Rounds 2 & 3: Law vs. Love and Head vs. Heart
I'm going to take a break from the current series to continue the celebrity death match I began with my original post.
This post was inspired by two things: a thread from The Reach, (primarily comment #75, by Jody Bilyeu) and a book called "This Little Church Went to Market," by Gary Gilley.
When a member of our species is passionate about anything, he or she tends to want to turn it into some sort of battle. It's not good enough to be crazy about what I like, I also have to try my best to defy whatever is the opposite.
But to say "Love trumps Law," (as Jody Bilyeu did) or to claim like Gary Gilley that God designed Christianity to be a Thinking Faith, not a Feeling Faith, is like arguing about who's going to win the Super Bowl, the Cubs or the Canucks.
Granted, I don't accuse Jody of hating the Law, or denying its importance. But the battle between love and law only exists in people's heads.
And contrary to Jody's perception, even Jesus never actually broke the law. If Jesus' love was stronger than His law, all He had to do was say in a big voice so the whole world could hear "YOU'RE ALL FORGIVEN!" But what did He really do? He spent His ministry helping people understand what the law really means, before dying for all of us to fulfill the law. A sacrifice was required, and His great love and His perfect righteousness were the only powers strong enough to give us grace within the confines of His law. The fact is, it doesn't make any sense to pit Jesus' law against His love, because neither can be broken by the other.
What does that mean for us? It means that grace is not cheap, and showing God's love for people doesn't consist of standing in the midst of sin and shouting "I'm OK, You're OK!" Never once in scripture does God instruct us to ignore sin, either in ourselves or in others. There are plenty of times He expects us to mind our own business, but we are also called at times to rebuke and reproof. These times must be chosen carefully, however, and must be done with the utmost love. The lifestyle of leaving others' sin between themselves and God, yet lovingly holding them accountable when it's appropriate is a perfect example of Law and Love in concert.
In other words, if your obedience to the Law and to Love is turning into a boxing match, then you're failing at one or both.
Now to Round 3: "Head vs. Heart."
I don't recommend the book, "This Little Church Went to Market." Gary Gilley is a pastor that obviously has an ax to grind, and apparently believes that the church was okey-dokey 100 years ago, before the entertainment industry's hostile takeover.
It is true that the Church has digressed from a thinking institution to a feeling instutution. I won't go into all this, it would take 20 pages. (Even though it only took Gilley 115.) But I think most of us could look around and see that this is generally true.
And as the giant pendulum ceaselessly swings from one irrelevant extreme to the other, there are plenty of those who believe that a return to the glorious intellectualism of yore would take care of the now rampant experientialism. To keep a long story short: It is true that emotion does not lead us a true relationship with God. But neither does the intellect.
100 & 200 years ago the Church was competing with, and is a product of, a worldly paradigm, just as it is today. The 1700s and 1800s was the Age of Reason. Naturally then, the Church would try to be the Church of Reason. Were a lot of thoughtful commentaries written? Sure. Were a lot of great Thinker's Hymns composed? You bet. Did people understand the Bible better and have a firmer grasp on Christian apologetics? Probably. Are these all things we should strive for today? Absolutely.
But did all these things actually result in real faith, in surrendered lives? No. I am so bold because I believe firmly that it is that third component of our selves, apart from head and heart, that brings us to the cross: our Will. Each of us must willingly empty ourselves of all our IQ and EQ in order to be filled with the realness of God. Then he invariably proceeds to use our heads and our hearts for his glory.
And once again, to find that the great thoughts of the Faith and the great experiences of the Faith are colliding in battle, is to discover that we are failing at one or both.
Labels: bible, blogs, doctrine, spirituality
Posted at 7:51 AM
View 18 comments made so far
Add a comment
Links to this post
18 Comments:
Law says:
19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. (Leviticus 24:19-21)
Love says:
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42)
This is Love, not just breaking the law, but revoking it. Nor does it merely revoke the letter of the law, but the spirit.
Law says:
3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD. (Leviticus 18:3-5)
Love says:
19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)
Here Paul defies the old testament principle of using the law to distinguish oneself from other peoples. Moreover, he makes plain that Christ's law, which he proclaims himself to be under, is distinct from Moses' law, which he proclaims himself not to be under. Christ's law is love.
But lest we find wiggle room in these more spiritual rebukes of Mosaic legalism, in Acts 15, the bible, through Peter and the apostles, makes it more specific and literal, excusing Gentiles from obeying almost all of Mosaic Law:
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
In Galatians, Paul raises the stakes on the issue of Gentiles obeying Mosaic law, characterizing their trying to do so not just as an unnecessary burden, but as a sin leading to damnation, as he delivers this stern rebuke to Christians who are backsliding into Mosaic legalism--circumcision and law:
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Galatians 5:1-6)
Here Paul not only rejects the law, he makes it clear that by embracing just one of the laws (in this case, circumcision) you place yourself under all the law and alienate yourself from Christ.
As Paul says, in Christ Jesus the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. Christ's law is love.
Those who invoke Old Testament law as if it were currently the will of God do so in defiance of the bible's clear instruction on the subject.
You're correct that there is no contradiction between Law and Love, because Love makes Law, not just sinful, but moot:
Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:10)
The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Galatians 5:14)
Jody-
I am flattered that you would go to such lengths to help me understand your position. I feel like I do, and it is a logical and respectable one.
One controversy I will not try to debate is the exact nature of "Moses' Law" versus "Jesus' law." I recognize that there is a difference, but I feel it would be a serious digression to try to discuss that here.
You claim that Paul frees himself from Moses' law. But one of the verses you quoted is I Corinthians 9:21 in which Paul says that he is NOT free from God's law, but is under Christ's law. If you take the words "God's law" to refer to the Torah, then Paul's language actually serves to equate the two, not dichotomoze them.
Here is the point I have been trying to make: Jesus was perfect and sinless. In order to be the sacrifice Lamb for the whole world, He had to be free of guilt from all sin, including the sin of breaking His own Torah (what you refer to as Moses' law.) You compare Leviticus 24 with Matthew 5, but the former is is judicial ordinance. It is an instruction to those in Israel whose job was to prosecute the lawbreakers. Surely you don't suggest that Jesus intended to repeal the criminal justice system. "Swing wide the prison gates! Let everyone go free in the name of Love!" My best guess (and that's what the rest of this paragraph is... a guess, although I am confident of the point made prior to this) is that individual citizens were in the habit of taking the Leviticus 24 verse to mean that they had a right to exact their own "proportional revenge" on anyone who wronged them. And a vigilante society needs desperately to hear words like those in Matthew 5. Jesus was correcting his hearers' understanding of the law. Keep in mind also that those who were listening to this passage of the Sermon on the Mount would have probably thought immediately of the Romans' propensity to strike them on the cheek, steal their tunics and send them on forced marches in their attempts to subdue Palestine. The listeners obviously had no authority to punish Roman soldiers according to Leviticus 24. With this in mind, Jesus prescribed to them the correct attitude.
As far as the requirements cited for the Gentiles, that speaks more to the exact nature of the Law itself (which is a whole other huge ball of wax,) rather than to our issue at hand, which is the relationship between Law and Love.
The only other problem I have with your arguments is that, if you're going to quote Paul so vigorously to support your views, why don't you take him more seriously when he says things like "to lie with a man as one does with a woman is an abomination"? (For those new to the conversation, homosexuality is the issue that got all this started.) If Paul has the authority to expound on a complex subject, like the true nature of Law and Love, then it seems to me he should have the authority to do a simple thing like list the behaviors that displease God.
Oh, and one last thing (I swear.) The entire law is not summed up in a single command, it is summed up in two, according to Jesus. "Love God. Love your neighbor." Please don't omit the first part. Because, (quoting Jesus again,) those who love Him will obey His commands.
In the 1 Corinthians passage, Paul makes two clear references: he is not under "the law" with respect to Mosaic tradition. But he is under "God's Law/Christ's Law." Your suggestion that Paul's dual avowals: "I am not under [Moses'] law" and "I am under Christ's Law" serve to bring the two together is not only simply not on the page, but is a direct contradiction of that which is.
As to Matthew 5: note how much of what you say is not only not on the page, but not in the bible. In Matthew 5, Jesus clearly makes direct reference to two items of Levitical code and then gainsays them. Your argument, which I could summarize as "but imagine what would happen if Jesus really meant that!" carries no weight. Our fears as to what would become of us and of society if we really obeyed the savior matter not one whit. It simply shouldn't matter to us as Christians what the policy implications of Christianity are.
But the fears are misplaced, in any case. Nobody in the New Testament, including Jesus, says "stop having laws." On the contrary, the New Testament, including Jesus, makes it clear that we should obey the laws of our land, even if that land is run by the Romans. Of course this does not mean that Roman laws were sacred. In fact, what the New Testament takes great pains to do, over and over, and in no uncertain terms, is to forever divorce the two realms, the spiritual and earthly judicial.
We can have a law that says, "Don't cheat on your taxes," but we can't say "Don't cheat on your taxes or God will punish you." We can arrange an earthly punishment for murder, but no longer in God's name, or with any suggestion that your earthly condemnation has anything whatsoever to do with a spiritual one. The two are simply distinct. And there's no question which is more important.
Under love, as the bible says, what we ought and ought not to do is "obvious." As the bible says, this obviousness renders law as a feature of spirituality completely obsolete.
When we know we should or shouldn't do something having been taught so by love, the question of whether it's also against the law, as in the case of murder or tax evasion, or whether it's not against the law at all, as the stoning of Stephen, or of a woman caught in adultery, is completely beside the point.
As to the Acts passage. No, it's precisely on point. You, and many other "bible believing" Christians hold that the law is sacred and that it still applies to Christians, and the bible clearly says it isn't and doesn't. That position is un-Christian and specifically linked in the bible, a number of times, to eternal danger.
The "exact nature" of Mosaic law is that, according to Acts 15, the vast bulk of it is clearly and specifically held, in an extremely direct passage of the bible, no longer to apply to Gentile Christians. What part of Peter's "No!" are you unwilling to accept?
As to what I allow or disallow from Paul--well, for beginners I certainly disallow what you said he wrote, because you've put another bible passage in Paul's authorship. He never wrote that.
But it's clear he did not like homosexuality. Some say he just didn't like ritual homosexuality. I say he followed his culture in disliking the whole shebang.
But my stance on homosexuality, which, by the way, I don't think you know, since to my knowledge I've never articulated it to you, is beside the point.
Both you and I are in the identical boat with regard to disallowing certain of Paul's ethical advice. All of the first part of 1 Corinthians 11, for instance. Or when he says, "let women be silent in church," or "slaves, obey your masters," or "take a little wine for your stomach's sake" (I much prefer beer), or when he declines to condemn polygamy, human bondage, or infanticide--all of us, you, the church, and I, have long had a clear understanding that some of Paul's teachings were "for the time" and some were for all time. The reason we take this liberty of interpretation is that Paul specifically gives it to us, any number of times. He also makes very plain what is the heart of the gospel and what isn't. The trick is not to take this liberty he gives us without acknowledging we're doing so, and not to hypocritically pass on one Pauline prohibition as "sacred" while routinely and completely ignoring others.
Your insistence that the entire law should always be said to be summed up by two commandments, rather than one, is also in direct contradiction to the bible, which says what you say it doesn't say, clearly and specifically, at least twice. There are a great many more general references in the epistles to this "one commandment," or "one law."
And in this idea of one great commandment, of course, the epistle-writers follow the savior. While Jesus at one point does call out two Levitical commandments to embody the law, even then he says they are "like." But later he starts the New Testament tradition of referring to one law, combining the neighbor and God ideas of those two Levitical commandments into what he calls his "new commandment": "Love one another as I have loved you." If the bible doesn't quibble over the breakdown and enumeration, I don't think we should either.
You neglected to deal with the passage in which Paul treats the Galatian Gentiles' flirtation with returning to Mosaic law as a sin which alienates them from Christ, even if they choose to obey just one of those laws.
This is on the verge of splitting hairs, i have to confess. It seems to me that we're quibbling over definitions of "Law". There are obviously several definitions for "Law", kind of like there are several definitions for different types or degrees of "love" (I love ice cream, i love my wife, i love scuba-diving). We're throwing around scriptures of Paul and Jesus referring to "The Law", when it's obvious that they are not only approaching it from various angles, they are talking about various "Laws" or sets of laws.
Both of you seem to be pitting scripture against scripture, as if it contradicted itself, but it doesn't. Jody, you are absolutely 100% correct that a BIG OLE' PORTION of OT Law has absolutely no bearing on our lives as Christians, except for understanding the character of God. That's it. Obviously, virtually every Christian believes this. Anyone who disagrees is either a hypocrite or a psychopath. I've never met any of the psychopaths.
Regarding "the two laws" vs. "the one law", it's just a matter of knowing what scripture says. I don't see what's so hard about that. It says both... whoopteedoo! So do both. I don't think anyone here is suggesting we don't love God, but only love people. That's just absurd. We all understand the way the two are interlinked, so there's no use in arguing about it. It's not necessary for this hermeneutic.
Jody,
I've wrestled with the scriptures regarding slavery and women's roles as well, and it certainly requires more of us to interpret them. You are correct in saying that you have to interpret through Paul's cultural lens and also through ours. But in doing so, i can't put gender roles (if that's what you want to call them) in the same boat as slavery, and here's why. Slavery has been ordained by God in certain instances in the Old Testament. He specifically ordered Israel to make slaves of inhabitants of land they were to take. Sometimes He even ordered them to kill all the people in that land, including women and children. Does that seem like a loving, gracious thing for Him to ask? Of course not.
All i know is that He is not humanistic, like we are. He loves us, but He loves His glory more. The people of Israel were His people, His representative to the world. He would choose to do with them and with the rest of humanity as He pleased. Have you ever thought about the fact that the Israelites were THE only chosen people of God, and that virtually everyone else before Christ went to hell? Doesn't sound very "just" or "humane" according to our standards. But it was what it was. It was part of "punishment", via "government". I would have no problem with the idea of "slave labor" as a form of punishment via our judicial system. They ought to be working their tails off while they're in prison, instead of being pampered by our tax dollars with an even higher standard of living than most working-class citizens in America. But the way America went about slavery was obviously wrong.
I don't take issue to the gender role issues, again, because God ordained it. If society hadn't been built upon patriarchy since the beginning of time, i'd be more open to saying that the man being the head of the wife and thus the leaders of the local church was open to debate. But God has always deemed Himself our Father and has always commanded men to be the leaders. Not because women were inadequate for the task or because they were less worthy, but because He wanted the husband-wife and pastor-church relationship to model His relationship with us (in which we are not "equal" in terms of authority).
Most people who take issue to this forget that though Jesus had complete authority over us, He submitted Himself to us, even to the point of death. That is what men are called to do for their wives, and what pastors are called to do for their churches in modeling that love. But that doesn't mean we still aren't called to lead. Laying down and letting someone else lead is not what He had in mind, but neither is the authoritarian way in which males have unfortunately led in the past. It shouldn't be a debate of who's leading, but HOW the men are leading.
Jody, there are too many passages of scripture that address homosexuality to try to argue away one of them. It's just not the way God created humans to be, regardless of whether they are born with an inclination to it, and regardless of whether some animals engage in homosexual intercourse. "Unnatural" things happen in nature all the time, but they are manipulations, mutations, perversions of what is natural and right. God didn't intend people to be born with severe disabilities and disfigurations and so forth. He doesn't take joy in death. But He allows those things to happen for whatever reason.
That's all i have for now. I don't have the time or mental energy to keep up with the scripture wars so i won't even try. Just trying to throw in my two cents. Hope they're worth something to ya'll.
Grace.
Beloved,
I wish you were right, but there are many Christians, only a few of whom appear to be pathological, who take a "God said it that settles it" approach to homosexuality, and many other subjects, and quote Mosaic law as proof of God's mind. For them, there appears to be absolutely no distinction between the great law, however we count it, and Levitical ethical codes. In this, of course, they defy both the letter and the spirit of the bible.
I'm not pitting one scripture against another. I, too, think scripture is non-contradictory and unequivocal, and that the entirety of the New Testament, notwithstanding the one verse in Matthew 5 which Christian judaizers take out of context, as well as the spirit of the whole of scripture, all say there is absolutely no plausible biblical rationale for a Christian legalism.
From my perspective, this is not about a given ethical issue. As Christians we may, and should, debate those on their merits. The bigger problem is this: People who confuse Ethical Law with Christ's Law are not only in danger of eternal damnation, according to scripture, but they have a seriously flawed conception of who Jesus is, and preach a false Christ. I hesitate to leave my children in a Baptist sunday school room, not because Baptists are "against homosexuals," but because there's a good risk they'll be taught a false Jesus. It is from such people that the world has learned that Christianity is not about love, but about social order and control. Don't believe me? Ask a non-believer.
You're entitled, by all means, to your opinion on the spiritual importance of gender roles. I don't share it, but who cares? It appears to me you and I disagree in the Spirit. Thank you very much for approaching the issue with humility and grace, and with the acknowledgment that knowing Leviticus, or even Paul, doesn't necessarily mean you know God's mind on a given subject. I'll do my best to follow your example in this. For one thing, I, too, acknowledge that reasonable people can differ on such things.
10-4, good buddy.
I hear ya, i feel ya, i'm with ya. I have the same worries myself regarding the indoctrination issues you mentioned. I find it interesting that the "Baptist" name has come up so frequently in our discussions on "the reach"... i supposed it's b/c Reacher teaches at SBU.
A little personal history of mine... i grew up Methodist. My grandparents were Methodist, my parents were Methodist. I received lots of love and good teaching in the Methodist church. But i accepted Jesus' invitation to come and dine with Him at a Baptist summer camp when i was 11. Prior to that, i loved God, enjoyed going to church, read my Bible, was seemingly "aware" of God's presence, and was a pretty darn good kid, as far as kids go. But i never heard the full gospel message until i fellowshipped with the Baptists.
I continued to attend my Methodist church for the next 6 or 7 years, although i became more and more disenchanted with the church. I was a black sheep, and getting blacker by the minute. Virtually all of my peers in my youth group and Sunday school classes either were complacent Christians or were lost altogether. They were there for the social benefit, as were their parents and the majority of the church.
As i grew older, i noticed some unorthodox teaching creeping in (again, i was oblivious to the "fundamentalist" or "Baptist world") and being taught in the church... things that my soul couldn't concur with. I began to talk to my parents about them and to study scripture and pray, and the Lord led me to leave the church. About my junior year of high school, i left and started going to a Baptist church in town, because i had heard rumors that they were unnaturally concerned with the Bible. "Hey, that's a refreshing alternative to the hypocrisy i was experiencing at my other church!" i thought. So i attended the Baptist church a while before joining.
Since that point, i have attended Baptist churches, because i have identified with them theologically (by the way, that doesn't mean much of anything, because Baptists, even Southern Baptists, are all over the board as far as theology is concerned) and pragmatically, for the most part. The latter has changed over the past couple of years for me, however. Yet, i still feel connected to them to a certain extent and still stay involved at First Baptist downtown. I can say this with certainty: you would like their new pastor. He is not the stereotypical SBC pastor. Trust me. I left my last church b/c of "typical SBC pastors" who were more concerned about control and predictability than they were about the fresh fire of the Holy Spirit. I understand the disdain many people like me have for that aspect of Southern Baptists. But i would be arrogant to dismiss my years with my Baptist comrades as wasted or corruptive. They were edifying, challenging, and fruitful for the most part, as were my 4 years at SBU.
Why am i telling you (and anyone else who reads this) all this? To hopefully reduce the demonization of all Baptists and all Baptist churches. There are many pastors and laymen within the Baptist church who recognize the hypocrisy and heresy of some aspects of the Baptist framework and attitude, but who find value in the Cooperative concept and the original, distinctive features of Baptists (autonomy of the local church, priesthood of the believer, Scripture as guide and norm, etc.), not to mention the relationships we have built with many Baptists. Many of us realize that the denomination is veering away from those distinctives, and are trying to keep it from falling completely in that direction.
Frankly, i'm not concerned about denominations whatsoever. I could care less whether the institutional church as we know it continues to exist for years to come. All i care about is believers who are passionate about God and about living the Christ life so that others may see Him for who He truly is and be transformed by His grace. If there are Baptists who share that desire, i want to cooperate with them in pursuing that desire. If there are Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopals, AGs or Independents who share that passion, i want to join with them in striving after that goal as well.
I appreciate your willingness to wrestle with these subjects with us. You are right (and Ryan and i have agreed on this as well) that these "issues" we are discussing are not isolated, but integrally linked. They are manifestations of larger, deeper issues, issues which we are exploring the depths of. I have enjoyed sojourning with you all and continue to do so, provided that we can keep our focus, keep laying down our guards, and striving to know and love one another better.
Grace and peace, brothers.
P.S. Hope to see you at the cd release show Friday or Saturday(?).
I think I'm a reasonably smart guy (though I didn't get a 35 on the English portion of my ACT) but you guys make me feel SLOW.
In the time it's taken me to mentally compose another response you literatis have gone back and forth twice. I'd say that I'm thankful to Beloved for sticking up for me, but I'm starting to sense that this thread was never supposed to become that sort of battle.
Jody, I thank God over and over for people like you. When you surrender all else to love God and love your neighbors (and your enemies) you will not go wrong. On the contrary, you will be, in and of yourself, a revolution. Just like Jesus.
I feel the same way about Beloved. I only hope that the floodgates of my heart are open wide enough to let Jesus' love flow through in such a magnanimous way.
There have been a few misunderstandings between Jody and myself in this thread. They led me to believe that he was contradicting himself, and led him to believe that I was prooftexting the words of Jesus. I am tempted to write a tome to clear these up, but instead I will ask Jody to simply understand that I worship Jesus as the perfect Lamb of God, far more perfect than anything for sale at Mardel, and that I take the entire message of His Word as truth--truth that comes in handy when I encounter a difficult passage found therein.
But there is another reason I decide to "lay down arms." If ever there was a reason to treasure every acquaintance and friend and relative that Jesus has given us, if there ever was a reason to be inspired to live a life of grace, I saw it today.
My wife's aunt (who was basically her second mother) passed away this morning, Blessed Be the Name of the Lord. She was not a healthy person physically, but at the age of 60 she was not expected to pass away anytime soon. She had her faults, like the rest of us, but above all, she was a woman of Grace. She had every reason in the world to be bitter and angry; to be disappointed by her lot. But over years and years and years she used her life to encourage everyone in the Lord, and to respond to slap with a kiss, to a curse with a blessing.
The Reacher, among others, helped start me on a journey to Grace. I know that God's law is holy. His judgments are fair, and His standards are unreachable but for the cross of Christ. But it was His willingness to be the victim of His own wrath, His GRACE, that Has given us not only life but a reason to live it.
Father, help us to study and show ourselves approved, and thus understand the Truth for what it is. Let us, like David, Love your Law and hang on your every word. And most of all, let us be constantly clothed in the Forgiveness that forgave us, and the Grace that took our place at the guillotine.
Amen.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ever noticed how conversations start to get boring once they get "nicer"? It's like the heated debates get tons of action, but once we find common ground or agree to disagree the conversation usually dies. I find that just about anywhere i go. There must be something inside of us that enjoys debating, and we can't debate unless we disagree (or at least play devil's advocates) to some degree. I'd imagine "the reach" would be pretty boring if there were no conservatives around to bash, eh? :)
I'd respond to your sentiments with something more insightful, beloved, but I find myself nodding off. :)~
fascinating discussion. That's all ;) I thought I had you in my rss feeds and just didn't think you were writing much...hehe...little did I know...but apparently I can't get you loaded up- -any tips?
Fisher... THE Marc Fisher?
I have no clue whas "rss" means...?
Who or what are you trying to "load up"?
Marc Fisher...hehe...that's funny. You know, you can always click on someone's name to see their profile. ;) this is mamafish - I changed around my blogs. Just google RSS and you can learn all you ever needed to know and more. Usually I can just use the url to the blog but I assume because you have your own domain it's different. Usually blogs will have little RSS linky dos but you don't so I have no idea what to do.
Ahh, Mama pirannha. Gotcha.
Nice to hear from you (wouldn't mind hearing more...?). :)
Are you talking about the HTML tags? I can't get those to work either... I can't get much to work on blogger. It's not very user friendly to an HTML ignoramus like myself (sorry Ryan, i am much more ignorant than you).
Mama... I don't blame beloved for thinking you were Marc Fisher. A guy by that name just recently contacted us, and will be joining us with his family at our Sunday evening gathering for the first time this weekend.
I'm curious what RSS is myself. I know what CSS is. I look up now.
Mama... interested in your input as to this practically defunct thread. I thought it was pretty intriguing myself.
Promise I'll blog again real soon.
I was just teasing beloved - I'm sure he knew that ;)
Like I said, the best way to learn is to google or go to rojo.com where I have my RSS feeds and just set something up.
I'm not sure why your blog isn't feeding through and no, I don't think it's about html tags. Blogger is actually very good about RSS feeds over at Rojo - I think yours is not a standard blogger acct. though.
oh and by the way, this is why I laughed about being THE marc fisher
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/fishermarc/
my input on this subject is that you all are talking around eachother...I'll weigh in on my blog after my retreat this weekend.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home