DEATHBED CONVERSIONS
Then Jesus said to His disciples, If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life shall lose it, and whoever desires to lose his life for My sake shall find it. For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He shall reward each one according to his works.
(Mat 16:24-27)
While it is impossible for you or I to know the true hearts of others, in fact, the Bible is clear that it is impossible to know even our own hearts, the issue of the deathbed conversion is problematic.
Obviously, the thief on the cross next to Jesus showed that people can truly turn to Christ in their dying hour, truly repent, truly believe, and truly be saved. However, the Bible as a whole is not a book of deathbed conversions. It is a book about laying down our lives for the gospel of Christ. It is about giving Christ complete lordship (control) over our lives.
The difficulty with the vast majority of deathbed conversions is that they are really a last minute attempt to save or salvage a person’s life. That motivation is particularly considered a brutal misuse of the gospel by Christ himself.
Christ is certainly not to be trifled with, and He will certainly not accept one who has presumed upon a deathbed conversion. If a person has intentionally reserved his whole life to himself and then tries to give the dying wreck to Christ right at the very end…if he has knowingly and intentionally done this…then I presume there is no hope of salvation.
What about the person who has heard the gospel multiple times throughout his life and has rejected it in favor of self determination and self rule each time. How can this person truly give up the rule of their life for the last few minutes to Christ and expect to be saved?
The thief on the cross had evidently never heard the gospel before that moment. Perhaps that is the key to this whole issue.
We may not know everything, but one thing is for certain:
“It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Huxley and His "Brave New World" on "Island".
It’s been a while since I’ve written, probably because I haven’t read as much as I should have. I just finished Aldus Huxley’s “Island” (his last work) with the following comments:
Huxley, like all other idealists, is an advocate for a system of thought, a system of societal organization, and a system of economics which cannot credibly be anything less that a totalitarian, imposed and brutal system. Huxley likes to dress this pig up really pretty and spray lots of perfume on it, but it is simply an imposed system.
Huxley’s system (found on the island of Pala) is founded (according to him) on decency, liberty, and rational thought. However, the definitions of these are the definitions that Huxley creates. The island is one of free love and sexual openness as well as a restricted economy that stymies the entrepreneur. Drugs and contraceptives are openly free and available while the borders are closed and inaccessible. Children are removed from their parents and there is an elaborate system of instruction (or brainwashing) that goes on.
The problem of this whole system is that Huxley assumes that everyone would agree that this is the most decent, liberating and rational system. What if they don’t? He answers that with brainwashing.
Huxley hates the transcendent God giving us an epistemology. He wants to give the epistemology. The problem with this is that someone has to be God and impose the epistemology so that things actually work. Who’s it going to be?
Huxley’s system, even in his own books, always dies.
It’s been a while since I’ve written, probably because I haven’t read as much as I should have. I just finished Aldus Huxley’s “Island” (his last work) with the following comments:
Huxley, like all other idealists, is an advocate for a system of thought, a system of societal organization, and a system of economics which cannot credibly be anything less that a totalitarian, imposed and brutal system. Huxley likes to dress this pig up really pretty and spray lots of perfume on it, but it is simply an imposed system.
Huxley’s system (found on the island of Pala) is founded (according to him) on decency, liberty, and rational thought. However, the definitions of these are the definitions that Huxley creates. The island is one of free love and sexual openness as well as a restricted economy that stymies the entrepreneur. Drugs and contraceptives are openly free and available while the borders are closed and inaccessible. Children are removed from their parents and there is an elaborate system of instruction (or brainwashing) that goes on.
The problem of this whole system is that Huxley assumes that everyone would agree that this is the most decent, liberating and rational system. What if they don’t? He answers that with brainwashing.
Huxley hates the transcendent God giving us an epistemology. He wants to give the epistemology. The problem with this is that someone has to be God and impose the epistemology so that things actually work. Who’s it going to be?
Huxley’s system, even in his own books, always dies.
Monday, July 26, 2004
Big Mouth!
Ephesians 4:29
Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear. NASB
Colossians 4:6
Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person. NASB
I guess that I should admit to being challenged by these two passages in scripture. Both are found in the middle of long lists of instructions to the saints on how they ought to act, and both are pretty clear about how we should speak. Let me lay out the strictest case here…
According to Ephesians, we are not to allow useless or unfit talk (or logos) to proceed out of our mouths, and according to Colossians we are to speak gracefully with speech or words that are influenced by God’s word. We gracefully speak the truth and abstain from worthless, idle, vain, or unfit speech.
As one who jokes around and frequently pushes the envelope on decency and appropriateness, I find this a challenge. I see where I must become much more circumspect in my speech. I must maintain balance though. I can joke around…so long as it is done with grace and seasoned with the salt of the Word.
Ephesians 4:29
Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear. NASB
Colossians 4:6
Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person. NASB
I guess that I should admit to being challenged by these two passages in scripture. Both are found in the middle of long lists of instructions to the saints on how they ought to act, and both are pretty clear about how we should speak. Let me lay out the strictest case here…
According to Ephesians, we are not to allow useless or unfit talk (or logos) to proceed out of our mouths, and according to Colossians we are to speak gracefully with speech or words that are influenced by God’s word. We gracefully speak the truth and abstain from worthless, idle, vain, or unfit speech.
As one who jokes around and frequently pushes the envelope on decency and appropriateness, I find this a challenge. I see where I must become much more circumspect in my speech. I must maintain balance though. I can joke around…so long as it is done with grace and seasoned with the salt of the Word.
Monday, July 19, 2004
God is My Copilot
Today, I pulled up behind a truck that I think might have been red. It was hard to tell for all the religi-hype bumper stickers plastered on the back. One in particular caught my attention…God is my copilot!
Isn’t that the perfect example of modern evangelical drivel! God isn’t my pilot guiding me in every situation in life and navigating the dangers of life for me. No, God is my copilot. You know, God is the one that I call on when I get in trouble and need help. Otherwise, I am the pilot, and I can guide myself.
The sad truth is that most modern evangelicals live out a faith that looks just like the agnostic in action.
Today, I pulled up behind a truck that I think might have been red. It was hard to tell for all the religi-hype bumper stickers plastered on the back. One in particular caught my attention…God is my copilot!
Isn’t that the perfect example of modern evangelical drivel! God isn’t my pilot guiding me in every situation in life and navigating the dangers of life for me. No, God is my copilot. You know, God is the one that I call on when I get in trouble and need help. Otherwise, I am the pilot, and I can guide myself.
The sad truth is that most modern evangelicals live out a faith that looks just like the agnostic in action.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
To Have and to Hold
Something has been bothering me lately. This is something that I want to feel guilty for, but it I’m not sure that I can or that I should.
I know that my wife would do anything for me. She would follow me to any corner of the earth for any stupid idea I came up with, and she would endure all kinds of heartache for my sake. I see that she finds identity in me and through me, and she conforms to my requests in order to fulfill that. I recognize the influence I have over her, and it is hard to accept.
On the other hand, and this is what gets me; I would do what I felt my wife needed me to do…not anything she asked me to do. I would not follow her to any obscure place and I would not endure things that I didn’t feel she needed me to endure. I don’t conform to her requests (she has few), and I notice that she has far less external or overt influence over me than I over her.
I think this is Biblical and logical. I lead. She follows. I set the course. She helps fulfill the destiny. It makes perfect sense. But, when I think of it in terms of the death of one of us, I begin to see the differences between men and women come out.
I see women who die, who have a hard time remarrying. Their identity was through their husband and although he passed away his identity lives on inside of them. She still feels like Bob’s wife or John’s wife. Men react differently. They see their helpmeet leave, and they need another helpmeet. Usually, they get another helpmeet quickly…almost practically.
I’m not sure that the essence of what I’m trying to communicate is coming across. I feel like my wife holds the idea of me as her husband more sacred than I hold the idea of her as my wife. I’m dedicated to her. I love her with my whole heart, and I would mourn for her daily if she every passed on. But, on another level, the role of helpmeet needs to be fulfilled in my life by someone, and I’d need to find someone willing to fulfill it.
Something has been bothering me lately. This is something that I want to feel guilty for, but it I’m not sure that I can or that I should.
I know that my wife would do anything for me. She would follow me to any corner of the earth for any stupid idea I came up with, and she would endure all kinds of heartache for my sake. I see that she finds identity in me and through me, and she conforms to my requests in order to fulfill that. I recognize the influence I have over her, and it is hard to accept.
On the other hand, and this is what gets me; I would do what I felt my wife needed me to do…not anything she asked me to do. I would not follow her to any obscure place and I would not endure things that I didn’t feel she needed me to endure. I don’t conform to her requests (she has few), and I notice that she has far less external or overt influence over me than I over her.
I think this is Biblical and logical. I lead. She follows. I set the course. She helps fulfill the destiny. It makes perfect sense. But, when I think of it in terms of the death of one of us, I begin to see the differences between men and women come out.
I see women who die, who have a hard time remarrying. Their identity was through their husband and although he passed away his identity lives on inside of them. She still feels like Bob’s wife or John’s wife. Men react differently. They see their helpmeet leave, and they need another helpmeet. Usually, they get another helpmeet quickly…almost practically.
I’m not sure that the essence of what I’m trying to communicate is coming across. I feel like my wife holds the idea of me as her husband more sacred than I hold the idea of her as my wife. I’m dedicated to her. I love her with my whole heart, and I would mourn for her daily if she every passed on. But, on another level, the role of helpmeet needs to be fulfilled in my life by someone, and I’d need to find someone willing to fulfill it.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Oh…The Morality of it All!
I had someone I respect in many ways tell me recently that he wasn’t his vote wouldn’t be influenced by the issue of abortion because it is a personal decision and we can’t legislate morality anyway.
I was and have been amazed that intelligent people can say something so incredibly stupid. If we don’t legislate morality, what do we legislate? Logistics?
Every law that is passed, no…every bill introduced, has a moral base and is seeking to legislate morality. Every law regarding welfare, disability coverage, social security, subsidized housing…etc… assumes that we have a moral obligation to care for the poor and takes a particular moral view on how to do it. The USA Patriot Act took a moral stand on terrorism and each provision had a particular moral conviction as a base. Our defense budgets and policies are based on moral determinations of our responsibilities to protect our citizens as well as the innocent abroad. Immigration laws are based on our moral obligation to maintain a standard of living here as well as provide a haven for the oppressed. Even local laws such as zoning laws have a moral base. Zoning pits the moral obligation of allowing a property owner to rule his own property versus the right of the neighbors and the community to expect certain standards.
Morality permeates and undergirds everything. We say that we can’t legislate morality only when we are about to vote for someone wicked because we think they will advantage us in some way. This phrase is a code for abdication of responsibility and it is a prefix to our own wickedness.
I had someone I respect in many ways tell me recently that he wasn’t his vote wouldn’t be influenced by the issue of abortion because it is a personal decision and we can’t legislate morality anyway.
I was and have been amazed that intelligent people can say something so incredibly stupid. If we don’t legislate morality, what do we legislate? Logistics?
Every law that is passed, no…every bill introduced, has a moral base and is seeking to legislate morality. Every law regarding welfare, disability coverage, social security, subsidized housing…etc… assumes that we have a moral obligation to care for the poor and takes a particular moral view on how to do it. The USA Patriot Act took a moral stand on terrorism and each provision had a particular moral conviction as a base. Our defense budgets and policies are based on moral determinations of our responsibilities to protect our citizens as well as the innocent abroad. Immigration laws are based on our moral obligation to maintain a standard of living here as well as provide a haven for the oppressed. Even local laws such as zoning laws have a moral base. Zoning pits the moral obligation of allowing a property owner to rule his own property versus the right of the neighbors and the community to expect certain standards.
Morality permeates and undergirds everything. We say that we can’t legislate morality only when we are about to vote for someone wicked because we think they will advantage us in some way. This phrase is a code for abdication of responsibility and it is a prefix to our own wickedness.
Saturday, July 10, 2004
A Controversial Theory
What if we defined Christianity or our evidence of being Christian as these three things: not watching television, not eating sugar, and not using the internet. The reason for these three “don’ts” would be that clearly each of these can harm, damage or impair a person, and are not appropriate in excess. A true Christian would not even partake in something that can be destructive like that.
I wonder what the reaction would be to my putting that forward as a theory. People would probably argue that these things are not harmful is done in moderation, and while one might be able to make a Biblical argument against them by extension, they are certainly not forbidden activities.
The real reason that we would argue against this definition of proof of Christianity is cultural. There is no cultural stigma against TV, sugar and the internet. However, there is a cultural stigma against smoking, drinking and coarseness.
How often is our Christianity defined by smoking, drinking and how nice we are?
My point is not that we should all go out and start smoking, drinking and cussing. My point is that when we define what it means to be a Christian by anything other than strict Biblical evidences we do two things. First, we limit the appeal of the gospel because of the false requirements on the Christian. Second, we create false Christians who think they are saved because they meet the false requirements.
What if we defined Christianity or our evidence of being Christian as these three things: not watching television, not eating sugar, and not using the internet. The reason for these three “don’ts” would be that clearly each of these can harm, damage or impair a person, and are not appropriate in excess. A true Christian would not even partake in something that can be destructive like that.
I wonder what the reaction would be to my putting that forward as a theory. People would probably argue that these things are not harmful is done in moderation, and while one might be able to make a Biblical argument against them by extension, they are certainly not forbidden activities.
The real reason that we would argue against this definition of proof of Christianity is cultural. There is no cultural stigma against TV, sugar and the internet. However, there is a cultural stigma against smoking, drinking and coarseness.
How often is our Christianity defined by smoking, drinking and how nice we are?
My point is not that we should all go out and start smoking, drinking and cussing. My point is that when we define what it means to be a Christian by anything other than strict Biblical evidences we do two things. First, we limit the appeal of the gospel because of the false requirements on the Christian. Second, we create false Christians who think they are saved because they meet the false requirements.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Statistics
Here are two statistics that I find interesting.
First, the Harvard Business Review (as well as many other business publications) are writing and speaking about the coming worker shortage of more than 10 million in 2010.
Second, according to CDC figures, since Roe v. Wade, there have been 12,600,000 abortions performed against children who would have been 25 years or older in 2010 thereby making them a viable part of the economy.
I wonder why no one says anything about how we have been destroying our own future. We put our own guns to our own heads and brought our own curses upon our own economy. May God help us!
I have included the full text of a recent HBR letter as well as the CDC stats.
---------------------------------
Dear Colleague,
Thanks in large part to the aging of the workforce, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a shortfall of 10 million workers in the United States in 2010. The problem is even worse in Western Europe. Companies have focused so much on downsizing to contain costs that they've largely neglected this looming threat to their competitiveness: a severe shortage of talented workers.
• How will you and your organization cope with the changing demographics of the workforce?
• What are the implications for your hiring and retention efforts?
• How can you retool your retirement and other programs to help you cope with this “age wave?”
• What are the opportunities presented by this demographic trend?
In this 90-minute interactive presentation, the authors of the recent Harvard Business Review article, "It’s Time to Retire Retirement," will offer recommendations for gaining the loyalty of older workers, creating a more flexible approach to retirement that allows people to continue contributing well into their 60s and 70s, and other strategies for preparing for the inevitable aging of the workforce.
This program is delivered direct to your office—no travel time.
The live audio is delivered direct to your office over the telephone to provide clear, reliable sound quality. The program is interactive and you will be able to ask questions of the presenters.
Bring your entire team for one, low site price and begin the critical discussion of how your organization will cope with this impending situation.
Sincerely,
Eric J. McNulty
Managing Director, Conferences
Harvard Business School Publishing
----------------------------------------
Year CDC
1973-----615, 831
1974-----763,476
1975-----854,853
1976-----988,267
1977----1,079,430
1978----1,157,776
1979----1,251,921
1980----1,297,606
1981----1,300,760
1982----1,303,980
1983----1,268,987
1984----1,333,521
Total----12,600,577
Here are two statistics that I find interesting.
First, the Harvard Business Review (as well as many other business publications) are writing and speaking about the coming worker shortage of more than 10 million in 2010.
Second, according to CDC figures, since Roe v. Wade, there have been 12,600,000 abortions performed against children who would have been 25 years or older in 2010 thereby making them a viable part of the economy.
I wonder why no one says anything about how we have been destroying our own future. We put our own guns to our own heads and brought our own curses upon our own economy. May God help us!
I have included the full text of a recent HBR letter as well as the CDC stats.
---------------------------------
Dear Colleague,
Thanks in large part to the aging of the workforce, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a shortfall of 10 million workers in the United States in 2010. The problem is even worse in Western Europe. Companies have focused so much on downsizing to contain costs that they've largely neglected this looming threat to their competitiveness: a severe shortage of talented workers.
• How will you and your organization cope with the changing demographics of the workforce?
• What are the implications for your hiring and retention efforts?
• How can you retool your retirement and other programs to help you cope with this “age wave?”
• What are the opportunities presented by this demographic trend?
In this 90-minute interactive presentation, the authors of the recent Harvard Business Review article, "It’s Time to Retire Retirement," will offer recommendations for gaining the loyalty of older workers, creating a more flexible approach to retirement that allows people to continue contributing well into their 60s and 70s, and other strategies for preparing for the inevitable aging of the workforce.
This program is delivered direct to your office—no travel time.
The live audio is delivered direct to your office over the telephone to provide clear, reliable sound quality. The program is interactive and you will be able to ask questions of the presenters.
Bring your entire team for one, low site price and begin the critical discussion of how your organization will cope with this impending situation.
Sincerely,
Eric J. McNulty
Managing Director, Conferences
Harvard Business School Publishing
----------------------------------------
Year CDC
1973-----615, 831
1974-----763,476
1975-----854,853
1976-----988,267
1977----1,079,430
1978----1,157,776
1979----1,251,921
1980----1,297,606
1981----1,300,760
1982----1,303,980
1983----1,268,987
1984----1,333,521
Total----12,600,577
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Redeem the Time
I recently watched the movie Paycheck. It is a film that is a puzzle of sorts, and the concept of time and the future are important to the plot. I was struck by to simple concepts put forth in the movie:
First, Ben Affleck says at one point that to show someone their future is to steal their future. If we know the future, then we have lost the future. I can almost accept the idea that the future must necessarily entail mystery otherwise it’s not the future. I’m not sure if I completely accept that yet though.
Second, a point of the movie is that if we know the future we are destined to bring the future about by virtue of our actions. For instance, if we see a war in the future we will necessarily attack our enemy in order to preempt their attack against us thereby fulfilling the prophesy. This view of humanity is interesting; however in the movie the hero is able to resist bringing the future into existence.
I am convinced of two things. God will not show us the literal future, but he gives us His word by which we can get a pretty good idea of the future. By understanding the principles in His word, we can gain an understanding of God’s reactions to different situations, sins, and righteousness. I think man wants to rip the future out of God’s hands and we area wickedly bent on controlling our destinies.
I recently watched the movie Paycheck. It is a film that is a puzzle of sorts, and the concept of time and the future are important to the plot. I was struck by to simple concepts put forth in the movie:
First, Ben Affleck says at one point that to show someone their future is to steal their future. If we know the future, then we have lost the future. I can almost accept the idea that the future must necessarily entail mystery otherwise it’s not the future. I’m not sure if I completely accept that yet though.
Second, a point of the movie is that if we know the future we are destined to bring the future about by virtue of our actions. For instance, if we see a war in the future we will necessarily attack our enemy in order to preempt their attack against us thereby fulfilling the prophesy. This view of humanity is interesting; however in the movie the hero is able to resist bringing the future into existence.
I am convinced of two things. God will not show us the literal future, but he gives us His word by which we can get a pretty good idea of the future. By understanding the principles in His word, we can gain an understanding of God’s reactions to different situations, sins, and righteousness. I think man wants to rip the future out of God’s hands and we area wickedly bent on controlling our destinies.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Love and Marriage
I am to perform a wedding today at 4:30 pm. The young couple is hardly ready for marriage, but who among us was? I understood nothing about love. No one ever explained love to me. I saw it only as physical affection, petting really. I saw love as mere lustful touching. Truth be know, that is only the slightest germ from which love can grow.
I used to wonder why couples that had been married for so many years were not as rapt in their physical playfulness and puppy love insensible petting. I mourned for them the loss of their love and affection. It has only been as I have developed a true love for my wife that I begin to recognize that their affections have not withered but rather grown and matured. I love my wife not only for her physical benefits to me, no…not primarily for the physical benefits, but I love her for her devoting, her unwavering support, her fastidious loyalty to me.
These things run much deeper than the mere skin and bones of the physical. No other woman could ever possibly give me the things that my wife has…not now. Do I love her physically? God yes! But my love only started there. I now know what it means to not be able to live without her. Not because I crave her embrace or conjugation. Not because her curves so readily fit my hands. I can not fathom being without her support, her helpfulness, her devotion, her trustworthiness and her undying warmth for me. My wife’s goal seems to sacrifice herself to please me and fulfill me. This I cannot fathom: her fidelity to me the Ogre.
I am to perform a wedding today at 4:30 pm. The young couple is hardly ready for marriage, but who among us was? I understood nothing about love. No one ever explained love to me. I saw it only as physical affection, petting really. I saw love as mere lustful touching. Truth be know, that is only the slightest germ from which love can grow.
I used to wonder why couples that had been married for so many years were not as rapt in their physical playfulness and puppy love insensible petting. I mourned for them the loss of their love and affection. It has only been as I have developed a true love for my wife that I begin to recognize that their affections have not withered but rather grown and matured. I love my wife not only for her physical benefits to me, no…not primarily for the physical benefits, but I love her for her devoting, her unwavering support, her fastidious loyalty to me.
These things run much deeper than the mere skin and bones of the physical. No other woman could ever possibly give me the things that my wife has…not now. Do I love her physically? God yes! But my love only started there. I now know what it means to not be able to live without her. Not because I crave her embrace or conjugation. Not because her curves so readily fit my hands. I can not fathom being without her support, her helpfulness, her devotion, her trustworthiness and her undying warmth for me. My wife’s goal seems to sacrifice herself to please me and fulfill me. This I cannot fathom: her fidelity to me the Ogre.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Destiny
I’ve been thinking along the subject from yesterday, and have a few words to add.
I wonder if my purpose for being whatever God has made me, professionally I mean, is primarily to learn to accept what he has chosen for me at that time. I wonder if in learning to accept and embrace what God has chosen for me that I actually learn and grow to a point where He will send me to the next point. Perhaps the faster I embrace and excel the faster I advance and move on.
This is an interesting contrast to those dreamers who are always looking toward the future and where the Lord really wants them. For we all know that God certainly doesn’t want us at this humble point that we are now at.
I think that each level is designed primarily to make us more humble and that as we are humbled we move to the next stage of learning and responsibility.
May I accept where God has put me.
I’ve been thinking along the subject from yesterday, and have a few words to add.
I wonder if my purpose for being whatever God has made me, professionally I mean, is primarily to learn to accept what he has chosen for me at that time. I wonder if in learning to accept and embrace what God has chosen for me that I actually learn and grow to a point where He will send me to the next point. Perhaps the faster I embrace and excel the faster I advance and move on.
This is an interesting contrast to those dreamers who are always looking toward the future and where the Lord really wants them. For we all know that God certainly doesn’t want us at this humble point that we are now at.
I think that each level is designed primarily to make us more humble and that as we are humbled we move to the next stage of learning and responsibility.
May I accept where God has put me.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
I haven’t been that active on my blog as I’d have like to have been over this past 9 months or so. I usually hand write my most personal prose in a journal that I keep, and I have found it difficult to understand what is appropriate blogging material.
I feel like I need a cause to live for. Isn’t Christ and His cross my cause? It certainly doesn’t seem to be, or perhaps I just haven’t applied myself in the correct way toward that goal. Perhaps I just fight against everything the Lord wants me to pursue.
When I was a kid mowing our lawn, I would hate every moment of pushing that stupid mower back and forth on the lawn. The sweat would roll off my brow, down my chest and back. I felt stifled from the dust and clippings. It was a living hell. But, when I wanted to venture into the area that we didn’t mow, I could expend supernatural effort in making trails or even just mowing the unnecessary. It was as if the required was impossible, but nothing that was superfluous was too difficult. Is this still me today? God help me…I hope not.
I feel like I need a cause to live for. Isn’t Christ and His cross my cause? It certainly doesn’t seem to be, or perhaps I just haven’t applied myself in the correct way toward that goal. Perhaps I just fight against everything the Lord wants me to pursue.
When I was a kid mowing our lawn, I would hate every moment of pushing that stupid mower back and forth on the lawn. The sweat would roll off my brow, down my chest and back. I felt stifled from the dust and clippings. It was a living hell. But, when I wanted to venture into the area that we didn’t mow, I could expend supernatural effort in making trails or even just mowing the unnecessary. It was as if the required was impossible, but nothing that was superfluous was too difficult. Is this still me today? God help me…I hope not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)