But He's Popular...

Then Abner said to Joab, "Now let the young men arise and hold a contest before us." And Joab said, "Let them arise."  So they arose and went over by count, twelve for Benjamin and Ish- bosheth the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David.  Each one of them seized his opponent by the head and thrust his sword in his opponent's side; so they fell down together. Therefore that place was called Helkath- hazzurim, which is in Gibeon.  That day the battle was very severe, and Abner and the men of Israel were beaten before the servants of David. (2 Samuel 2:14-17 NASB)

Saul, the king, has died.  His uncle and general, Abner, has set Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul, as king over Israel, but on the other side of the Jordan.  Abner has then garnered support from all over the northern tribes of Israel for this new king.

In the mean time, David has been set as king over Judah; a very strange thing to have happen in Israel, but also a sign of things to come.   His general is Joab, one of three sons of David's sister, Zeruiah.  David has sent a blessing to one of the Northern cities who showed kindness to Saul.  Other than that, he doesn't seem to have done anything 'maneuvering' to try and become king over the whole of Israel.

So, the two sides meet at a pool in the hills of Benjamin.  It may have been arranged as a talk, it may have been by chance, or through the cleverness of one side or the other.  We don't know.  But what we do know is that Abner has the brilliant idea of having the young men fight as sport before them.  Each of the 24 kills his opponent (or 'fellow', the Hebrew word for 'friend'), and they all fall together.  Thus the pool is named for this sad event, "Hklkath-hazzurim" which means "The Field of Daggers".

But the battle doesn't go Abner's way, and he escapes, but is chased by the fastest of the soldiers in Judah, one of Zeruiah's sons, Asahel.  Abner kills Asahel, and that stops Judah, but Joab, Asahel's brother, isn't stopped until the troops rally around Abner again.  Abner asks Joab to stop the killing, and Joab does, but I wonder if it was because he thought he couldn't take Abner just at this moment.

The character of Abner puzzles me.  He seems to be the general, but is rarely in sight as stuff happens between David and Saul (with one exception).  He is rarely mentioned in battle sequences (probably assumed?).  And then, as Saul dies, there is no mention of Abner anywhere.  The next thing we read is when Abner sets up the seemingly weak son of Saul as king.  After that, Abner comes to the forefront and we finally get a view of this guy.

Abner seems popular.  He convinces many tribes, living in areas now controlled by the Philistines, to follow this guy on the other side of the Jordan.  Later on, he seems able to then turn these same tribes around to follow David.  He is the 'king-maker' in Israel.  And he doesn't seem to mind switching sides when internal stuff goes wrong (see chapter 3).  On the other hand, when it comes to 'delivering' as a general, like a football coach, we want to see victories.  He doesn't seem able to deliver.  So why is he so popular?

I wonder if, like his nephew Saul, Abner is one of those 'likable' guys; able to sway the crowds with his charisma.  He says the right things, waves his hands, tells a funny story, and is if by magic, the whole world follows him.  He's the pied-piper of Hamlin, and all Israel are his children (or rats).  I remember such guys in school, and they really bugged me.  They seemed wrong more than half the time, but everyone wanted to follow them, be close to them, be noticed by them, and they led the school to...well, it seemed they led us nowhere actually.  Maybe I was/am bitter.

Abner seems like one of these guys to me.  He is good in a fight, he takes down Asahel with the 'wrong end' of his spear.  And he is a wonderful leader if having people follow is the mark of one.  But he doesn't seem to be able to take them anywhere.  He suggests a fight and his side loses 350 people.  His enemies only lost 20, and 12 of those were at the pool, and one was Asahel.  That's not such a great 'score', yet the people rally around him again.  And that works as he faces two guys, Joab and Abishai.  Sure, facing two guys, he's able to stop the fighting, what happened before when he was booking it away from the fight?  Why was he running in the first place?

I've read ahead, and I know Abner goes down, but I'm not cutting my emotional attachment to him so it's not so hard to take.  I'm looking at this guy, and wondering if God really wanted him to go down.  He seems to have none of the 'God brought about a victory' sort of thing going on like David's men.  He doesn't seem to be interested in the king he set up since he switches sides rather quickly.  I don't see a 'victory' attached to his leadership, so where's the benefit of his popularity? 

Okay, so here's my take away:  I am bitter.  And I'm bitter because I'm jealous.  I want to be the one people look to for leadership, direction, wisdom, and so on.  I want the attention they got.  But that's wrong, and here's why:  That would make me a distraction from God.  Plain and simple, I'm supposed to be about pointing people to Jesus, not spouting off wisdom and so on.  Who cares what I think when God is waiting to communicate His real wisdom to His human creatures. 

Fortunately for me, I've never really been one of those people just follow charismatically.  The only reason people have followed me is because they thought I was smart.  Once they realized I'm not that smart, well, they found someone else to follow.  But I have craved that fickle tide of acceptance found in the favor of the crowd (or mob).  That craving needs to stop. 

The only sustaining peace for my soul is found in my service to my King.  As He comes to the forefront, and I fade into the background, as by magic, I find peace (or peace finds me).  Peace, the true sort that seeps deep into my soul and gives me a sense of wholeness, is found in the background around the throne of my Master.  Why would I look for it by pandering to the fickle tide of popularity of people just as lost as I am? 

So, I am to follow the example of David, not Abner.  In his example God does His best work.  In Abner, the work of God is simply delayed.  So, I will worship.  That's first.  Then I will serve my Master.  That's second.  Whatever happens after that will at least come from or happen with me in the right context of peace.  I like the sound of that, it sure beats the whole host of alternatives.

The Tragic Ending of King Saul

The Philistines overtook Saul and his sons; and the Philistines killed Jonathan and Abinadab and Malchi-shua the sons of Saul.  The battle went heavily against Saul, and the archers hit him; and he was badly wounded by the archers. (1 Samuel 31:2-3 NASB)

The end of Saul is a dramatic sad story.  Years before, Saul was in a similar predicament when Jonathan defeated a Philistine outpost in 1 Samuel 13, and the Philistines responded by mobilizing the entire army, like here.  But here, Saul takes his stand.  Before he continued the 'guerrilla' tactics that worked so well in the hills of Palestine.  Here, Saul tries to fight a 'conventional' battle.

But even if this isn't the manner in which he normally fought (and by now, it may have been), Saul's heart isn't in this one.  He has been told that he will not survive the battle, nor will his sons.  Saul lives long enough to see his sons fall, he wounded by archers and can't escape himself, and so decides to commit suicide instead of letting the Philistines torture him to death.

The story of Saul is not one of 'redemption'; there is no silver lining to his story.  He was so often about himself; and by himself, with his hopes in ruins around him, he died.  But God had plans for him, intentions Saul would never enjoy.  His story started out with great hopes, with Saul prophesying, with victory, with honor and with obedience.  It ends very differently, and the difference was his relationship with God.

It's twelve years before Israel again regains her footing with David as king.  The devastation of Saul's sin, self-centered living, and raging jealousy of David marks his people for over a decade.  They are unable to fully recover from Saul's mistakes.  This is true except for Judah.  For those twelve years, David rules Judah as king, and seems at least as strong as the other eleven tribes.

Again, the failure to relent, to accept the guidance of God, prolongs the pain left by Saul.  Had the people relented even after Saul refused, recovery would have been swifter.  The failure of Saul to accept the restraints of God placed on him because of his disobedience; his refusal of correction carried on into the people themselves.  Once again it becomes clear sin does not just affect the sinner.

So here are the lessons I learn from this tragic ending to a tragic figure:

• My obedience is more important than I am, for it affects more than just me
• Failure can be recovered through accepting the correction of my Master
• Relenting is often the peaceful humility necessary for success before my Master
• It's not about me; and never will be

Protection From Myself?

"Now therefore, my lord, as the LORD lives, and as your soul lives, since the LORD has restrained you from shedding blood, and from avenging yourself by your own hand, now then let your enemies and those who seek evil against my lord, be as Nabal." (1 Samuel 25:26 NASB)

Commentators make much of how God protected David from the sin of killing innocents in revenge for Nabal's insult.  I wonder about that though.  If it were such a huge issue, like something that might prevent or divert his ascending the throne, why does everyone else assume he's going to do it?

What I mean is, if this were such a terrible thing, and something detrimental to his future as king, then why is the assumption of the servant who tells Abigail, and the assumption of Abigail (the wise wife) that David will do exactly that?  In verse 26, Abigail does say that God has kept David from shedding innocent blood, but is that what's going on, or is it part of her negotiation for the life of her household?

I suppose what I'm getting at is the rest of the content of her plea is clearly made up of placating David's wrath: speaks well of him personally, provides a gift for his men, bows before him, and so on.  She speaks of his role before God among the people, but is that 'political' and 'prophetic' or simply an observation of recent events?

I suspect that, while God did act providentially to keep David from wiping out an entire household, I don't think that was the point here.  Perhaps Uriah would later take issue with such a view, asking why God didn't act 'providentially' in his case.  The understanding was that Nabal's actions in response to David would bring about the destruction of his household.  That Nabal didn't get that only reinforces his foolishness.

On the other hand, Nabal is in common company with the Ziphites, the people of Keilah, and others of the Judean countryside who are ready and willing to hand David over to Saul.  Yet, it seems Saul is not so quick to enter Judah to protect such people (as in the case of Keilah).  So, the loyalty seems more to do with fear of what happened at Nob than a character assessment between the two camps of Saul and David.  That being said, Nabal seems to have missed the point of that lesson if he thought Saul would protect him, again playing a fool.

It may be just me, but I think that the point of this story is that there is room for the vengeance of God.  It's not so much that David's vengeance was a moral problem, but that it was unnecessary.  David didn't raise his sword against Saul because that demonstrated to his men that no one raises there hand against the anointed of the Lord.  This Nabal is not an anointed one of the Lord; him David could kill.  This is not the same circumstance as the previous chapter.

But even when 'justified' or perhaps culturally accepted, sometimes my actions can be outside of my Master's plan.  When He intercedes for me, then He again takes center stage, and I fade to the background.  This is as it should be.  So, not everything I can do, should be done.  I think I needed this lesson last week.

I responded harshly to a co-worker last week.  Regardless of whether I had ample reason to be provoked, I allowed myself to act on my behalf, and I think I failed to leave room for my Master to act.  Sometimes I think there is a place to respond to slights and insults, but probably not to defend myself. 

I allowed the frustration I had let build concerning my work with a customer bubble to the top and pour out in my response to her.  I felt hurt and disrespected, relegated to the position of servant.  But isn't that what I am?  Am I not a servant of the King?  I felt the work I did was important, and warranted respect from my peers, and perhaps, in my culture I'm right.  But in the eyes of my King, my work is in His service, for His purpose, and for His pleasure, not my own gratification.  I was about me, not Him.  I lived instead of died, and lost an important opportunity to serve in humility rather than lash out in pride.

I don't want to give the impression that I believe my Master wishes me to be a doormat for the rest of the world.  On the other hand, the strength showed by my Master as He served was not in his ability to thwart insults, but in His ability to withstand them.  It was my Master Who used the insults of others, their persecution of Him, their lack of understanding and acceptance of Him to save all of humanity.  Now that is a reversal, and one from which I did not learn.  There was a better response, a response of humility, and one demonstrating the character of my Master rather than my damaged pride.  I missed that one.

So, the lesson I learn is to die to self, to accept the role of servant, and to permit my Master His place of center stage, where He belongs.  I can apologize, but I would rather respond initially in a way that needs no apology.  I need to stop having a 'crow lunch' and start serving others.  This, like other entries, is about submission, obedience, and acceptance of the position in which I have been placed by my Master.  Again...am I a slow learner or what?  So, die already...what the heck?  I want to live a resurrected life, not some sort of zombie version of my sinful past.  What an idiot.

Humble Beginnings = Good Beginnings

When he had finished prophesying, he came to the high place.  Now Saul's uncle said to him and his servant, "Where did you go?" And he said, "To look for the donkeys. When we saw that they could not be found, we went to Samuel."  Saul's uncle said, "Please tell me what Samuel said to you."  So Saul said to his uncle, "He told us plainly that the donkeys had been found." But he did not tell him about the matter of the kingdom which Samuel had mentioned. (1 Samuel 10:13-16 NASB)

Saul had a wild day that day.  On his way back to his father, he and his servant met people who confirmed the word of Samuel that their donkeys had been found, gave them bread for their journey, and finally Saul was "possessed" of the Spirit of God, and prophesied with a company of prophets.  He winds up at a high place of worship, and there his uncle finds him.  He has been told that he will be his peoples first king, and the three meetings confirm the word of Samuel.  But he's not sure.

There are a lot of problems with Saul's character that come out in later chapters, but there is much that indicates he at least started well.  The weight of ruling Israel weighed heavy on him at the outset, and he wasn't one to rush in and take the reigns lightly or eagerly.   Later they can't find him because he was hiding among the baggage.

In a sense he is a reluctant king.  In the sense that he is, it speaks well of him.  He didn't seize power, he didn't expect the acclaim, he didn't jump at the opportunity when offered.  He took the role very seriously, and I believe, when his history is examined, he does so all through his reign.  It may be that those reluctant to take the reigns of leadership are better suited to do so.  Yet not every great leader in Scripture fits this characteristic.  Saul does.

Interestingly, where he is reluctant to take it, he is manic to keep it.  Really, his fight with David is over whether or not he will have a "dynasty" not remain king.  I believe he understands that David will not overthrow him, but he is equally clear that his son will not become king with David around.  Yet his beginning is very humble, and not in show, but in character.

I learn from this that humility is important to have at the outset of a task or role my Master gives me, but it is also important to maintain.  I don't do so well at this, especially as success comes in the midst of the task assigned to me.  It's often easy to become comfortable, the confident, and then to take the task for granted, as if I'm either owed or have earned the role. 

Saul missed that his role was less about him and more about God and His people.  I will be more happy and experience more peace when I remember that my roles and tasks given by my Master are always about Him and His people rather than about me.  If I can maintain that understanding and cling to it throughout the role and task, then I will be able to maintain that right standing before my Master; the standing where humility is just part of who I am rather than a characteristic I display only at the outset.  This is especially difficult for me at work, and it unfortunately shows in my attitude.  I need to readdress this.

More Going On Than Donkeys

Then Saul approached Samuel in the gate and said, "Please tell me where the seer's house is."  Samuel answered Saul and said, "I am the seer. Go up before me to the high place, for you shall eat with me today; and in the morning I will let you go, and will tell you all that is on your mind.  As for your donkeys which were lost three days ago, do not set your mind on them, for they have been found. And for whom is all that is desirable in Israel? Is it not for you and for all your father's household?"  Saul replied, "Am I not a Benjamite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel, and my family the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin? Why then do you speak to me in this way?"  Then Samuel took Saul and his servant and brought them into the hall and gave them a place at the head of those who were invited, who were about thirty men. (1 Samuel 9:18-22 NASB)

 Saul and his servant go up to find Samuel in the city where they wind up while looking for his father's donkeys.  As they ask Samuel for the way to find Samuel, his answer to them has to be baffling.  They are trying to get some idea of what to do about their quest to find lost donkeys.  Samuel's answer reveals that there is a lot more going on than lost donkeys.

I read this, and it's easy to blaze right over it without thinking about what was in Saul's mind.  He gets such a bad rap in Scripture that we tend to discount him and not wonder that deeply about the events from his perspective.  That's really a dangerous error to make, because I find that I can fall into similar traps as he did very easily.  I need to learn from him what not to do, what I can do differently to avoid the things he did to finally become rejected by God.

So, here, Saul is baffled.  It is evident in his response to Samuel.  But I wonder about what else is in his mind.  he doesn't seem to mind eating with Samuel, doesn't have any qualms about eating the choice cut of meet, or spending the evening with Samuel.  He seems to be willing to forget donkeys at the moment, and go with his circumstances.  So he is baffled, but not put off. 

I have to remember his pedigree here.  He's handsome, so he's probably used to getting attention.  He's tall, so he rarely escapes attention.  His dad is a "mighty man of valor" so he's used to tough brave talk, fighting, and so on.  So, on the surface, yes, he's from the smallest tribe, but Benjamin was also a "preferred" tribe since Benjamin was a favorite of Jacob.  Sure his family may be the smallest of Benjamin, but his dad is known, and so is he.  My point is that Saul may be baffled, but he's probably not entirely out of his element.

I'm not sure why this is important, or even if it is, but I want to spend some time making sure.  Do I need to learn that I should be more uncomfortable with attention?  Do I need to be less judgmental when I run across someone who isn't uncomfortable with attention?  Is Saul wrong here?  Is he demonstrating a lack of humility?  Should I be wary of such attention?  It's not like "acting humble" works.  I'm either humble or I'm not in a given situation.

I guess what I take away from this is not to jump to conclusions too quickly.  If, looking at this situation from the perspective of what I know about his later failures, I say that here he's showing a lack of humility, then I also am being harder on him than I would be on myself.  I know my context, how I change and learn from one event to the next.  Why not give this character the same opportunity?  What if he's simply going with the flow, which is part of his undoing later.  That's a very different problem than pride.  Sometimes it's not a "problem" at all; sometimes it's a sign of faith.  The difference is in the context.

The thing is that I really don't know. The question is, can I be okay with that, and not try to pretend I do know?  So often the context is missing, so how could I really know?  But I bow to the idol I create of how I think others think of me, and try to play the educated person, the knowledgeable person.  Whether I pull it off or not is irrelevant.  That I try is the idolatrous practice indicating an idol in my life; something that has replaced my Master in my heart.  Defeating this evil, that brings true humility, and I won't have to act humble, it will simply be part of who I am.  That would be nice.  Now where did I put my idol-smashing hammer?  It was just here.

From Zero to Hero, and From Hero to Zero

But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him, and said, "You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord?   Now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time." And immediately a mist and a darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking those who would lead him by the hand.   Then the proconsul believed when he saw what had happened, being amazed at the teaching of the Lord.   Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; but John left them and returned to Jerusalem. (Acts 13:9-13 NASB)

Until this time, the character of Saul has followed everyone else in lists.  He was listed with impressive people, but while fade into obscurity, his name changes and suddenly everyone's hanging around him.  The timing is before a Roman proconsul with the same name, Paul, and as Saul/Paul confronts a false prophet.  From then on his name is Paul.

But the change is without fanfare or comment on the change.  Saul aka Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazes at the false prophet.  There's no comment on the connection between the names (it seems to be euphonic only). The companions of Paul travel from Paphos to Perga.  There's no explanation of why Barnabas is no longer taking point, or why it's not "Paul and Barnabas" at this point.  Paul seems to have eclipsed everyone.

I notice a few things here that I find interesting.  First off, there's no record that Barnabas has a problem with this.  This guy has been a true encouragement all along, and now he sees a "protege" of his taking flight.  Well, something like that perhaps.  For whatever reason, it seems that he is willing to relent, to give up that prime position without a fuss.  It may not have even been an issue really, just felt like a natural progression.  But does it mean anything that Barnabas is from Cyprus; that he sells a field from there?  It doesn't seem to.

I suppose that these changes that my Master brings about are to be acceptable to me as well.  Like Barnabas, I should be willing to take a one-down on issues, be willing to fade into the background.  This week I have had to eat a bit of crow, and I have to admit, I didn't like the taste.  The way I could have avoided it was to just let things be, or at least ask around before assuming I knew what was happening.  I was prideful and in a hurry.  Barnabas does not seem burdened with that problem.  He's not really in a hurry, and he does not seem prideful.

I mention this because I believe that my Master has given me both the gift and the task of encouragement.  I am constantly amazed at how ineffective such a gift is when I full of myself.  It actually works in reverse and I discourage.  So I myself am naturally discouraging, but my Master has gifted me in an area I am naturally weak and given me the job of encouraging.  So, like Barnabas, I am to be an encourager.  Like Barnabas, I am supposed to build people up.  But like Barnabas, that's not going to happen if I don't take the time to shed my pride and take time to be present with those I am called to encourage. 

If I want to stand back and watch a "Paul" emerge onto the stage, I have to be willing to stand back.  But even before that, I have to be willing to go through the transition from leading and guiding to following and supporting.  If I'm not willing to do that, I'm never going to see what my Master will do with the amazing people with whom I serve.  I have to be willing to go from zero to hero, but also from hero to zero.  It must be my Master who designates who and for how long he makes the hero.  It is my job to submit to His designation for however long He designates.

Pardon me, I think I heard the oven ding.  My humble pie must be finished.  Gotta go, it's breakfast.

The Unsung Martyr

Now about that time Herod the king laid hands on some who belonged to the church in order to mistreat them.   And he had James the brother of John put to death with a sword. (Acts 121-2 NASB)

Why is there no Gospel or Epistle by John's brother?  The Gospel of Mark is attributed to information from the Apostle Peter, as are two other letters.  The Apostle John is responsible for the Gospel of John, Revelation, and three letters. Where is the work of the Apostle James?  The other "Son of Thunder" is silent in the Scriptures.

When a deacon is forever silenced, he is given two chapters in the story of the early church.  His entire speech to his accusers is included.  The method of his execution, his last words, and some connection to the Pharisee Saul is included.  The persecution of the church throughout Judea is tied to this death.  So much pivots on this event, it's like a "watershed" event for the early church everywhere.

The brother of John, one of the inner circle of Jesus, the "other son of Zebedee" is given little ink in the Scriptures.  Most of what is in the Gospels lists him before his brother John, but there are not direct quotes (the closest being when he and John both request the seats of honor at Jesus' throne, and when they ask Jesus if he wants them to call fire down on the Samaritans).  He makes every list of the Apostles in every Gospel as second to Peter, yet when Paul mentions that he went to Jerusalem, only Peter, John, and James the brother of Jesus are included.  Why is there so little of this man in Acts?

No explanation is given why so little information is given.  Perhaps Luke didn't have much.  There isn't a lot in Apocryphal literature either, so maybe there just wasn't much to work with (even to make up).  The summation of the life of one of the major apostles is one sentence, except for one other comment, also often missed.  Herod notices that the death of John's brother pleases the people.  Not only is little written of this man, but when he does go, the people are glad.  Granted, the "people" aren't believers, but no mention of prayers going up for him are mentioned either.  I mention that because Luke specifically says prayers are being made for Peter.

In the absence of much in the way of data, what can I piece together about this great person who gets so little ink, who is the first of the Twelve to die for their Master?  Probably, if I combed through every mention of him in the Gospels, I might be able to surmise something of what happened here, but I doubt it.  So much changed after Jesus' resurrection and the day of Pentecost.  Trying to compare the account of James in the Gospels and then in this point in time in Luke would be impossible. 

I will point out one other thing though, and that is how Peter seems to have declined in prominence as Acts progresses.  Perhaps the role of the "Twelve" changes after the death of Stephen.  Peter is in charge, until Stephen is killed.  Once persecution hits the church, James the brother of Jesus seems to take over.  It's an odd thing, but I then wonder if these who hold the memory of direct contact with Jesus were sidelined, at least in leading the church.  Perhaps the decline in the prominence of this brother of John follows the same track, so this death is less impressive or important to the church than it would have been earlier on, perhaps before Stephen.

So, here's the lesson I draw from this:  Can I accept such a minor footnote after I'm gone?  It's really a dumb question since how would I know or why would I care (I'm hanging with my Master)?  But as I go, as the sword becomes a reality of my end, can I accept the little note in passing?  Or will I try to create drama, draw attention to myself, to "rail against the dying of a life"; will I seek to make it about me at the end?  Can I be content with so little?

Consider this, he is the only one of the Twelve who's death is mentioned in Scripture.  Also, he receives more ink in Acts than the other 9 (John gets to take a trip to Samaria, so he's got more ink, and obviously Peter has a bunch).  The other 9 are barely mentioned.  Even Matthias is given more ink than James, just not after he's an apostle.  In fact, I don't think the other 9 are mentioned (Matthias after he's an apostle).  The twelve men who had the whole story, and they're not even given a place of great prominence.

My point is that there are lots of people who have done and been more than I can ever hope to be, who have had much more influence than I can ever hope to have, but who get no ink at all.  So, once again, it's not about the ink, or rather it's not about me.  It will always be about my Master.  It wasn't this unsung martyr who is the main character in this story, it is instead the One he was a witness about.  It isn't about me, as whatever witness I am, but about my Master of Whom I am to be a witness. 

James the brother of John died as I should, only as a mark to a greater story in which my Master reigns as the main Character.  His only claim to fame is to set the scene for Peter's capture and release.  The first of the apostles to go, and here he is merely "set dressing".  I can expect even less.  Perhaps I'll be the guy with the broom cleaning the stage afterwards; not even in the program, just a guy in coveralls working in dim silence among empty chairs and discarded paper.  The question is will I accept such a role from my Master, the Star, Director, and Producer of the play?  You know, come to think of it, I've been meaning to get a push broom.  This could be good for me. 

Humility, Ability, Swords and Armor

One of the things about Paul that always sort of intimidated me was his confidence in his own devotion.  In 1 Corinthians 15:10 he speaks of himself working harder than all the rest.  Even though he ends it with, “but not I but the grace of God with me” it still sounds like boasting, except I suspect he was right.  He seems like one of those people I run into from time to time who are so driven they reveal my own devotion for the poor sad façade it really is.  On the other hand, I need to be very careful here.  If I call my devotion sad and poor, I need to be careful to step on myself, and not on what my Master can and does do with me.

There are things I can control and am responsible for such as spiritual disciplines of one sort or another.  These things put me in greater availability to my Master.  As He uses me then things happen that have little to do with my abilities or condition.  I consider myself moderately successful in my past ministry, but not by the number of people saved, but by the effect I had on saved and lost alike.  I saw those apart from the church return, and I saw some never “churched” receive Jesus as Savior.  I was in the process of relationally reaching out to my community even when I was being undermined by some of my church leaders.

The success was not because of my ability.  What abilities I had and have lack the power of what my Master does.  I can “manufacture” somewhat something that looks vaguely like success.  But when my Master is the One succeeding, it is astounding.  So, I have to be careful where I point out my faults.  As long as they display my Master’s power and glory, I’m on the right track.  And I remain on the right track as long as I don’t tread on His power and ability.  I am not worthless, Jesus’ death proves that.  I am not worldly successful, though I have been blessed financially in this place (at least I think of it as blessed financially).  But I do have areas to work on in my life.

The areas where I lack are in my thorough devotion to my Master.  I let the influence of other people override the voice of my Master.  He makes divine appointments for me and I miss the out of fear of other people.  This is America, so it’s not fear of prison or physical harm either.  I clearly fear appearing foolish in their eyes.  What I can’t figure out is why I care.  I hardly know anyone here.  Why would I care what they think?  And even if I did know them, still, so what?  I used to be afraid of messing it up, but I have learned that my Master has that handled.  I act as more of a place-holder for the presence of my Master; it’s not my ability anyway.

So, my spiritual disciplines need to run more toward increasing my devotion to my Master, and practicing overcoming my fears.  That sounds deceptively easy.  I have always had more trouble attacking than defending.  But the gates of hell not prevailing against the confession of faith means it’s aggressive, not defensive.  I need to don my ill-fitting armor (on loan from my Master, so it doesn’t fit me well), grab my borrowed sword and shield, and get into the fray.  Okay, deep breath. One, two…THREE!!!  AAAAHHHHH!!!! (let’s hope this doesn’t end with a thud)

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, November 30