly attacked by congregants.

It sounds a bit like they were all camping in the middle of that area BEFORE Gideon blew the shofar, so the blowing of that horn wasn't a summons to gather, but one to follow. When he wanted more fighting men, he sent messengers to the outlying tribes. Clearly, the Holy Spirit prompted him to blow the horn. In doing so he was setting himself up as the leader -- they were to follow him, not someone else. God had given him the mantle of leadership. This happened to all the other judges and military leaders, I believe. They all had a spiritual power from God's Holy Spirit. So, the holy Spirit both came upon him (unbidden?) and then empowered Gideon for the task he was supposed to do. (I wonder if Gideon prayed for God's power before it came on him. I wonder, too, if the Holy Spirit comes when we need Him, even before asking.)

I have not found ten commands, but only eight, so I failed even before answering the question! Here's my problem. I do not know what I'm supposed to do and what God is supposed to do in me. Also, I do not know when I'm to passively submit and pray and when I'm to actively come up with a plan to rid myself of a certain sinful tendency. After reading James, I'm more confused. So, I have a "bad" thought, which is usually, in my case, raw anger, who caused it, and who fixes it? First problem: Is my anger mine, that is, self-generated, or is it of Satan? Am I responsible for being angry? I never know when to resist Satan. It always feels like my problem ... my sin ... my mind ... my anger. My inability to know what comes from Satan and what comes from myself has caused me to assume that everything I think that's sinful is self-generated, that is, from my own tendencies and mental habits. I don't "resist the devil" because, well, it's not him but me. It's my sin. My problem. Second, since I don't know if the sin is of me or not, I can't figure out how to deal with it. Do I "wash my hands," "purify my heart" and "resist?" If so, this would mean I have control over it, that it's from me not Satan, and something I should willfully deal with. Do I "submit" and "grieve?" This implies that the sin is relational, not personal. It also implies that the "cure " for my sin comes from God, not from some inner strength or resolve resisting implies. I'm not to deal with the sin, but "come near to God" so He can deal with it for me. I'm more confused than helped by this passage. By the way, what does James mean by "Change your laughter into mourning and your joy into gloom." Note the strong verb, "CHANGE." James is saying, "You do it."

Joash hadn't the courage of his convictions, if he had them to begin with, to stand for Yahweh against Baal. His son's actions forced him to make a binary choice -- either worship God or an imposter. -- The take-away for me is this: When do I tear down the poles of those who worship false gods in my own family, neighbourhood, country, etc.? What are the poles I should be tearing down?

James chose the most dramatic word of which he could think -- adulteress -- to drive home the point that our lives consist of little additive decisions that either pull us away from Him or bring us toward Him. It's a rhetorical device. I don't think of the Christian life as either worldly or heavenly, but rather lies mostly in that grey zone between the two, during which we strive, constantly, to focus our minds solely on Him. For example, when I first get up in the early morning before the sun rises, I usually get a drink, feed Pup and then begin my devotional time including prayer. Today, however, I noticed that Pup had dragged in fine dirt which was all over my bed and the floor. I spent 20 minutes shaking out the bedclothes and sweeping. By the time I sat down to do my devotions, my mind was elsewhere. I was thinking about upcoming deadlines, adventures ... worldly stuff, I guess. The point is that my mind became scattered, or more scattered than it would have been had I had done my devotions in the dirt! This is a small thing. Nothing super sinful, right? But it's the sort of decisions made, constantly, throughout the day, to prioritize God over the things of the world. These decisions are additive. Once I make one small decision to put God to the side for a moment while I clean, then the next one becomes easier to make wrongly, etc. -- What does NOT loving the world look like, I wonder. Is there a level of spiritual maturity at which I don't see the dirt on the bed? The practical outworking of this idea, that doing and thinking ANYTHING that is not of God is adultery, rather scares me. I live among secular people. I'm the only one in my family who is Christian, so far. I still have to relate to them, still have to tend to their needs, to serve them and, yes, enter into their mind-worlds which are very secular. Furthermore, though the world is alluring, I'm not certain it's allure is always sinful. Is loving natural beauty sinful? Is loving large concrete masses -- brutalist architecture -- sinful? Is loving another person so deeply and thoroughly that I'd die for him ... would this be sinful? Are the wonderful art galleries of Paris sinful (some surely are)? Were the beautiful turns of phrase that I read, just yesterday, in a newly published book sinful? If the test of adultery is "being not of God," then all of this is evil. BUT I just don't feel His conviction or His disapproval when enraptured by a painting so exquisite I am reduced to tears. I just don't.

God told Gideon, "Go in the strength you have ..." God didn't say, "Go in my strength ..." When Gideon worried he wasn't up to the task, God promised that He'd be with him. He didn't promise to give Gideon strength, though this probably happened, but to accompany Gideon. God reiterated to Gideon that He Himself was sending him. Undergirding this statement is the idea is that God wouldn't send Gideon to an unsuccessful end. He wasn't sending Gideon to his death. -- I'm amazed at this. The self-image aspect of your question has to do with how God saw Gideon's strength which Gideon did not see, "Go in the strength you have..." God was telling Gideon that he was strong enough to do save Israel out of Midian's hand. My prayer: "Lord, I have felt you telling me to go to _____, and so plan to go in the strength that I have as long as you remain with me and help me strike down the evil I will surely encounter there. Be with me, Lord. Stay close. Increase my strength when needed. Surround me with your angels. Let this be successful. Amen."