Why Even Go There?

Then Abishai said to David, "Today God has delivered your enemy into your hand; now therefore, please let me strike him with the spear to the ground with one stroke, and I will not strike him the second time."  But David said to Abishai, "Do not destroy him, for who can stretch out his hand against the LORD'S anointed and be without guilt?" (1 Samuel 26:8-9 NASB)

So David took the spear and the jug of water from beside Saul's head, and they went away, but no one saw or knew it, nor did any awake, for they were all asleep, because a sound sleep from the LORD had fallen on them. (1 Samuel 26:12 NASB)

This is somewhat a repeat of chapter 24 where Saul goes t relieve himself in a cave and David and his men do not take the opportunity to kill the crazed king.  Here the setting is out in the open, Saul asleep in the middle of his 3,000 men with Abner, his general, at his side.  It sounds fairly safe.

David and Abishai simply sneak right into the ring of soldiers, and right up to the sleeping king.  The immediate question is how were they able to do that?  The answer is provided on their way out when the writer tells us at that point (guessing it was on everyone's mind) that God had put everyone under a sleep, a sleep of the LORD.

In a very real sense, the writer here acknowledges that Abishai was right; "Today God has delivered your enemy into your hand," just as Abishai said.  David just didn't do with the opportunity what Abishai expected.  Why put David in that position at all?  Why sneak down into the camp?  Why even be there?

We're taught, and continue to teach young people to 'flee' sin, not to put themselves in tempting situations.  It makes sense, and is good advice.  I think we should continue to do so.  My confusion here is why my Master doesn't agree with my assessment when it concerns His man David.  Here, my Master seems to encourage David to come right in and be tempted by the sleeping king.

James tells us in 1:13, that God is not tempted, nor does He tempt anyone.  Yet here, it would seem He didn't prevent it either, in fact, a case could be made that He enabled it, and therefore not only encouraged it, but is actually responsible for the temptation (okay, not a great case, but good enough for the US court system).  David wants to sneak into the camp, Abishai goes with him, and God makes it possible.

I know, and I strongly believe in the quality of my Master that He knows everything without respect to time.  So, past, present, future all appear to Him as the same.  So, for Him to permit David to sneak into the camp isn't a problem since He knows David won't kill Saul.  But let's put this where it really belongs: in the category with all the other things my Master asks of me that seem silly if He knows the past, present, and future.  For instance, why pray if He already knows what He will do, how, with/through whom, and the eventual outcome?  What exactly would I be praying for?  Why send me into ministry?  Why have me train for 10 years after leaving the Army only spend 18 months or so actually on the field after finishing?  If He knew what would happen, why would He do that?

So, why permit David to go into the camp?  What is the point of having David stand over the sleeping king, and not kill him?  Is it a point to be made with David, with Abishai, with Saul?  Perhaps this is where the inspired words cannot fail in their purpose; a purpose somewhat different with each person involved, David, Abishai, Saul, and whoever reads them.

My point is this; not everything my Master permits me to do, enables me to encounter, or directs me into is a mandate to a particular action.  Submission to my Master does not mean taking every action provided by each opportunity He provides.  This is a problem for me precisely because I have contented myself that if He permitted it, seemed to be orchestrating it, then it must be His will.  So, try something; if it works, if He makes the details come together, if He seems to enable its completion, then it must have been His will.  Wrong!

If you're wondering, this is where the answer to my previous question about prayer fits.  But it's only half the answer to the problem.  The importance of prayer isn't to change events or my Master, but rather to enable me to be changed by Him.  Only then can these sorts of 'opportunities' be sorted out correctly; only when I have spent so much time with Him that I know His will.  It seems so 'iffy', so nebulous and dangerous, lacking the firm soundness of irrefutable proof that I know His will.  It is much like swimming through cloudy water, or seems so before I actually swim through it.  The other half of the answer will provide the 'goggles' for swimming. 

The second piece is Bible study.  Without it, prayer is directionless.  The Bible contains the record of my Master's work among people He chose.  From it can be discerned His character, His purpose, His methods, and His mind.  This is so because He has revealed those things through the inspired words.  So prayer and Bible study make up the process through which opportunities can be judged to be within or outside the will of my Master.  I need both.  Otherwise my prayer isn't intimate, it's selfish.  Otherwise my study is impersonal and sterile.  I fail without both.  Which I believe is also part of His purpose.

What Is My Life About?

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20 NASB)

So, we're studying "Multiply" by Francis Chan in our church small groups, including mine.  We're using materials for the first time, and I'm not wild about that.  It's good stuff though.  The basic premise is that we as individuals and as churches are supposed to be about discipling others.  The basic passage to base such a base upon is the Great Commission.

So, I studied Matthew 28:18-20 in some detail (part of which I posted over the weekend).  So, here's what I found:

Jesus' authority substantiates the command to disciple others in the midst of living a life of submission to Him, discipling made up of obtaining the disciple's commitment through baptism and teaching them to guard everything Jesus taught through Scripture, all carried out in the presence of Jesus.

That's what I got from the passage.  What I'm getting from the book is that this is fairly easy to understand, and fairly difficult to carry out.  The element that disciple-making is every believer's job is repeated throughout because it's never really accepted by believers.  It's weird why that is, but it's so true in our Western, especially American, culture.  As I write this lying on my couch in front of the TV...no, just kidding.

The inescapable element supporting all the rest is Jesus' declaration that all authority (in heaven and on earth) has been given to Him.  Why all the arguments inspiring believers to do this don't also focus on this central element is odd to me.  Not to intentionally beat a dead horse, but it's all about obedience and submission.  I don't think that horse is anywhere near dead unfortunately.

It is still about me dying to myself, my desires, my wishes, and my dreams; and rising again to take on Him as my Master, His desires, His wishes, and His dreams as my own.  I want my stuff, what's wrong with my stuff?  Besides the fact that it's empty, without substance, uninformed, and lame; nothing's wrong with my stuff.  Compared to the riches of the Master of the universe, though, the question should be why wouldn't I want His stuff?  I don't ask that question enough, except the form of, 'what was I thinking?'  I ask that one a lot, often accompanied by a slap to the head (also known as a V-8).

If I'm reading this correctly, the purpose of my life as defined by my Master is to obediently make disciples as He guides the course of my life lived in His presence, getting the commitment of baptism from them, and teaching them to guard Scripture.

That's my purpose.  So when I have to decide what to do, I should be holding up the 'stick' of obediently making disciples' to see which choice fits within that boundary.  Once I have that set of options, then I can follow whatever process to determine which one of those my Master has for me.  The first unit of measurement, though, should be disciple-making.

Now, about my job...hmm.

Traveling or Being Traveled

Mat 28:18-20 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “ All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
http://olivetree.com/b3/Mat.28.18.NASBStr

I have a dilemma.  The verb 'go' in verse 19 is a participle, but is passive.  Participles are already 'flexible' in their range of meaning since they are both verbs and adjectives.  But that it is passive adds another complex problem, because 'go' here isn't transitive in nature, at least not here.  Consider how you can be acted upon (passive voice) and the action is to move from one location to another.  As I see it, essentially, you are carried by someone or something without being the one in control.  That's the passive sense of this word as best as it can be achieved in English; and I admit it's not great.

Now the participle piece,  typically the imperative of 'disciple' or 'make disciples' is 'borrowed' by the participle, rendering the participle as a command to 'go'.  This is not required, even though very common.  I think that I lean another direction.  Participles can support other verbs, lending a sense of context of the action, and I think that is what this one does.  The command to make disciples is to be carried out in the temporal setting of going.  But this temporal setting of 'going' is in that passive sense in the previous paragraph; as in 'being carried along.'  So the obedience to the command 'make disciples' happens as we are carried along from place to place.

So, now all sorts of excuses come up.  What if I'm not 'being carried'?  Why do I need to be carried?  I'm waiting to be carried.  My life isn't going anywhere at the moment. I'm going to fast and furious to do anything else.  And so on it goes.  But if my Master is doing the driving in my life, then there's no excuse for me not doing my part in discipling.  The truth is I do way too much of the driving, that's why I'm too busy; I'm too busy doing His job.  That's not life lived in submission.  And therin is my problem.

Saul's Lonely Quest Against His God

Now Saul told Jonathan his son and all his servants to put David to death. But Jonathan, Saul's son, greatly delighted in David.  So Jonathan told David saying, "Saul my father is seeking to put you to death. Now therefore, please be on guard in the morning, and stay in a secret place and hide yourself." (1 Samuel 19:1-2 NASB)

Then Saul sent messengers to David's house to watch him, in order to put him to death in the morning. But Michal, David's wife, told him, saying, "If you do not save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be put to death."  So Michal let David down through a window, and he went out and fled and escaped. (1 Samuel 19:11-12 NASB)

This chapter of  1 Samuel is really about how Saul can't even get cooperation from his family against David.  It is about his failure to relent with God, his obvious sinful aggression against David, and the support and love Saul's son and daughter have for David.  In a sense this chapter is linkage to the final failure of Saul and eventual rise of David.  That is a long story though.  In the next chapter and following, we will focus entirely on David, and Saul fades to a secondary character.  This is his last chapter as a main character.

Saul is a tragic figure, classic long before Greek was classic.  Whatever he tries fails because he is fighting the One having called Israel into existence.  He can't rule the country of ones called by their God, and yet fight against the One having called them.  His attempts to hold on to the kingdom are futile.  It's obvious, and it's sad.  There's nothing to be done, no council to give, no comfort, for Saul is beyond all that.  The only solace he could find he drove off when he turned against David, his harp player.

But isn't it interesting that this One having called Israel, guided them, and led them now places His new chosen one in the court of his rejected one, and makes him indispensable.  David becomes the best military leader and the one who can relieve Saul of the evil spirit sent by God.  The God of Israel put's David in Saul's face.  It sounds cruel, or even petty, but I believe it is another act of grace as God calls on Saul to relent.  It's only as he is able to acknowledge David's ascendancy that he has any peace, that the harp playing has its effect on him, that all is well with the nation. 

So where is my opportunity to relent?  Where is my Master placing me in a situation where I am to relinquish some power, authority, or position to another?  Peter seems to in Acts.  One moment he leads the Jerusalem church, the next, without explanation, it's James the brother of Jesus.  No explanation, and Peter doesn't seem to mind.  Where's my opportunity?  I wish it were at work.  I'm tire of my work.  I just don't think I've learned the lesson my Master has for me.  I hope I don't learn it the hard way.

Perhaps it's at church, but I don't really have much to give up there.  The coffee bar?  I think I could let that go.  The marriage mentoring program is just getting off the ground, but I'm hardly the motivating factor there.  I don't know.  And I know I don't have to.  This may not be a lesson for me now.  This could be a lesson that my Master wants me to know for later.  Or it could be a lesson He wants me to write about for someone else.  I don't know.  But this is what this chapter is about; giving up my plans for His, even when they don't include me.  Maybe I'm supposed to relent to my Master's use of this entry.  I suppose it doesn't have to be about me at all.

So Philistines Hate Married Men?

Now Michal, Saul's daughter, loved David. When they told Saul, the thing was agreeable to him.  Saul thought, "I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." Therefore Saul said to David, "For a second time you may be my son-in-law today."  Then Saul commanded his servants, "Speak to David secretly, saying, 'Behold, the king delights in you, and all his servants love you; now therefore, become the king's son-in-law.'"  So Saul's servants spoke these words to David. But David said, "Is it trivial in your sight to become the king's son-in-law, since I am a poor man and lightly esteemed?" (1 Samuel 18:20-23 NASB)

Saul is now jealous of David because the dancing ladies sang that Saul had slain his 'thousands' while David had slain his 'big numbers'.  It's kind of a silly reason to distrust anyone, but to be fair it's also because he sees that God is with David and knows that God is no longer with him.  This is where he fights against what he knows is the will of God, and doesn't relent.

So what does Saul decide to do about the guy God favors?  Well he tried to pin him to the wall with his spear but he escapes twice.  So, instead, he decides to get him to marry one of his daughters so his enemies (the Philistines) will then kill David.

Even though David leads Israel and Judah into battle, it isn't until he might marry a daughter of Saul that these Philistines really become dangerous?  They sort of like shepherds, but married guys they can't tolerate?  Or is it the daughter of Saul, so now they are angry since they wanted one of theirs to marry her?  Or maybe it's so obvious, I'm missing it.

Life married does change things.  When I married, my life was suddenly no longer all about me.  I had always said that it was about God and me, but really that wasn't true.  Once another person was affected by all I did, then I began to understand better what I was doing to my Master to make the choices I had made.  I spent the first year acclimating to how selfish I really was.  And the next 19 years after that trying to become less selfish.

But I'm not sure if that's all of it, because why does being a son-in-law to Saul make the Philistines more apt to kill David?  Maybe it's that he would be part of the 'royal family' and therefore a highly prized target?  David was already showing himself to be a great leader, wouldn't he already be a 'highly prized target' if only to make the Philistines life easier?

Okay, so you're reading this and going, 'So what? Saul's crazier than a bag of cats, move on.'  But what I'm looking around for is what two sets of people thought about Saul's motivation.  What did the 'servants of Saul' and the people around David think?  And what about the people reading this after it was written some hundreds of years later, what did they think of Saul's motivation?

That's important because my Master is conveying a message; making a point.  And that point was initially made in that day these events occurred, and then again with the initial audience of the writings.  He wanted to help them understand something.  I want to know what that was, but to do so, I need a better understanding of what they knew.  I need to know more about what they assumed and what didn't need to be explained to them, because this reasoning of Saul isn't explained.

I suspect that the answer lies in two factors.  One of which is the easy one to spot 3,000 years later: Saul's mind isn't working very well.  But I also think that in the culture of the day, being the king's son-in-law did have an affect on the outcome of battles.  I suspect it had to do with an enemy's ability to strike at an absent king through his family.

The thinking goes like this: Since Saul wasn't present at these battles with the Philistines, David presented an optional target and a way to strike at the heart and soul of the king.  The reasoning would have been that if David dies, the daughter of the king mourns and the king's life is difficult; his enemies have struck home, at his heart; it's like loosing a son.

But this is no where near the only reasonable suggestion.  Perhaps the 'snare' would have been that David would have considered himself one-step closer to being king.  I'm not sure how that would make the Philistines more dangerous.  Perhaps the daughter of Saul would have given more influence and control to Saul over David.  I'm not sure on any of these, but I suspect that the first one, being a royal family target, is probably slightly more likely.  But it could have been several of these options at once, rather than a single-sided reason.

The point here is that while Saul is certainly bent, his mind is still working somewhat.  He's jealous and crazy with it, panicking over the Spirit of God having left him.  But he's still lucid enough to plot against David.  He understands that God is with David, and therefore David is supposed to be the next king; he understands that much.  The thing he's doing that God wants me to know, the same thing He wanted the original people and the original audience to know, is that it's futile to plot against the designs of God.  There, that's it. 

So I need to stop it, when I do it.  In small ways and large, I need to let my Master be Master of me, my life, and my actions.  Submit, relent, and rest in Him.  So, what will I discover today?  I have an interview for a possible new job.  What I want to know is the plan of my Master in this.  I suspect it will be to remain where I am until I learn the lesson of where I am.  But maybe I have (though I doubt it).

Whatever His plan, my job is to accept it; today, tomorrow, and forever.

Ends, Means, and Justification: How God Connects Them

Now he waited seven days, according to the appointed time set by Samuel, but Samuel did not come to Gilgal; and the people were scattering from him.   So Saul said, "Bring to me the burnt offering and the peace offerings." And he offered the burnt offering.  As soon as he finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him and to greet him.  But Samuel said, "What have you done?" And Saul said, "Because I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you did not come within the appointed days, and that the Philistines were assembling at Michmash, therefore I said, 'Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not asked the favor of the LORD.' So I forced myself and offered the burnt offering."  Samuel said to Saul, "You have acted foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which He commanded you, for now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever.  But now your kingdom shall not endure. The LORD has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the LORD has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you." (1 Samuel 13:8-14 NASB)

 This whole chapter seems either made up of pieces that didn't originally belong together or designed from the outset to make Saul look bad.  That second option may sound worse than it should since most of Samuel and Kings, and even Chronicles simply support the Davidic line of kings.  That would be hard to do if Saul comes off as a hero and great leader.  So it's possible he wasn't quite as bad as it seems, at least in "leadership" terms.

In a sense, Saul makes a good "leadership" decision.  It looks good from the standpoint of the need of the moment, the reality of the situation, and as a pragmatic option.  The one flaw in what he did is that it disobeyed God.  One flaw, but it was a fatal flaw.  If you take the time to read the entirety of the next chapter, it finishes off with a positive summary of Saul's reign.  He probably was a great leader.  But God wants more.

I have a huge book of "Leadership" books by John Maxwell on my work desk.  It's there partly because that was one of the things we could read at work.  But it is also there because I like his work.  He writes it from the standpoint of secular leadership, and I'm sure that for much of it Saul was right there with it.  But I know a bit about John Maxwell's background, and I know he is a believer in Jesus.  His work does not contradict Scripture, but an element that doesn't appear in most of his books is obedience to God.

What I learn from Saul is that obedience is better than going through the process or actions of worship.  He sacrificed what was needed, he did so to God, but he didn't do so in faith, he did it in pragmatic wisdom.  When it came down to it, he relied on himself rather than God.  And that, more than any other thing is probably what characterized his downfall.  Discussions about whether he suffered from some mental/emotional ailment are all well and good, but what destroyed him was his deviation from God's design.

Ironically, he had the same purpose as God, to drive out the Philistines.  Saul had the right goal, he just had more faith in himself than he had in the God of Israel.  He wanted God to bless his plans his way; to follow him instead of the other way around.  Samuel reveals to Saul that God wants something else, a "man after His own heart." 

When Samuel says that, literally, it says "a man as His own heart", as if the heart of the man God chooses matches, corresponds to, looks much like the heart of the Creator of the universe.  I tended to think of it as someone who pursues the heart of God (i.e. chases after...).  But this wording really means that David will be someone who looks very much like God's heart, as if he has God's heart.  That is very different; that describes someone who doesn't have to "pursue" God's heart because he's already got it. 

I didn't even think that was possible.  What does it mean that it is possible?  I feel a paradigm shift coming on.  Great.  I love change, especially fundamental character change...oh wait.  So what I have been pursuing, believing that's what my Master wants, I'm actually supposed to already have.  I'm supposed to have it so I can be of use to my Master in His purposes but also His designs.  Rather than spending time seeking, I'm supposed to already have it, and be busy with it.  Oh lovely.  Why does that feel like the day of the big exam at school, and I realize I've been studying the wrong chapter? 

I hate that feeling, like most people.  I feel like such an idiot, and that's an uncomfortable feeling.  But I think that becoming comfortable with that feeling of being an idiot is the beginning of humility.  It's the acceptance of my true standing before my Master.  Then I can also become comfortable with my Master's ways as opposed to feeling compelled to follow my own (remember how Saul had to "force himself" to disobey?). 

So, I'm supposed to live life "dumbed down" before my Master.  And my enjoyment of intelligent appearance must be laid at the feet of my Master.  And the reality of my wisdom (or lack thereof) should be my new "comfort zone."  I'm seriously thinking of re-writing this, but it's what I need.  Excuse me while I submit this too to my Master and relinquish more of my pride and myself.  Hopefully the next time we meet I'll look more like my Master than the old me.  Hope, hope, hope...

The Judgement of The King

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations." (1 Samuel 8:4-5 NASB)

He said, "This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: 

• he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.
• He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, 
• some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest 
• and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.
• He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.
• He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.
• He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.
• He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.
• He will take a tenth of your flocks, 
• and you yourselves will become his servants.

Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day." (2 Samuel 8:11-18 NASB)

 When you hear the word, "judgement", you may think of a guy in a black robe up behind a tall desk with a wooden hammer.  You'd be right, at least for our culture.  In the culture of Israel in the period of the judges, this was not quite right.

The judges of the period of judges sat, and decided disputes between people and tribes that couldn't be decided internally by the elders.  The elders of cities and families sat in "gates" of cities and disputes were brought there.  The "judges" of Israel sometimes traveled in a circuit from city to city, and others stayed in one place.  The judges could be from any tribe and they typically didn't pass their responsibility down to their children.

Now for this passage, one of the difficulties faced by translators was to effectively convey the meaning of the passage when the word typically meaning "judgement" is being used with a much wider range of meaning than normal.  The word is used in verse 1 referring to the "office" of judge, in verse 2 referring to the activity of "judging", in verse 5 and 6 to refer to the activity of judging but as part of the office of "king", and in verse 9 and 11 to refer to the practice that would actually be followed by kings.  The last reference has little to do with deciding disputes in any way.  It more likely caused disputes than resolved any.

So, the judgement of the king, translated as "procedure of the king" in verses 9 and 11, involve conscription and taxation.  The king will take their children for service in his administration, and their flocks and harvest to support his administration.  It's not shocking to us reading this from a 21st Century perspective.  This sounds like every text-book king and tyrant we've ever read about.  But that hasn't been their life up to now.

Up to this time, the people brought such tithes and offerings to the temple or tabernacle, as part of their annual worship of God.  Even so, there was no taking of children for service, no taking of servants.  They brought a tithe and enjoyed it before God and with their family.  That was the extent of it unless they were oppressed by another country.  God's demands were pretty light considering, and if they didn't do it, the penalties were often slow in coming.  He was a much easier King to serve.  That was all about to change.

The judge they sought so they could be like other nations would treat them as the people of other nations were treated.  They were about to get the bad they didn't understand with the good they thought they did.  Now their children were no longer their own.  The offerings they brought to God were now on top of, and often from what was left by, the king's requirements.  Ironically, these are not the "procedures of the king" as God gave them to Moses.

What God tells Samuel is to tell the people the "judgement of the king", which is not the same term as what was given to Moses in Deuteronomy 17.  But the content of Deuteronomy 17 is what is expected here.  Instead of the rules the king must follow, what is given is the practice that kings will follow.  Why does God describe a practice instead of prescribing the practice?

I don't know.  I suspect that God wanted to warn the people so they couldn't say they didn't know what would happen.  But honestly, what purpose could He hope to accomplish with that?  I suspect the purpose of God was helping the people see that they had it much easier under His kingship.  It's possible that they thought they had it rough with judges.  But they may not have seen their relationship with God as Him as their king.  The requirements He made on them was much like tribute, taxation, even conscription to a degree in that He had a whole tribe to serve Him.  But they may not have seen it that way.

How many times in my life have I thought I had it rough with God?  When have I thought I had a much better idea than the requirements of my relationship with my Master?  There are requirements in this relationship, things I'm not supposed to do, things I am supposed to do.  When I lose sight of my Master as King, when I forget the cost He paid for this relationship, when I ignore the comfort of His Spirit, then it's very easy to wind up where the people were in this passage.

The reality is that my Master tries to remind me before punishing me.  His first response isn't crushing blows.  I do get His understanding, His compassion, and His mercy.  I miss that sometimes when I'm so caught up in...me.

Judgement also refers to "discernment"; the ability to differentiate between two things and choose the right one, to see the true character and meaning of events, things, and people.  It's not all about deciding disputes.  There is something else involved.  So the judgement of my King, Jesus, is not always harsh, sometimes it is very understanding.  My judgement is not always clear and correct because I rarely see the whole circumstance.  The key is to let my judgement fall to His.  The key is to let His judgement reign supreme in my life.  And the key to that is to stop staring at myself and look up toward Him.  A servant is available to their master; a good servant is available by choice, a bad one is available for punishment.  I want to be that good servant of my King, that is what He has called me to be. Today, I stand ready for the purposes of my King. 

It's Not Like This Surprised God

When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,' you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.  (Deuteronomy 17:14-15 NASB)

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations." (1 Samuel 8:4-5 NASB)

There are multiple opinions of the monarchy in Scripture, not just one.  We assume there is one because One God inspired it.  But I believe we "presume" with God when we believe that His views are universal when it comes to His highly variable human creatures.  The only universal with His human creatures is that we are lost and dead without Him.  Other than that, we're as different from each other as our fingerprints.

So, when the people asked for a king, it offended Samuel because he was already their judge.  They rejected him in a very real, very personal sense.  They blamed it on his sons and on his age, but they also ignored his success.  The realities of the one eclipsed the reality of the other, and it hurt Samuel's heart. 

God saw it differently.  He saw it as another in a long line of usurpations of His Sovereignty over His chosen people.  But it didn't surprise Him.  He already had it lined out what would happen.  Back in the day of Moses, as the people camped on banks of the Jordan River, God described for Moses what should be done when the people asked for a king.  He even knew why they would ask, "...like all the nations who are around me."  So, this is not a surprise. 

Every once in a great while, I have a shining moment of brilliance, and I lay out my brilliant idea before my Master.  Sheer brilliance! I have a plan, an idea, a wonderful new method or way or procedure or something equally boring and uninteresting, completely underwhelming and irrelevant to my Master and His plans and ideas.  But He listens, completely unperturbed, as if I've just discovered the cure for cancer He's been trying to get everyone to find right under their noses or something.  But it's not like He's surprised.

Think about it.  What can I discover that He didn't create?  What can I imagine that didn't come from elements He provided?  What can I do or decide that isn't an amalgam of circumstances He orchestrated?  Sure I have free-will.  Of course I have real decisions to make.  It's clear that I have responsibility for my mistakes and correct deeds and decisions.  But none of that flies in the face of or in any way minimizes the complete sovereignty of my Master.

Why then do I think that what I achieve at work is about me?  Why when bad things happen do I take it personal?  What makes me think that the world, or the piece of it in which I live, has anything to do with me?  Why is it so easy to forget that my entire value is in the eyes of my Master, and my purpose is entirely His design.  Is there something more valuable I can imagine than the love of my Master?  Perhaps I can envision some loftier purpose than the one He designs.  Have I lost my mind? 

How hard is it to just simply fall back into the assurance that my Master has my life in His hand?  Bad stuff happens, bring it on!  Good stuff happens, thank you Master!  Difficulty at work, I work for my King, and this is His purpose.  Happiness at home, we will praise Him together.  Pain and sorrow at home, we will grieve together before His throne and be comforted by His presence.  It makes no difference as to the circumstances nor where they occur; nothing separates me from the foot of His throne.

Now, for the reality of my day.  Let's see if I can live out these words as easily as I have written them...

Rest and the Story: Submission When I Don't Know

For it is superfluous for me to write to you about this ministry to the saints; for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the Macedonians, namely, that Achaia has been prepared since last year, and your zeal has stirred up most of them. But I have sent the brethren, in order that our boasting about you may not be made empty in this case, so that, as I was saying, you may be prepared; otherwise if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—not to speak of you—will be put to shame by this confidence. (2 Corinthians 9:1-4 NASB)

 In Acts 20, Paul again tours Macedonia and Greece, winding up in Corinth.  It happens within 2 verses, and his stay of 3 months is in the third.  It sounds like a whirlwind tour, but there is evidence that it may not have been.  In the letters to the Corinthians, Paul writes of a collection being taken up for the church in Jerusalem, where he happens to be headed.  In 1 Corinthians 16 and 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, Paul writes to them about being ready to send the collection to Jerusalem once he arrives (he's including letters of introduction for the couriers).  But he also indicates that this collection is being taken all over Macedonia as well as Galatia.  So Paul's trek back even makes more sense (his route is never really explained by Luke).

So this collection provides some back-story to the events of this Chapter, and parts of Acts 19 as well.  A few questions immediately come to mind, such as why did Luke leave this collection out of his account?  It's also clear from the letters to Corinth that there were other issues with which the church was struggling.  It's possible that any of them could help flesh out Paul's stay of 3 months in Corinth.  None of them made it into Acts.  Instead detail after detail of where Paul went, how he got there, and so on until he speaks to the elders of Ephesus when they visit him in the port of Miletus.  There Luke spends over half the chapter, just on Paul's good bye to Ephesus.

It's curious to look at the two letters, and then Luke's account in Acts, and wonder about the differences.  It seems clear that there are enough points of correspondence between Acts 19 and 1 Corinthians 16 to make it clear that Paul writes during the events of Chapter 19, perhaps as the silversmith riot is brewing.  The elements in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 are clearly additional inspiration on the same topic.  This seems to be a big issue for Paul, why not Luke?  I don't know for sure, but I suspect it has to do with an element to Luke's writing that often gets ignored.  Luke has a point, a goal, in writing his account we refer to as Acts.

The problem is that we have framed Acts as a historical record of the church in Jerusalem and Paul's work outside of Palestine.  It is, but this historical record has been written for a purpose.  There is a goal in mind for Luke, partly revealed in how he begins, writing to a person, Theophilus (friend of God).  Here he also says that this account continues the work of Jesus.  So, the purpose here is also tied to the purpose of Luke's account of the life of Jesus.  A lot of that purpose is tied to the word, "taught" or "instructed" in Luke 1:4.  But this word can also mean "inform" or "heard".  If it is the latter, then this friend of God could be one to whom Luke makes an appeal on behalf of Paul.  Considering how Acts ends, this is not outside the realm of possibility.  A "friend of God" may be found in many places among Roman society, and in hoping to either enlist the help of a representative or even a powerful official, these accounts may have been of use in providing "back story" to why Paul was so vilified by the Jews.  It's a possibility, and no where close to a certainty.  It's also very likely that Luke wrote to help a young, possibly influential or remote, believer better understand what he has chosen to believe.  I doubt it due to elements in the way Acts moves, especially in the end, but a very good case can be made that way.

So what's my point?  Sure, Luke had a point, and in reaching for that point left some stuff out.  So what?  I suppose that my real point in this is that I don't always get to know the whole story.  And I need to be okay with that.  I want to know why, about most everything.  I want to know why my company makes what I see as dumb decisions.  I want to know why my government is so convoluted that anything resembling truth is impossible to hear.  I want to know why both sides of every issue seem to so clearly share only what facts help their case.  Who shares all they know so "educated choices" can be made.  Why vilify people, even powerful ones, when there are facts on both sides of an issue that reveal it to be much more complicated than is ever presented?

I will never know why.  I will always be like everyone else, having to dig to disentangle fact and fiction, or facts underlying and beside the fiction.  I will constantly have to think through the smoke and haze I'm being shown to get at whatever substance lies behind it.  But I will also have to be content to with not being able to discover the substance.  Most of the time it is imperceptible, regardless of how much I look.  This is why I get lazy and don't look into much of the political hype on both sides of issues.  I know that I won't always be able to get to the root of things.  I will always be dependent on who is presenting facts, and how they present them.  I hate that.  I simply don't trust people who are telling me whatever because I am being kept from the facts that led whoever to whatever they are saying.  It's a pride issue really.

It's not like I can say to my Master, "Wait, how did you make stars?" before believing that He did and still does.  It's not like I can say to my Master, "show me" before believing.  This problem I face impacts my relationship with my Master directly.  It is a pride issue, and it interferes with my submission to Him.  I don't need to know why.  Even the things I can comprehend I do not need to know.  I haven't earned the right to the information, nor have I done the necessary work to discover the information, nor have I even made a decent argument why I ought to be given the information.  I just want to know, as if I'm somebody to whom my Master answers.  He didn't tell Job, so why should He tell me?  All my Master told Job were the things Job knew, the amazing things that make my Master truly Master of the universe.  Who am I if Job were not one to whom my Master was answerable?

So, while I should dig for facts and truth, I should also be content in faith that my Master is always Master over everything, even the unknowable.  Dig, but not in pride.  Dig in submission, seeking the truth my Master has hidden for me to find.  The truth He hides will, in discovering, enlighten my soul and deepen my relationship with my Master.  That's what I should pursue.  Some of that is found in pushing through political haze, some is found in wading through relational haze, and some is found in digging through personal baggage.  But it is mostly found in Scripture.  So, I'll continue to spend most of my time digging there.

Wild Ephesian Times

God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.  But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, "I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches."  Seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this.  And the evil spirit answered and said to them, "I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?"  And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.  This became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified. (Acts 19:11-17 NASB)

There is a saying of Jesus that has always given me the "shivers".  In Matthew 7:22-23, Jesus basically says that performing miracles isn't the "proof" it's that I obey His words.  That would be fine, but this is right at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, and He has just spoken some really hard words; "turn the other cheek," "love your enemies," "blessed are the meek," and so on.  It's a hard passage to get through unscathed.  Yet, not following these as a lifestyle is the indicator that my relationship with Him isn't what it is supposed to be.

Now, not to be legalistic, these elements to the Sermon on the Mount are not suggestions, and they are not laws.  Jesus transforms laws into a perspective derived from a relationship with Him.  In other words, these elements are not requirements, but evidence.  No evidence such as these elements, do whatever miracles I like, I'm still not "in" with Jesus.  I always puzzled over that because I have assumed that without the Holy Spirit performing the "miracle" it wasn't going to happen.  And then Ephesus in Acts 19, perhaps I have been mistaken.

Traveling Jewish Exorcists?  I suppose that makes some sense since belief in evil or unclean spirits wasn't especially a Greek belief, but still, putting the spirit under an oath to obey in the name of the Person someone else preaches seems like an odd practice.  Yet it demonstrates the power of the name of Jesus rather than the power of the exorcists.  It wasn't about Paul (who the demons knew about) but about Jesus (who the demons knew).  "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?"  It was about the name of Jesus.  Like the demons knowledge about Paul, these "Sons of Sceva" knew about Jesus.  They knew that His name was powerful, but they didn't know Him.

Handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul are going to the sick and possessed and they are being healed and freed.  But it's not about Paul, but Jesus Whom Paul preaches.  Read it carefully, "God was performing extraordinary miracles" not Paul.  One of my favorite little passages in the Hebrew Scriptures briefly tells of David's "Three Mighty Men" (2 Samuel 23:8-17).  These guys made Navy SEALS look like children (intense children, but still).  These are the guys SEALS want to grow up to be like.  But in these cases where one would defeat the Philistines by himself, it says that the LORD brought about a great victory.  The tough-guy was just a guy.  Sure they would break through the Philistine lines to draw water at Bethlehem, and break out again to bring it to David, but it was God working to bring victory through them.

I read of the miracles, but I have to remember it is my Master doing these things, not these people.  Argue as you may, it is the power of the name of Jesus and God Himself who does these things, not the traveling Jewish exorcists, or even Paul, or his handkerchiefs and aprons.  It never was about the people through whom my Master worked, it has always been about my Master.  Perhaps the reason "miracles" such as these are so rare in America is because we are so keen to make idols of humans.  It's so ingrained in our nature to focus on the person we can see, touch, hear, and blame that we become distant from the works of power of my Master.  Because we are merciless with these "idols" we create.  We set these people up, and crush them when they fall.

What I want is the wild Ephesian times to break loose in my town, and in my church.  It would be great if it became known as a place of miracles of my Master, not about certain people through whom the miracles came.  It would be wonderful if my Master performed healing of diseases, exorcism, raising the dead, and freeing from addictions.  It would be amazing and beautiful if, when asked what person in the community was responsible, no one could point to any one person.  If my Master shone through like the irrepressible sunlight through a break in storm clouds, that would be awesome to see.  So why hasn't it happened?

None of my handkerchiefs or aprons will help anyone I'm afraid.  Those of my pastor are probably in the same category.  It's not the quality of our leadership team to see people miraculously raised from beds of sickness or death, not yet anyway.  I believe that I and a lot of my fellow believers have a long way to go before our Master has the freedom to work in this way.  I really can't speak for all of us, but I know that I have a lot to work through, not legalistically, but relationally with my Master.  I want it, but I'm still caged by fear, shame, and pride.  I haven't yet let the Spirit of my Master loose within my heart and soul.  I should be consumed, but I'm not, not yet.  Not yet.

The Hard Road Back

But while the disciples stood around him, he got up and entered the city. The next day he went away with Barnabas to Derbe.  After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God."  When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14:20-23 NASB)

Difficulty after difficulty, after difficulty, and yet Paul and Barnabas still go back through the way they came.  This is interesting for a rather obscure reason.  On a map, these two wound up in Derbe, which is really on the road to Antioch where they started.  It would have been shorter to go to Tarsus (where Paul was actually from), and then a short trip back to Antioch.  But they didn't.  They took the much longer route back the way they came; back through all the trouble they had experienced.

Why do that?  Why not move on?  The answer obviously lies in what they did as they passed back through.  They did the following: 1) Strengthened their souls, 2) Encouraged endurance in their faith, 3) Appointed elders, 4) Commended them to the Lord.  This was so important that it was necessary to risk their lives, and civil unrest to do so?  Yes, it seems it is.  So, in our culture and the churches within it, does this seem like a huge motivating factor?  Do people seem ready and committed to strengthen souls, encourage endurance in faith, to support leadership, and commend their fellows to the Lord with prayer and fasting?  Or are we more interested in our own petty squabbles?

Even if some were willing and interested in those four things, would they risk their lives for it?  To my shame, I would have to say probably not.  I include myself in this because I don't know if it has been my track record either.  In my church, I should be so focused on these four things I should be willing to risk my life to do them.  I should be willing to put myself in danger to encourage the faith of people, to strengthen the souls who attend, to support leadership, and in prayer and fasting, commend my brothers and sisters to my Master.  This should be something I do, not because I'm a pastor (because I'm not), but because I follow my Master and want the things He considers to be important to be important to me. 

Consider how different church would be if these four things characterized those who attend.  Let's forget membership for a moment.  Let's consider instead a level of commitment characterized by activity.  Forget the rolls and lets examine the "roles".  What if those walking through the doors had these four things at heart?  There are a lot of problems in churches today, finances, internal personality conflicts, relational stress, and response to cultural pressure to conform to America instead of Scripture.  So, what would these problems look like if these four priorities were common among those showing up for worship and all the other stuff that goes on throughout the week?

Well, finances wouldn't be a problem.  Giving is a heart and faith issue, not an economic issue.  If these four things were the priority, there would have to be faith necessary to give.  Besides, leadership can't truly be supported by those unwilling to give.  The heart that withholds is adversarial towards leadership, often perceived as "grasping" and dangerous (ironically, by grasping dangerous people).

Internal personality conflicts and relational stress would be almost non existent or short-lived.  How can people characterized by prayer and fasting for each other be at eachother's throats?  Think about what sort of conflicts would arise if those involved were motivated first by strengthening the souls and encouraging the faith of those with whom they were in conflict?  They'd be over things like being of service to them, breaking down barriers of pride to permit fellowship and service, standing strong in facing a crisis in faith.  I would welcome those conflicts!  Bring them on!  These would be conflicts where we would be fighting to face the enemy united as the body of our Master.

What about cultural pressure?  A church characterized by these four motivating factors would stand and face those pressures in strength of numbers in faith.  No problem.  Scripture would be held high and studied vigorously for the truths revealed by the Spirit.  The Spirit of the Living God would rule against the feeble abilities of human reason and philosophies.  It would be a simple thing with these four things in place to perceive the difference between the perspectives of our Master and the conflicting views of our culture.  We would be driven to divide the two very widely in our lives and in our church.

I suppose, in all of this, I have some work to do.  First in my own life.  Prayer and fasting is not something to take lightly, and it is not something done to address a light problem.  As it turns out, these attitudes are actually part of a conflict I see brewing in my own church tomorrow.  My church is on the brink of making an enormous mistake from which we may not be able to recover.  The Master of the universe seeks obedient people to use to do His work, and I don't think He's finding enough of them in our congregation.  The leadership of our church needs to address this issue in a united fashion.  Man I hate missing meals.  Oh well.  Perhaps going into this conflict hungry will help tone down my emotions.  They're running pretty high right now.

I Was Praying...

On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. (Acts 10:9 NASB)

Cornelius said, "Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour; and behold, a man stood before me in shining garments, (Acts 10:30 NASB)

Prayer seems to frame hearing from my Master.  I do need to study the Scriptures, but I also need to pray.  Study comes easy to me and I really enjoy it.  But I also need the adoration and worship of my Master through prayer.  I need to place myself at His feet, bow my proud heart, and acknowledge the truly Awesome One.

So that's what I've been doing for the bulk of my study/devotional time.  So, this is short.  Your welcome.

Hammering Water

But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.  Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word. (Acts 8:3-4 NASB)
 

Stephen's death marked the turn of the city of Jerusalem against the believers there.  The speech of Stephen was immensely powerful  in that it set the religious power-elite actively against the congregation they had barely tolerated until this time.  Their threats became reality, and they "brought the hammer down."  It didn't work exactly like they wanted though.

Saul drags off men and women from their homes, families are devastated (or should be), and the prisons are filling with these followers of Jesus.  Understandably, many in the Jerusalem congregation scatter to the outlying areas.  It's just as they go, they preach the good news.  The message Saul tried to stamp out is now spread all through the region around Jerusalem, into Samaria and is pressing out beyond.  Having brought the hammer down, the religious elite found they had hammered water.  They only made a bigger mess.

I don't know if they expected this reaction, but if they did expect something like this they controlled it poorly.  I don't think they really understood what they were fighting.  Like the old teacher from chapter 5 warned them, they found themselves fighting against God, and it wasn't going well.

Have I fought against my Master thinking I'm doing the "right thing" but completely missing His goals, purposes, and actions?  Maybe, and more probably as He works in my own life.  I don't know that I would characterize my mistakes as "bringing the hammer down", but that's not the only wrong response.  It is probably more accurate to say that I have actively tried to pursue the wrong thing thinking I was doing my Master's will.

There are things that I think should be a top priority with my Master, and, given the opportunity, I pursue those.  My evaluation of those sorts of things typically follows things I like to attack or work on, toward, or whatever.  They are my preferences because they come naturally or easy to me.  I am learning slowly that such criteria are more often wrong than right.

So, I may not be Saul persecuting those following Jesus, but I can be my own silly self pursuing my own agenda.  I'm still wrong, just perhaps not as dramatically.  The solution is submission.

By submitting to my Master daily, hourly, minutely, I can be much better attuned to what He is leading me into.  I can be more like Stephen, heedless of the coming torturous death, instead of Saul, heedless of the God at work around him.  And so, once again, I start with prayer (and a yard sale - I don't recommend the yard sale).

How to Face a Tough Quest

Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he owned, "Please place your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live,
 but you will go to my country and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son Isaac." (Genesis 24:2-4 NASB)

The servant is never named, but according to an earlier chapter, Abraham has one in his household who will inherit his possessions if Abraham never had children.  This could be the same guy.  If so, the servant is from Damascus, and not from the region to which he is being sent.  Abraham came from a place called Haran, but when the servant gets there, the name has changed to Nahor, another brother of Abraham.

So the information that Abraham is able to provide to his servant is dated, and much will have changed (not just the name).  The hope here is that just as news of his family reached him in Hebron, he will have some idea of what his servant is to expect here.  Even so, this is going to be a difficult task.  The only way to be free from the oath is if he finds someone and she will not return with him.  He still needs to find someone.

Where do you start something like this?  Besides just traveling to the region, some sort of approach needs to be decided on to achieve success.  The impression from the servants chosen approach is that he had no idea of names.  That would seem strange since at least Bethuel was mentioned to Abraham in Hebron.  But without knowing the status of families, who's still alive, who's well regarded or not regarded at all, it may not be safe to just go around asking after a family.  Besides, this servant may not know the customs and practices of this region.  Who knows?

But, it could be that, among all the other pragmatic approaches open to the servant, he still decides to throw the whole thing into the lap of the God of his master.  If that were the case, once again, the faith of Abraham has touched another life, and influenced one of his household.  Of course, Abraham did say that his God would send a messenger ahead to prepare the wife for his son, still it took faith to rely on that this way.

Even the quality of the test was fascinating.  Only someone who was selfless or hospitable enough to water his camels as well as him would pass the test.  There is a quality of character required.  It's not just that he tests, but the qualifications he's looking for as well which make this an act of faith.  Abraham stipulated only that this person come from his family.  The servant goes further and seeks someone with character qualities as well.  So, he demonstrates not just faith, but devotion to his master.

The question I ask myself is, "Do I demonstrate this faith and devotion to my Master?"  Do I have the faith to approach my insurmountable tasks with a faith that relies on my Master rather than my own wisdom?  Do I have the devotion to my Master to seek the quality that will glorify Him the most, or do I simply do the minimum to achieve the plain statement of the task?  I am reminded of the parables of the talents.  What do I do, double or triple what is entrusted to me?  Or do I bury it and give it back as is?

Right now, I am being kept from doing what I want to do to work in a crisis situation at my church.  What I have tried has not worked, people have not responded, and what I had hoped to accomplish isn't going to happen.  I've been here before. 

When I was considering coming out here, I had no job prospects, but I did know that my company employs remote sales people all over.  So I tried to find something like that.  I couldn't.  Ones I had seen less than a month before had evaporated.  Every option I tried, including trying to get a position created I knew we needed failed.  This is not new ground for me.  It looks rather familiar.  In that prior experience, I had to resign myself to the work of my Master, and move on what I did know.  He had revealed that I was to go, and when.  I would just do that and leave the rest to Him.  He came through even before we left.

As it turned out, my Master provided me an opportunity I wouldn't have even considered.  In fact, had it been offered to me initially, before all my own efforts, I may not have taken it.  But by the time that I had exhausted all my options, I was ready for whatever He provided.  So, what was needed was provided only after I had exhausted my efforts.  The solution could not be claimed by me, but was clearly the solution of my Master.  Here and now I have another opportunity to experience the same problem-solving work of my Master.  I am still adjusting to letting go of my own solutions, but still.  I know where the solution will come from.  That is enough.  I think.

The Death of the Good So the Best May Live

I am going through a personal crisis right now in my job.  I have been told that we now have a rule that says that anyone just by leaving a message for a customer “owns” that account for 2 weeks.  That means that the customers I have worked for the last five years to develop, if they do call me back direct due to the level of service I provide, yet anyone has left a message for them, the message-leaver gets credit for the sale instead of me.  I was told that this won’t really affect my sales much.  Yesterday I lost $4k to it (which is a great sales amount for one day in my line).  It focuses on an area I am weak (smile-and-dial) and devalues an area I am strong (customer relations).

I am so angry about this that I’m completely distracted.  It’s consuming me right now, and as I think it through, I am feeling several emotions for a variety of reasons.  I feel fear because 26% of my sales came from these call backs, and I would not be near my goal, in fact I would fail without it.  I feel anger because I feel as if I have been cheated, like this isn’t fair, but also because I feel entitled to those customers.  When it comes right down to it, it is the entitlement thing that really gets me going.  I don’t agree with the rule on philosophical grounds, I think it undermines any focus on the customer, product knowledge, and sales skills; just dial and leave messages.

Here’s the problem I war with right now.  I am not entitled to anything.  I have said over and over that my Master has blessed me with sales this year.  Now it is time to put up or shut up about that.  If it’s true, then what I’m struggling with right now is my right to myself.  I am fighting within to reframe my perspective of these sales, and I’m losing at the moment.  This is where my “flesh” and “passions” are still strong and alive, and must be crucified (Galatians 5:24).  I don’t want to give them up, it feels right to let them live.  But I am self-righteous, self-justified, and champion a cause apart from my Master.  I must die, and so must these desires.

The justice of this rule is not my fight.  I’ve made my case, and I’ve been told I have to take it.  Now the fight belongs to my Master, and I have to accept that He may decide to use it to draw me closer to Him rather than vindicate my position.  I hate that and struggle against it, but it must form the vortex I cannot escape from.  I must succumb, because my life depends upon my demise.  This sense of entitlement and self-righteousness must die, specifically, I must crucify them.  It is my responsibility to kill them.  I can’t just back away and let them die of inattention.  I must nail them, piece by piece, strike by strike, to the cross of Jesus.

I’m not done whining yet.  I feel it even now surging up in me, justifying myself in my own eyes, imagining conversations I know will never happen.  I feel the emotion coursing through me, and I can’t sit still, I can barely focus on writing.  But I know what I must do, and I know I must do it as soon as possible.  “I am not entitled to these sales” is now my new chant.  This must become my current spiritual discipline.  Chambers makes a very good but difficult point this morning.  He says, “It is the good that hates the best, and the higher up you get in the scale of the natural virtues, the more intense is the opposition to Jesus Christ.”  It feels so wrong, yet I know is the best thing for me.  Pardon me while, I begin mumbling my chant.  I have to go to work.

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, December 9

The Cross, Duty, Reality, and Jesus

I’m going to make a statement that may sound really…heretical perhaps, until it’s thought over.  The event of the Cross of Jesus does not sanctify me in and of itself.  The event of the Cross of Jesus saves me, and I have a relationship with my Master based on no other action, only His.  Yet I am sanctified as His Spirit works through that relationship to modify me; conforming me more into the image of my Master.  As that happens, I am made holy and fit for His use. 

What I have to accept is that my relationship with my Master is based on nothing other than His sacrifice on the cross on my behalf.  And that is true for all humanity.  One of the difficulties I have with this is that I find it very difficult to view my Master through a lens so differently than my human relationships.  He is not a man that He should change.  Yet I keep thinking that, once saved, I then continually have to work to retain my status before Him.  I have to work to maintain my relationship with my wife, my friends, my co-workers and company.   I don’t have to “work” to retain my relationship with my Master.

What good I do as a result of the relationship I have with my Master I do as an overflow of that relationship.  Hopefully, I can’t help but do right things.  The goodness should be a Spiritual Fruit of that relationship, not a duty.  Not that there is no duty involved in my relationship with my Master.  I am His servant, and servants have duties, and I have mine.  Obedience implies duty, even requires it.  But duty for One having done so much for me is a joy, not a burden.  Duty is an obligation I have, in this case, because I have obligated myself.  The obligation is part of the covenant I entered into with my Master.  And this covenant is heavily weighted to my benefit.

I am saved from destruction I earned through my rebellion against the Master of the universe.  He redeemed me from this destruction and offered me a covenant agreement that provides me eternal life in heaven.  What I give Him in exchange is all the stuff I tried to build on my own, the junk I once thought so precious.  The obligation I have to obey and the duty I have to perform is part of the result of the covenant.  I confess Jesus as Lord (Yahweh, Master, King) and that confession obligates me to obey.  It really is sort of silly to look on it as a tough thing though, as if I have to enslave myself, giving up my freedom and indenturing myself.

The King of all matter, Creator of the universe from proton to planet to galaxy, is already King without my acknowledgement.  My confession only acknowledges what is already true, He is King.  And it submits me to the One already in charge.  In a sense, my confession reframes my paradigm to reality rather than continuing in the paradigm of the illusion that I am in control of my environment.  On the surface, Americans recoil at the thought of “enslavement” but when the reality is discovered that we already are enslaved, it’s becomes a whole bunch easier to choose.  Enslaved to death or enslaved to life; it’s my choice.  Hmm, let me think.

The hard part is that considering myself as “in-charge” is how I used to define freedom.  It is how the world I live in defines it.  But in reality, submitting myself to my Master and obeying Him is really freedom; freedom from death, freedom to live out my purpose, freedom to walk the streets of heaven, and freedom to worship the One True God.  I have a master of some sort regardless of what I think.  The reality of this universe is that humans are enslaved.  But through the work of Jesus Christ, I can now choose my master, whether my selfishness and the enemy, or the One True Master of the universe; life or death, blessing or curse.

So, I am saved by Jesus’ sacrifice of Himself on the Cross.  And I am sanctified through His Spirit throughout the rest of my time here on earth.  It is while I am in that sanctifying process that I gladly serve my King and perform my duties He has given me.  And in all of this, I enjoy reality without illusion, seeing the universe as it is, and spending time with the One responsible for it.  Is there anything better than that?

My Utmost for His Highest, Oswald Chambers, December 8

What, How, and For As Long

There are a couple of things in today’s entry that touched an issue with me.  But the one that reaches deepest is the last one.  He mentions not making consistency in a conviction a fetish, rather be devoted to God.  I think this relates to the limited understanding I have of my Master and His plans.  In other words, rather than get stuck on one thing one way, allow that my Master may change what I’m doing and how.  Chambers points out that Jesus appeared very inconsistent.  He doesn’t give examples, but just in the way He never heals the same disease the same way twice it is clear.

I have to really watch this weakness in myself.  When once I experience success in something my Master has led me, I want to experience the success over and over, so I try performing the same thing the same way, hoping for the same result.  If success depended on me, I would be able to reproduce the success consistently.  I can’t.  I never do.  The success was never mine, it was always my Master, and I can’t reproduce success by only reproducing my small contribution.  The same is true when I try to reproduce the success of others in my own life.  I can’t reproduce the work of my Master in their success, so I can never reproduce the success.

What this means is that I am supposed to do what my Master tells me the way He tells me to do it for as long as He gives it to me to do.  And then I’m supposed to move on to a new task, when He tells me, do it like He tells me, for as long as He has me doing it.  I don’t like leaving one success and diving into another “startup”.  I want to enjoy the “fruit” of my success, the adulation of my peers (you know, just once would be nice), and feeling of pride in a job well-done.  The problem is that it’s not my success, the praise belongs to my Master, and my pride is misplaced since I should boast in my Master.  Once again, it’s not about me.

The death of me is the path into the life of my Master.  This is one of those areas where there is too much of me left, and more needs to go.  It’s subtle, and I often miss it.  I think that I am flexible, that I don’t want to reproduce the success of others; but since I want the praise they received (jealousy?) I actually do want exactly that.  Such a realization slides right by my spiritual sensors with the deodorant of self-righteousness.  The resulting resentments and bitterness are the clues to what really is going on and how it got that way.

It was a different way that my Master led me out here.  It will be by a different path and method that He leads me to anything I do while I’m here.  The only consistency in the method will be my submission and obedience.  Beyond that, I have no idea what or how I will be doing anything.  Being comfortable with that will bring peace, and I will only be able to be comfortable with that as I trust my Master.  I must trust His timing, His design, and His method.  And then I need to continue to trust Him all through until He moves me on to something else.  Is it odd to say that this used to be easier?  It feels odd.  Shouldn’t it be easier now?

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, November 14