Respectful, Waiting, Recycling, Weaving: A Review of Cross Roads by Wm Paul Young

Disclosure: I received this book free in exchange for agreeing to write a review for Speakeasy. 

Wm Paul Young, the self-published author of the megahit The Shack has written another novel, this time with the help of Faith Words publishers, who released Cross Roads last month. Once again, Young writes of an encounter between a broken human being and the three members of the Trinity, depicted in his characteristically earthy, accessible and (in my opinion) winsome way. This book reminded me in turns of The Shack, A Christmas Carol (Dickens), The Great Divorce (Lewis), and Pilgrim’s Progress (Bunyan).

To get my biggest criticism out of the way, I’ll just say that the first thirty-some pages turned me off completely. If I hadn’t been committed to reading the entire thing and writing a review as part of my agreement with Speakeasy, as well as having liked The Shack well enough to press on in faith that Young's storytelling abilities would win out, I would’ve abandoned the effort. The first few chapters are meant to introduce the reader to the deplorable state of the main character, Tony’s, life, but do so by a string of preachy commentary and psychoanalytical insights that leave no doubt that we’re being set up for a redemption story.

After his rough beginning, however, Young does what he does so well and draws the reader in by telling good stories and writing great dialogue that develop each character in a meaningful, fleshed-out way that feels natural and engaging. Finally, I began to care about the main character. Tony is a successful businessman, too self-absorbed and too busy to really care about or even notice the trail of broken relationships he’s left in the wake of his path to the top.

After a medical situation (you can read the fifteen paragraphs of technical medical lingo yourself if you want the details) which leaves him in a coma and near death, he wakes up to find himself in what is later described as the “in-between place” that separates the “life-before” from the “life-after.” The characters he meets in this place have different roles to play on his path to self-discovery and redemption. The main characters here are Jesus-in-blue-jeans and Grandmother, who represents the Holy Spirit as a feisty elderly Native American woman.

Part of Tony’s journey involves “sliding” into the minds of several people in the life-before, most notably a 15-year-old boy with Down Syndrome named Cabby and a feisty African American woman named Molly. These perspectives allow Tony the opportunity to experience the world outside himself by “walking a mile in another’s shoes,” as it were. Here, Young’s storytelling and character development are wonderful. I fell in love with Cabby almost instantly as I, too, got to experience a perspective outside my own. I had a few good laughs when Maggie was convinced she had a demon because Tony spoke inside her mind to prevent an awkward situation.

The back of the book sets up the premise of the story: God gives Tony the chance to choose for one person to be healed: will it be himself, or someone else? His time inside the minds of four or five people in the present time (the life-before), interspersed with his conversations with Jesus and Grandmother and a few other surprising characters in the in-between help him to make his choice, which wasn’t quite as predictable as I’d thought it might be.

Several things have stuck with me since reading Cross Roads. I was intrigued by Young’s repeated theme of God as one who respects relationship, who is willing to wait for his creation to make room for him in their lives. “While he is never absent, he also waits for you in the forest, outside the walls of your heart,” says Grandmother to Tony. “He is not one who forces relationship. He is too respectful.” (80)

Through Jack, a companion of Tony’s in the life in-between, Young pictures God as a great recycler, through whom nothing is wasted: “God wastes nothing, not even the wrong we have imagined into existence. In every building torn down there is much that remains that was once true and right and good, and that gets woven into the new; in fact, the new could not be what it is without the old. It is the refurbishing of the soul.” (159)

Lastly, and my favourite, was the way Young characterised the Holy Spirit. Grandmother, Young’s image of the Spirit, describes herself this way: “‘I am she who is more than you can begin to imagine and yet anchors your deepest longings. I am she whose love for you, you are not powerful enough to change, and I am she whom you can trust…I am a fire and fury opposed to everything that you believe that is not the Truth, that is hurting you and keeping you from being free. I am the Weaver, you are a favorite color, and he,’ – she tilted her head toward Jesus – ‘he is the tapestry.’” (93)

Respectful, waiting, recycling, weaving. As with The Shack, I’m sure some will take issue with the ways that Young has chosen to represent the members of the Trinity. And my response is the same as it was with The Shack: you don’t have to agree to be challenged in your own understanding of what God is like, and to grow from the experience. The man is not writing a theology textbook or attempting to rewrite the Bible. He’s using his God-given imagination to explore his own understanding of God and our interactions with him, and overall I was quite pleased with the effort.

~Becky

Check out the brand-new trailer here and the archived Cross Roads interview here.

Check out these links to find out more about Wm Paul Young:
Paul's website
Paul's old blog
Paul on Facebook
Paul on Twitter
Crossroads chat on Amazon

More Than We Ask Or Imagine

This Sunday I got to experience for the first time a dream many years in the making. I preached my first sermon! There are quite a few posts I've been wanting to write leading up to this point, but I'll have to get to that later. For now, because some have asked and because the audio recording didn't happen, here's my sermon! Thank you, thank you, thank you, to those who dreamed with me and encouraged me on this journey - I couldn't have gotten to this place without you!
--

More Than We Ask Or Imagine

Liturgical readings: John 6:1-21; Ephesians 3:14-21

preached at First Baptist Church, Edmonton, Alberta on 29 July 2012

Today’s passage is taken from the beginning of John 6. It’s a familiar story: the sun-weary crowds follow the healer-teacher Jesus, who multiplies a small boy’s meal to feed them all as they sit on the grassy hillside. It’s familiar because it’s a darling of children’s Sunday School lessons – give what little you have and God will make much of it!

It’s also familiar because the Bible itself tells the story so many times – this is the only miracle story that appears in all four gospels. Why this miracle? What’s extra special about this one?

As I read and reread this passage along with the thoughtful commentary of many scholars, I was surprised at how much more there is to this story than I had ever noticed before. What is the “point” of this story? Generosity? Faithfulness? Jesus’ supernatural power? His deity? The importance of caring for the physical needs of weary souls? God’s power to make much out of little? Hm, yes, I think – and more!

Let’s see what there is to discover within this familiar story…

In John’s Gospel we find Jesus, travelling across the countryside. He’s begun to have quite a following, as he performs signs and healings along the way. There’s been a lot of doing, but Jesus has also been doing a lot of talking - his healing acts are not an end in themselves, but are meant to communicate something about who he is, what he is all about. What does Jesus want his hearers to hold onto?

At the moment, the truth the people are holding on to is: Miracle Worker. Here is a man with power. And the people, in their neediness and powerlessness, follow him. The other gospel accounts fill in the picture a bit here for us, telling us that the people “ran on foot” to catch up to Jesus, who then had compassion on them and healed them and began teaching them.

But John’s account doesn’t tell us any of those details. It simply tells us “The Jewish Passover Festival was near.” Three times in his gospel, John highlights the season of Passover. With each brief mention of it, John calls to his Jewish readers’ minds an entire history of experience with the saving power of Yahweh. This second mention of Passover foreshadows the rest of the story, starting with the latter part of John 6, when Jesus turns his attention from physical bread that satisfies hungry bellies to the heavenly bread that nourishes souls. Jesus, who serves the bread, will soon be serving us himself as soul food in the truest sense.

As he surveys the mass of people before him – no doubt hot, dusty and exhausted from their enthusiastic pursuit of him – Jesus has a very practical thought: These folks must be starving! Then he asks a very impractical question: Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?

Now, John is nice enough to let us in on a little secret so that we don’t look as supernaturally naïve as Philip when he answers Jesus with a very reasonable denial of such a possibility – there’s no way we can afford to do that, Jesus! Instead, we are told in advance that Jesus was simply testing him. Jesus had a plan, but first he wanted to test Philip. Eugene Peterson’s Message translates it this way: Jesus wanted to “stretch his faith.” I’ve begun to see it this way: Jesus asked the question to “stretch his imagination” – Jesus had already imagined a perfect ending to this story; he wanted to see if Philip could catch the vision, too.

But alas, if this was a test, Philip didn’t exactly pass with flying colours. He is thinking rationally, logically, realistically – he has knowledge aplenty, but something’s missing. Consequently, all that information stifles his imagination as he focuses on the financial reality: there’s not enough dough this side of Galilee for that much bread, Jesus! Taking another tack,  Andrew weighs in with a seed of possibility: “Well, there’s this boy, and he’s got a bit of bread and a couple of fish, minnows really, but…how far will they go among so many?”

Well, it looks like Philip and Andrew have some growing to do in the imagination department – they are a far cry from the faith-filled, God-confident evangelists of the Book of Acts.

And can we blame them for their lacking here? Do we routinely expect or even imagine that God will perform in such amazing and unpredictable ways? Do we imagine he will drop twelve basketfuls of groceries on our steps as we make our way to the Mustard Seed to prepare dinner? Do we even have it in us to imagine that God would just multiply out of nothing to meet the needs of those around us? There are real-life stories of those throughout history who did and were amazed, but I suspect most of us, myself included, tend to limit our prayers to the safer realm of the “reasonable” and the “possible.”

Jesus doesn’t blame Philip and Andrew either. He just carries on, without rebuke or reprimand for their smallish, uninspired faith. I’d like to think that as he told them to get the people seated, he said it playfully – with a wink and a grin, perhaps. Jesus was Rabbi – teacher – after all, and I think he enjoyed the opportunity to teach in such a way as this: Let me give you a peek into my imagination, he says: Watch this!

The people sat down – five thousand men, in addition to the women and children who were also there – no doubt waiting for something awesome, another impressive “performance” by this powerful man, Jesus. (They, at least, had imagination of a sort.) Jesus took the little boy’s lunch sack – five small loaves of bread and two fish – and gave thanks. And in that act of gratitude, something happened. Jesus handed out the blessed food and fed the entire multitude until they were satisfied – full to bursting with bread and fish – so much so that they had twelve basketfuls leftover! God is not stingy with his gifts.

The crowd is rightly impressed: “Surely this is the Prophet who is come into the world!” These desperate, needy people latch onto a new understanding of Jesus – Political Hero! – and desire to crown him king by force. But it’s a misunderstanding. They’re still not getting Jesus – who he is, what he is trying to teach them about himself. Jesus withdraws to a mountain by himself, and we are left to wonder: What is the response he was looking for? How was he wanting to stretch the imaginations of those around him?

The disciples were limited by their own sense of how-it’s-done, and the crowds-people were limited by their own agendas of what-needs-doing. Jesus was stretching them, challenging them to take a look at how God gets things done: His way is better because he satisfies with abundance, his agenda is bigger because his salvation is for the whole world, and his ability is limitless because he is all-powerful!

Thankfully, that isn’t the end of the story for the disciples’ understanding of what Jesus was all about: they didn’t miss their One Big Chance to prove their big faith and elastic imaginations. Their faith – like ours – is a continual journey of being stretched. That very same day, the disciples get to have another crack at it.

After Jesus withdrew, the disciples went ahead and left without him onto a boat and headed off across the lake for Capernaum. Once they were quite a ways from shore, a storm began to brew and the winds whipped their faces and the water turned the colour of mud. As if that weren’t concerning enough, they wiped the sea-spray from their eyes to see…Jesus? And he’s…walking on water??? Jesus is not holding back with the faith-stretching now and the disciples are terrified. Matthew and Mark’s accounts of the scene tell us what they’re really thinking: It’s a ghost!!!

Jesus, in his mercy, doesn’t allow them to stay terrified for long. “It is I,” he says, “Don’t be afraid.” His response is two-fold: It is I, Jesus, the one who you’ve seen heal bodies, feed multitudes – yes, I can walk on water too! I can speak to the seas, I can command the winds. I am powerful beyond your wildest dreams! …But that bit of truth on its own might not help with the terror, so he adds these words: “Don’t be afraid.” Even with all that mighty power, there is no need to fear. I love you. So much – beyond your wildest dreams!

And with that, John’s gospel tells us, they were “willing to let him into the boat.” It’s a funny response, I think, to Jesus’ amazing demonstration and declarations. But, it’s a start, a beginning, and it’s all God needs.

So, as we look back over the characters in today’s story, I wonder if one – or more – resonates with you?

§         Are you like Philip and Andrew – thinking carefully, rationally, responsibly, and missing the point?

§         Are you like the crowd –limiting your understanding of who God is with the narrowness of your own expectations?

§         Are you like the disciples in the boat – afraid of God and unsure of his intentions toward you?

§         Or maybe you’re like the other, silent character, the one I think came closest to the response that Jesus desired – Are you like the little boy, perhaps not amounting to much in the eyes of others, but the possessor of a great childlike imagination that makes room for the unexpected to happen?

I suspect most of us have identified with each of these characters at different points in our journeys. But no matter: Faith-full, faith-little, dreamers, worriers, analyzers, and zealots – Jesus’ response was the same: all were fed and ate their fill. All were satisfied with the abundance of God’s meal. All were stretched – some more, some less, perhaps – but all left that place with a bigger, truer picture of who Jesus was than the one they brought with them.

How is Jesus wanting to stretch our imaginations this morning?

How does he want to satisfy us with abundance out of who he is?

Ryan has recently been referring to our church as FPC – First Pentecostal Church – and challenging us to consider how we can share in the vision of Joel 2: speaking prophetically, seeing visions, dreaming dreams. How is God inviting us to participate with him in his imaginings?

I’d like to read a quote by Madeleine L’Engle from her book Walking on Water. It’s from a chapter titled “Probable Impossibilities:”

“It might be a good idea,” she writes, “if…we practiced believing six impossible things every morning before breakfast, for we are called on to believe what to many people is impossible. Instead of rejoicing in this glorious ‘impossible’ which gives meaning and dignity to our lives, we try to domesticate God, to make his mighty actions comprehensible to our finite minds.”

How is God inviting us to “rejoice [with him] in the impossible?”

Is there some thing – some relationship, perspective, or mode of being – that we’ve resigned ourselves to when God has a plan for something new and wonderful? Are we willing to dream dreams with him? Are we willing to have faith that what he calls us to is good?

I’m going to give us a minute or so to rest in that – to make room for God in our imaginations, to meditate on what it means to be abundantly satisfied by Jesus, and then I’ll close with a prayer from Ephesians 3.

***

I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge —that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God…Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory …for ever and ever! Amen.

Quotes À La Carte

I've been chewing on some good thoughts over the past few days. Here are a few:


On Becoming the Church

Lots of thoughts to be provoked...

"We decided to stop complaining about the church we saw, and we set our hearts on becoming the church we dreamed of." - Shane Claiborne in The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical (p. 64)

On Tithing and World Poverty
"Today, on average, evangelicals in the United States give about two-fifths of a tithe...if American Christians just tithed, they would have another $143 billion available to empower the poor and spread the gospel. Studies by the United Nations suggest that just an additional $70-$80 billion a year would be enough to provide access to essential services like basic health care and education for all the poor of the earth. If they did no more than tithe, American Christians would have the private dollars to foot this entire bill and still have $60-$70 billion more to do evangelism around the world." - Ron Sider in The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (pp. 21-22)


On Living the Bible
“The New Testament was written in everyday street language,” Peterson said. “Words make something. They don’t just say something. … You are free not to study the Bible but to enter into it, to let it become part of you, — not deciding what you need, but receiving what’s there.” - Cathleen Falsani, quoting Eugene Peterson at Sojourners with Lost in Translation: Eugene Peterson and His 'Message'

On Guilt-Free Spirituality
“Pay attention to what’s there, not what isn’t there,” Peterson said. Go about the journey of faith — the Christian life, the Way — relaxed, he said, “not feeling so guilty, not having to prove yourself all the time.” - Cathleen Falsani, quoting Eugene Peterson (again) at Sojourners with Doing Nothing For Lent. 


On Passion, Vocation and Wisdom
Steve and I attended a conference with Gordon T. Smith (former Academic Dean and professor at Regent College) speaking on "Vocation, Work, and Career" and I liked his definition of (vocational) passion as "where we feel most keenly the brokenness of the world." I was also intrigued by his suggestion (inspired by Waltke) that the Proverbs 31 woman was not an addendum to the Book of Proverbs, but perhaps the capstone: the embodiment of Wisdom (Sophia) as one who does Good Work. So cool!


On Partying With Jesus
“Jesus never said, 'The Kingdom of God is like a church service that goes on and on forever and never ends.' He said the kingdom was like a homecoming celebration, a wedding, a party, a feast to which all are invited. This idea was too radical for the religious leaders of his day. They were more concerned about etiquette, manners, traditions and religious rituals than about partying with Jesus. And that’s why they missed out. That’s why we miss out.” - Steven James at CNN with Stop Sugarcoating the Bible

What are your thoughts? Any good tidbits to share?

Embodying Attentiveness: Lessons from the Trail

The Way is Made by Walking: A Pilgrimage Along the Camino de Santiago, by Arthur Paul Boers
progress: 111/178

This book is a collection of Mennonite pastor and professor Arthur Paul Boers' reflections on his 500-mile pilgrimage along the Camino de Santiago trail in Spain. Being that I have been on my own pilgrimage of sorts, it caught my eye in the bookstore. In the foreward, Eugene Peterson defines pilgrimage as

The ancient practice of walking, usually with others, to a holy site while paying prayerful attention to everything that takes place within and without, soul and body, all the ways that are inherent along the Way, along with the companions who are also on the Way. (9)

Boers goes on to explain that his pilgrimage differed from other experiences of challenge and hardship in his life because this journey and all of its difficulties was one of his choosing. Although he defines pilgrimage in its truest sense as a physical journey with the goal of spiritual transformation, he explains that pilgrimage has a metaphorical application as well: as an interior journey of spiritual transformation. The latter has been my experience, and indeed, many of his lessons on the Camino de Santiago have resonated with the lessons I've been learning in the wilds of rural Alberta. He writes

We live at a time when our walk with God is seen as more fluid, including steps forward and backward, perhaps even sideways at times, and we are not always sure which is which. (24)

A major theme of pilgrimage is the idea of movement - that God is the God of movement, and that we best keep company with Him by walking, or journeying, with Him. In the Old Testament, he dwelt in a tent and travelled as a pillar of fire or cloud, and Jesus himself was called The Way. Boers writes

Human nature means that we are always yearning wanderers. We are all homeless, ever since our eviction from Eden. And pilgrimage is an inevitable consequence. We need constantly to look for - and stay on the move for - God. This search keeps us unsettled. Deity is not easily tied down. Biblical faith is wary of confining divine presence too closely to one place or building, land or sanctuary, race or nation. Faithful people are repeatedly and providentially called to go elsewhere, be displaced and meet - even be - strangers, all in order to encounter our Creator more fully. (39)

God is always calling his people to movement, as "aliens and strangers" in search of a "country of their own." (Hebrews 11:13-16). The Christian life is one of journeying and the transformation it brings. Throughout the Psalms and Proverbs, we are called to "walk" in His ways (c.f. Proverbs 2:20), which means we are to walk with Jesus. And it is this walking that changes everything. It is about seeking and finding the path, and then traveling upon it. As Peterson points out, it is about paying attention: to God, to where He is leading you, to what He is doing in and through you, and in and through others on the journey with you.

This is where the literal and metaphorical understandings of pilgrimage intersect, for the physical journey is a one-time experience which trains us how to live the rest of our lives more attentively. Following the pilgrim path requires alertness as we watch for signposts, and discernment as we weigh carefully whose directions to follow. The walking itself slows us down for thoughtfulness, reflection, and prayer. We begin to see with clearer vision how God is "at work in all things" - a lesson Boers learned from a fellow traveller.

A particular challenge Boers faced on his journey was to lighten his load. He was constantly being challenged to simplify, if not by other more experienced pilgrims, then by his sore muscles and the blisters on his feet. What could he do without? How were the possessions in his pack weighing him down unnecessarily? Again, the literal weight of his pack challenged him to consider the metaphorical burden of his possessions. He reflected on the toll that his own accumulation of possessions has taken on him, as well as the toll his own consumerism takes on the world at large. His bold statement, "Every time I use a car, I make a theological decision" has returned to my thoughts to challenge me about my own flippancy with regard to the world's resources.

I was also intrigued by Boers' link between simplicity and hospitality. By lightening his backpack, he was forced to rely on the hospitality of others when he was in need. I wonder how much our possession of Every Useful Thing prevents us from experiencing the grace of hospitality from those around us? I am generally quite willing to loan out my Useful Things, but it is harder to receive from others when I am in need, yet that interplay of giving and receiving is so essential to our humanity. To be only a Giver or a Receiver is to be broken, severed from the shalom that true community embodies.

I am over half-way through this book, and the reading of it has been a journey in its own right. My life does not match up to the ideals of pilgrimage. It is rushed, and wasteful, and preoccupied. I'm like a stick figure wandering through the beauty of the three(+)-dimensional world unawares. How do I flesh out that anaemic little stick person and embody the attentiveness of pilgrimage in the busyness and distraction of my day-to-day life?

Thoughtful Christianity, Part 4: Empty "Threats" and the End of Knowledge

Your Mind Matters: The Place of the Mind in the Christian Life, by John Stott
progress: completed

Mindless Witness

Someone once shared a story she had read about the immediacy of the need for witness. The main point was a question, "What if you knew your neighbour's house was going to burn down this very night - wouldn't you warn them?" I've heard similar metaphors before, and of course I understand that the main point is that we need to take matters of the soul seriously. But that particular day, my mind took a different turn. I couldn't help but ask myself, "But would they even believe you?" If someone came to me and said something along those lines, my first thought would probably be, "How do you know?" and, depending on who was telling me, I might even wonder if they were trying to threaten or intimidate me. Whether I took the risk of believing such an apparently outrageous suggestion would depend on who was telling me, and how well he or she knew me. If a stranger said it, I would likely consider them a quack, and perhaps even a threat to my safety. If a family member or close friend said it, I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and hear them out.

A person will rarely accept even the well-intentioned advice of a complete stranger, at least not without sufficient information to make an informed decision of their own. And that requires both the advisor and the hearer to exchange and evaluate ideas in order to make wise choices - namely, to use their minds.

(c) Becky Bonham

Instead, what we as Christians can sometimes fall into is what John Stott describes as "an emotional, anti-intellectual appeal for 'decisions' when the hearers have but the haziest notion what they are to decide about or why." (66) It seems to me that the street-corner preacher with the sign "Believe in Jesus and be saved!" has very little hope of attracting any real interest, because he has so little to say about who this Jesus is, or why anyone should believe in him. When Jesus is reduced to nothing more than a pithy slogan or appeal, he is thereby stripped of his identity and rendered meaningless to the hearers. Stephen's speech to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7 is the consummate example of a thoughtful, thorough sermon that spoke right into the hearers' realm of knowledge and experience, giving them all they needed to accept his message (or refute it, as they did in this case; well-reasoned evangelism doesn't guarantee a well-reasoned response).

As much as we can heartily acknowledge the Spirit's ultimate role in preparing, softening, and turning hearts toward God, that doesn't change the fact that our role is to reason with unbelievers. This, as Stott points out, is made clear in the abundant use of words throughout the Acts especially that intertwine evangelism with the affairs of the mind: "persuade," "argue," "explain," and "prove." He writes,

To set the Holy Spirit and a reasoned presentation of the gospel over against each other is a false antithesis. (72)

and then goes on to quote Gresham Machen from his book The Christian Faith in the Modern World:

There must be the mysterious work of the Spirit of God in the new birth...Without that, all our arguments are quite useless. but because argument is insufficient, it does not follow that it is unnecessary. What the Holy Spirit does in the new birth is not to make a man a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the evidence. (quoted on page 72)

I risk getting a little quote-happy here, but Stott's closing comments for this section are worth repeating in their entirety:

Our objective is to win a total man for a total Christ, and this will require the full consent of his mind and heart and will.

I pray earnestly that God will raise up today a new generation of Christian apologists or Christian communicators, who will combine an absolute loyalty to the biblical gospel and an unwavering confidence in the power of the Spirit with a deep and sensitive understanding of the contemporary alternatives to the gospel; who will relate the one to the other with freshness, pungency, authority and relevance; and who will use their minds to reach other minds for Christ. (73-74)

Amen! May I grow more and more into just such a person.

Conclusion

Stott sums up his little book with a reminder that believers are not to view knowledge as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. "Knowledge," he writes, "carries with it the solemn responsibility to act on the knowledge we have, to translate our knowledge into appropriate behavior." (80) The appropriate behaviour, the end of knowledge, is expressed in four main areas of the Christian life: worship, faith, holiness, and love ("For by itself knowledge can be harsh; it needs the sensitivity which love can give it." (83)). He concludes with a warning:

Knowledge is indispensable to Christian life and service. If we do not use the mind which God has given us, we condemn ourselves to spiritual superficiality and cut ourselves off from many of the riches of God's grace. At the same time, knowledge is given us to be used, to lead us to higher worship, greater faith, deeper holiness, better service. What we need is not less knowledge but more knowledge, so long as we act upon it. (84, emphasis mine)

Learn and grow in knowledge, and in wisdom act upon it.

--
So ends my journey with John Stott - for now at least. I've been coming back to these themes again and again, being challenged and convicted in my own life as I seek to live out my knowledge and my faith with intentionality and integrity, and I trust this is only the beginning of the journey. Further up and further in!

~Becky

Share

The Ultimate Earthkeeper

For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care, by Steven Bouma-Prediger
progress: 160/187


In my series of lectures on Earthkeeping, I covered many of the same texts that Bouma-Prediger discussed in detail in the fourth chapter of his book, entitled, "Is there a connection between scripture and ecology?" as well as a few extras. In Genesis, we looked at several themes, some of which I had previously overlooked, or which I hadn't thought through fully enough to discover all of the implications for creation care.


1. Relationality. In the creation story, we read that God created the heavens and the earth. Throughout the creation, God declares his creation to be "good." Only once, however, does he consider his creation to be "very good." Which part of creation was blessed with this superlative? In my ignorance, I would have assumed it was the creation of humans - we are pretty special, after all, being singled out in all of creation to be the bearers of God's own image. And so it was with surprise that I discovered that it wasn't any one part of creation, but in fact the whole of creation: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." (1:31) As glorious the celestial array, as majestic the oceans and mountains, as diverse the multitudes of plants and creatures, God wasn't fully pleased with these things until they were all created, together. Just as God himself is a community of three Persons, just as he declared it "not good" for Adam to be alone (2:18), God is not ultimately satisfied until his creation reflects the community of his own nature. We were made to live in relationship with the sun, which grows our crops; with the plants, which feed us and provide shade for us; and with the animals and other humans, who provide companionship and friendship. The harmony of God's creation (BP refers to it as "shalom") was characterised by an interconnectedness with God, and through him, with everything else he created.


2. Theocentrism. On a similar theme to the first point, I was intrigued to find that, although God blessed many of his individual creations, there was only one day that he blessed in its entirety. "And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." (2:3) Again, it was not the sixth day, in which he created humans in his image, but the seventh day, in which he rested from his work. As BP points out, the climax of creation is the Sabbath. I've still got a lot of thinking to do to discover all of the implications of that fact. The point I want to draw out at this moment is that God is at the centre of creation, not humans. It's ultimately about him. Many mistakes have been made, I believe, because we view ourselves as the end of creation, rather than him and his glory. 


3. Responsibility. In the fall story, we see the splintering of that harmony in which God created the world. 

Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. (3:17b-19)

As soon as Eve and Adam chose their own way over God's way, they discovered the awful consequences of that choice. Not only was their relationship with God broken, but their relationship with each other. And beyond that, the shalom of all of creation was broken: harmony and cooperation would be replaced by toil and adversity. And why? "Because of you."

4. Covenant. In the flood story, we see the further consequences of that disharmony. Humans are evil, and so God uses his own creation (ie, rain) to destroy all but a few representatives of the rest of creation. Mountains, trees, and creatures of every kind are washed away by his grief. When Noah and Company finally set foot on solid ground again, God makes a promise: 

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth."

Again, humans are not at the centre of this story, God is. Creation is saved because of his mercy, goodness and faithfulness. He declares this faithfulness by way of a covenant. Never again will he destroy creation in this way. And with whom does he make this covenant? Just to be clear, he says it six times: "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth." God's dealings with our world encompass the whole of creation. To be sure, his dealings with humans are unique and most amazing, but the reach of his care and concern are cosmic.


These four points raise the following questions to consider with regard to the topic of earthkeeping:

1. Given the interrelatedness of humans with the rest of creation (as well as God and other humans), how should this inform our role as God's appointed keepers of creation?
2. How does our tendency to put ourselves at the middle of the story muddle our thinking about the point and priorities of creation?
3. If humans are responsible for bringing disharmony into creation, what then is our role for righting that wrong?
4. If God deals with all of creation, what is his plan for the cosmos in its entirety?

The answers are not quick or easy, but a good starting place can be found in Romans 8:18-22:

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 

Verse 18 tells us that, although we suffer, there is a future glorification which will render our current sufferings puny in comparison. Verse 19 tells us that creation plays a role in our glorification: it waits, eagerly. Verses 20-22 give us the reason for this anxious expectation: it is currently oppressed, frustrated, decaying. It groans. But these three verses also speak of something beyond the present reality: there is hope, liberation, and a promise of a new birth. This raises the question of the means of this liberation - how does it come about? Colossians 1:15-20 reveals that the better question is, by Whom?

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

By Whom does the liberation of creation come about? By Jesus! He is the firstborn over all creation. All things were made by him, for him, through him. He is the centre of the cosmos, and by him all things hold together. He is before all things, after all things, above all things, and by him all things will be reconciled. Jesus is the Ultimate Earthkeeper. As Randy Alcorn points out in his book entitled Heaven, whenever Jesus speaks of his work, he uses words like "reconcile, redeem, restore, recover, return, renew, regenerate, resurrect" (88) - all of which suggest a return to what was before, a return to that perfect shalom in which the world was created (if you are of the persuasion that the world will be destroyed by fire according to 2 Peter 3:10 see BP explanation of why this is most likely a misinterpretation of the Greek text, pages 77-78). 


The creation in its entirety anxiously awaits redemption. This redemption is a reversal of the curse, put into effect by Jesus' death on the cross. If you previously thought Jesus only died on the cross to save souls, you need to enlarge your imagination and expand your understanding to see just how HUGE, how utterly complete God's salvation is. I especially like the way Steven Lawson puts it, 

Whatever sin has touched and polluted, God will redeem and cleanse. If redemption does not go as far as the curse of sin, then God has failed. Whatever the extent of the consequences of sin, so must the extent of redemption be.” (quoted in Heaven, by Randy Alcorn, page 91) 

Revelation 21-22 as well as Isaiah 60 help us to see the extent of what God had planned from the beginning to redeem, restore and reconcile. Jesus died to repair all that is wrong with the world, souls, bodies, lands, creatures, ecosystems, cultures, and nations. 


And the clincher is this: as God's appointed keepers of the earth who are called to be imitators of God (Eph 5:1), we have a role to play in that redeeming.

Share

Girls and Boys and God

I've been very remiss in blogging for quite some time now. Nonetheless, I've been reading steadily. More posts will be coming soon, but in the meantime, I'm going to cheat. The following is a lengthy comment I wrote today for a blog I've recently discovered. It's not entirely cheating, because the book I mention at the beginning will be book #6 for bookmeal.

But first, a disclaimer: my comments about my experiences with pastors are from my past. I am blessed to currently be in a church with a pastor who very comfortably relates to me and has given me freedom to develop my leadership skills - amongst the women and men of our congregation.

(To read the article to which I responded, click here. And now, my thoughts:)

--

I'm in the process of reading the book, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, edited by Gordon Fee, among others. I have finally gotten around to actively searching the Scriptures on this topic, despite my fears of where it could take me, because I know that "how I feel" is no real reason at all.

I am a pastor's daughter married to the son of a pastor, and I have lately been smiling to myself to realise that of the eight children between these two pastors, it's a woman (ie, me) who would be the most likely to follow in their steps.

I attended a very conservative Bible college in the States and was officially turned off to the male-authority view during my senior seminar when a fellow (male) student presented his paper in support of this view. When several other students brought up the hypothetical situation of a woman who was more qualified or more trained in a theological area and whether she ought to be allowed some measure of leadership/input, he was unwilling to make allowances. Being a Bible/Theo major with an emphasis in Greek and planning to pursue Biblical languages in grad school that fall, I mentioned the fact that the professor who taught the highest-level Greek course at that school was a woman, he responded with simply: "I would choose another school." Ouch! He also glossed over the fact that the two winners of that year's Greek scholar awards were both women, amidst a classful of men. I guess one of the men who didn't do quite so well would be better-suited to teach Greek, simply by fact of their gender.

I've never minded being a part of the male-leadership model in general; in many ways it is still more comfortable to me (at least in the sense that it is more familiar). It wasn't until grad school that I personally experienced a really positive, strong model of female “leadership:” speakers who were scholarly, not just sentimental, who spoke as disciples, not specifically as women.

It was difficult to be a passionate-about-theology kind of woman in churches where the pastor feels uncomfortable being around “a single young lady.” It’s not much easier being married with 3½ kids. If anything, my theological education seems to suggest that I’m a threat, out to usurp authority and proselytize all to my liberal ways, when in fact I simply want to talk with others who care about the topics and ideas that I enjoy so much, and as it happens, the similarly-passionate are usually men.

More than anything, I have struggled with the double standard with which the male-authority model is applied: Why is it okay for female missionaries to minister in a leadership capacity to other cultures? Why is it less “dangerous” or “sinful” for mothers and Sunday School to train boys? Anyone with any recognition of the role of a godly mother in the lives of her children will recognize the power she is given in “ministering” to men – for that, of course, is what young boys eventually turn into (I know - duh!). Susanna Wesley is one famous example for which there have been so many anonymous ones over the centuries. I endeavour to be one myself. :-)

And most of all, it just seems so incongruent with the spirit of Scripture (if not always the letter, at least at first glance). Within the reasonable limits of the culture, from OT Law to the actions and words of Jesus himself and even Paul's often-brusque manner, God’s way is always pushing the envelope of cultural mores, moving toward a higher view of women. In one sense, the Bible is a snapshot of history that ended two thousand years ago, and I think there is plenty of evidence within it to encourage believers to keep moving forward, until women are truly co-inheritors (Rom 8:17) and co-priests (1 Pet 2:5, 9) with men in the riches and grace of God. Each expression of the church is in the midst of that process, some further along than others, and that’s okay too.

Lastly, I must say that no careful reader of Scripture should be able to support any application of authority that turns the word “submit” into a bad word. If Christ himself modelled it, it is a beautiful thing, characterised by sacrificial love, not power, and as Dyfed mentioned, is utterly mutual amongst believers. The best submission is that which is not spoken of at all, but lived out in mutual love. It’s what makes my marriage work, at any rate!

--

What about you, readers? Do you agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts...

Share

Creation Groans: What Have We Done?

For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care, by Steven Bouma-Prediger
progress: 98/187

"We know that the whole creation has been groaning

as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

Romans 8:22

I am really enjoying this book. After so much sensationalism, oversimplification and willful ignorance in the media and popular thought, Bouma-Prediger offers a refreshingly sane review of our current environmental situation, as well as thoughtful explanations of how many Christians have misinterpreted Scripture with regard to ecology, and a humble but passionate plea for a closer, more informed look at what the Bible has to say on the subject.

As I write, an estimated 210,000 gallons of oil have been leaking into the Gulf of Mexico every day for the past five or six weeks, since an oil rig exploded in mid-April. As of May 18th, 46,000 square miles of the Gulf had been closed to fishing because of the spread of this dirty, sticky, toxic mess. Amazingly, some folks in the news have chosen to attack random third parties, defending the corporations and deflecting public sentiment from what should be the obvious response: sorrow at the soiling of our good earth.

 Some of the heaviest oil on land to date is seen along the Louisiana coastline on May 20.

An oil-covered crab crawls past an oil blob that washed ashore on May 22 in Grand Isle, Louisiana.

(photo and caption credits to CNN) 

I think it is this deflecting that disturbs me most. On a CBC news interview last week, callers called in to respond to the Sierra Club's suggestion that the Alberta oilsands are environmentally harmful and therefore new investments should be made in greener technologies. The Sierra representative wasn't even saying that the oilsands should stop, just that new growth should be suspended. Obviously, this struck a chord with the Albertans, so many of whom rely on the oil and gas industry - messy as it is - to put food on their tables. It is completely valid to raise this as a concern in the discussion, but I was surprised how many people simply wanted to shut down the discussion "because the oilsands make good money," as if that in itself were a good enough reason to do anything. I couldn't help thinking about the formula, "We should do ______ because it makes good money." What else would we be willing to plug into such a simplistic statment? Prostitution? Drug-dealing? Abortion? Child labour? Our perspectives on ecology are skewed by many things, not the least of which is money. While a healthy economy is indeed important, we can't separate that from the multitude of interconnected topics that relate to a healthy world at large.

I have puzzled over the highly-politicized nature of the environmental debate, as politicians and the average joes who support them, rather than scientists, make concrete statements about what is or isn't happening with global warming, among other things. When did it become Christian to say that global warming is a hoax? When did it become Liberal to care about environmental issues? Not being a scientist myself, I can only rely on the science of others to sway me one way or the other, but I think any reasonable person should be able to admit that we humans affect our environment- to some degree at least - with our cars and our industries, our chemicals and our sprawl. One fellow who called in to the aforementioned radio show boldly proclaimed that "Ants have made more impact on this planet that humans have!" Meaning no disrepect to ants, I somehow doubt that.

It's a good thing I haven't written in over a month, because that's at least a month's worth of opinions right there. Hopefully I haven't lost any of you yet!

The most intriguing chapter that I've read thus far is the one entitled, "Is Christianity to Blame?" in which Bouma-Prediger explores the multifaceted critique of Christianity as the primary cause of our world's environmental crisis. Though he ably argues against this charge, he emphasizes that Christians do bear part of the burden of responsibility. In his defense, he differentiates between various (misinformed) expressions of Christianity and what the Bible actually has to say on the subject. The expressions of Christianity were familiar to me, and the criticisms of such expressions need to be heard by the church.

The biggest criticism was that God's command in the Garden of Eden for his human creatures to "have dominion" (Gen 1:28) over the earth was tantamount to commanding the exploitation of the natural world for the sole benefit of humans. In the critics' definition, dominion equals domination. Bouma-Prediger challenges this interpretation of dominion, arguing from Psalm 72 as well as Jesus' life that godly dominion is in fact defined by service. Regarding the domination/exploitation view, Wendell Berry writes,

"Such a reading of Genesis 1:28 is contradicted by virtually all the rest of the Bible, as many people by now have pointed out. The ecological teaching of the Bible is simply inescapable: God made the world because He wanted it made. He thinks the world is good, and He loves it. It is His world; He has never relinquished title to it. And He has never revoked the conditions, bearing on His gift to us of the use of it, that oblige us to take excellent care of it. If God loves the world, then how might any person of faith be excused for not loving it or justified in destroying it?" (quoted in SBJ, 75)

Another criticism is that Christian eschatology has contributed to the earth's malaise. Many Christians believe that, since the earth is going to be "burned up," there's no need to be overly concerned about the earth of this world, which is passing away. I have encountered this mentality amongst Christians with dismay. Bouma-Prediger discusses 2 Peter 3:10, the primary verse that has been used to support such a view:

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up." (NASB)

He explains that this is a mistranslation of the Greek word, which means "to be found." The idea, more clearly translated in the ESV as "the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed," carries the idea of purifying judgment rather than utter destruction. Eugene Peterson brings this idea out even more clearly in his paraphrase: "earth and all its works exposed to the scrutiny of Judgment." As I look more closely at the entire chapter of 2 Peter 3, I still have questions about the nature and extent of the fire. However, as the author points out, even if such an interpretation is correct (i.e. the earth will be utterly destroyed), it should not follow that we are not called to be good stewards of it until that time.

The unfortunate truth is that some Christians have used this passage to justify the degradation of God's good creation. How might things change if more Christians understood having dominion over the earth within a Christlike context of service? What of our own luxuries might we sacrifice in deference to our charge to rule the earth in a godly way?

A number of years ago, it occurred to me that if Jesus' post-resurrection body bore the scars of his death, then what if our restored earth also bore the scars of its previous life? The thought has stayed with me, sobering me to the reality that the choices we make in this life will have consequences in the next life.

Though Bouma-Prediger opposes the accusation that Christianity is wholly to blame for the earth's ecological woes, he goes on to explain how Christians are indeed complicit in at least five ways:

1. The church is captive to modern Western culture, and its patron gods of consumption and wealth
2. The church has accepted the anthropocentrism of modernity, placing humanity at the center of purpose and meaning in the universe
3. The church, along with Western culture, has made technology into a god, forgetting that it is good and bad
4. The church has forgotten creation in light of redemption, even though creation provides the foundation for understanding that redemption
5. The Western church is prideful, unwilling to learn from other traditions and perspectives

There is much to think about, much to confess. I'm looking forward to reading more of his thoughts on the path forward, on his "vision for creation care," and how I can be a better steward of my beautiful world.

Share

Soul Whispers: The Unspoken Questions of Our Lives

In his first epistle, Peter says that we must always "be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." Further, we are to do so with "gentleness and respect," a phrase I repeated in the form of a prayer many times one year when I was a part of a Hare Krishna discussion group. I had been invited to join by a friendly orange-clad follower of Krishna as I walked down Byres Road in Glasgow years ago. I told the fellow I was a Christian, but he didn't seem to mind, so I went ahead and joined the group. I wanted to be a witness for the truth, but I also had to respect the fact that this was their discussion group, not mine. My witness usually took the form of questions about their faith, rather than statements about my own. This approach eventually allowed me the privilege of sharing some of my own beliefs with them, and through this gentle dialogue, we became friends.

It was obvious to me in that particular situation that tactfulness would be required. I could not hijack their topics or begin proselytizing the group members. The first goal was to take time to really get to know them and understand their beliefs. If I showed such respect, perhaps I might (and in fact did) win the right to speak gently and be heard with an open mind.

There are times when I have not shared my faith so gently or respectfully. My evangelical heritage sometimes tempts me to throw doctrine at nonbelievers, like little "thou shalt not" daggers of condemnation. True as it may be, "You're wrong" is not always the best approach, and may sometimes be the worst. Peter writes about giving an answer for the hope that is in us, and it is doubtful whether any healthy Christian would respond by talking primarily about their own sinfulness or that of others. The presence of sin is what makes hope necessary and what by contrast makes it so wonderful, but what embodies that hope? Forgiveness of the unforgiveable? Love for the unloveable? Healing for broken bodies and hearts? The promise of a future where the world will be made right again? To be sure, there is very bad news in the Bible - we are indeed sinful and separated from God. But that's only the lead-up to the Good News - the comedy that God loves us anyway and the fairy tale that there really is a "happily ever after" for those who will receive it in grace (I am borrowing here from Buechner's Telling the Truth: The Gospel as Tragedy, Comedy and Fairy Tale).

Don't get me wrong, recognition of one's sin and genuine confession are essential for every person who would be saved; I'm just arguing that it's usually not the first thing a person needs to hear when being introduced to God: "Bob, this is Jesus. He says you're a scoundrel. Oh, and he loves you even though you don't deserve it." It's difficult for most of us to receive criticism well from our most trusted friends, how much more so from this Jesus, who to Bob is a total Stranger?

I've always thought of Peter's words in terms of responding to the direct question of a skeptic: "Becky, I was just wondering...what is the reason for the hope that is in you?" but the truth is I don't get asked that question all so much. In the rare moments when I probably should've spoken more directly to a person, I have tried to justify my cowardly silence with the quote (questionably attibuted to St Francis) "Preach the gospel at all times; use words when necessary." Actions, like words, are essential. But what words?

It's occurred to me recently that the most important questions people ask are rarely spoken with words, but whispered (although sometimes shouted) with their lives. If our words are to take root in the hearts of others, they must address those whispered questions they are asking with their lives rather than the questions we think they should be asking. This is powerful stuff. Time and again in the Gospels we see Jesus demonstrating this intimate understanding of people's hearts, fulfilling Simeon's prophesy that by him "the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed." A Samaritan woman asks him for water but he answers her deeper question by telling her about living water. The Pharisees are routinely confounded when he identifies the true, ugly motives behind their questions, sometimes by asking a question of his own. Even with good old Thomas, whose doubt keeps it real for the rest of us, Jesus knows what he really needs and invites him to touch Him and believe.

So with this idea of giving an answer to the often unspoken but deepest questions of others' lives, how can we "be prepared" to do so? We must rely on the work of the Holy Spirit, searching out and revealing the truth all around us, about ourselves and others. We must embody the love of God, who went to extreme lengths to show that love to the needy and deluded. And we must be like Jesus, taking the time to talk to people, meeting with and loving them right where they're at. We must be abiding in intimate relationship with these Three, so that our efforts are fueled by their wisdom and words, not our own.

Aside from answering the unspoken questions, we may be called to help people discover exactly what question or questions their own uniquely-loved-by-God souls are struggling to ask. It seems likely that most of us couldn't put our deepest questions into words even if we tried. Ideas, emotions, opinions, and experiences hover like the mists of Avalon between the worlds of our conscious and our subconscious. I have spent the past two years trying to articulate a few of my own questions, and I've only recently begun to discover some of the key words, thanks to several Spirit-led friends who have taken the time to get to know me and my struggles.

So instead of telling our friends that they should do this or don't do that, maybe we can point them beyond the command to the Spirit from whom it came. Darrell Johnson gave me a new perspective on the Ten Commandments. Yes, they are rules. But they are there because of God's love for us. He writes,

The Law is given not to tie us up but to release us into the fullness of freedom. How do the commandments do this? By telling us who we are, by revealing who we were created to be..."You shall have no other gods before me." Why? Because God is an egoist and cannot handle rivals? No. "You shall have no other gods" because we were created in such a way that only the one, true, Living God can satisfy us. We finite creatures were made in such a away that only the Infinite God can fill and fulfill us. God speaks the commandment to protect us, to keep us from ruining our lives by seeking satisfaction in what ultimately does not satisfy. (from Fifty-Seven Words, pp 59-60)

People need to know that God has a standard for living. But the way we present that information can do much to help or hinder a person's receptivity to spiritual matters. Pharisaic zeal for rules is a spirit-crushing, hypocrite-inducing, us-versus-them approach. It is motivated by anger or resentment that someone else might "get away" with doing something they've denied themselves. Godly zeal is for souls to be reconciled to Christ. Jesus addressed people's sin, but only after first pouring out kindness and healing and friendship on the broken and outcast: "Go and sin no more." 

God and His word can speak to people about rules and standards; who is more able to soften a heart for repentance than God Himself? I believe our job is primarily to show unbelievers the deep, deep love of Jesus in word and deed, so that when the time comes for the Holy Spirit to convict and guide them into wholeness and holiness, we will have helped Jesus win the "right" to be heard. If our words are motivated by repulsion at a person's sinfulness, they might be better left unsaid - I am especially referring to the case of an unbeliever. But if our words are motivated by a sincere and nonjudmental desire to see a person freed from the weight of sin and released into the full joy of life as God intended it for him or her, then it might be appropriate to speak...but only after listening to the Holy Spirit and being assured that it's His words we speak, and not our own.

Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. ~ Proverbs 12:18

Share