Take a look at all the comments that are being made by people on the topic of abortion. You will usually notice that those who oppose abortion do simply that, they oppose abortion, and they don't discuss it on a personal basis. Those who support abortion not only support abortion, but they attack the mentality, morality, and intelligence of those persons who disagree with them, and they accuse them of anything they can conjure up that might show them to be inconsiderate, uncompassionate, immature, women-hating morons.
I have always noted that the insecure, unintelligent, self-centered and ill-informed bullies who are afraid to be exposed as such are the ones crying the loudest about the issues they know little about, and simply want to look better than they really are. Pro-abortion proponents need to change their tactics. They're exposing their backsides.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Scott Swim Message Summary:Thursday, July 23, 2009
Dear Friends,I preached a sermon this past Sunday out of Ephesians 1 which says, "we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world." I received an email this week from a young lady inquiring about more information on what I believe to be true about the theological system known as Calvinism. Below is my response and I thought it might help anyone else who might be trying to "sort through" what it means to be "chosen" by God!...when we all get to heaven I'm not sure whether this will be near the monumental issue that it was on earth. It ought to be obvious to both Calvinists and Armenians that what matters most to God is the salvation of men, which should make the Great Commission the focus of our energy much more than debating the theology of "how" exactly God goes about redeeming fallen man. None the less, when preaching through a book like Ephesians, one can't "preach around" the subject, so I chose to deal with it on Sunday knowing that it is a very controversial doctrine that theologians have debated for centuries and will continue until Christ comes....I stand by my statement that when God "chose" us before the foundation of the world, in the mind of God there was no difference between the moment God "chose" us and we "chose" Him. I don't believe this is an extra-biblical statement at all when one considers the definition of "eternity". God does not dwell in our dimension of time. Where He dwells, there is no past and there is no future - only the eternal "present" where past/present/future all exist together. I don't fully comprehend this, as none of us confined to time can...but this I know - The "time-delay" between us choosing God and God choosing us does not exist in the dimension known as eternity. We became the "elect" of God because at the moment God "elected" us, we "elected" God. It was a simultaneous event in the mind of God "before the foundation of the world."
I fully believe that neither the five-point Calvinist nor the Armenian view are totally right nor totally wrong. The Armenians error because they emphasize "too much" man's "free will". The Calvinists error because they emphasize "too little" man's "free will". While man cannot exercise his "will" to choose God apart from the grace of God, that does nothing to eliminate the fact that God has given human beings a "will" to choose God or reject God. It cannot be exercised of his own "personal volition" like the Armenians say, but he still has one none the less and is therefore responsible for his own eternal destiny, which he would not be if he had no will of his own and his eternal destiny was "fixed" before he was ever born....In regard to Romans 9 - this is THE "proof text" the Calvinists use to illustrate that God does indeed raise up some for eternal salvation and others for eternal damnation. This is unfortunate as Paul clearly states the context of the entire chapter at the beginning! The entire 9th, 10th and 11th chapters of Romans is dealing exclusively with the salvation and restoration of Israel - not the salvation of individuals. It is not a doctrinal statement at all on the salvation of individuals, but rather a doctrinal statement on the restoration of Israel!
When it says, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated," this is not in view of these men's "salvation" or these men's eternal destinies, but simply a statement that God chose Jacob to father the 12 tribes of Israel, instead of the firstborn, Esau. Calvinists always like to point to the example of Pharaoh in this text - but again, the salvation of Pharaoh's soul is not in view! It does not say God "raised him up" to send him to hell eternally, but God simply "raised him up" for the purpose of bringing Himself glory through the release of the Hebrew slaves so that He could transform these slaves into a nation of "priests and kings". It doesn't say God raised him up for eternal damnation, but that he would be God's vessel to bring about God's plan for His chose people, the Jews. It's often pointed out by Calvinists by going back to the text in Exodus that it says "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" as if Pharaoh had no choice. But a careful reading of the Exodus account tells us first that "Pharaoh hardened his heart" and only after "Pharaoh hardened his heart" does it say later on that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart"...God simply gave Pharaoh over to the choice Pharaoh had already made to harden his own heart.
I completely agree with the Calvinist doctrine of the "Total Depravity" of man, given in the verses I quoted on Sunday. Man is far too "depraved" apart from God's grace to seek God or to choose God solely on his own free will or personal volition. I also agree with their doctrine of the "Perseverance" of the Saints, given that salvation is completely a work of God's grace apart from any of man's works. It's God's grace that gives us our "eternal security" since salvation is not a work of man and solely a work of God. However, I stand by my interpretation of 1 Peter 1:2, "Elect, according to the foreknowledge of God"...Foreknowledge simply means God "knew beforehand" in His omniscience of who would "elect" Him and therefore He "elected" them. Anything else would seem to me to be "stretching" the definition of foreknowledge.
I stand by my statement that God has never "arbitrarily chosen some for salvation and arbitrarily chosen not to choose others for salvation, thereby choosing them for damnation" based on the same Scriptures I quoted Sunday. 1 Timothy 2:3 couldn't be clearer to me, "For this good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Honestly, why is this not clear? Has God "chosen" some ahead of time for eternal damnation when He says clearly in His Word He "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"? It's clear he desires all men to be saved, even though all will not be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 says God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." If it was the "will of God" to choose some for eternal damnation "before the foundation of the world" then why in His Word does He say He's "not willing that any should perish"? Is God confused as to His own will?
Finally, I believe the whole idea that God would purposely raise up human beings with an eternal soul and "predestine" them to spend eternity in a fiery torment goes entirely against not only the clear teaching of the Word of God, but also the very nature and character of God. Calvinists like to say that God "choosing" some for salvation is the ultimate expression of a loving, compassionate and gracious God. I couldn't disagree more! This would not make God "compassionate", but rather "cruel" - very, very cruel. It would not bring God glory - for what glory is in it for God that He MAKES His creatures worship Him? The glory is in it for God in that we WILLINGLY worship Him. Worship that is not freely given is not worship. Love that is not freely given is not love. If we had no choice but to love and worship God because He "fixed" it in eternity past so we would have no choice - that would not bring God glory. If God is the "puppeteer" and all we are is His "puppets", that would bring absolutely no glory to God. The glory we have to offer God is in that He does not make us love Him or worship Him, but that we offer it freely.
I reject completely the concept of "Limited Atonement" and John 3:16 ought to be enough for anybody to reject the idea that Christ died only for the "elect", but not for the "non-elect". That "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."is clear that Christ died for ALL, even though all won't be saved. The blood was shed for ALL, but it will only be appropriated by the few - God's elect. Christ shed His blood for the world, but it will only be appropriated by His bride. I think 1 John 2:2 should clearly settle this dispute as well, "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." It doesn't get any clearer to me.
I reject the concept of "Irresistible grace" as I fully believe that man does have a "free will' and that while mankind cannot choose God apart from the grace of God, man can still choose. Joshua 24:15 ought to make this clear, "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve...whether the false gods of your fathers...or the gods of the Amorites..." Clearly Joshua was telling them to make a choice to serve the true and living God or the false gods - but choose. Would God give us a command in Scripture that we couldn't really do? It's clear to me that it's God who gives us the grace to believe - but He does not make us believe! Did Adam have a choice when He chose to sin against God and eat of the forbidden tree - or did God make him eat? The answer seems obvious. God gave him a "free will" as He has every human being since.
To say man doesn't have a "free will" of some kind is to make God the author of evil. But James 1:13 clearly tells us that God is not the author of sin or evil. The fact that even as a Christian I can and do still sin ought to be evidence enough that I do indeed have a "free will". Obviously I have a "free will" of my own and I exercise it every time I choose to sin - or are we going to say that because I have no "free will" that God has "foreordained" even my sin before the foundation of the world - so that I really have no choice when I sin? That is certainly what some Calvinists believe, but it's not Scriptural.
When I study the Bible I'm convinced there are aspects of Calvinistic theology and Armenian theology that are both biblically valid and biblically in error. Too much of the time people begin studying their "theological system" and then begin interpreting Scripture through the lens of their "theological system" instead of forming their "theological system" through their careful study of Scripture. I'm not saying Calvinists are the only one's guilty of this - we all have to be careful to "rightly divide the Word of truth" (2 Timothy 2;15).
In the end, we as the body of Christ should remember to have unity on the "essential" doctrine, liberty on the "non-essential" doctrines, and remember that any attitude that causes disunity is sin. God bless you!
Dear Friends,I preached a sermon this past Sunday out of Ephesians 1 which says, "we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world." I received an email this week from a young lady inquiring about more information on what I believe to be true about the theological system known as Calvinism. Below is my response and I thought it might help anyone else who might be trying to "sort through" what it means to be "chosen" by God!...when we all get to heaven I'm not sure whether this will be near the monumental issue that it was on earth. It ought to be obvious to both Calvinists and Armenians that what matters most to God is the salvation of men, which should make the Great Commission the focus of our energy much more than debating the theology of "how" exactly God goes about redeeming fallen man. None the less, when preaching through a book like Ephesians, one can't "preach around" the subject, so I chose to deal with it on Sunday knowing that it is a very controversial doctrine that theologians have debated for centuries and will continue until Christ comes....I stand by my statement that when God "chose" us before the foundation of the world, in the mind of God there was no difference between the moment God "chose" us and we "chose" Him. I don't believe this is an extra-biblical statement at all when one considers the definition of "eternity". God does not dwell in our dimension of time. Where He dwells, there is no past and there is no future - only the eternal "present" where past/present/future all exist together. I don't fully comprehend this, as none of us confined to time can...but this I know - The "time-delay" between us choosing God and God choosing us does not exist in the dimension known as eternity. We became the "elect" of God because at the moment God "elected" us, we "elected" God. It was a simultaneous event in the mind of God "before the foundation of the world."
I fully believe that neither the five-point Calvinist nor the Armenian view are totally right nor totally wrong. The Armenians error because they emphasize "too much" man's "free will". The Calvinists error because they emphasize "too little" man's "free will". While man cannot exercise his "will" to choose God apart from the grace of God, that does nothing to eliminate the fact that God has given human beings a "will" to choose God or reject God. It cannot be exercised of his own "personal volition" like the Armenians say, but he still has one none the less and is therefore responsible for his own eternal destiny, which he would not be if he had no will of his own and his eternal destiny was "fixed" before he was ever born....In regard to Romans 9 - this is THE "proof text" the Calvinists use to illustrate that God does indeed raise up some for eternal salvation and others for eternal damnation. This is unfortunate as Paul clearly states the context of the entire chapter at the beginning! The entire 9th, 10th and 11th chapters of Romans is dealing exclusively with the salvation and restoration of Israel - not the salvation of individuals. It is not a doctrinal statement at all on the salvation of individuals, but rather a doctrinal statement on the restoration of Israel!
When it says, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated," this is not in view of these men's "salvation" or these men's eternal destinies, but simply a statement that God chose Jacob to father the 12 tribes of Israel, instead of the firstborn, Esau. Calvinists always like to point to the example of Pharaoh in this text - but again, the salvation of Pharaoh's soul is not in view! It does not say God "raised him up" to send him to hell eternally, but God simply "raised him up" for the purpose of bringing Himself glory through the release of the Hebrew slaves so that He could transform these slaves into a nation of "priests and kings". It doesn't say God raised him up for eternal damnation, but that he would be God's vessel to bring about God's plan for His chose people, the Jews. It's often pointed out by Calvinists by going back to the text in Exodus that it says "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" as if Pharaoh had no choice. But a careful reading of the Exodus account tells us first that "Pharaoh hardened his heart" and only after "Pharaoh hardened his heart" does it say later on that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart"...God simply gave Pharaoh over to the choice Pharaoh had already made to harden his own heart.
I completely agree with the Calvinist doctrine of the "Total Depravity" of man, given in the verses I quoted on Sunday. Man is far too "depraved" apart from God's grace to seek God or to choose God solely on his own free will or personal volition. I also agree with their doctrine of the "Perseverance" of the Saints, given that salvation is completely a work of God's grace apart from any of man's works. It's God's grace that gives us our "eternal security" since salvation is not a work of man and solely a work of God. However, I stand by my interpretation of 1 Peter 1:2, "Elect, according to the foreknowledge of God"...Foreknowledge simply means God "knew beforehand" in His omniscience of who would "elect" Him and therefore He "elected" them. Anything else would seem to me to be "stretching" the definition of foreknowledge.
I stand by my statement that God has never "arbitrarily chosen some for salvation and arbitrarily chosen not to choose others for salvation, thereby choosing them for damnation" based on the same Scriptures I quoted Sunday. 1 Timothy 2:3 couldn't be clearer to me, "For this good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Honestly, why is this not clear? Has God "chosen" some ahead of time for eternal damnation when He says clearly in His Word He "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"? It's clear he desires all men to be saved, even though all will not be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 says God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." If it was the "will of God" to choose some for eternal damnation "before the foundation of the world" then why in His Word does He say He's "not willing that any should perish"? Is God confused as to His own will?
Finally, I believe the whole idea that God would purposely raise up human beings with an eternal soul and "predestine" them to spend eternity in a fiery torment goes entirely against not only the clear teaching of the Word of God, but also the very nature and character of God. Calvinists like to say that God "choosing" some for salvation is the ultimate expression of a loving, compassionate and gracious God. I couldn't disagree more! This would not make God "compassionate", but rather "cruel" - very, very cruel. It would not bring God glory - for what glory is in it for God that He MAKES His creatures worship Him? The glory is in it for God in that we WILLINGLY worship Him. Worship that is not freely given is not worship. Love that is not freely given is not love. If we had no choice but to love and worship God because He "fixed" it in eternity past so we would have no choice - that would not bring God glory. If God is the "puppeteer" and all we are is His "puppets", that would bring absolutely no glory to God. The glory we have to offer God is in that He does not make us love Him or worship Him, but that we offer it freely.
I reject completely the concept of "Limited Atonement" and John 3:16 ought to be enough for anybody to reject the idea that Christ died only for the "elect", but not for the "non-elect". That "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."is clear that Christ died for ALL, even though all won't be saved. The blood was shed for ALL, but it will only be appropriated by the few - God's elect. Christ shed His blood for the world, but it will only be appropriated by His bride. I think 1 John 2:2 should clearly settle this dispute as well, "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." It doesn't get any clearer to me.
I reject the concept of "Irresistible grace" as I fully believe that man does have a "free will' and that while mankind cannot choose God apart from the grace of God, man can still choose. Joshua 24:15 ought to make this clear, "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve...whether the false gods of your fathers...or the gods of the Amorites..." Clearly Joshua was telling them to make a choice to serve the true and living God or the false gods - but choose. Would God give us a command in Scripture that we couldn't really do? It's clear to me that it's God who gives us the grace to believe - but He does not make us believe! Did Adam have a choice when He chose to sin against God and eat of the forbidden tree - or did God make him eat? The answer seems obvious. God gave him a "free will" as He has every human being since.
To say man doesn't have a "free will" of some kind is to make God the author of evil. But James 1:13 clearly tells us that God is not the author of sin or evil. The fact that even as a Christian I can and do still sin ought to be evidence enough that I do indeed have a "free will". Obviously I have a "free will" of my own and I exercise it every time I choose to sin - or are we going to say that because I have no "free will" that God has "foreordained" even my sin before the foundation of the world - so that I really have no choice when I sin? That is certainly what some Calvinists believe, but it's not Scriptural.
When I study the Bible I'm convinced there are aspects of Calvinistic theology and Armenian theology that are both biblically valid and biblically in error. Too much of the time people begin studying their "theological system" and then begin interpreting Scripture through the lens of their "theological system" instead of forming their "theological system" through their careful study of Scripture. I'm not saying Calvinists are the only one's guilty of this - we all have to be careful to "rightly divide the Word of truth" (2 Timothy 2;15).
In the end, we as the body of Christ should remember to have unity on the "essential" doctrine, liberty on the "non-essential" doctrines, and remember that any attitude that causes disunity is sin. God bless you!
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Marcia's Notes
My dear friend Marcia Quade lives in Lincoln, but she and I talk weekly and share thoughts by email. Marcia had prepared for her Sunday morning class but found she would be unable to attend it. So she wrote an email to the teacher of the class and she thought to share it with me. This overview of what she had studied was so interesting, and I found it to be so well written that I asked her if I could share it with you. The study was obviously written by Dr. Charles Swindoll.
Hi Jerome,
Just a note to let you know that we have Felix overnight tonight, so I will not be in Sunday School. I did read the lesson, though, and really thought it was good this week. The idea that God is never pleased with an independent spirit really struck me, probably because I am a pretty independent person…..and because we have been taught from birth, it seems, to value independence. Nobody likes wimpy, needy people, right?
I love what Mr. Swindol says on page 63 at the bottom about God waiting to assist those who finally come to the point in their lives where they CANNOT help themselves. In fact, He works in each of our lives to bring us to the point where we realize that we cannot “do it myself”. We NEED God to take control to be truly happy. Only when we give ourselves to Him in complete surrender can we find true happiness and contentment. That has certainly been true in my life, even though I continue to be a pretty independent person. Nothing wrong with being a “take charge” person as long as GOD is IN CHARGE of YOU!
On page 70 Chuck says that we should look for those individuals who need a second chance – a large dose of grace to help them start over in the Christian life. Be a Barnabas in that person’s life. I love that, and it really spoke to me, because the tendency is to avoid those people who have led sinful lives, when we should be ready and willing to move in alongside them and encourage them in the faith.
On page 72 Chuck talks about the secret to a successful church not being in a gifted leader, but in Almighty God. Period. It is not you or me or anyone else we may think is indispensable to the cause. It is God alone.
Page 74 says “You and I are not indispensable. You and I are not irreplaceable. God is both. It’s His Church. He’s looking for broken vessels, wounded hearts, and humble servants, even those with bad track records who have some scars, who have learned not to hide them or deny them – people who understand and appreciate the value of others.
Also on page 74, Chuck says that what our family needs more than anything else is for you to be right with God, walking humbly with Him, acknowledging that He is the Lord of your life and your home, not you.
Page 75 – “You and I are neither the ‘masters of our fate’ nor are we the ‘captains of our souls’. We are to be wholly, continually, and completely dependent on the mercy of God if we want to do the Lord’s work the Lord’s way.”
This was such a powerful lesson, and I wish I could be there tomorrow while you discuss. But I wanted you to know what spoke to me. Thanks for the wonderful job you do with teaching Sunday School, Jerome. You are a blessing…..and I NEED you!
Marcia
Hi Jerome,
Just a note to let you know that we have Felix overnight tonight, so I will not be in Sunday School. I did read the lesson, though, and really thought it was good this week. The idea that God is never pleased with an independent spirit really struck me, probably because I am a pretty independent person…..and because we have been taught from birth, it seems, to value independence. Nobody likes wimpy, needy people, right?
I love what Mr. Swindol says on page 63 at the bottom about God waiting to assist those who finally come to the point in their lives where they CANNOT help themselves. In fact, He works in each of our lives to bring us to the point where we realize that we cannot “do it myself”. We NEED God to take control to be truly happy. Only when we give ourselves to Him in complete surrender can we find true happiness and contentment. That has certainly been true in my life, even though I continue to be a pretty independent person. Nothing wrong with being a “take charge” person as long as GOD is IN CHARGE of YOU!
On page 70 Chuck says that we should look for those individuals who need a second chance – a large dose of grace to help them start over in the Christian life. Be a Barnabas in that person’s life. I love that, and it really spoke to me, because the tendency is to avoid those people who have led sinful lives, when we should be ready and willing to move in alongside them and encourage them in the faith.
On page 72 Chuck talks about the secret to a successful church not being in a gifted leader, but in Almighty God. Period. It is not you or me or anyone else we may think is indispensable to the cause. It is God alone.
Page 74 says “You and I are not indispensable. You and I are not irreplaceable. God is both. It’s His Church. He’s looking for broken vessels, wounded hearts, and humble servants, even those with bad track records who have some scars, who have learned not to hide them or deny them – people who understand and appreciate the value of others.
Also on page 74, Chuck says that what our family needs more than anything else is for you to be right with God, walking humbly with Him, acknowledging that He is the Lord of your life and your home, not you.
Page 75 – “You and I are neither the ‘masters of our fate’ nor are we the ‘captains of our souls’. We are to be wholly, continually, and completely dependent on the mercy of God if we want to do the Lord’s work the Lord’s way.”
This was such a powerful lesson, and I wish I could be there tomorrow while you discuss. But I wanted you to know what spoke to me. Thanks for the wonderful job you do with teaching Sunday School, Jerome. You are a blessing…..and I NEED you!
Marcia
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Elusive State of Happiness
I read that someone has a new book out on what it takes to be happy, which I'm sure the general population will sweep off the shelves in no time at all, looking for the new hope, the new recipe or new list of "to-dos" that will finally bring them the coveted secret to having lifelong happiness. I'm not sure how long it's been since the last person took a stab at this topic, but surely it can't be more than just a few months. Everyone, it seems, who needs a little cash flow going on is writing a book. I've given it a thought myself once or twice. But it seems a monumental task to empty all the goings on in this brain that has been accumulating data for more than six decades. And I've often realized, sometimes belatedly, that when one is as opinionated and bombastic as I can be at times it is best that one strives diligently to try to keep one's big mouth shut.
As I am not writing a book, I ecstatically feel the freedom to blog away all the ruminating that is swirling around up there in that mass of grey. And, so, on to the topic. Happiness it is. And as I so often do, my first stop is at the local dictionary I just happen to keep close.
happiness: glad, content, lucky, fortunate
The terms "lucky" and "fortunate" seemed off track, but not when I glanced up the page to "happen" and saw that this word means "to come by chance". The "hap" portion of these words meaning "chance". My discovery has now taken a turn toward a meaning that I wasn't familiar with, and I find that really exciting.
So, if I am to follow that source I am to deduce that all happiness is based on my luck. If I am fortunate, I will be happy. If certain things happen, then, and it is based on this, only then, will I be happy. I think Webster and his crew have missed something. Just think of all the people in this world that have just missed the boat when it comes down to their luck. The "ship" never comes in for some people; dare I say most people? Many, actually most, of my friends and acquaintances have been down on their luck many times, and still they are happy. Contrarily, I've heard of many people whose "ship" came in, and yet they live their lives distressed and lost in their way, sometimes so deeply depressed with life that they can no longer bear to be a part of it. They spend their days angry and bitter with life.
To grasp this thought I must believe that if I am lucky I will make it to work today without being crashed into or stopped for speeding, or I won't run over anyone who accidentally steps out in front of me. What I really believe is that if I am careful to drive cautiously and sensibly, watching out for those who may make bad choices as they drive, and if I am careful to obey the speed limits, use my turn signals, and stop where I am suppose to stop, then I think that I will get to work today without incident. Then will I be happy? Does my happiness depend on the happenings of the rest of the day?
Psalm 37:4. "Delight yourself in the LORD; and He will give you the desires of your heart."
Does that sound like happiness to you? Let's break that down a little.
delight: to take great pleasure in/or to give great pleasure to. the source of pleasure, great satisfaction, joy.
I like the sound of all that. I like pleasure, it's fun. I really enjoy giving pleasure because in the end I'm also the one who feels...happy, and great satisfaction.
desire: to yearn for the possession of, to request, longing.
So that verse in the Psalms is telling me that if I take pleasure and give pleasure to the LORD, which I know means making my Father happy by obeying His words, then I will receive from Him great satisfaction and pleasure, even be joyful.
This is what I really want to convey to this reader: happiness is not acquired when you're lucky. Happiness is not the result of having a good day, a good week. Happiness is not a guaranteed result of winning a fifty million dollar lottery, although you will get a pretty good high from it. But it won't last forever. Happiness is not a given even if the school football captain asks you to the prom. Happiness is a choice. It's your choice. Materially, monetarily, emotionally you can have it all, or you can have nothing, but you can still choose to be happy.
The only prescription that you will ever need for happiness is in Psalm 37:4. Choose to give the LORD pleasure and joy by your total obedience, and He, the LORD, will see to it that you will be forever happy. That doesn't mean bad things won't happen. It means that when bad things happen it won't ruin or spoil or damper or cancel out your happiness, because when you have God's pleasure and approval you have everything you will ever need. Always. And, your desires will become God's desires.
I can tell you these things from experience. I once tried to make my career and making money my happiness. I thought being married and having children would fulfill it all. I truly was convinced that if I had the very one that I loved with all my heart I would be content. I tried so many other avenues to find my peace, but it only came when I turned it all over to Him. He asked me to give a lot of it up, so I did. Then He replaced what I had thought was so dear to me with His love and His gift of eternity through His Son Jesus, and the fellowship of my constant comfort and companion, the Holy Spirit. Happiness came with His presence in my life, and it just keeps getting better and better every day. Happiness is your choice when you choose Him.
As I am not writing a book, I ecstatically feel the freedom to blog away all the ruminating that is swirling around up there in that mass of grey. And, so, on to the topic. Happiness it is. And as I so often do, my first stop is at the local dictionary I just happen to keep close.
happiness: glad, content, lucky, fortunate
The terms "lucky" and "fortunate" seemed off track, but not when I glanced up the page to "happen" and saw that this word means "to come by chance". The "hap" portion of these words meaning "chance". My discovery has now taken a turn toward a meaning that I wasn't familiar with, and I find that really exciting.
So, if I am to follow that source I am to deduce that all happiness is based on my luck. If I am fortunate, I will be happy. If certain things happen, then, and it is based on this, only then, will I be happy. I think Webster and his crew have missed something. Just think of all the people in this world that have just missed the boat when it comes down to their luck. The "ship" never comes in for some people; dare I say most people? Many, actually most, of my friends and acquaintances have been down on their luck many times, and still they are happy. Contrarily, I've heard of many people whose "ship" came in, and yet they live their lives distressed and lost in their way, sometimes so deeply depressed with life that they can no longer bear to be a part of it. They spend their days angry and bitter with life.
To grasp this thought I must believe that if I am lucky I will make it to work today without being crashed into or stopped for speeding, or I won't run over anyone who accidentally steps out in front of me. What I really believe is that if I am careful to drive cautiously and sensibly, watching out for those who may make bad choices as they drive, and if I am careful to obey the speed limits, use my turn signals, and stop where I am suppose to stop, then I think that I will get to work today without incident. Then will I be happy? Does my happiness depend on the happenings of the rest of the day?
Psalm 37:4. "Delight yourself in the LORD; and He will give you the desires of your heart."
Does that sound like happiness to you? Let's break that down a little.
delight: to take great pleasure in/or to give great pleasure to. the source of pleasure, great satisfaction, joy.
I like the sound of all that. I like pleasure, it's fun. I really enjoy giving pleasure because in the end I'm also the one who feels...happy, and great satisfaction.
desire: to yearn for the possession of, to request, longing.
So that verse in the Psalms is telling me that if I take pleasure and give pleasure to the LORD, which I know means making my Father happy by obeying His words, then I will receive from Him great satisfaction and pleasure, even be joyful.
This is what I really want to convey to this reader: happiness is not acquired when you're lucky. Happiness is not the result of having a good day, a good week. Happiness is not a guaranteed result of winning a fifty million dollar lottery, although you will get a pretty good high from it. But it won't last forever. Happiness is not a given even if the school football captain asks you to the prom. Happiness is a choice. It's your choice. Materially, monetarily, emotionally you can have it all, or you can have nothing, but you can still choose to be happy.
The only prescription that you will ever need for happiness is in Psalm 37:4. Choose to give the LORD pleasure and joy by your total obedience, and He, the LORD, will see to it that you will be forever happy. That doesn't mean bad things won't happen. It means that when bad things happen it won't ruin or spoil or damper or cancel out your happiness, because when you have God's pleasure and approval you have everything you will ever need. Always. And, your desires will become God's desires.
I can tell you these things from experience. I once tried to make my career and making money my happiness. I thought being married and having children would fulfill it all. I truly was convinced that if I had the very one that I loved with all my heart I would be content. I tried so many other avenues to find my peace, but it only came when I turned it all over to Him. He asked me to give a lot of it up, so I did. Then He replaced what I had thought was so dear to me with His love and His gift of eternity through His Son Jesus, and the fellowship of my constant comfort and companion, the Holy Spirit. Happiness came with His presence in my life, and it just keeps getting better and better every day. Happiness is your choice when you choose Him.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Why Am I A Republican?
Recently I was asked why I had chosen to be a republican, and the question made me stop. I guess I'd never asked myself that before, and so I decided it would be a good idea to brainstorm this question. After all, if I'm going to vote this way, I should know why, shouldn't I? It has been my rule that, almost always, I vote strictly republican. I have deviated once or twice, but as a rule I do not stray.
I certainly was not born into a republican family. I believe I was told that my father had changed to the democratic party when Franklin Roosevelt was first elected. Dad was impressed with the new programs that were begun, helping the working man to get back on his feet, establishing the Social Security program, and many other reasons that caused so many people to vote for the man for four terms of the office of President of the United States. From FDR on my dad was a firm democrat, and initially I followed along. I remember watching the Democratic Convention in the early fifties, in black and white of course, when Adlai Stevenson ran for office and listening to all the speeches.
When John Fitzgerald Kennedy campaigned for office I became enamored with his charisma and good looks, along with the rest of the country. I followed everything that had to do with his wife, Jackie. I wore pillbox hats with my hair in a flip bouffant style. I watched every speech that he made that was telecast, and I even used his inaugural speech in my Speech class in high school as a text to learn public speaking. (I did an excellent job in my delivery, but I was docked points on my grade because I had chosen a speech that was delivered by a man, not a woman. I guess I should have chosen something poetic because in those days there weren't many women giving speeches or even speaking in public. This is a bane that does not exist is today's society, as it is considered sexist.) My ill-educated opinion of JFK was that he could do no wrong. He became a god in many people's minds when he served, and in mine as well.
So. There are all of the reasons I considered myself a democrat and voted thus in the first couple of elections that I was privileged to participate in; my dad and JFK.
I wish I could say that I can remember the day that I made a conscious decision to vote republican, but I cannot. I believe there were quite a few years that I was irresponsible enough to choose not to vote. I probably did not vote during the 70's, and it's quite possible that extended into the 80's. At some point I must have discovered some of the tenets of each party and that caused me to change my views on what I wanted to see in the Senate, Congress, and in the White House. I will tell you that, even though some people think that this is not appropriate thinking, I will almost always vote for the person who is against abortion. That's a deal breaker for me. Abortion is a topic that I am, have always been, and always will be, passionate about.
The Republican Party has been, for as long as I can remember, a conservative party that does not agree with a woman's choice to end the life of her child while in the womb. I concur. Many might think that this is a prerequisite for a republican, but there are many republicans that are not against abortion. Republicans stand for more than preservation of life, but for the absence of government in the daily living of the American public. The fact of government telling me how I can spend my money is absurd. Uncle Sam now wants to choose (a) if I am insured, (b) who I am insured by, (c) how I am insured, making the responsibility for all these decisions theirs. It wants to decide for me if I take a certain medicine, get a certain treatment, extending all the way to whether or not my life is worth living.
So, what it comes down to is the reason I am voting on a Republican ticket is that I agree with their promise of less government intrusion in my life. I reconcile banning abortion with my belief that a pregnant woman carries a life form, already a person and deserving all of its constitutional rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Murder is murder, no matter at what age, and it is illegal and immoral.
Now I will pass the questions on to you. Do you vote? Have you decided what you believe? Your vote does count, though some will try to convince you that it doesn't. Make your decision, and vote.
I certainly was not born into a republican family. I believe I was told that my father had changed to the democratic party when Franklin Roosevelt was first elected. Dad was impressed with the new programs that were begun, helping the working man to get back on his feet, establishing the Social Security program, and many other reasons that caused so many people to vote for the man for four terms of the office of President of the United States. From FDR on my dad was a firm democrat, and initially I followed along. I remember watching the Democratic Convention in the early fifties, in black and white of course, when Adlai Stevenson ran for office and listening to all the speeches.
When John Fitzgerald Kennedy campaigned for office I became enamored with his charisma and good looks, along with the rest of the country. I followed everything that had to do with his wife, Jackie. I wore pillbox hats with my hair in a flip bouffant style. I watched every speech that he made that was telecast, and I even used his inaugural speech in my Speech class in high school as a text to learn public speaking. (I did an excellent job in my delivery, but I was docked points on my grade because I had chosen a speech that was delivered by a man, not a woman. I guess I should have chosen something poetic because in those days there weren't many women giving speeches or even speaking in public. This is a bane that does not exist is today's society, as it is considered sexist.) My ill-educated opinion of JFK was that he could do no wrong. He became a god in many people's minds when he served, and in mine as well.
So. There are all of the reasons I considered myself a democrat and voted thus in the first couple of elections that I was privileged to participate in; my dad and JFK.
I wish I could say that I can remember the day that I made a conscious decision to vote republican, but I cannot. I believe there were quite a few years that I was irresponsible enough to choose not to vote. I probably did not vote during the 70's, and it's quite possible that extended into the 80's. At some point I must have discovered some of the tenets of each party and that caused me to change my views on what I wanted to see in the Senate, Congress, and in the White House. I will tell you that, even though some people think that this is not appropriate thinking, I will almost always vote for the person who is against abortion. That's a deal breaker for me. Abortion is a topic that I am, have always been, and always will be, passionate about.
The Republican Party has been, for as long as I can remember, a conservative party that does not agree with a woman's choice to end the life of her child while in the womb. I concur. Many might think that this is a prerequisite for a republican, but there are many republicans that are not against abortion. Republicans stand for more than preservation of life, but for the absence of government in the daily living of the American public. The fact of government telling me how I can spend my money is absurd. Uncle Sam now wants to choose (a) if I am insured, (b) who I am insured by, (c) how I am insured, making the responsibility for all these decisions theirs. It wants to decide for me if I take a certain medicine, get a certain treatment, extending all the way to whether or not my life is worth living.
So, what it comes down to is the reason I am voting on a Republican ticket is that I agree with their promise of less government intrusion in my life. I reconcile banning abortion with my belief that a pregnant woman carries a life form, already a person and deserving all of its constitutional rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Murder is murder, no matter at what age, and it is illegal and immoral.
Now I will pass the questions on to you. Do you vote? Have you decided what you believe? Your vote does count, though some will try to convince you that it doesn't. Make your decision, and vote.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Thoughts While Studying Job
Steadfastness in my service to God is important. God doesn't allow pain and suffering in my life for no reason. There is always something to be learned from Him, always spiritual growth to be obtained, always drawing me closer to Him, refining me to a purer state. These are the desires of my heart. So why should I ask for these burdens to be removed? I ask that His will be done, then I accept whatever He decides. He will not give me more than I can bear. If His will is that I go to Him and leave this world, where is the problem in that? I am with Him, so I am eternally secure in Him. Praise the Lord! I must be very careful about listening to the counsel of those who would encourage me to go against what I know to be the will of God. I am not a quitter when it comes to God. I will not be moved. I must take great care.
As I look back over the years, even before I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior, I can see that the struggles, the pain, the suffering, the tough times have made me who I am, and even better, You, God, have used those times to give me strength for the next day. I have trusted You and obeyed You and you have given me wisdom, strength, courage, and I feel the power that You give me to press through when I want to quit. Father, help me to carry on in the tough moments. Help me to be strong enough to choose to be like Christ. Thank you Father for all that you have done and all that you have allowed. If i could change any of those painful times I would not, because then I wouldn't be as I am today, and I wouldn't be as close to You as I am. I depend on You Lord for everything. Help me to help others come to this place in their lives. Help me to be a blessing to others as You have sent others into my life to be blessings. I love you Lord Jesus!
As I look back over the years, even before I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior, I can see that the struggles, the pain, the suffering, the tough times have made me who I am, and even better, You, God, have used those times to give me strength for the next day. I have trusted You and obeyed You and you have given me wisdom, strength, courage, and I feel the power that You give me to press through when I want to quit. Father, help me to carry on in the tough moments. Help me to be strong enough to choose to be like Christ. Thank you Father for all that you have done and all that you have allowed. If i could change any of those painful times I would not, because then I wouldn't be as I am today, and I wouldn't be as close to You as I am. I depend on You Lord for everything. Help me to help others come to this place in their lives. Help me to be a blessing to others as You have sent others into my life to be blessings. I love you Lord Jesus!
Friday, July 16, 2010
WHO AM I?
I read an article today about parenthood that I found to be very insightful for moms, especially "stay at home" moms. SAH moms are rare in 2010, and it breaks my heart that women are being schooled to believe that their value can only be found in a career outside the home. Education is a wonderful thing, a necessity that prepares you for a productive life, but when it comes time to start a family I firmly believe that a young child needs mom to be available 24/7, as they say. Certainly mom needs breaks from her routines, every day, and periodically with her mate. But the article said it this way, "Being a mom is not who I am, it's what I do." Exactly. When little Johnny is grown and ready to leave home, it can then be time for mom to begin to explore her own dreams. But while he's growing, she belongs at home. It's her job, and it shouldn't be part time, shared with young college aged girls at the day care center, or even Mrs. Smith down the street. They need mom.
The fly in that ointment is the single mom who is the sole bread winner in the family. She has no options unless she can make her money from home, which is ideal, but hardly the norm. It is happening more and more, though, and I would like to see more of it for the family's sake.
I guess I am very dogmatic on this subject, among others, but at a time in my life when I am called "Grammy" I have lived and learned many things. Most of these I learned the hard way, tough lessons that I wish someone had taught me before I made the wrong choices. But the best, and just about the only way is to learn by experience. That's one thing I have plenty of, experience. My mother tried to tell me many things those nineteen years I lived in her house, but I only learned most of them by experience, thinking "why didn't I listen to her?"
I'll step down now from my platform to talk about what I really want to write about. Who am I? I'm "Dear" or "Babydoll" to my husband. I'm "Mom" or "Mother" (ick) or even sometimes "Mommy" to my grown children. I'm "Grammy" to my wonderful, and perfect, grandchildren. I'm "best friend" to a couple, at least that's what I call them. I'm "friend" to many, and I'm aquainted with literally hundreds of people. So, with all those titles, how do I narrow it down to who I really am? Am I all those things? How can I be all those things at one time? Is that who I am, or is it just what I do?
When my young teen, Wesley, sees me what does he say to himself? He identifies me immediately in his mind, "Grammy". To Wesley, "Grammy" is who I am. But when I am with Wesley for any length of time, it is what I do. I do the actions that a Grammy does. When John or Jay sees me it registers right away, "Mom". To them "Mom" is who I am. But on an every day basis, with them living so far away that I seldom see them, it's not what I do anymore. It was when they were home and growing up, but they're adults now, and I no longer do the things a mom does for young children. So, it has become my identity, but no longer my job. My job as a mother of grown children becomes a supporter, a counselor, a friend, and most of all to love them unconditionally. And if you think that last one is easy, then you must be young and not yet a parent. That could be the hardest job of all. But it's a requirement, it's a must. There are no options on that one.
It's all very confusing, isn't it? And I could stop writing and thinking now, but we would continue on in our lives living with that confusing dilema, bouncing back and forth between titles wondering just who the heck am I? This is where the real answer comes and settles the question firmly and permanently. All those titles that I mentioned are only temporary, only while we inhabit this earth, only while I'm living this life where I was placed so purposefully and perfectly. I am a child of God. I belong to Him. I am permanently, securely, eternally and lovingly His. That title will never change. I am, and I always will be, "His". When I said "Yes" to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, I received a title that will be with me forever. And that, my darlings, is really who I am.
So, moms and grandmas and factory workers and lawyers and doctors and garbage collectors, you can call yourself what you like, you can go by titles and names and work your way up to the senator or the president of the company. But when it comes down to who you really are, the only title that matters, the only real question is, are you "His"?
The fly in that ointment is the single mom who is the sole bread winner in the family. She has no options unless she can make her money from home, which is ideal, but hardly the norm. It is happening more and more, though, and I would like to see more of it for the family's sake.
I guess I am very dogmatic on this subject, among others, but at a time in my life when I am called "Grammy" I have lived and learned many things. Most of these I learned the hard way, tough lessons that I wish someone had taught me before I made the wrong choices. But the best, and just about the only way is to learn by experience. That's one thing I have plenty of, experience. My mother tried to tell me many things those nineteen years I lived in her house, but I only learned most of them by experience, thinking "why didn't I listen to her?"
I'll step down now from my platform to talk about what I really want to write about. Who am I? I'm "Dear" or "Babydoll" to my husband. I'm "Mom" or "Mother" (ick) or even sometimes "Mommy" to my grown children. I'm "Grammy" to my wonderful, and perfect, grandchildren. I'm "best friend" to a couple, at least that's what I call them. I'm "friend" to many, and I'm aquainted with literally hundreds of people. So, with all those titles, how do I narrow it down to who I really am? Am I all those things? How can I be all those things at one time? Is that who I am, or is it just what I do?
When my young teen, Wesley, sees me what does he say to himself? He identifies me immediately in his mind, "Grammy". To Wesley, "Grammy" is who I am. But when I am with Wesley for any length of time, it is what I do. I do the actions that a Grammy does. When John or Jay sees me it registers right away, "Mom". To them "Mom" is who I am. But on an every day basis, with them living so far away that I seldom see them, it's not what I do anymore. It was when they were home and growing up, but they're adults now, and I no longer do the things a mom does for young children. So, it has become my identity, but no longer my job. My job as a mother of grown children becomes a supporter, a counselor, a friend, and most of all to love them unconditionally. And if you think that last one is easy, then you must be young and not yet a parent. That could be the hardest job of all. But it's a requirement, it's a must. There are no options on that one.
It's all very confusing, isn't it? And I could stop writing and thinking now, but we would continue on in our lives living with that confusing dilema, bouncing back and forth between titles wondering just who the heck am I? This is where the real answer comes and settles the question firmly and permanently. All those titles that I mentioned are only temporary, only while we inhabit this earth, only while I'm living this life where I was placed so purposefully and perfectly. I am a child of God. I belong to Him. I am permanently, securely, eternally and lovingly His. That title will never change. I am, and I always will be, "His". When I said "Yes" to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, I received a title that will be with me forever. And that, my darlings, is really who I am.
So, moms and grandmas and factory workers and lawyers and doctors and garbage collectors, you can call yourself what you like, you can go by titles and names and work your way up to the senator or the president of the company. But when it comes down to who you really are, the only title that matters, the only real question is, are you "His"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)