A Voice from the Past - Patrick

If am, then, first of all, countryified, an exile, evidently unlearned, one who is not able to see into the future, but I know for certain, that before I was humbled I was like a stone lying in deep mire, and he that is mighty came and in his mercy raised me up and, indeed lifted me high up and placed me on top of the wall.And from there I ought to shout out in gratitude his great favours in this world and for ever, that the mind of man cannot measure.

Patrick, 390-461 AD, The Confession of St. Patrick, 12 (Christian Classics Ethereal Library, p. 4)

Does God often use the obscure people of the world to show up the important? What can we learn from this?

The Danger of Common Sense

Common sense can be a good thing. It can help you avoid high-flown, intellectual arguments that have no grounding in reality. It can help you shun extreme emotional reactions that make no sense. But everything has its limits. The problem with being too reasonable is we can create a nice, safe, sensible life and never get beyond that. We can become too cautious ever to step out on faith. We can become so afraid of being fanatical we will never be truly zealous for God. Also, we can make the final standard of evaluation what other people think. After all, common sense normally refers to looking at life as the common person sees it based on their experience. Also, too great a reliance on common sense can be hostile to grace. We can believe we need to work for what we get and nothing is really mes 5:10,11; Habakkuk 3:17,18). It is often difficult to decide which type of faith to use, as both are legitimate. But I think we need to get beyond both to simply trust God, whichever type of faith He calls us to exercise in a given situation. And we should avoid being so cautious that we are never willing to stick our neck out to follow God. But we also should avoid being so reckless that we thoughtlessly follow any impulse. We need to look to God for when to use and when not to use our common sense. For there is a place for both.   

What's the Word?

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues"
















The Bible does not say much of the spiritual gifts of the word of knowledge and the word of wisdom. In fact, all we have is their names in a list (1 Corinthians 12:8). What are these gifts about? (I am going to deal specifically with the word of knowledge, as it is the one I am most familiar with, but I suspect the word of wisdom works the same way.)

The traditional charismatic approach is to see this gift as God's dropping statements into our minds without any previous basis for such knowledge. I have no problem in principle with this; I have had it happen to me on occasion. (There are limitations of privacy that prevent me from describing the circumstances.) Others, trying to avoid a blatantly miraculous understanding of the gift, have seen it as a gift of working with knowledge.This would be the type of gift you might find, for instance, in a seminary professor . I do not violently object to this either. After all, seminary professors need gifts too. Might I suggest something in the middle that perhaps would incorporate the extremes? Could the idea be that God leads you to the knowledge He wants you to have? It could mean the knowledge coming totally out of nowhere. But it could also mean  picking up just the right book or just the right article to answer something you needed to know, even if it was not what you went to the book or article for. Or God's bringing to mind the right thing to say at the right time. Now it should be noted that some knowledge is valuable even if you do not know where it comes from, while other knowledge is only useful if you know the source. I realize this is highly conjectural, but it seems to fit with my experience and the substance of the text.

Now the one thing it clearly does not mean is that we can trust every impulse or thought that runs through our mind as being from God. We are commanded to test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21).Nor should the word of knowledge be equated with full, inspired revelation; it is in the same verse as prophecy, and why would there be three different terms for the same thing? It also clearly does not mean a person will know everything they want to know. Even full-blown prophets are sometimes not told everything (2 Kings 4:27). But I do find this approach helpful in understanding these two gifts.

God and Nations

I did not say much about the United States presidential election when it was going on. This is because I do not believe the real cultural issues we face as Evangelicals can be solved by political means. Christians have an obligation to be involved in politics and to do what we can to promote justice. But legal measures only work to outwardly restrain sin and are only effective if the general consensus of society agrees with them. I like Luther's analogy that the civil use of the Law is like a muzzle on a wild animal. It does not change the nature of the animal, but it keeps the animal from biting you. Our culture has for some time been drifting away from traditional Christian values. Christian political action has only been a holding action against the drift. While I did not strongly support him, I was hoping Mitt Romney would win because I felt that it would slow the drift. But to understand the drift, we need to see the broader perspective.

The early Christians were powerless, but they concentrated on preaching God's truth and living in obedience to that truth and had an substantial impact on the society in which they lived. So much so that when the Roman Empire was floundering, it embraced Christianity as a means to hold society together. Though the Empire fell, Christianity became the glue that helped preserve civilization in the ensuing chaos. But when the crisis was over, European civilization began the process of throwing off the yoke of Christianity. This is not surprising; Scripture tells us that the world is hostile to the things of God (John 15:18-25; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25: 1 John 2:13-15). It did not help that the visible church organization had corrupted itself through the pursuit of money and power. Since then, there have been various movements to restore a Biblical viewpoint and halt the decay. But the decline has, in the long run, continued. Also, whenever people have tried to use political force rather than spiritual influence to stop the deterioration, it has failed. Now we have come full circle and are Christians in a basically pagan society. If  we are to have an impact, we need to let go of the past and rebuild from where we are. That means we need to convince people of the principles we hold before we can expect much change in the legal system. And our emphasis needs to be preaching God's truth and living in obedience to that truth. It also means trusting in God rather than our political clout (Psalms 127:1,2; Proverbs 3:5,6; Daniel 2:21). Now part of living in obedience to God's truth is working for social justice. But if we see political action as the main vehicle for accomplishing our purposes, we are doomed to failure. We must change people's hearts before we can hope to be successful in changing the country's laws.    

A Touch of Humor - Aftermath

What do we have to be thankful for now the election is over? How should we respond as Christians to the political situation going forward? (Note: I am writing this post before the election and do not currently know who is going to win.)

Old Erich Proverb - Guilt Trips

Guilt trips are depressing excursions; the accommodations are lousy, the food is terrible, the ambiance is horrid, and they only leave you farther from your destination.

A Voice from the Past - Chesterton

This, therefore, is our first requirement about the ideal towards which progress is directed; it must be fixed. Whistler used to make many rapid studies of a sitter; it did not matter if he tore up twenty portraits. But it would matter if he looked up twenty times, and each time saw a new person sitting placidly for his portrait. So it does not matter (comparatively speaking) how often humanity fails to imitate its ideal; for then all its old failures are fruitful. But it does frightfully matter how often humanity changes its ideal; for then all its old failures are fruitless.

G. K. Chesterton, 1874-1936, Orthodoxy, VII. The Eternal Revolution (Dover Publications, 2004, p.101)

Does this make sense? How do we distinguish the ideal from the incidentals that may need to change?