Krissi

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."

Is God against pleasure? What wrong in living to increase one’s pleasure? God Himself is pleased at His own creation – the root of the word pleasure is “to please.” Having said this, God often puts believers through times of testing and pain. I would be surprised if any Christian has lived to an old age without suffering. So suffering, not pleasure, seems to be the way He relates to us most strongly. Most hedonic pleasures are attempts to escape pain, suffering or reality, though not all. Suffering, not pleasure, forces a Christian to face reality squarely, which is why it's so painful. One idea in the scriptures is that suffering is the ONLY way God brings us back to Himself, or grows us spiritually. I would like to think that during times of intense pleasure -- laughing, sex/love, beauty both natural and human, etc. -- we could turn to Him in gratitude, and many times we do. Perhaps maturing in Christ includes seeing God in times of pleasure, not only pain.

I have never understood how an innocent individual can be caught up in the sins of the nation or crowd. I hope to understand this more during this study. Gideon was innocent. Had Gideon abandoned the worship of God? No. The angel even said he was a mighty warrior and man of faith. Obviously, it wasn't his fault he had to hide in the winepress in order to thresh wheat. He truly was the innocent victim. Not all victims are guilty. Having said that, Gideon was incapable – understandably – of seeing the bigger picture, how God was allowing the Israelites to suffer in order to bring them back to Him. In his question to the angel, I don’t think Gideon was blaming God but rather asking questions out of his discouragement. These were good questions. Fact-based questions. Too, Gideon recognized that he was dealing with an angel. So many people entertained angels without knowing it in the Bible. Not Gideon. He had the sense to ask the angel why the Israelites, in the past, had had God’s protection but no longer. He wanted to know. He obviously didn’t understand why God had let them suffer under the Midianites. He didn’t draw a casual connection between Israel’s sin and Israel’s suffering that we see in hindsight. He did not see the apostacy that surrounded him. Of course, Gideon sinned, but his sin was not the cause of his predicament but the sins of others ... this troubles me.

With what tool do peacemakers sow peace? Why does this produce a ripening crop of righteousness? In whom does this crop grow? As much as I truly wanted to see similarities in the two lists, I was struck, immediately, by their differences. Love doesn't seem to be equivalent to wisdom, at least to me, but the two must work synergistically in the soul and character of the believer. James' list (as well as Paul's) can be seen as dividing along the line of personal qualities not contingent on relationships with others (pure, good fruit) and social attributes that require relationships (peace-loving, considerate, impartial, merciful). James' list stresses the social. The love list seems to have more to do with one's character -- personal qualities, that is -- than our social relationships in the body of Christ. This surprises me because I thought love, by definition, was social -- one loves another person or God Himself. Love requires an "other," right? Yet, many of the traits listed are hidden character traits only God sees and knows. Hope and perseverance, for example. -- To directly answer your question, Sir, peace comes from strength. It's not mere capitulation. One has to be strong to submit willingly, to be considerate to people who are not considerate in return, to grow good fruit in desiccated social groups, etc.

Two things strike me about these passages. First, the inevitability of the cycle -- faith, then apostacy, back to faith, ad. infin. This happened repeatedly to the Israelites ... they never learned from their mistakes, it seems. It's so depressing. I wonder if what happened to a nation or group mirrors what happens to individuals. Though, in my own life, these cycles seem to be getting smaller, with low points not as low, I don't see an improvement-trend among the Israelites. On a long-historical scale, sin repeats seems to itself. Sanctification seems to be for the individual only, not society. Second, clearly this passage is about worshiping two competing gods. When we take this passage and try to apply it to our lives, I get a bit confused. I don't know anyone who overtly worships both Jesus and Mohammed, as an example. We're a bit more subtle about our dual loyalties, at least. What we "worship" are money, power, prestige, authority, material goods, sex ... etc. BUT, the bible in the OT also prohibits these things. It's not like the bible only talks about worshipping incompatible deities. It also tells us to not crave money or covet. So, perhaps, we are wrong to extend the meaning of "other gods" to whatever comes between us and God. Perhaps we should take the passage at face value, that is, assume it means, literally, worshipping two religions/gods at one time ... a bit like contemporary Bahai?

In what ways are "bitter envy" and "selfish ambition" (3:14) direct opposites of "humility" (3:13)? How does denial of "bitter envy" and "selfish ambition" prevent healing? How does boasting about these prevent healing? I have to admit that I'm very ambitious, thus love competitions. I love a square, straight competition that's not weighted toward any viewpoint or person ... a fair competition, that is. What's wrong with winning ... and losing? That's the idea of competition, isn't it, that I rise to the level of my ability, and then start losing. The humiliating part comes from realizing that I will lose inevitably, that there's a top limit to my abilities which may be lower than I had thought. Does my love of competing make me proud? (un-humble) Perhaps. I love that little frisson that comes from besting someone good, someone I admire. I'm not sure that's a sin, though. Real humility doesn't necessarily come from losing, either, though losing certainly helps humility grow! Still, I've lost many times only to redouble my effort and expectation. Is that pride? Life's a competition. A struggle. It's "me" v my circumstances, abilities/disabilities, other people, etc. It is even "me" v "me": I compete against myself. I know when I do well and when I slough off, and actually chart (excel spreadsheet) certain metrics so I can compete against myself. I think of this as self-betterment, a lesser form of sanctification. There are plenty of competitive metaphors and goals of "winning" in the bible. The obvious one that comes to mind is Paul's racing metaphors -- "pressing toward the mark ..." -- but also in the OT, the desire to be victorious in battle, to win against competitors ... this is all over the scriptures. The word ambition has to be paired with the word selfish to make sense in these passages. SELFISHness is the sin. Ambition is morally neutral until paired with a negative motive, in this case, selfishness. What I find interesting is selfish ambition is mentioned with bitter envy. I can see how healing would be prevented by passionate emotions, particularly the grating or continuing kind. I go to an acupuncturist who told me, yesterday, that the healing of my leg/hip injury was progressing fast because I slept well and smiled a lot. She's a Buddhist, but perhaps understands the power of bitterness and selfishness intuitively.

The study was fantastic. I would change very little, Pastor Ralph. Thank you.

The tongue is not untameable, though we speak what we think. This is fatalistic. As we control our thoughts, we control our speech. I think James is exaggerating to make a point. Paul says "... whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure ... think on these things." It's possible to tame the mind to think on these things, maybe not perfectly, but increasingly as we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit. I'm sure many people on this site are able to look back on what they thought and said when a younger Christian and know that they'd never think and say those things today as a mature(r) Christian.

This is a pressing question for me because I left my former church in large part because I didn't respect the pastor's morality and character. This decision was done after much prayer. I felt spiritually deadened when in church, not by the liturgy which was beautiful, or by associating with the other congregants whom I barely knew though liked, but by little comments during the sermon, the cavalier way he treated women and his overall lack of love and concern for his flock. . I hold a pastor to a higher standard. I want him to be a man I can respect and trust. I'm not expecting perfection, but am expecting him to maintain higher moral standards and a closer walk with the Lord than the typical congregant. The line between a pastor and a teacher is thin, isn't it? Pastor's teach and in a very real way, we all preach, or should be preaching.

Abraham's monotheism seems amazing to me. Surrounded by many gods, knowing the worship of them, having probably worshipped other gods in his youth, he abandons them (perhaps slowly as his understanding grew) for Yahweh. The fact that Yahweh spoke to him in an audible voice was helpful, I'm sure, while the other gods remained silent. As time goes on and society increasingly turns in a direction contrary to our faith heritage (I'm' speaking as an American), the worship of "other gods" will seem less abstract. We'll be tested, not so much as to give up our faith but to syncretize it with other gods, both theological and circumstantial. For many, money or even sex is a god ... for some, the worship of other gods is literal. Other faiths ... other apostacies will be there. I pray that God's voice is as clear to us, in the midst of the cacophony of gods, as it was to Abraham, that we worship the one true God in spite of the pulls and temptations of other gods.

What do you think of the servant's prayer and test of God? Did the servant find the right girl on the basis of his hasty prayer? If not, then how? Is not this prayer similar to Gideon's "fleecing" the Lord? The servant is asking for certainty, to be absolutely certain that the girl is the correct choice, the one chosen by God. This is laudable. It's important he does not make a mistake. Faith, though, is juxtaposed to certainty. We step out in faith when we're uncertain, hoping and praying that God will lead us to the desired destination, conclusion or behavior. Did the servant do this? I just don't know what to make of this story. The servant could have trusted God and allowed God to reveal the correct girl for Issac in His own way and time; instead, the servant asked God to work in a particular way so he could be certain. Is there a "takeaway" for us? Can I fleece God when I need direction, when the stakes are high? If I were about to marry someone, could I ask God to, say, turn the light on in the next room three times? that's the equivalent of what the servant is doing, no?

We've been asked to compare the beliefs of different categories of people and beings. Evil or Satanic beings, not of the earthly order. They are hyper-aware of God's existence, perhaps more than those of us on earth, fear His power and hate Him. They hate their own inferior position and yet struggle in a battle they may know they'll lose. Non-Christians. These are people who deny God's existence, who hear and laugh or look away. They are unaware of God's existence and do not fear or love Him. Carnal Christians. These people acknowledge God's existence but are either too self-absorbed or too confused to submit, so they live uncomfortably in this world, pushing away God. Sometimes they keep the trapping of faith so they feel a bit less guilt -- these are the Christians that Pastor Ralph refers to in his description. Christians. They believe God exists. They have a relationship with Him, unlike carnal Christians who have no relationship and are more like non-Christians this way. They may, at times, question God or his purpose and plan, but they do so coming back to Him, knowingly. I think what makes the difference between a carnal and a practicing Christian is the trajectory of their respective faiths. A Christian grows in faith. Matures. Thinks more deeply about God as the years pass, and, yes, love Him more deeply. Strangely, the content of the faith of Christians and Satanic beings may not be that much different -- we both acknowledge God's power, majesty, claims over the earth, etc. and we both rebel, at times, against God's sovereignty. What separates us is how we allow the presence of the Holy Spirit within us to expand and change us.

What is the significance of Abraham's faith in God's promises at the same time as he pays dearly for this small property? What does this tell us about faith? I'm trying to wrap my head around this story. God had told Abraham the land was his --that's part of the promise. But on it were "squatters," people who thought they owned the land God had given Abraham, but in God's reality, the land was not theirs. Abraham was stuck between two realities -- God's reality of the land being his own, and what the human beings on earth thought was real. What's interesting, at least to me, is that he deferred to human reality. As far as we know, he didn't tell anyone that the land was his, but bought it. He acted as if it was not his land and allowed some shyster to defraud him out of money so he could appear, before other men, to have obeyed and deferred to their laws. In essence, he paid to be put above their future claims on that wee bit of property, the field and the cave. I'm not sure he cared about the money. He was old and wealthy. What mattered to him was that he had an indisputable claim to the property in the minds of other people. Perhaps he was trying to avoid future war that would be instigated by his distant relatives who could have felt they had to protect and honor his burial place if it was not legally his. Until God "really" gave him the land, his claim to it wasn't acknowledged by any human authority except the cave and field. This reminds me of the yet ... not yet-ness of the coming of the Kingdom of God. It's here ... but it's not. The two realities are in tension. We live in one and secretly relish and claim the other. The visible may trump the invisible, in our lives, but not forever, thus, it's here but not here, yet but not yet.

The poor and needy in America are often obese, mentally ill and drug-addicted. That’s simply a fact. In the city where I live, the people who run the shelters and food kitchens beg the homeless to come inside where it’s warm. Most prefer to live outside. One woman told me she doesn’t like being told he has to be out of the shelter by 7am. Another said he likes to be where the women are. Every homeless guy seems to have a dog, gratis of the animal shelter. Procuring free dog food seems like the biggest draw of the shelter, at this point. I live in a state where it’s legal to smoke and grow marijuana – after the homeless were told they couldn’t smoke within 30 feet of the shelter, someone kindly spray-painted a line exactly thirty feet from the door. I don’t think this was the situation in biblical times. We live in a society which constantly mitigates or denies the consequences of our decisions. There are truly needy people in temporary situations who need money or a place to live. Grateful people. Somehow, we must distinguish between giving to those who take advantage of us and those who are truly needy. Yes, love hurts, and I do think we should give until we have nothing left to give, but we don’t and can’t give to everyone, and so our obligation has practical limits. We choose the ones we give to. They don’t choose us. I also think we have a moral obligation to those who only want to harm or take advantage of us. To them, our obligation isn’t to feed and house, but to witness, pray, counsel and talk. The idea that our obligation to others forms concentric circles of responsibility is a bit troubling. If this is the case, then my first obligation would be to myself, then my immediate family, extended family, church, neighborhood, city, state, country and world. Yet God seems to call people to one particular circle – missionaries going to foreign places, for instance. Having said this, Christians should be helping each other more often and deeply, particularly the elderly. Evangelicals don’t have the in-grouped loyalty of, say, Mormons or Jews. We could use more of it. As society further disintegrates, we’ll need each other. That circle called “church” should be emphasized.

The biblical story is about Abraham, not Sarah -- Sarah's story is wound around his story. We know almost nothing about her or her faith because the points of her life that are emphasized are, in reality, turning points in Abraham's life, not hers.

Faith's actions have to be of God. To be busy or accomplish things for Him isn't an act of faith, necessarily. To do something or want to do something because it seems like a good or Christian thing to do, or a behaviour He would reward, may not be motivated by faith. Lets say you had the idea of starting a business that would create a needed product, hire people who are unemployed and proclaim Christ in it's advertising (Chik-fil-A comes to mind). THis is faith in action, right? You're praying about this as you do it. It's a good thing to do. There's nothing immoral or unbiblical in this idea. Thus, you've passed the first screen -- is it biblical/moral/good? But you may not pass the second screen -- is it God's will? -- for a deed may be moral but not what He wants you to do. Could it be that your idea is not motivated by faith in Him, but by the desire to do something for Him? I'm struggling with this now. I think it's very difficult, at least for me, to tease out what I want to do from what He wants me to do, and frankly, I think it's a sin to do anything outside of His will.

What amazes me is that God required this of a man. He told Abraham to do the one thing he didn't want to do. There is a lesson here for us, too. Whatever constitutes our "Isaac," God asks us to take our most cherished dream/desire/beloved person/object and tie it to the altar, unsheathe our knife and slay it. There's no promise that He'll intervene in the slaying of our Isaacs. Maybe He wants that Issac to be dead and so lets us kill it. I'm not talking, here, about murder, but a metaphorical Isaac -- an obsessive love for a child. not the child himself, may have to be given to God sacrificially. Anything we hold or cherish more than Him has to be slain. It's what we LOVE that God wants. Our loves. Our Isaacs. Our hopes of loving. This is a tough lesson.

In what way is showing regard towards the wealthy (2:2-3) a denial of mercy? NOT showing regard for anyone is sin and a denial of mercy. Wealth is NOT a sign of God's wrath, as it's portrayed, here. Neither is poverty a sign of God's disfavor. What matters is that we show mercy -- open-faced love -- toward everyone, rich or poor.

I am learning to trust God to provide for me right now. I've never been concerned, too much, about material things. It's strange, but I find it easy to trust Him in this way -- I write this hesitatingly fearing I'll be tested! I've had some health issues, nothing much, but have trusted Him to heal me, and, in time, I've always healed. It's the bigger things of life for which I need to trust Him much more: a sense of purpose, love, the salvation of the secular people I know and love, a calling and destination, the need to accomplish and that horrible feeling that life is ticking by and I haven't really had a chance to live ... yet! I pray He works FAST. I know I'm not supposed to pray this, but I pray that His clock speeds up. I'm just so impatient for change. Positive change. Do you recall how Abraham bargained with God over Lot and Sodom? This gives me hope. I can bargain with God and He may even relent and hurry or change His mind. My future isn't set in stone. It's not predetermined in a fatalistic way. There's hope. I cling to the hope that God will intervene and provide ... yes, provide, the big things I so crave.

James is speaking to Christians who are poor. I find it interesting that he doesn't tell them to pray to have their basic needs met, that they had nothing to worry about. Perhaps they were already praying for provision. He doesn't tell them that they're supposed to go through life as sojourners without a lot of material goods. He doesn't tell them that poverty may be part of God's plan for their lives. Poverty may be difficult for many, but it's no more difficult than say, chronic pain or health problems. It's no more difficult than dashed hopes, grief, loss, and being broken hearted. It's one of many circumstantial pains that Christians deal with in life, those pains that rarely are removed from our lives by God -- our "thorns." I guess I'm surprised that James doesn't just tell them that other things more substantial in life, including one's own sins and proclivities, really should be shame-worthy, but not poverty. Theirs must have been a very materialistic, socially striated society.

It's a process. I start at point "A" and end up, at my death, at point "B," and in the interim, is the ongoing process of sanctification. I will never fully trust, surrender or understand God while on this earth. My goal is to move closer to point "B" while alive, to be like Him. Pastor Ralph's question in which he asked us if it were possible to "really" know God unless He was trusted entirely, if answered honestly, would be NO. I can only see through a glass darkly, not "really" know Him. I know bits of Him. I am increasingly aware of how little I know. I trust Him incompletely, too, though am trusting Him more. Out of death comes life. Surrendering is lifting up a desire, sin, dream or hope and then walking away from it, expecting (with the faith of a mustard seed, at times) Him to honor my imperfect surrender. It's forcing myself to not look back (Lot's wife). It's clinging to what God says in spite of my circumstances. I'm awestruck by how so many of you confidently assert that you've completely trusted God and died to self. I wish I were you. Sadly, my life is different. It's slower, I guess. Every small jump in spiritual maturity seems to take aeons. The kernel of wheat is on the ground ... I'm waiting for it to produce many seeds. I believe, and repeat to myself almost hourly, that out of death comes life. Blessings? God has sustained me. I'm safe.

This is a topic which I've put some thought into because the desire to be with people with whom I feel comfortable, just to talk and share, has not been met in church. I've wondered, then, about the need to desire to worship with people with whom we have experiences or outlook in common. For example, women and men often study the bible in different groups, segregated by gender. We separate by age. And, in many way, churches appeal to a subset or class of society that's remarkably homogeneous. It grieves me to think that what we share in Him may not be enough to form strong bonds with each other, but perhaps we're not all feet or hands or toenails in His body, and perhaps a foot feels more comfortable with another foot, for example. It's not about feelings, but in a way, it is. It's that intuitive sense that one belongs and is comfortable in one place, and not another. "Church shopping" is looking for that place. Rather than repeat myself, here's what I wrote last week: https://kristenburroughs.com/?p=4068 This is a huge, unsettled topic for me. The bottom line is this: I'm not sure that God calls all Christians to "church" as it's currently practiced or done.

Satan wants to pull us back, to make us question our faith, even God's existence, and to value death over life. I know that some people think that God never sends evil -- he merely "permits it, as if that's somehow less responsible -- but I am convinced that God not only permits evil in our lives, but sends it in the form of trials and suffering. He has His reasons for this, some of which we know, most of which we'll never understand. Trials are sent to broaden our faith, to prepare us for something He may have us do. Or, so I hope! I have been through hellish trials, particularly lately. I'm crawling out of a deep valley now, inch by inch. My faith in Him has been immeasurably strengthened. I await deliverance. There's only so much I can do that is responsible and godly to extract myself ... to escape. I know people who have watched in horror and disbelief. Secular people. I'm very aware that my silent testimony is being read and heard by people whose opinion of God may change, not because I'm handing this well -- I'm not! -- but because in the end God may deliver me. His slow piecing together of a life rent apart, in part by my own sinful acts, will be noted.

What kind of person or what kind of sinner do you tend to discriminate against? What kind of people are you (or your church) trying to make a good impression on? Could it be that the church discriminates against the wealthy and educated more than the poor and downtrodden? There are plenty of outreaches to the inner city, pregnant girls, the homeless, etc., but I've never heard of an outreach to country clubs. Political power seems to attract the church -- prayer groups in Washington D.C.'s congressional class, for example -- and to some degree, business power or raw wealth, but not in the sense of making an concerted outreach to the lost and unsaved among them. Everyone needs to know the Lord and come to His feet in humility. -- I have a particular animus, which I know is sinful, toward women who focus on their families. The ones that get me the most are those that never grow out of the routine of hearth and home. If women stopped fussing over their kids and grandchildren, baking cookies and casseroles, decorating their homes, admiring their bodies at the gym, arranging play dates, driving their kids to one lesson after the next, etc., and actually noticed that the world out there needs to hear about Christ, our nation would be transformed. We could be a Christian nation, once again. But evangelical women are too busy commending themselves for their self-righteous lock-down. Instead of fussing over a meal, why not go down the public library and pray for every person in there, then go eat fast food? That's one small thing a home-obsessed woman could do to make a difference for Him. It could be transformative. People could come to know the Lord. I'm sorry, but I think most Christian women are far too self-focused -- family is an extension of the self. Women use "family" as a narcissistic excuse to neither love or witness to people who don't touch their safe, limited lives. That's my "prejudice."