A few thoughts on Luke 3 & 4

Luke 3 and 4
Some thoughts from my devotions

Last night I forgot to bring my Nook to work, so when I went to take a break and read in Luke, I was hindered. Then I realized, “Well, you do bring a regular Bible with you. You can read that.” I need those kinds of reminders at times.

At any rate, I got my Bible out of my backpack and opened it up to Luke. I had read chapter 3 the previous night, so that meant chapter 4. But I noticed something right away, a difference between my Nook Bible and the printed one. Since chapter 3 comes before 4 I glanced at 3. I read:

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli . . . 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

I thought, something’s different from last night. I got home and looked at my Nook Bible and saw

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli . . . 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Do you see it? My Nook Bible did not have any words in italics. You might say, What?? Yes. The King James translators had a policy, whenever they added a word that did not have an equivalent in the original language but that they thought helped to make better sense in English, they put that word in italics. An example is

Luke 5:17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.

Literally, this is, “and the power of the Lord was to heal them” So they added “present” to convey what they thought was the idea. I like this honesty.

Back to Luke 3. I noticed that “the son” did not occur after “the son of Joseph.” So we could read it like this

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli . . . 38 Which was of Enos, which was of Seth, which was of Adam, which was of God.

It is not really significant until you get to Adam being “of God.” In all the other cases the idea is, Adam got together with Eve and they conceived a son, Seth. But that is NOT how it was with Adam. Adam was not conceived by God and born to him through some unnamed wife, but he was “of” him. That is, God created him. I just thought it was neat. A small distinction but an important one.

Luke 4:16-21
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Notice the Bible reading program in the synagogue – every Sabbath they read from the Law and the Prophets. They had a reading plan and they often asked visitors to read and then address the congregation.

He “stood up for the read” I don’t know if everyone else stood, but the reader did.

“he closed the book . . . and sat down” The custom among the Jews and early Christians was for the speaker/preacher to sit down to teach.

All that is technical stuff. The really cool part is, “And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” Is this not an awesome word? “You have been waiting for the Anointed One to come and today I tell you, he is here.” And if that is not wonderful enough, just consider all that he came to do for us!

People often say that Jesus never came out and said he was the Messiah. Oh, yes he did. And here is one of those places. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.” The Jews knew this referred to the Anointed One, the Messiah. And they were waiting for him to appear and for this prophecy to be fulfilled. Jesus read it and said, “Ahem, today this is fulfilled. This is me. I am He.”

Was nothing else good? Oh yeah, but I didn’t want to write a commentary on Luke 4!

Some thoughts about ancient cultures

I like reading about ancient civilizations and cultures. Right now I am reading a book about the Anasazi (In Search of the Old Ones by David Roberts). So far, I have only been able to find books about the Anasazi – I’m still looking for one written by an Anasazi!

I’ve been reading a lot about the Indians. I’ve tried to focus on first encounter reports or very early works, where the Indian was still largely unaffected by European civilization. That is admittedly a very small window, as contact with white people had an almost immediate impact on their culture.

Just a few observations from all this reading:

In all early records, America is described as a beautiful and bountiful place. And many explorers commented on the beautiful aroma that met them while still out at sea. Despite the incredible bounty, almost all the original colonizers starved or nearly starved.

Nearly all Indians were incredibly hospitable - they housed and fed these strangers. At least until it became more than obvious that these newcomers were going to kill them, steal from them, and otherwise abuse them in untold ways.

Indians did not share a monolithic culture. In other words, they were not all plains Indians. In fact, the plains Indian moved there because they got chased out of their earlier homeland by other Indians.

Indians were not living in peace and harmony when the ‘mean ole white man’ came. There was constant warfare among tribes. One Indian, Charles Eastman, who grew up among the Sioux and was later educated in missionary schools, wrote several books about Indian life. He tried to maintain that they all lived in peace, yet admits that they were in constant fear of attack and capture by neighboring tribes. Interestingly, the Catawba of South Carolina would routinely travel north for the sole purpose of attacking the Iroquois. And the Iroquois would do the same. So, the north-south animosity in the US predates the US!

The Europeans who came to America were generally not nice people. It seems that the majority of the earliest adventurers came to get rich quick. The Spanish were the absolute worst of the bunch. Yet there is the amazing story of Cabeza de Vaca. He was somehow separated from his fellows in La Florida and then proceeded to walk across America until he arrived in Mexico and was able to rejoin his fellow Spaniards there. This is an amazing story and one that permanently changed him. You can read his account in The Narrative of Cabeza de Vaca.

Europeans routinely dismissed the Indians as savages – unintelligent, uneducated, uncivilized, yet in humorous irony, the Indians routinely dismissed the Europeans as “stupid” – after all, “they didn’t know how to do anything” – they couldn’t hunt, farm, fish, find their way in the woods, nor did they know anything about the herbs of the forest.

I like to try and imagine the land then. So many places empty of people. What it must have felt like to wander in the woods and not see or hear anyone else. Or, on the plains or in the southwest. Apparently it was easy to get lost on the trackless plains, even for Indians. So to keep from getting lost they would shoot an arrow and then go forward until they found it. Despite all the open space, people were in contact with each other. Wyoming is huge and was a sparsely populated place both in Indian times and in the early days of the settlers, yet I am amazed that travelers would routinely run into each other! There are people I never see in Rock Hill. And with all this space Indians would go out of their way to attack another group of Indians! And when the white man came . . .

I am simply astounded at where they lived. I still can’t figure out why Indians and whites fought so savagely over the desert southwest. But as I read about the Anasazi, they ALL lived in the most out of the way places. These places are hard to get to today. And apparently, they chose some of these locations because someone was out to get them! It is hard enough to imagine them choosing to live where they did, but then other people would hunt them down??

Family was very important to them. As was self-discipline. And most of them were not materialistic. They lived a truly communal life-style and one of the chief’s main responsibilities was to make sure all were fed and cared for. So one of their chief virtues was to give to the needy before you consumed yourself. And an interesting combination, if an Indian considered you a friend he was hospitable and giving, but if you were his enemy he was ruthless and unforgiving. They don’t appear to have had a word for forgiveness.

They were not “poor” until they came in contact with European culture.

As I mentioned, I am currently reading about the Anasazi. They truly lived in the most amazing and out of the way places. And on top of that, they built their cities high up on a cliff. The only access was by rock climbing! Even their little children had to be able to climb precarious heights!! But then, how beautiful it must have been in the morning at sunrise and how dark at night. If there was a star in the sky, they could see it! And being the desert, how utterly hot in the day and cold at night.

I don’t consider these people to be “inferior” to us. Oh I know, they had no electricity, or running water, or computers or cars or even metallurgy – all the stuff that we deem necessary. Yet they knew things and could do things that none of us know or can do. And they had an understanding of the rhythms of creation, which are a foreign language to most of us.

Finally, an end to all these random thoughts. Do I feel the guilt that some white people love to indulge in? You know, we stole their land, thus we are a vile people. No. Oh, the actions of early Europeans was despicable and really inexcusable. But this has been the history of man every where. God established their boundaries and times. I have no idea why their way of life gave way to the European. It just did. The Anglo / Indian conflict was inevitable. Their cultures were so different . . .

Eternal security is not a biblical expression

What a subject for a short post! But lately I’ve been thinking about evangelical expressions and terminology commonly used but not found in the Bible. One of these is “eternal security” and it’s twin, “once saved always saved”. Eternal security teaches: “You’ve made a decision and you’re in. No worries. It’s a done deal.” It tells us all that matters is that you began: you decided and your eternity is set; salvation is just making a decision for Jesus. Once you decide, no matter what you do, you are in for ever.

Is this the biblical view of the Christian life?? No. Absolutely not! And teaching this not only causes one to avoid biblical exhortations – after all, they’re unnecessary – but also leads to situations like the following:

Last September, while on vacation, I heard Charles Stanley on the radio one night. He commented on Galatians 5:19-21, Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [a list follows]; of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. He explained that this does not mean what it says. He literally said, “This does not mean that people who do these kinds of things will not inherit the kingdom.” And why not? Because, he admitted, if we take it at face value it would contradict eternal security.

Another time I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the gospel and for some reason I mentioned Hebrews 6 (For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened . . . If they shall fall away) and 10 (For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins). My friend responded by telling me about some professor who had written a book that included “a really good explanation for such ‘problem passages’.” Now, why would Hebrews 6 and 10 be considered “problem passages”? Because a simple, plain reading of them contradicts eternal security.

And this is my point. “Eternal security” and “once saved always saved” are not biblical expressions. And to go one step further, they do not convey a biblical view. Whenever we devote ourselves to unbiblical ideas we create situations like those above. This teaching not only creates “problem passages” but it renders unnecessary the biblical exhortations to continue in the faith and the biblical warnings against failing to continue in the faith.

I have been reminded of this in my Bible reading lately. I recently read Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, and Mark. In these books are expressions and exhortations that those who teach “eternal security” would consider “problem passages.”

Hebrews
This was written to Jews who had believed in Christ but were now considering going back. The letter is full of comparisons (Jesus is better), uncertainty (if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end), exhortations (Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God), and warnings (If they shall fall away).

1 Peter
To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ
Salvation has come, but forgiveness of sins is just the down payment of the full blessing God has for us, which we will receive when Jesus returns. And Peter tells us plainly, hope to the end for this grace. This is an imperative – keep on hoping.

2 Peter
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 

Mark
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

All these passages are rendered superfluous and otherwise unnecessary by the teaching of unconditional eternal security - I don’t need to endure to the end. I decided, man, and I’m in!

Oh I know, anyone reading this who believes in eternal security will say, “If you don’t believe in eternal security then you are teaching salvation by works.” Using an unbiblical phrase they reach an unbiblical conclusion. And one not true, either. I mean, nowhere does the Bible say, “If thou believest not in eternal security, thou art teaching salvation by works.” I’ve even heard people say, “If you don’t believe in eternal security, I doubt that you are really saved.”

The Bible teaches that the only faith that saves is the faith that clings to Jesus to the end. A faith that begins but does not hold on to the end does not save. You can spin it anyway you want, but to be biblical we need to exhort believers to continue in the faith and warn them of the consequences of falling away from the faith.

Is there then no security in Christ? YES, there is security and safety. In Christ. And we can have assurance of salvation. Nevertheless, we are repeatedly exhorted to continue in faith and not to fall away from Christ. As in Hebrews 10:35-39 –
Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if he draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
Exhortation (cast not away), encouragement (after you have done the will of God you will receive), more encouragement (he will come), and warning (if he draw back). Then he clearly sets forth two classes of people: those who begin but draw back and those who believe to the saving of the soul.

Every writer and nearly every book of the New Testament contain these warnings and exhortations. Now, I believe that we are saved by grace through faith. I believe in assurance of salvation and in the witness of the Spirit. And I believe that no one and no thing can take me out of His hand. But I also believe that I must continue to the end in this faith. “Or . . .” Well, that’s another discussion! I know what the Bible teaches about that “or” but my point today is that “eternal security” and it’s emphasis is not biblical.

The Backside of the Desert

It’s a familiar story. Moses was born in troubled times. Instead of killing him, as Pharaoh had commanded (And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive), his parents kept him hidden for 3 months. Then they cast him on the river instead of into the river. Pharaoh’s daughter found him, rescued him, and eventually took him as her own son. He was raised in Pharaoh’s house and educated with the best education of the day. He was a prince in Egypt.

When Moses was grown, (as Stephen says, he was full forty years old) he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens. Moses was responding to God’s call on his life and he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not. Neither they nor Pharaoh appreciated his efforts! Truth is, Pharaoh sought to kill Moses.

Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian. And he will spend the next 40 years in the desert. I have always thought of this as the backside of the desert, an even more forsaken place than the desert. But, however conceived, it is still 40 years in the desert.

What did he do in the desert? He got married and had children. He got a job working for his father in law - as a shepherd. He made a life for himself in the desert, but he was doing something he was terribly overqualified for. Nevertheless, he was clearly committed to this desert life. And, I think it is safe to say, he wasn’t really living for the Lord.

What was God doing in Moses all this time? I don’t know. Was he attending ‘Backside of the Desert Seminary’? No. God seems to have been pretty silent for 40 years. Although when He did speak He said, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled... So Moses knew something. So what was God doing? Was He waiting for those who knew Moses to die off? After 40 years living in the country Moses would have looked different! He would have been clean shaven (maybe even his head) in his days in Egypt, now he would have had a big bushy beard. Perhaps God was emptying Moses so that when the call came he would have no reason to trust in himself. Or maybe he was just tucked away until the time came when God wished to redeem His people from Egypt. We don’t always see the big picture. But when God had done his work Moses was a greater leader than he would have otherwise been. And more importantly, he had great character: Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.

How did Moses feel, these 40 years in the desert? It doesn’t say, but I have a pretty good idea: He had a calling from God that was unfulfilled. He had preparation and training that was unused. In Egypt he had a destiny, now he was mostly dusty. He was off in a corner, unknown, unused; sometimes hiding, sometimes lonely. A train derailed. A ship run a ground. A compass with no magnetic field – but now I wax poetic! He was lost in a trackless desert. But you know what, there are paths in the desert. And when God comes there are streams in the desert too.

Can you escape the backside of the desert? Moses was finished. I’m sure he was the first one to use the expression, “Stick a fork in me, I’m done.” But God wasn’t finished with him.

Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.
And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

No, God was not finished with Moses. It was the call of God that got him out of the desert. And I love it: Moses, Moses. The call of God is so personal! He knew who he was, where he was, and why he was there. You can’t create this or force it. Moses wasn’t plotting or planning his return to Egypt. He was through with Egypt. And Israel. God came after him.

Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ... I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.
Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.

Not only did Moses not arrange his return to Egypt and ministry, the call of God was not really about him: I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people out of Egypt.

I know what it is to live in the backside of the desert. Is there a way out? The voice of God. God loves to redeem and restore. In His time, when He can use me for His people, the voice will call. And, what do you do until you hear the voice of God? You let God continue to clean you up. And, like Moses, you let your hair grow!

Sunday night was slow so I thought about

It was really slow last night so I had a lot of time to think various thinks. And to take notes.

I thought about some more the 40 years Moses spent in the desert and hope to make a post about that tonight or tomorrow.

Then I thought about infant baptism and plan a facebook note about that.

Before I left for work I watched part of a movie called The Final Countdown. It’s about a 1980s aircraft carrier that travels back in time to December 6, 1941. Mary got to see the whole movie but since I had to leave I will watch the rest of it later today. I have seen it before but it got me to thinking about

Time Travel

People always say (in movies about time travel) that if you can / when you do go back in time you must be careful not to change anything because that would alter the future, which is your present.  Really? The future has already happened so if you changed something it must have been part of the past anyway! For example, could you go back in time and somehow prevent your parents from having you? No! because then you would not exist to go back to the past etc. So, time travel is simply not possible! Besides, if you went back too far you couldn’t understand anyone or be understood. And I’m convinced that we would probably starve if we tried to eat what they ate two hundred years and more ago.

Still, I have always loved the thought of being able to go back to some period in time but always been afraid that if I traveled back in time I would arrive in the middle of a tree no one knew was there! Now that’s a bad day, today or yesterday! But I repeat, it just isn’t possible. Time is a straight line. The past is fixed and unalterable. Nor does it co-exist with the future. And speaking of the future, one of my favorite quotes is “Every step you take is a step into the future.”

Beam me up, Scotty

I have completely thought this through before but I was reminded of it last night. Star Trek had a transporter by which they “beamed” down to planets and other space-craft. And the guy in the movie The Fly had one too. “Help me!” Anyway, I have concluded that transporters will never work either. And why not? Because we are more than the matter that makes up our bodies. We have a soul. And when you take a body apart like that, you lose the soul. Besides, we are fearfully and wonderfully made. Even with all that modern medicine can do, I don’t believe they could reassemble all of my parts exactly as they were before!

Do I really think about these things? Oh yeah. And it is even easier when I am up all night and not really mentally challenged!!

Humility

A few days ago I wrote a facebook note about humility and humiliation. I have since been looking again at the words for humble in both the Old and New Testaments. I also looked up the word in Synonyms of the New Testament by Richard Chenevix Trench (R. C. Trench, 1807-1886, was archbishop of Dublin and professor of divinity at King's College, London and later Dean of Westminster Seminary). He has some amazing insights on humility, which I include below. The brackets [ ] are my attempts to make clear what he wrote. This is, of course, not the final word of humility. For that we need to search the Scriptures. But it is a good starting line.

ταπεινοφροσυνη— humility, humbleness, lowliness of mind

“The work for which Christ’s Gospel came into the world was no less than to put down the mighty from their seat, and to exalt the humble and meek. It was then only in accordance with this its mission that it should dethrone the heathen virtue μεγαλοψυχια [greatness of soul; desire for honors; pride], and set up the despised Christian grace humility … advancing so far that a Christian writer has called humility not merely a grace, but the treasure house in which all other graces are contained. And indeed not the grace only, but the very [Greek] word [for humility] is itself a fruit of the Gospel; no Greek writer used it before the Christian era. It does not occur in the Septuagint [Greek translation of the Old Testament. The simple word humble or low occurs numerous times, mostly referring to humble or lowly conditions or circumstance. Two other closely related words occur, as in Proverbs 29:23 Pride brings a man low, but the Lord upholds the humble-minded with honor.] In the heathen writers use of humility, the instances are few and exceptional in which humility signifies anything for them which is not grovelling, slavish, and mean-spirited.

There is, however, an almost prophetic foresight of humility as a virtue. Aristotle, having confessed how hard it is for a man to be truly proud [“Therefore it is hard to be truly proud; for it is impossible without nobility and goodness of character”; and pride is a virtue - “Pride, then, seems to be a sort of crown of the virtues”; then he adds, “The man who thinks himself worthy of less than he is really worthy of is unduly humble…”] — for he will allow no “thinking yourself worthy of great things”, which does not rest on corresponding realities of goodness and moral greatness, and he goes on to observe, though merely by the way and little conscious how far his words reached, that to think humbly of oneself, where that humble estimate is the true one, cannot be imputed to any as a culpable meanness of spirit. But if this be so (and who will deny it?), then, seeing that for every man the humble estimate of himself is the true one, Aristotle has herein unconsciously vindicated humility as a grace in which every man ought to abound. Christian humility is no mere modesty or absence of pretension, which is all that the heathen would at the very best have found in it; nor yet a self-made grace; No, humility is the esteeming of ourselves small, inasmuch as we are so; the thinking truly, and because truly, therefore lowlily, of ourselves.

But it may be objected, how does this account of Christian humility, as springing out of and resting on the sense of unworthiness, agree with the fact that the sinless Lord laid claim to this grace, and said, I am meek and lowly in heart (Matt. 11:29)? The answer is, that for the sinner humility involves the confession of sin, inasmuch as it involves the confession of his true condition; while yet for the unfallen creature the grace itself as truly exists, involving for such the acknowledgment not of sinfulness, which would be untrue, but of creatureliness, of absolute dependence, of having nothing, but receiving all things of God. And thus the grace of humility belongs to the highest angel before the throne, since he is a creature. In His human nature He must be the pattern of all humility, of all creaturely dependence; and it is only as a man that Christ thus claims to be lowly in heart: his human life was a constant living on the fulness of his Father’s love; He evermore, as man, took the place which is proper for the creature in the presence of its Creator.”

As I have followed this wonderful word throughout the Scriptures, I realized the best passages, supplying our strongest motive to humility, are:

Matthew 11:27-30
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.  
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Philippians 2:3-11
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.  
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.  
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:  
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:  
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:  
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.  
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:  
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;  
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus, the Son of God, was “lowly in heart.” He “humbled himself.” Can we do less? Humility or lowliness of mind should be our aim, our goal, our prayer. How the Church would prosper if it concentrated on humility and love. Each believer should focus on humility and love. I need to be marked by lowliness of mind and love!

The thoughts I think at night

Just a few of the thoughts I think in the middle of the night:

The New Year
A friend of mine posted about the new year on her blog. I read it and also noticed so many other people making a big deal about January 1. And I got to thinking. New Year’s Day has never really been a big deal to me. Oh, when I was young I was into fireworks and looked forward to shooting them on New Year’s Eve. And, when I was pastoring we always had a family night fellowship. But I never had the feeling that somehow this calendar day marked a fresh beginning or a new start or a time to make resolutions. It might be different if it were tied to some astronomical event like an equinox, solstice or a cross quarter day . . .

Would Peter be an evangelical?
What a strange thought! But I just read 1 & 2 Peter and that led me to thinking about his sermons in Acts and then to this question. I know he believed in Jesus and that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that we need to preach the Gospel like any evangelical, but consider his first sermon. This was his invitation: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Have you ever heard an evangelical give an invitation like that? Or what about this in his first epistle, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” I never hear evangelicals talking like that! So I'm just wondering if he would fit in most of our churches . . .

“It will make you happy”
In January and February we have certain items we are supposed to promote or “up-sell.” One of these is our 2 pack special on cigarettes. The company offered several selling tips including this first one, “Appeal to their emotions – It will make you happy.” Who knew that the key to happiness lay in buying 2 packs of cigarettes???

Michelle Bachman
When Michelle Bachman began to run for president I looked into her political positions. She seemed conservative enough. Then I heard her speak with that Minnesota accent! I thought, I cannot listen to her for four years! Well, two things have recently happened: (1) I took an internet test (consisting of inane questions) and they said I should vote for Michelle; (2) she is trailing the rest of the pack and being mostly ignored by the media. Now I want her to win and will probably vote for her in the SC primary! Tell me I’m not being shallow . . .

Long Hair
I have not had a hair cut in a while. Mary, who doesn’t care for it, asked me the other day just how long I was gonna let it grow. I know how long I would like to let it grow (long enough to have a pony tail) AND that Mary won’t like that at all! What a conundrum!!

Is there a difference?
I’ve been wondering for a while if there was any difference between humbled and humiliated. And to that I recently added embarrassed. Which leads to two questions:
+ if a person is embarrassed by some act is that person humble?
And more to the point
+ if a person is humiliated can they still be proud? Does humiliation itself produce humbleness? Or, is humility something else altogether?

And when am I gonna take that step and get rid of Netflix?

As I said, some of the thoughts I think at night between customers! Feel free to contribute any insights to my questions.