How much is a drop?

 Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Image from vecteezy.com ; used under free license

It was my turn to play the role of Grandma last Friday, as the Princess was away on her annual work conference and someone needed to supervise The Little Prince and his brother, Brother Bear, since her hubby couldn't take off work.  We had fun, but I didn't get to do my deep dive into Ps. 119.  Planning to hit that tomorrow....

But there has been something rumbling around in my spirit for a while so I'm going to try to share it....

You all remember the events that happened at Asbury two years ago...google 'Asbury outpouring' and you'll get a reminder if you don't.

At that time, I had a, well, I guess a spiritual picture of a vast reservoir, held back by massive gates, towering into the heavens.  The liquid in the reservoir was golden and thick, like honey, with a  light of its own, and from that reservoir one drop fell upon that campus.

One drop.

At the time, I was flabbergasted by the sheer enormity of the reservoir.   It was completely out of scale of anything earthly...like the Hoover Dam looming over a child's sandcastle at its base.   What would happen if those gates opened?  Nothing on earth could withstand the resulting flood.  

I pondered that for a while, then kinda filed it under 'interesting thoughts' and went on with life.

But last month that whole scenario replayed itself in my mind when I was in a prayer meeting.  Only this time, what stood out to me was the drop, and I heard in my spirit

"You called ONE DROP an outpouring."

That shifted my prayer.  Folks, we pray for an outpouring...but we don't have any idea what that really entails.  I think the outpouring is coming, on his timetable, and it's not up to us to pray it down but to be ready when it happens.  A drop here, a drop there is just a glimpse of what will happen when God sends the flood.  We won't have time to argue about whether or not it matches our theology.  My prayer is now...God, get us ready.  Grow us up.  Turn our gaze to what truly matters.  Give us wisdom and discernment to recognize things that are merely distractions.  Open our ears and our eyes to hear and see what we need to hear and see.  And give us grace for each other's fears and foibles so we can all serve the kingdom together.

Amen.

Blogging Bible Study: The Heart of the Matter - Numbers

 Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Believe it or not, there is only one passage in the entire book of Numbers that mentions heart/ hearts...

"Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the LORD, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by going after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes. Then you will remember to obey all my commands and will be consecrated to your God.' "  -- Numbers 15:38-40, NIV84

I wrote about this incident nearly nine years ago; click through here to read all the deets I'm not going to go into now.  

Suffice it to say here that God had expectations of his people and they were having a difficult time remembering that they now needed to live according to God's instructions.  The tassels with a blue cord were to be a visual reminder for them to stop and consider their actions so they could follow God's commandments and decrees.

But I had a bit of an eye-opener when I looked it up the Hebrew in Blue Letter Bible...the default translation is KJV, which renders verse 39 a little more, um, emphatically:

" 'And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them, and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring.'"   

Whoa.

So I checked the NASB...to get the literal translation in a bit more conventional language:

"'And it shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the LORD, so as to do them and not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you played the harlot,"'

The Hebrew word translated as 'go a whoring' or 'played the harlot' or even the NIV 'prostitute yourselves' is zanah - a primitive root that means, on the most basic level,  'highly fed and therefore wanton', which is an interesting concept in and of itself, and is usually used to indicate committing adultery.

But notice this passage is to indicate a shift...ie, something that USED to happen, that should now no longer happen.  The eyes and the heart led them astray, but now...they know better.

What happened in the middle?  They were given The Law.  They had entered into a covenant relationship with God.  

The word for 'your own hearts' here is lebab (Strong's H3824) - " לֵבָב lêbâb, lay-bawb'; from H3823; used also like H3820 the heart (as the most interior organ);:— bethink themselves, breast, comfortably, courage, (faint), (tender-) heart(-ed), midst, mind, × unawares, understanding." 

The covenant and commands of God had absolutely no regard for the norms of the society or cultures around them, nor did God's law leave room for indulgence in or pursuit of  Power - Possessions-  Pleasure...that ol' Triple-P Trap.  

But we see that the unregenerate heart, the default setting, so to speak, is inclined to lust/play the harlot/prostitute oneself/ go a whoring right after that Triple-P deal.

The Hebrews were instructed to use the tassels to remind themselves they were called to live by a higher standard.  But, you know what history shows...they added the tassels but eventually ignored the meaning of them and lived as they pleased...and suffered for it.  Just as we today will wear cross jewelry or put a fish bumper sticker on the car or sport a 'Chosen' t-shirt...and ignore the change in lifestyle/ attitude/ worldview that those things are supposed to signify.

If we are in covenant with God, it should make a difference. We should not be following the default settings of the heart, which will always go off into...harlotry.  The difference is...now, we have the Spirit to help us; we don't need to be constantly reminding ourselves.  We just need to listen to the right voice.

Friday Faithfuls 2: 3 John

 Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Welp...after being so carefully anonymous about names in 2 John, our elderly apostle is throwing names around all over the place in his third epistle (did any other Chosen fans do a long speculative double take at 'my dear friend Gaius'???)  So either my speculation about his caution in the last post was way out in left field, or he didn't feel the need to be as cautious with this letter for some reason.  Perhaps Gaius is in a less risky location?  Who knows, lol.

But John's style is a bit different here. Whereas his previous letters had been to groups of people, this letter is written to one person. Like Paul's letter to Philemon, it's personal.  John relates the failings of one particular individual, commends another, but he especially commends Gaius for being hospitable to some traveling believers who related to John how well Gaius had treated them.

It was for the sake of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans.  We ought therefore to show hospitality to such men so that we may work together for the truth.  - 3 John 7-8.

I think that's an interesting contrast to a sort of similar passage in 2 John: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.  Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work" (verses 10 - 11)

John equates hospitality and welcome as participating in the ministry. In the previous epistle, as part of his warning against false teaching, he cautions folks against even being hospitable or encouraging to folks who are preaching a different teaching.  But here...Gaius is warmly commended for being hospitable and encouraging to folks who are accurately sharing the gospel.

It's worth noting that there is a distinction between the teachings.  There is a difference in the way believers are to respond.  And it is scriptural.  There is teaching that is correct and we can 'work together for the truth' and teaching that is not correct, and anyone who supports that 'shares in his wicked work'.

John is not being tolerant here, y'all.  Not at all.

And I'm gonna be honest...when I picked that verse I had a whole different direction I meant to go, but typing it out it brought to mind the passage in 2 John.  I had never looked at them together before.  But the contrast is telling.

Be careful who you partner with in ministry. All teachings are not equally valid.  Make sure your support is going to those who are working together for what is actually...the truth.

Friday Faithfuls Two: Jeremiah

 Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Jeremiah.  I was, like, reading through instead of skimming...maybe I should just do a study of Jeremiah next?  I kind of shook myself this morning and went back to chapter one to skim through...get back on track...and I was kind of subconsciously wondering what there is about Jeremiah that pushes me to grief.

Jeremiah is the record of the last days of a once-great nation that had abandoned the foundation upon which it was built, with leaders who were outright contemptuous of  both those roots and those who were pleading with the people to return to their roots. Likewise,  the people refused to listed to any of God's true prophets and accused them of treason when the prophets didn't tell them what they wanted to hear. One prophet named Uriah had gone so far as to flee to Egypt due to the threats on his life and Jehoiakim (who was a true slimeball) sent soldiers after him.  They captured him there and drug him back to Jerusalem, where he was put to death (Jer. 26:20 - 23).  It was GRIM. Jeremiah's mistreatment was just an example of how those who spoke on God's behalf were treated.

So...despite the wonderful promises that are in Jeremiah for those who remain faithful to God, the remnant that God will bless and restore, the verse that grabbed my attention today is Jeremiah 2:19...a warning....

"Your wickedness will punish you; your backsliding will rebuke you.  Consider then and realize how evil and bitter it is for you when you forsake the LORD your God and have no awe of me," declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty.

Words to ponder in a nation that is increasingly stopping the ears and singing 'Lalalalala' when presented the words of God....

Friday Faithfuls Two: Ecclesiastes

 posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

 Ok, I know it's Saturday; better late than skipping the week, eh?  Yesterday straight up got away from me...

Or, you know, maybe I was subconsciously avoiding one of the gloomiest books in the whole Bible.  Written by Solomon in his later years, after he had tried to figure out What Life Is All About from a humanistic standpoint.

He failed.  He found everything...everything...to be a waste of time, with no real satisfaction.  Pleasure, wealth, influence, knowledge...all of it.

The verse that hit home this week is his conclusion.

Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter:  Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.  For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. -- Ecc. 12:13 -14.

Solomon kinda messed up on his 'fear God and keep his commandments' conclusion; he had pretty much abandoned the commandments of God in his search for satisfaction in life.  After starting off so well, with two personal visitations, he still did not seek his satisfaction in God but looked pretty much everywhere else...only to come back to it in his old age and realize that was where it would have been all along.

If we collectively took that lesson to heart there would be a lot less grief in the world...but it runs counter to everything the culture endorses. 

 

Friday Faithfuls Two: Job

 Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Job is a difficult book to quote.  Oh, there are LOTS of good little nuggets in there...but I find myself having the same problem looking for a quote from Job that I have responding to some things on social media.  On the surface, the thought is quite good...but if it is shared from a perspective that I can't endorse, would agreeing with the thought be the same as agreeing with the perspective?

Job is upset that God seems to be punishing him for something without telling him his error and protests, declaring his innocence; he is angry with his friends for their response.  Even the good quotes from Job's arguments seem skewed if your realize he is speaking from a position of self-justification.

Bildad, Eliphaz and Zophar all maintain that Job is guilty of some secret sin that he won't confess; Eliphaz makes some particularly harsh accusations in chapter 22....I can't believe that he is actually listing things he knows that Job did, since God had already declared Job to be righteous.  He's either going on assumption or he misinterpreted some things in the past.  But they all maintain that a righteous person will NOT suffer, so therefore Job's suffering indicates that he is not as righteous as he proclaims he is.  So even the good quotes from these guys take on different meanings if you realize they are coming from a position of judgment.

Elihu, the youngest of the lot, maintains that God is supreme.  In fact, when I did this little tour ten years ago, my selection from Job was a quote from Elihu.  Now, I find myself gravitating towards Elihu's speech again...because I don't have to question the underlying intentions.

I thought I had settled on something, then I tripped over a different thought that I hadn't noticed before in Elihu's discourse...

"Beware of turning to evil, which you seem to prefer to affliction." -- Job 36:21, NIV 84

He is answering Job's lament that being righteous didn't seem to do him any good in the long run and he might has well  have done the things Eliphaz and the others were accusing him of doing since he was suffering anyway.

Of course, Job had no idea that he wasn't being punished at all, but that all the loss he experienced happened so he could be an example to someone he didn't even know was watching him.

But Elihu's warning is a good one.  The affliction of our age may not be the losses Job sustained, but it certainly could be the misunderstanding Job experienced.  Living life from a biblical worldview is most definitely misunderstood and judged in our current society.  But abandoning that foundation in order to avoid the condemnation and misunderstanding of others is not a viable option. 

Faithful Fridays Two - Ruth

 Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Ah, the sweet little book of Ruth...a breath of fresh air after the mire and muck of Judges.

A book about devotion and respect and honor and commitment.  

It is not a romantic love story. Boaz was likely old enough to have been Ruth's father.  The two times he is recorded as speaking to her, he refers to her as 'my daughter'.

This book is about the inheritance.

Then Boaz announced to the elders and all the people, "Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of  Elimelech, Killion and Mahlon.  I have also acquired Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon's widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from the town records.  Today you are witnesses."  -- Ruth 4:9-10, NIV  84

That was the wedding, right there.

Hardly the stuff of romance novels.

This was so all the property of Elimelech, Killion and Mahlon could be passed to Ruth's son, Obed.

Who became the father of Jesse, who became the father of  David, who became king of all Israel.

That is the wonder of the story to me; Ruth, a foreigner, turned her heart to her Jewish mother in law, to care for her as if she were her own mother, and to live in reverence of Naomi's God.  Was this only out of respect for Naomi, or did she see something that contrasted with the pagan idols she had grown up with?  I am sure that Ruth had a genuine faith; I can't imagine her abandoning her people if she didn't have a heart for the God of her husband's people.  I wonder when it took root..because the fruit of it was amazing.  

Her great grandson was the king of all Israel, a man after God's own heart.

Because of devotion, respect, honor and commitment...on the part of both Ruth and Boaz.

If we learned to value devotion, respect, honor and commitment as much as we value 'romantic love'...we will see a complete turn around in our divorce statistics.

Just sayin'.

For Whoever Needs This...

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Sometimes, listing to a sermon sparks a whole train of thought.  That happened this morning...sitting at my table, watching online, listening to a sermon taken from 1 John 3 and 4.

Pastor made a reference to people who believe that, because of what they have done in their past, the choices they've made, the people, they've hurt, whatever, God could not possibly love them.

Suddenly, the train left the station.

I don't know who might read this at any point ...whether it's ten minutes from the time I hit the Publish button or ten years later...if you found yourself agreeing with the statement 'God could never really love me,' Then this post is for you.

The point that stuck me suddenly is....you are not what you do.  In our culture, it's common to consider someone according to their occupation...housewife, engineer, nurse, teacher, janitor, waitress, etc.  It's one of the first questions we ask when we are getting to know someone. 'What do you do?'...and we have all heard the chiding from folks who study these things that say it's not good for us to sink our identity into our profession...into what we do.  Because, while we may be someone who teaches, or someone who has medical knowledge to care for the sick and injured, or someone who knows how to run complicated mathematical algorithms to build amazing vehicles or buildings...that's is still just what we do.  It is not...identity.

By the same token, someone who has made bad choices, who has deceived or hurt others for their own advantage, who has been angry at God and deliberately undertook to get back at Him for some perceived injustice, who has [you fill in the blank with your particular issue]...is not what they did.  That is not their identity.  It is just what they did.

Now, humans don't see past that.  We are limited in our vision. We judge, point fingers, write people off...God help us.  But God...God sees through the murk and mess of bad choices and reprehensible actions.  He looks through the layers of consequences that seem to trap people in their error.  He shuts out the lies of the enemy declaring that the actions have made us unloveable.  

Because He knows every human child is created in His image.  He knows that every person who has breath has value.  

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this:  While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. -- Rom 5:8, NIV 84

People love conditionally.  God loves unconditionally.  While we were still in rebellion, still living according to our own agendas, still refusing to listen to Him or even appreciate what He was doing...Jesus died on our behalf so we could be restored to Him.

And that has nothing whatever to do with anything any individual walking around on the planet did or did not do.  He has already done it for you.  It is already there.  He loves YOU, and whatever you have done, whatever pain you have caused, whatever foulness you have gotten involved in doesn't matter.  

You do.

All you have to do is receive that love and let Him straighten everything out.  Because that's what He does.

Blogging Bible Study: Digging in the Desert - Jeremiah: Judgment Against Specific People

 Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

This is kind of a weird category...but it is worth looking at as it covers religious leaders, government leaders, and the people who follow them.

Back to the beginning, we cruise along to the next verse mentioning 'desert' in Jeremiah that we haven't already talked about elsewhere...with context, and the actual verses mentioning desert in bold, as usual:

So I will go to the leaders and speak to them; surely they know the way of the LORD, the requirements of their God.  But with one accord they too had broken off the yoke and torn the bonds.  Therefore a lion from the forest will attack them, a wolf from the desert will ravage them, a leopard will lie in wait near their towns to tear to pieces any who venture out, for their rebellion is great and their backslidings many.   -- Jer 5:5-6

This is what the LORD says, "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD. He will not see prosperity when it comes.  He will dwell in the parched places of the desert, in a salt land where no one lives." - Jer 17:5-6

Concerning the prophets:  My heart is broken within me; all my bones tremble.  I am like a drunken man, like a man overcome by wine, because of the LORD and his holy words.  The land is full of adulterers; because of the curse the land lies parched and the pastures in the desert are withered.  The prophets follow an evil course and use their power unjustly.  "Both prophet and priest are godless; even in my temple I find their wickedness, " declares the LORD.    - Jer. 23:9-11 

The leaders, who have rebelled against God's law; the people who follow them, trusting in the leaders to be their protection and guides; the prophet and priests who abuse their office, teaching what benefits themselves instead of the truth.  My friends, if this is not a description of current events I don't know what is.

Jeremiah was flat out accused of treason because he didn't fall in line with them. The people got so far away from what God had instructed that they could no longer tell when a real prophet was among them, giving them real instructions that would be for their own good.  And, to be honest, it wasn't one hundred percent the fault of the citizens of the land that they had gone so far into error because their government and their religious leaders were all corrupted.  They didn't have access to the scriptures as individuals; they could only go on what they were told.    If the leaders led them astray, they had very little chance to see their error.

But we have free access to the scriptures.  We have the Holy Spirit to guide us.  What's our excuse?

Has 'Church' Become an Idol?

 Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

This is something that has been percolating in the back of my head for a while now.

Now, by 'Church' I am not talking about the universal body of Christ.  I mean...our routine, typical Sunday Worship Experience...however that looks in whatever denomination.  The building and its accoutrements.  Stained glass windows?  Cushioned Pews?  LED Wall and smoke and lights?   Robed choir?  Orchestra?  Sister Bertha on the organ?  The jammin' rock band behind the worship team?  First, Second, and Last verse?  The latest [Bethel Worship, Hillsongs, etc] displayed phrase by phrase on the overhead screen?  You know...church.

It really doesn't matter because every one of those styles represents something that is COMFORTABLE to folks, even if it would be uncomfortable to others.  Too loud, too long, too boring, too predictable, too unorganized...whatever.  We all gravitate to what feels right to us.

I wonder...did we stop thinking about what God meant when he said we were not to forsake gathering together?  

Now, please don't take this as a criticism.  I'm not after being critical or judgmental.  I enjoy and am blessed by the worship experience at my church, as I am sure you are by the worship experience at yours.  

But the events of the last few months has really got me thinking...and wondering.

Particularly when I hear folks getting vehement about their 'right' to have church services in the manner in which they are accustomed.

Here's something to consider.

Now, this is the United States, where we are guaranteed the right to worship and the right to assemble.  But what happens when we, the body of Christ, begin to demand our constitutional rights in the face of a potentially devastating condition?  Not wanting to get into a discussion of whether Covid is a threat or  a hoax; even the folks studying it are not sure of its long-term implications.  But it has killed folks, and it is unusually contagious in that a fair percentage of folks can be ill with it and either be asymptomatic or have such mild symptoms that they don't even realize they are carrying it...and so spread it to others, who may not be so fortunate.  Which is why I used the phrase 'potentially devastating'.  Because we just don't know.  And I agree that it is hypocritical...at best...to allow folks to congregate for protests and deny permission to folks to congregate for worship.  But are 'our rights' worth making followers of Christ sound petulant and concerned only with themselves?

Paul addresses the idea of legal rights somewhat; granted, it's not the same situation (and Paul was known to play the 'rights of a Roman citizen' card at times...but always as a last resort, never as a way to show up those in authority), but I think the principle applies.  "Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?" he writes in 1 Cor 6:7b; imploring with the Corinthian believers to consider what their actions said about Jesus in front of an unbelieving world.

Which brings me back around to my title question...has doing church in our accustomed fashion become an idol?  So that it is more important to stand on our rights as Americans and go to church than it is to actually worship the Father in spirit and in truth?  Are we giving too much importance to organized church programs?  Am I only able to worship God if I am sitting in my church?  Can my kids only learn about the faith in the kids' ministry programs?  Is the only place a person can come to faith a legit sanctuary?  If that is true, then church is a necessity.  But if it is not true...then maybe church has become a substitute for an actual relationship with God.  And if that's the case...then it's an idol, my friend.

God is in control.  Covid 19 did not take Him by surprise, and I don't think the closures of activities...including church services...has offended Him.  Maybe...he's even allowing this to shake us out of our comfort zone and reliance on church services and programs instead of personally seeking to spend time in his presence one-on-one.  Maybe it's time for the body of Christ to dig into scripture individually and pray for personal discernment on how to deal with the current season.  Maybe this is even training for days ahead, when we will need to be able to seek and hear from God continually... instead of, you know, a couple times a week at church.

I don't know.  I honestly don't know. But I do know that it DOES MATTER how we represent Jesus in this season...and that responsibility to faithfully represent him supersedes our 'rights'.

Food for thought.

The Value of True Repentance

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Every once in a while, I will cruise through social media and read something that puts a bee in my bonnet that won't settle down.  It happened this week. Something that, on its surface, seemed to be a warm and fuzzy proclamation about the goodness and the mercy of God.

However, from the wording and the spin on the warm and fuzzy post (the WAFP, for brevity), it was pretty obvious that there was an agenda there. The subtle spin insinuates  'the Bible clearly says [xyz] but look, this disproves [xyz], so you can't use "the Bible clearly says" to support any position.'  The more direct conclusion is, 'See...God clearly said [xyz is bad] here, but there...look, he accepts [xyz] and so has shown his people to move from prejudice, discrimination and animosity to openness, welcoming, affirmation and inclusion!'

The only problem was...that warm and fuzzy thought wasn't the message in the selected passages at all. 

The message was...individuals who serve God from a pure heart are always accepted by him.

Let's look at it in detail.

First, the implication that the story of Ruth means that God was relenting in his judgment against the Moabites and the Ammonites. The Moabites and the Ammonites were descended from Lot...they were the descendants of the sons he fathered on his own daughters while in a drunken state.  It's an ugly story.  Now, that in and of itself was not a reason for God to pronounce that  ten generations of their descendants could not be accepted into the assembly of God's people (Deut. 23).  No, the reason God rejected them as a people was that they did not welcome or give aid to the  Israelites when they returned from Egypt and instead hired Balaam to curse them.  The Israelites were to make no treaty with them.  But the Moabitess Ruth, who willingly left her people and put herself under the care of the God of Naomi's people, was accepted.  Did this mean God had relented on His judgement against Moab and Ammon, implied in the WAFP?  No...it meant that he valued the faith of the one who left all to serve.  God always receives the one who leaves all to come to him.  This wasn't about a change of decree...this was about an individual heart.  The edict against Ammon and Moab had not changed...just as the judgment against Jericho wasn't averted because one lady renounced her people and their gods and put her trust into the care of the Israelites and their God.  Her true faith brought her into the lineage of kings...just like Ruth.

The WAFP claims that the people from Uz were evil , citing Jer. 25,  but...Job, who was from Uz, was one of the most righteous men that ever lived!   So God has surely relented in his condemnation of Uz!  Now, we have a serious non-sequitur.  Job is likely the oldest book in the Bible; based on the content, scholars believe it predates the writings of Moses (not the events in Genesis...Moses' recording of it, just to be clear).  So it's pretty obvious that Job had lived centuries before the judgment pronounced in the book of Jeremiah and whatever evils were being done at that time had nothing to do with Job.  But, beyond that, the judgment against Uz mentioned in Jer. 25 did not single them out as being any more wicked than any of the other nations that were mentioned in that passage...which included Judah. In fact, it mentions all the known kingdoms of the area.  You could substitute ANY righteous person who lived in ANY country at that time to try and make the same point the WAFP made and it would support the 'openness, welcoming, affirmation and inclusion'  surmise to the same degree...which is to say, not at all.

And then...the WAFP mentions the Ethiopian eunuch, who, being both emasculated AND a foreigner and excluded from the assembly in Deut 23, was clearly accepted in Acts 8.  I will agree that there is a shift there to be inclusive and accepting, but perhaps not in the way that was intended by the WAFP.  Here, we are looking at the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant...and anyone who has spent any time reading the writings of Paul knows fully well that the Old Covenant was about the Jews living under the Law and the New Covenant is about all people becoming one in Christ.  The Ethiopian believed what Philip told him about Jesus and wanted to be baptized to mark the change in his life...and, if tradition is correct, went back to Ethiopia and led many to faith in Christ.  His life was changed.

Finally, the WAFP offers up the Good Samaritan as evidence of God moving his people from prejudice to acceptance because, 'God's people hated the Samaritans' but Jesus 'told a story about a good Samaritan.'  The WAFP is probably closest to right on this one; although in reality, Jesus wasn't trying to improve the general opinion of the Samaritans specifically as much as he was sharing  an example we should all follow in considering everyone worthy of compassion.

Now, please don't think I'm trying to disprove the point that God is open, welcoming, affirming and inclusive.  He accepts all who come to him, regardless of their gender, their nationality, their ethnic background,  their past history of wrong behavior, or any other factor.  All that matters is they come to him and allow him to remake them.

See, there is one story of a guy that Jesus didn't receive, because he laid down too strict a requirement.  It's in Matthew 19.  A young man came up to Jesus and asked him what to do to inherit eternal life.  Jesus replied that he should obey the commandments.  'Which ones?' the young man asked.

That question has always dumbfounded me.  Like, the guy seriously expected Jesus to tell him there were some commandments  he didn't have to keep?  But Jesus didn't rebuke him...he replied with the commandments that deal with how we are treat one another.  'Oh, I do that,' the young man replied. So Jesus upped the ante a bit.  Remember when he was asked a bit later what the two greatest commandments were (Matt 22:37-40) he replied 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind and...love your neighbor as yourself....all the Law the Prophets hang on these two."  (Notice...he slipped 'Love your neighbor as yourself' in the first set of instructions he gave the young man in 19:19),  So when the young man said he kept all the commandments regarding his relationship with other people, Jesus pointed out one more. "Go sell all you have, give it to the poor, and follow me."  See...  Jesus pinpointed the commandment he wasn't keeping by naming the one thing the young man loved more than God.  He was wealthy.  He had nice stuff.  He had a comfortable lifestyle.  He went away sad because he couldn't bring himself to give it up.  Here's the deal...Jesus wanted him to become one of his disciples.  He was willing to receive him...but he required something, and he didn't change the requirement because the guy was unwilling to change to meet it. Jesus was sad to watch him walk away...but he let him walk away. The guy wasn't willing to change his lifestyle to follow him.   Think of all the people that came to Jesus, and Jesus healed them, or blessed them, or delivered them...and he told them to 'go and sin no more' or, in other translations, 'leave your life of sin.'  Jesus changes lives.

This is the problem that I have with a message that just wants to say how loving and accepting and inclusive God is...because so often the message implies that there is no stuff that has to be left behind, no lifestyle changes necessary, if one wants to become a disciple of Jesus.  CS Lewis said, 'If we accept Heaven we shall not be able to retain even the smallest and most intimate souvenirs of Hell.'   We can't just add God and His love onto what we crave from life; we have to let him completely remake us and our desires.  He will, indeed, accept any one in any sort of state of disrepute...but He doesn't allow them to stay there.

It is a misrepresentation of the Gospel to imply otherwise.

How should we pray for revival?

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

I have heard it (well, technically I guess I saw it on a social media post) again...a call to 'assail heaven' with prayer for revival. 

And I believe the heart of the person who wrote that is right; they truly want to see God move in our land.

But...'assail' is typically a word used for attacking an enemy camp.  Something about that doesn't seem quite...aligned...

See, God told us what to do when we need revival.

It wasn't... 'If my people will bombard me with requests to send revival'.
It wasn't... 'If my people will forward a facebook meme to everyone on social media'.
It wasn't... 'If my people will elect the right political candidates'.
It wasn't... 'If my people will will express righteous indignation at the actions of unbelievers'.
It wasn't... 'If my people will send large amount of money to large ministries'

It was...'If my people, who are called by my name (Um, hello, Christians) will humble THEMSELVES, and pray and seek my face and turn from THEIR wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive THEIR sin and heal their land.' (2 Chron. 7:14).

Prayer...even travailing prayer... is certainly in that description, but it's not begging God for revival.  It's confession and repentance.   I have to confess MY sin and turn from MY wickedness.

I am convinced that revival comes when people are positioned for it.  It makes no sense that God would withhold his Spirit from his people just because they haven't asked him with enough fervor.   Scripture is full of God's willingness to pour his spirit out and call people to repentance (that's what revival is, at it's heart, right? ); why would he NOT move at any opportunity to do just that?

Maybe we have the wrong idea of what revival is.  Maybe we think revival is getting the folks who don't think like me...to think like me.  Maybe we think revival is weird things happening in a service...like feathers falling from the ceiling or some such thing. Maybe we think revival means things will go back to being like it used to be...when biblical morality was the socially accepted norm and not considered close-minded bigotry, just so believers can be comfortable in their communities instead of feeling at odds with those who are not the least bit interested in following God or the standards he gave.

We overlook that some of the deepest movements of the spirit, some of the purest expressions of faith, came in times of extreme persecution, when it was not only not comfortable to be an evangelic believer...it was hazardous.

As it is right now in some parts of the world, I would like to point out.  American Christians pout because someone ...who doesn't believe and doesn't understand...behaves as if Christians were unimportant to their customer base or target audience.  There are folks in other countries who are dying....who are watching their families murdered, their churches burned...because they follow Jesus.

But we, in our comfort-driven Christianity in America, seem to think that revival means that everyone will recognize that we were right and adjust their attitudes (and voting) accordingly.

Can I just hypothesize that if being comfortable in our culture is our motive...even deep down, where it doesn't show...we're not ready for revival.

Here's what I think I need to pray...

I need to confess the inclination I have to be lazy and detached.  I need to give up the idols of 'comfort' and 'security'.  I need to repent my selfish thinking, and my judgmental attitudes towards others.  I need to give up the need to express myself and make my thoughts heard (and I wonder even now if this blog post is part of that...). 

Confess my sins.  Turn away from my wickedness.

And maybe I need to just start off by confessing I don't have the strength to do that and asking for the grace to do those things...and especially for the insight to see the sins I pretend I don't have and the wickedness that I rationalize as something else.

Ouch.  This hurts, y'all, because it's real and I KNOW I am loathe to give up comfortable.  But I kinda have a feeling that if I don't willingly give it up...it's gonna get taken anyway. And that may be what revival looks like in this time...stripping away everything that really isn't important in the light of the kingdom, taking away all our security blankets and pleasurable distractions so that all we have left is God, so we will know that God is enough.



God...make me ready for revival.  Purge, purify, strengthen. Teach me to let go of anything that is not you.  Let me be honest with myself to see my real motives...and turn my heart away from any motive that is selfish in any way.  Keep my heart tuned to you, teach me to see what my reaction should be in everyday circumstances, so that I learn to do what you are doing. Cleanse my heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.  Make me wholly yours.

Headcold Musings

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi.

So, sometimes, when I'm home with a bad case of the yukks (actually, I suspect it is a sinus infection and have an appointment in the morning), I overthink some things.

But I saw a photo posted on social media...it's not my picture, so I can't show it, but it was an image taken after the storms that ravaged southeastern Alabama Sunday.

It's a picture of a church.  The front wall...with pillars and steps and all...is still intact.

But the rest of the building is obliterated.

The person who took the photo took some comfort in the fact that the front of the church was still intact.

But that image froze my spirit.  Prophetic, I tell you, it's prophetic.

Front on, it looks like a church.

But walk through the door, and you are nowhere different from where you started.  Not a holy place. Not a sanctuary.  Just...more of the outside.

I have seen the word 'hate' thrown around a lot in reference to people who believe the church should be different than the outside, that being part of a church should mean following Jesus,  as he is recorded in the Bible, which is not the same as  following what one thinks Jesus would say or do now, based on what's popular and thought-well-of.

'Hate' is a negative word.  An aggressive word.  An obliterating word.

Which is not the position of people who feel that God has given us instructions on how we should live.  Who believe that people who claim to be followers of Jesus should take those instructions seriously.

Now, that's not to say that there are not people who have abused and overused and put their own spin on those instructions so that they end up being something entirely different than what was stated.  And that abuse has disenfranchised folks who should not have been disenfranchised.  It has covered over things that are downright criminal.  Fallen humans using a shroud of religion to advance their own agenda, not that of the kingdom.  So I get that anything that speaks of limits and boundaries and what is and is not acceptable might sound  like more of the same.

But it isn't.  There's just too much in Scripture that describes what it means to live as a follower of Christ.  I'm reading through Ephesians again as part of a class I'm teaching and, whoa, the whole second half of the book is about Christian lifestyle.   Just  a sample:

For of this you can be sure:  No immoral, impure or greedy person -- such a man is an idolater-- has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  Let no one deceive you with empty words, because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.   (Eph. 5: 5-7, NIV84).

Strong words.  But not hateful words.  Warning words.  But not threatening words. There is a difference.

Hate actively wishes destruction upon the hated.  To accuse someone of hatred where there is none is wrong.

A church with no walls is no church.  And I am not talking about buildings.  Walls are defining boundaries.  The intention is not to exclude what is without, but to guard what is within. And that is not hate, no matter what folks say about it.

Back to my kleenex box and hot tea....

Is [Fill in the Blank] Sin?

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Ok, I know it wasn't an apple.  Work with me.

 My social media feeds are abuzz with controversy.  Who decides what's sinful and what isn't?  How can anyone possibly expect another human being to pronounce, 'Yes, [whatever] is sinful.'  It doesn't matter how many Bible verses spell out the certainty that [whatever] is clearly offensive to God and specifically named as not to be practiced by God's people, the public reaction is that '[Christian person] has declared that [whatever] is sinful!  How narrow minded and judgemental [Christian person] is!   Why, I know many people who [whatever] and they are fine, loving people!  Obviously, God won't condemn someone just because they [whatever]!'  On the other hand, if [Christian person] values relationship with folks who do [whatever] and wants to maintain that relationship with the possibility of having a positive influence on them and hedges around the question, the 'Christian public' responds just as negatively.  '[Christian person] missed a chance to Speak Up for Truth!  How could anyone who claims to be a Christian not know that [whatever] is clearly offensive to God! (lists Bible verses)'

To quote Admiral Ackbar, 'It's a trap!'

Stop expecting other people to make God-like pronouncements.  They are going to fail. Period.

Somebody could have asked Eve, 'Is it wrong to eat fruit?'

Oh, wait, someone did.  

And the answer, of course, was, 'No, it's not wrong to eat fruit. But it is wrong to eat  that fruit.'

Why was it wrong to eat that fruit?  How was it different than other fruit, which could be enjoyed freely?

That fruit, my friends, was poisonous.  It was forbidden because it was deadly. Hazardous.  Harmful.

Oh, it wasn't presented that way, no no no.  There was an agenda that resulted in it being presented as appetizing, aromatic, desirable. As something that would allow the partaker to become fully who they were meant to be.  

Which implied that God was trying to keep them from being fully who they were meant to be.  

The soul-killing sinful decision is hidden there.  And it is, really, at the core, completely a different issue than 'Is [whatever] sinful?' as if the action/attitude/ lifestyle, etc were the crux of the issue.  No, the crux of the issue is this...Who has the authority to determine what is right and what is wrong?  

If God is the authority, then it doesn't matter what the fruit is, what it does, how it smells or looks or tastes or anything else.  He said 'No', so we leave it alone.

If the individual is the authority for him/herself, then forbidding one fruit out of the whole orchard doesn't make sense.  If we can eat that one and that one and that one, why not that one?  If I think it's good for me,  well, isn't it?  It's not fair! Why should anyone...even God...tell me what is best for me?

And that, dear reader, is what is sinful.  Setting myself above God in the 'who knows best'  category.   EVERYONE has a [whatever] in his/her life.  Some are more visible than others, but we all have them.  And we all falter at them...sin is ubiquitous.  The question is...do we embrace the [whatever] as our identity and then get mad at God when He says [whatever] will keep us eternally separated from Him...and even more angry at the folks around us who are trying to point out that [whatever] is not good?  Or do we renounce [whatever] and believe that God has a better plan, even if we don't know what it looks like?

In the end, it's not about what you do...it's about who you embrace as God and the results of that decision. 

Embracing God does mean that you will leave that fruit...the [whatever] in your life...alone.  Because He really does know what's best.

For further reading, I suggest the first 3 chapters of Genesis, the Gospel of John and the book of Romans.

The Christian Message

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

I stumbled across a linked up post on social media in the last week or so that has had my stomach churning.  I haven't been able to focus on writing a blog post because I wanted so much to answer the accusations made, but I didn't trust myself to do so coherently.  I still may not make a good pass at it, but I've waited about as long as I can wait.  I don't like to go too long without some kind of post and since this is the thing that has had me stewing, sigh, I'm gonna have to address it.

It would be tedious to track it down again;  but the gist of the post was that Evangelic Christianity is not authentic Christianity but is, in fact, toxic, and should be destroyed.  But what I could not understand is that the author was not rejecting the idea of following Jesus but just the message of sinful mankind requiring a savior.  I don't have a clue what the author thought of the Bible; I can't for the life of me imagine how anyone could make a consistent Biblical argument against what is basically the meta-narrative of the entire collection of 66 books.

But, Barna tells us that a shockingly small percentage of folks actually claim to believe the Bible is, in the words of the Statement of Faith that we repeated over and over again in Friends and Girls Only clubs, 'the inspired and only infallible and authoritative written word of God'.

This is where I get totally flummoxed.  I can understand someone not agreeing with the doctrines of Christianity...that is, after all, the freedom of choice.  But what I don't get is someone who wants to be a Christ-follower while rejecting the very documentation that provides the foundation for the faith. That simply does not make sense. If one rejects the authority of the Bible...what is left upon which to base one's faith? 

Not much.  Without the Bible, there really is no Christianity.  So to reject the Bible, but yet claim to be Christian...doesn't make sense.

The Christian Message...that Adam and Eve chose disobedience and passed that inclination down to all their offspring, rendering human kind unable to enter the presence of God (an aside...can you take darkness into light?  What happens to the darkness when the light comes on?  Likewise a person cannot come into the presence of God with unrepented, unatoned sin..because sin cannot coexist with the holiness of God.)  Because God loves the humans that He created, He himself became a human, to live the sinless life that we could not live and pay the wages sin demands so that people could receive His righteousness in place of sin and so be able to live in His presence.  He works in those who do so to transform their thoughts, desires and behaviors so they conform to Him.  In the end, the eternal spirit of each person will dwell with God if they have allowed him to remove their sin and follow Him as Lord ...or ...elsewhere...if they did not.

Of course, there's lots of details I've left out for the sake of brevity, and I'm not going into the weeds of one one denomination or another believes regarding those details, but in a nutshell...that's the Evangelic Christian message.  I won't deny that there are many folks who have taken the message and twisted it and used it to advance their own agendas, or that those folks haven't managed to all but obliterate the purity of the Gospel at times.  But the message of the Gospel...that God loves people and desires to walk in relationship with them...is one of love and hope.

The idea of destroying a message of hope and love...that, to me, sounds toxic.

Sigh.  I don't feel like I've really expressed what I wanted to express. But maybe it's a start.

Forgotten Standards?

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

This began as a Facebook status...then I thought, no, it should be a Note...nah, let's do a blog post...
 
The 3 + 1 reading had me beginning James today. Chapter 1. I'll be honest, reading along, I began to wonder if modern American Christianity has forgotten that this book is in the canon...

... each one is tempted when, by his own evil desires, he is dragged away and enticed. ( v. 14b)

Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and accept the word planted in you, which can save you.  Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. (v. 21-22) 

If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight reign on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. (v. 26)

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this:  to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.  (v. 27)

I've taught James a number of times...at least three different class years of Christian Women's Job Corps,  in a ladies' small group at church, and I linked up the notes in the blog a few years back (see sidebar, 'Previous Bible Studies'). But this time, James' use of the word 'religion' caught my eye...what did he mean by 'religion'?  

They are variants of  the word threskia - Strong's 2356 - which means 'Religious worship, especially outward ceremonies; religious discipline, religion'.  It's only used two other times in the entire New Testament...in Acts 26:5, Paul, giving his testimony, states '...according to the the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee,' and  in Col. 2:18, where Paul warns against being influenced by folks who 'delight in...the worship of angels'.

'Religion', then, is not a hot topic in the New Testament.  James' use of it here really doesn't involve the  concept of  'accepting the word planted in you, which can save you'.  In fact, it's really not talking about salvation at all, but of just going through the motions of religious activity for personal gratification.   I could paraphrase it this way...

'If anyone considers himself successful in his adherence to the rituals of worship, but doesn't watch his mouth....gives in to the temptation to put people down, curse, gossip,  break confidence, lie, etc... he's just fooling himself and the rituals are meaningless. The disciplines that God considers pure are to take care of widows and orphans and to refuse to be influenced by the culture that dishonors Him.'

 Worship, then, is best expressed by caring for others and by resisting the influence of those who do not fear God.

Where, then, does the current philosophy that insists that Christianity must change to suit the culture fit?  Christianity cannot be separated from Christian morality.  It just doesn't work.

What is Truth?

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi
I had to make a quick stop at Publix on Tuesday night and glanced at the magazine rack as I checked out, in something of a hurry, and saw this:

Had I not been in such a hurry, I might have paused to consider that I might want to actually read the pertinent articles, but I paid for my purchases and left.  When I realized later that I really should have read it, I decided to pick up a copy when I got my next gallon of milk...which was today, but the new issue was in the stand.  Too late.

A little internet searching turned up that, first and foremost, they were discussing politics and the media.  There may be more discussion about the place of truth in our increasingly post-modern society, but that wasn't mentioned in detail in the little discussion blurbs I found.

But this has been percolating for a bit.  I just finished class number 11 out of 12 in the pursuit of the masters of ministry degree, which was on Biblical preaching.  But the textbook was a series of interviews with 20 prominent preachers of recent years.  Some were old school, while some were part of what is increasingly called the 'emerging church'.

It showed the tension between the modern exegesis, based on a structured presentation of a solid concept of truth, and the post-modern narrative, which comes at truth in a different, more experiential way.

It was eye opening, to say the least.  I found I am completely modern in my thinking; one of the characteristics of modern thought processes is the axiomatic acceptance of the existence of absolute, objective truth.  That certainty is reflected in the kind of engineering and scientific thinking that developed rockets and put men on the moon.  But the post-modern thinker is not so sure there is such a thing as absolute, objective truth and really doesn't consider it to be important if there is.

It was a shock; having just come to the realization that my core value is truth, I suddenly saw myself as a dinosaur.  That kind of conviction affects absolutely everything I think and believe.  That anyone would be basically unconcerned about truth is...incomprehensible to me.  I just can't fathom it. So how can I communicate with a person to whom the word 'truth' has a whole different meaning than it does to me?

One of the interviewees in the book (I'd look it up, but I took the book to work and it's on my shelf there) made a statement to the effect of '...millenials don't care so much if Christianity is true.  We can't argue them into accepting Christianity because it is true.  What we have to do is convince them that it is beautiful and good, then they will be open to considering that it might be true.'

All of my logical arguments for Christianity...why I believe it...are basically meaningless to a post-modern thinker.  I might as well be speaking a foreign language.

And the enemy has done a very thorough job of throwing bad examples of Christians before people who have no basis by which to know they're bad examples.  All they see is something that, to them, looks harsh and judgemental and controlling and...ugly.  If it's true, they don't want it.

This is the challenge of the 21st century for the modern thinking Christian...and it's going to require a lot of effort in uncomfortable ways.  We can no longer proclaim Christianity...we have to display Christianity in a way that is relevant to folks who aren't at all interested in learning more about something they think they know already.  I think it was the same person who made the above statement that also said something close to 'They will come to Christ not through argument but through influence.'

That's going to be quite a challenge indeed. 

Rephrasing an Old Lie

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

The Enemy targets women.

He has from the beginning.

And the only weapon he has is....a lie.

He twists it and rephrases it and camouflages it, but it's still just the same lie.

What God has said to you isn't right.  You know you want, no, you NEED, to make yourself like Him.  You can decide what's right and wrong.  You're not going to let Him fool you, are you?  I know better.  Listen to me.

He said it directly to Eve and she chose to listen to him.  Today, he uses other people.  Folks with status.  Folks with a platform.  But he's still targeting women.

What God has said isn't fair.  You know you want, no, you NEED, to declare yourself the supreme authority.  You decide what's right and wrong.  You're not going to let a bunch of backwards-thinking fundamentalists fool you, are you? We know better. Listen to us.

And because women have such an need for approval they listen to the voices on the platform, the influential personalities who have nothing to offer but an illusion.  The still small voice of reason and deliverance is not even acknowledged.

Jesus, talking to folks who 'diligently study the scriptures,' not unbelieving, ignorant pagans, pointed out the crux of the matter:

I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own [her own?] name, you will accept him. (John 5:43)

If someone else comes in their own name...with no backing but the generalized approval of a crowd, with no authority other than what possession of a microphone provides....oh, yes, it's happening.

It's all over my facebook feed today.  One agenda proclaimed to draw crowds, another agenda entirely declared from the platforms.  I am angry on behalf of sisters who believed they were standing, who had a passion to stand, against abuse, against double standards, against  marginalization of women all over the country, against  the loss of  a generation of women who were never born because they were sacrificed on the altar of abortion, only to find that they were not welcome because their cause did not fit with the ideology of those who  had the microphones, who were determined to make the day a political statement.

Did anyone march for the women who are abandoned, along with their children, by their husbands and left in poverty while the husband remarries and then 'can't afford' to support the family he left behind?  No-fault divorce at work there.  Was anyone protesting no-fault divorce?   Who was calling for the end of sex trafficking of untold numbers of young ladies...and young men?  Anyone? Anyone addressing the crowd call for the nation to value our daughters before they are born?  Did anyone sympathize with women who are suffering post-traumatic stress disorder after they discovered that aborting their babies was not the moral equivalent of having their appendix removed, as they had been told, when they found themselves mourning and grieving a loss they could not admit?

Or was it just about pitching a fit that we have a president that the folks in the big cities don't care for?

How many women went along with it just because they were led to believe it was about 'women's rights'?  How many are re-posting and re-tweeting on social media because it is the cool thing to do at the moment?

How many are swallowing the lie?

It's the same lie.

And it targets women.

The lie, at it's heart, is that there is a higher approval than that of God Almighty.

It sets women to chasing something that is not there.

How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?  - Jn 5:44

The Post I Meant to Write Yesterday but Ran Out of Time: I Wore Purple.

posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Four years ago, feeling snarky, I tried to make an underhanded statement of support of my chosen candidate at the polls, which backfired hysterically.   Next time, I stated in a reply to a comment, I will wear purple.

I remembered that statement as I stood in the closet on this Election Day, and pulled out a purple kind-of-sort-of twin set to wear.  My own humble pie for trying to be too clever last go-round.

 You can see a bit of it in the obligatory 'I voted' selfie I posted to Instagram...

But in the back of my head I had a thought all day that, just maybe, wearing purple was a sort of statement after all.

Purple is, after all, a blend of red and blue.  Once blended, they can't be pulled out again.  There's something new.

Had I written this post yesterday, as intended, I would not yet have known the results of the election.  My plan was to write something along the lines of ...whoever wins, we've got to unite as people.  We've got to quit the 'us vs. them' business and figure out how to get along even though we may not agree.  We've got to quit being red states and blue states and be purple together.

I remember doing a mock election during the presidential election of 1972 when I was in Junior High school; one of my classmates pulled me into a toilet stall with an unflushed, completely foul commode and announced, 'That's [the candidate you're supporting]!'  Even as a 13 year old, such a statement made absolutely no sense to me. The truth was, she didn't know enough about the issues and the platforms to make a reasoned argument against the candidate my team was supporting...and so crude insults were her argument.

I have seen way too much of such junior high behavior from way too many people in this election process... from supporters of both major parties and a good number of independent voters.    Maybe the person you voted for won, maybe that person did not.  But guess what...the folks that voted for the 'other candidate' probably didn't do it for the reasons the [liberal or conservative] press may be touting.  Most folks who cast valid votes do so for the person they think will do the best job for the USA from the available choices (I am not so sure about the 11,000  or so folks who voted for a dead gorilla.  Surely they could have written in one of the independent candidates who better represented their values). I may not understand why someone would vote for a particular candidate, but I have to respect their choice.  I know I don't appreciate reading some blanket statement applied to the folks who colored in the same circle I did; I'm quite sure folks who filled in other circles will not be encouraged or uplifted by some similar blanket statement applied to them.  And we will not heal up until we learn that individuals vote for individual reasons and we cannot lump everyone who voted for [this candidate] under one offensive epithet.

There are people who revel in such notoriety, who are rewarded by the shock and pain on the face of the person whom they judge worthy of a an unflushed toilet, but the truth is when you try to shoot down those folks, you inevitably hit the folks who were standing on the same side, who thought their choice through and, because they might have slightly different perceptions or priorities or foundations for their thinking made what they believed to be a reasoned choice...but different from yours.  And they would be just as horrified to be shoved into a bathroom stall for their choice.

So be judicious, not judgemental. Because God says there's a better way to change a nation.

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.  -- 2 Chron. 7:14 NIV 84

Death of a Swan

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Some days, there is a reaction to life that just erupts and must be given voice...

Let’s say, just for illustration, that I believe I am a swan.

Really. I am convinced a biological mistake happened and I have the soul of a swan. I was never meant to be human...I was meant to be beautiful and graceful.

I was meant to fly.

And, let’s say that I was able to find a doctor who, for a price, would surgically implant feathers into my arms and shoulders and back.

If you loved me, would you encourage me to be my true self, the swan? Would you help me raise funds so that I could afford the multiple surgeries to turn myself into a feathered being? Would you enable my starvation diet, so that I could become as thin and light as air? Would you defend me against the bullies around who told me I was never a swan, would never be a swan and would never fly?

Would you listen to my dreams of flying, of soaring, of being free of gravity? 

Would you stand ready with the video camera on the fateful day when the surgeries are complete and I spread my altered arms and leap into the sky from the rim of Little River Canyon, believing I will soar and swoop, just as a swan would?

At my funeral, would you speak movingly of my bravery to be true to myself? 

If you loved me?

And, hey, maybe your kid is a swan. I mean, she has dreams of flying, too, right? How young will he be when the burning desire to soar in the sky seizes him? If they show any signs of believing they’re swans, you need to act on it right away. If you start them young, before they ever fight the battles I fought (may I rest in peace) to be a swan, maybe it will be easier for them. 

They could have the feathers implanted and become accustomed to them as they grow older. Medically stunt their growth, so they stay small and light and more likely to fly. 

Of course, society will have to change to deal with kids with feathers. Fashions will have to change...hey, maybe some designer will get the idea to make clothes with feathers, so ordinary kids, kids who never thought of being a swan, can be cool like the feathered kids.

Anyone who dares to mention that the kids’ bones are full of marrow, and not light and hollow, like a swan’s, or that their chest muscles were never shaped properly to move wings, or that the artificial feathers could never function like the feathers of a creature who has flight in the DNA of every cell of its body must be silenced and shamed for their hatred of these brave children who are going to fly someday.

And when the day comes when the children launch themselves into the elaborate illusion for which they have sacrificed their humanity...will you cradle their broken bodies, and tell them how proud you are of them, as the lie kills them?

If you really love them?