Eternal Perspectives

Ben Witherington has stuck his finger in the Truly Reformed eye of many readers of Godblogs with his recent post “For God so loved Himself?” Is God a Narcissist? The essence of Witherington’s argument is that in saying that God’s glory is His highest motivation and greatest purpose, some authors are unintentionally (my word, not his) creating God in their own image of narcissism. Referring to what one (presumably Reformed) theologian had written, Witherington says:

. . . the more one read, the more it appeared clear that God was being presented as a self-centered, self-referential being, whose basic motivation for what he does, including his motivation for saving people, is so that he might receive more glory. Even the sending of the Son and the work of the Spirit is said to be but a means to an end of God’s self-adulation and praise.

What’s wrong with this picture? How about the basic understanding of God’s essential and moral character?

This is an important subject to discuss: the nature of God is at the heart of this matter since, if Witherington is correct in his assessment of others’ writings, God is being maligned and perhaps even His name is being taken in vain (i.e., attached to something He is not associated with or involved in). There is a need to balance or correct the implication in the writings Witherington adduces, for the Christian hedonists among us may be unwittingly bestowing a new attribute upon God: narcissism.

I am arguing Christ, the perfect image of God’s character, reveals that God’s character is essentially other directed self-sacrificial love. God loves people, not merely as means to his own ends, but as ends in themselves.

Like so many discussions online, however, critical terms are left undefined. In this case, there are at least two: glory and narcissism, the former a biblical concept and the latter a psychological description. Perhaps a rudimentary definition of each will push the discussion or thinking in a more profitable direction and prevent arguments stemming from unshared assumptions.

Glory, as Withington points out in one of his comments, is a translation of two words found in Scripture, the Hebrew word transliterated as kabod and the Greek word rendered doxa. Of the former, VanGemeren says:

Nom. kabod. The nom. kabod is related only to the sense (c) of the vb. (contra HALAT, which includes weight as sense I.1, cf. THAT 1:798; but these passages, Isa 22:24; Nah 2:9 [10], are better understood as using wealth as emblematic of honor) and can be rendered honor or glory. According to context, the honor or glory can be that associated with dignity, wealth, or high position; respect or reverence from others; or the object of respect. Two specialized uses, discussed below, are the glory of the Lord as a technical term for his manifest presence, and “my glory” as a way of referring to oneself. This gives a simpler arrangement of the senses than either that of HALAT or BDB.

Harrison (in Elwell) adds that kabod,

denoted the manifestation of light by which God revealed himself, whether in the lightning flash or in the blinding splendor which often accompanied theophanies . . .

The word might be rendered in this instance ‘moral beauty’ . . . God’s glory is not confined to some outward sign which appeals to the senses, but is that which expresses his inherent majesty, which may or may not have some visible token

The Greek word for glory, doxa, was typically used in the Septuagint to translate kabod. Colin Brown observes that

doxa in the sense of God’s glory, majesty and power is pre-eminently the inheritance of the OT. . . . The meanings honour, fame, repute and in the case of the vb. to honour, praise, and the special uses to seek honour (Jn. 7:18; 8:50; 5:44; 1 Thess. 2:6) and to receive honour (Jn. 5:41, 44) belong to general Gk. usage.

doxa in the sense of God’s glory, majesty and power is pre-eminently the inheritance of the OT. The attempt to link it with Hel. usage (cf. Arndt. 202 f.) is untenable, for the magical texts quoted have themselves been influenced by Jewish thought. God is “the God of glory” (Acts 7:2), “the Father of glory” (Eph. 1:17), “the majestic glory” (2 Pet. 1:17). The expression “the glory of God” is frequent (e.g. Matt. 16:27; Acts 7:55; Rom. 1:23; 6:4; Eph. 3:16; 1 Tim. 1:11; Rev. 15:8). The power of God can be mentioned along with his glory (Matt. 5:13 [many MSS]; Col. 1:11; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 19:1). The concept is also applied to Christ: to his earthly life (Lk. 9:32; Jn. 1:14; 2:11; 1 Cor. 2:8), his exalted existence (Lk. 24:26; Jn. 17:5; Rom. 8:17; Phil. 3:21; 2 Thess. 2:14; 1 Tim. 3:16), his return (Matt. 16:27 par. Mk. 8:38, Lk. 9:26; Matt. 24:30 par. Mk. 13:26, Lk. 21:27; Tit. 2:13; 1 Pet. 4:13; Jude 24 [but this latter probably refers to the Father]), to his pre-existence (Jn. 12:41; 17:5) and also as an all-embracing epithet (Jn. 17:22, 24; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:4, 6; 2 Thess. 2:14; cf. 1 Cor. 2:8).

For the purpose of the discussion raised by Witherington, glory is perhaps best thought of as the manifestation, revelation, or demonstration of God in one or more of His attributes. Thus, to say that all things are done for the glory of God is to say that all things are done for the ultimate purpose of manifesting, revealing, or demonstrating who God is. It is in this sense that Witherington takes issue with those he feels are reducing God to the ultimate cosmic show-off.

Hence, the word narcissism is tossed about.

Narcissism is a personality disorder; a personality disorder, according to DSM-IV, is

an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment.

To say or imply that God is narcissistic is to diagnosis Him with a personality disorder but, as demonstrated by the definition of personality disorders, God does not qualify as having one: it cannot be said that His disposition or behavior is a significant deviation from what might be expected of a god, nor does it result in distress or impairment for Him. God’s character is stable and inflexible - He never fluctuates or changes - and it is pervasive: He behaves the same at all times in all situations. But the latter qualities are true of personality in general and not just personality disorders.

Narcissism, according to DSM-IV, is characterized by “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy.” Individuals suffering from it display

. . . a grandiose sense of self-importance . . . They routinely overestimate their abilities and inflate their accomplishments, often appearing boastful and pretentious . . . They may ruminate about ‘long overdue’ admiration and privilege and compare themselves favorably with famous or privileged people.

[They] believe that they are superior, special, or unique and expect others to recognize them as such . . . [and] generally require excessive admiration . . . Their self-esteem is almost invariably very fragile.

Individuals with NPD have a lack of empathy and have difficulty recognizing the desires, subjective experiences, and feelings of others . . . They are often contemptuous and impatient with others who talk about their own problems and concerns.

The DSM-IV does not discuss an important criterion in defining narcissism: are the claims of the individual true? Or, to paraphrases Mohammed Ali, “It ain’t narcissism if it’s true.” With God, of course, the claims He makes are true and the diagnosis of narcissism is misplaced.

The appearance of narcissism in God is not due, I would submit, to the manifestation of His essence but rather the ultimate end of all things due to His being.

In short, all things find their beginning, existence, and end in Him. Paul said of Christ Jesus,

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. - Col 1.16-17

In a sense, therefore, all things are for God’s glory, but that is not the same as saying that God’s primary motivation in every or any activity is His own glory. God’s glory is inevitable because of the nature of creation, but to say that it is God’s motivation is incorrect. If everything inescapably results in His glory, why would it be necessary for Him to be motivated by His glory?

Witherington, in his desire to balance or correct the untoward implications of a glory-centered view of God, makes various observations in his post and comments, some quite good and some not-so good. He writes, for example,

If we go back to the Garden of Eden story, one immediately notices that it is the Fall and sin which turned Adam and Eve into self-aware, self-centered, self-protecting beings. This is not how God had created them.

Is that an accurate statement? Certainly God did not intend Adam and Eve to be self-centered, i.e., more concerned about their own needs than those of one another, but Witherington is saying too much here. While Adam and Eve were not sinfully self-centered, they were self-aware and to some extent self-protective: obeying God was for them, as it is for all of us, a means of self-protection.

Was Jesus Christ self-aware and self-protective during His first advent? Yes, and even more to the point, God Himself is self-aware and quite protective of His own honor and glory. So two of the three post-Fall attributes that Dr Witherington cites are not applicable.

He also writes,

To JPM I would say there is indeed a reason why God loves us that is not simply because of God’s nature. It is because we are all creatures of sacred worth, made in God’s image.

God loves us in one sense for the same reason he loves Jesus– we bear God’s image and are of inherent sacred worth because of this fact. We of course since the fall are only God’s adopted children while Jesus is the only begotten Son, but nevertheless God loves his offspring, like any good parent would.

In other words, it is false to say that God loves us simply because God is wonderful.

This is another instance of saying more than what was intended. To say that God loves us - and Jesus - because we are made in His image is to inadvertently charge God with narcissism: it is maintaining that He loves us and Jesus because He sees Himself in us and, when He sees Himself, He cannot help but love us.

And, while it might be false to say that God loves us because He is wonderful (though it is wonderful that He does), it is not false to say that God loves us because He is love and is loving. God loves because it is His nature to love, unmotivated by what He finds in us or fails to find in us. It is who He is. He cannot do otherwise and remain true to Himself.

Despite its shortcomings, Witherington’s post is an important opening remark in the debate about God’s motivations and purposes in history. While it will most probably fall on deaf ears with the Truly Reformed - who never retreat or back off anything once said or written, especially by one of their anointed - Witherington’s observations may serve the rest of us well in thinking more accurately about who God is and what He is like .

2 Cor 1.13

 

Answers: (1) I don’t think it’s orthodox, although I’d stop short of calling it heretical. (2) The quote is from Gregory A. Boyd, founder and senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, MN, and an open theist (the latter doesn’t make him wrong about everything, of course, but it does flavor his view of things). It appears in The Myth of a Christian Nation, pp 67-69.

Question: Do the following statements (not necessarily the author of the statements) pass muster¹ with regard to orthodoxy? Why or why not?

According to the biblical narrative and church tradition, at some point in the primordial past, Satan managed to deceive humanity and co-opt us into his rebellion against God, seizing the world and making humanity his slaves. Jesus came into this world not only to take it back and free earth’s inhabitants but also to put an end to the war altogether. . . .

Now, through his death and resurrection, Jesus accomplished the task for which he came. He defeated the kingdom of darkness and set humanity free. In principle, therefore, the world has already been reconciled to God (2 Cor 5.14-21; Col 1.15-20). In principle, the wall of sin that separates humanity along ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic, and tribal lines has been destroyed. In principle, all have already died in Adam and been made alive in Christ (1 Cor 15.22; 2 Cor 5.14). In principle, we are already one new humanity in Christ (Eph 2.14-15). In principle. Yet Scripture as well as our own experience make it painfully clear that what is true in principle has not yet been manifested as accomplished fact (see, for example, Heb 2.8). . . .²

The author then explains that Jesus Christ is “the first fruit of the new humanity (Rom 8.29, Col 1.18)” and that we are also first fruits.² He continues

To be these first fruits, we must allow the kingdom to grow in us and through us. When we genuinely repent (turn from) our idolatrous allegiances to the world and submit to God’s loving rule, the kingdom gets planted in our innermost being . . . We learn how to walk in freedom from violence, self-centeredness, materialism, nationalism, racism, and all other false ways of getting life. . . .

As we grow in Christlikeness, we grow as conduits of the kingdom, increasingly manifesting the fact that we are ‘first fruits.’ Through our Christlike love, others are brought under the influence of the kingdom until, in time, it is planted in them and the process taking place in us begins to take place in them.

Bonus Question: Who is the author and in what work do these quotes appear?

---

¹Or, as we like to say in Texas, “pass mustard.”
²Emphasis in the original writing.

2 Cor 1.13

 

As I think about these days in which we live, about the voices that hold sway over Christendom from the pulpit, and the captivating reasonings in well-constructed books, as well as in the reams of words written here online - as I reflect on these matters, I am reminded of Tolkien’s words in The Lord of the Rings, Book III, a chapter entitled “The Voice of Saruman.”

The Riders of the Mark have accompanied King Théoden of Rohan and Éomer his nephew, Gandalf and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli to the stairs of Orthanc, the stronghold-turned-prison of Saruman, now the Wizard of Many Colors. The Riders eavesdrop on the speech of Saruman to their king.

Suddenly another voice spoke, low and melodious, its very sound an enchantment. Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. . . .

“The Riders stirred at first, murmuring with approval of the words of Saruman; and then they too were silent, as men spell-bound. It seemed to them that Gandalf had never spoken so fair and fittingly to their lord. Rough and proud now seemed all his dealings with Théoden. And over their hearts crept a shadow, the fear of a great danger: the end of the Mark in a darkness to which Gandalf was driving them, while Saruman stood beside a door of escape, holding it half open so that a ray of light came through.”

Those who would mesmerize us with words and ear-soothing tones may still be found among us, drawing us under their spell with their seductive speeches and attractive demeanor. They are strong, powerful, and popular; by agreeing with them, we reason, we will share in those qualities. Those who speak roughly or without the allurement of rhetorical skills are dismissed as unfaithful, ignorant rabble. We will give them no hearing and will hearken instead to velvet-tongued orators whose voices we find comforting.

Such modern-day Sarumans hold open a door, and from the door emanates a warm, inviting, and seductive light. But the door is only half open, and thus we cannot see that the light streaming towards us is not generated by the glory of the Son but by the fires of hell.

2 Cor 1.13

 

Today is a typical day off for me, a time for relaxing and touching base with folks. The following email exchange with my friends is standard fare for such times.

It started with a slightly enhanced news story from FoxNews:

Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:02 AM
To: 101 TNG
Subject: The times in which we live

Mother Says Baby’s Recurring ‘Bye Bye, Plane’
Comment Got Them Kicked Off Airplane

Thursday, July 12, 2007

ATLANTA — The mother of a 19-month-old boy says she and her son were kicked off a plane after she refused a stewardess’ request to medicate her son to keep him from talking.

Kate Penland, who lives in Gwinnett County in suburban Atlanta, said she and her son, Garren, had boarded the Continental Express plane last month after an 11-hour delay in Houston on an Atlanta-Oklahoma flight.

Garren kept saying, “Bye bye, plane,” Penland recalled. And she said the stewardess objected.

“At the end of her speech, she leaned over the gentleman beside me and said, ‘It’s not funny anymore. You need to shut your baby up,”‘ Penland told WSB-TV in Atlanta.

When Penland asked the woman if she was kidding, she said the stewardess replied, “You know, it’s called baby Benadryl.”

“And I said, ‘Well, I’m not going to drug my child so you have a pleasant flight,”‘ Penland told the TV station.

Penland said other passengers began speaking up on her behalf, and the flight attendant announced they were turning around and that Penland and Garren were going to be taken off the plane.

Members of the Atlanta Police Department bomb squad met the mother and her son inside the airport terminal following their removal from the Continental flight. Two APD officers, along with SWAT team members and representatives of Homeland Security, removed the boy from the resisting mother and took the child to an undisclosed location.

The boy was safely detonated a few hours later.

-30-

Dr Michael Russell
ΑΩ Counseling & Critical News Services

It then dawned upon me that there was more information to share.

Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:44 AM
To: My Friends
Subject: IED and children

There’s actually a diagnosis for this in the mental health manual: Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED); 312.34 in DSM-IV-TR. I am not making this up.

I don’t think it’s any accident that this disorder is referred to as “IED,” the very same as the favorite weapon of terrorists: improvised explosive device (IED).

If anyone mentions to you that their child has been diagnosed with “IED” or Intermittent Explosive Disorder, do not be decieved or naïve. We all need to be on the lookout for these dangerous children and report them to Homeland Security, DPS, local police, Oprah, or Jack Bauer - anyone with the authority to dispose of them safely.

Dr Michael Russell
ΑΩ Counseling & Bomb Disposal Services

Not surprisingly, someone wrote back:

Mike,

Is this similar to Intermittent Explosive Internal Combustion (IEIC)?

Mark

Which spawned the final email on the matter:

Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 12:36 PM
To: TNT
Subject: RE: IED and children

Mark:

Thank you for your inquiry. I hope the following information will be useful to you.

This IED is actually a new and improved version of the spontaneous-combustion child (SCC), something we rarely see now in this age of personal computers, personal mp3 players, and personal fire alarms and extinguishers. Recent advancements in technology have made it possible to abandon the earlier, severely limited collateral-damage effects of SCCs and replace them with the explosive model now available in all but third-world countries.

The danger, of course, is in what may happen if/when terrorist organizations make additional enhancements. One such group, Al-Gorra, reportedly has a school for toddlers: students go from First Grade, Second Grade, Third Grade, and then Weapons-Grade Plutonium. It is feared that such devices will be used to make global warming a reality.

Al-Gorra’s philosophy is captured in some of their oft-repeated slogans: “It takes a village to raise a child to thermonuclear levels” and “No child’s behind left.”

This present dilemma only exists because America opposed “zero-growth” birth control in the 70s and 80s, refusing to spay and neuter all children in third-world countries (i.e., any that do not speak English as their native language).

But, as they say, hindsight is useless.

Your friend,

Dr Michael Russell
ΑΩ Counseling & World Domination Services

Someone on the mailing list then asked to be removed. Wonder what that was all about?

(Listening to Offspring’s “Why Don’t You Get a Job?” on the iPod.)

2 Cor 1.13

 

In response to a request or two, I am providing the Word documents that made up my doctoral dissertation, An Integration of Biblical Anthropology and Neuropsychology and Its Implications for Christian Education and Discipleship. You may read online or download them, if you like: please give me credit if the materials are used in presentations, lessons, books, articles, etc.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1 - Psychology and Theology

Chapter 2 - A Model of Human Nature

Chapter 3 -General Revelation and Christian Psychology

Chapter 4 - Bible- and Brain-Based Learning

Chapter 5 - Conclusion

The Soul - diagram

The Heart - diagram

The Mind - diagram

Bibliography

2 Cor 1.13

 

Most of my current and recent writing can be found at my other blog, The Lord of the Kingdom. Click the link: it might be worth the trip! And you can’t beat the price, especially given the cost of gasoline these days.

2 Cor 1.13

 

Parchment and Pen, a ministry of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, is a very good blog offering solid theological and biblical insights from a group of writers sharing a similar dispensational background. C. Michael Patton is the owner of the blog and receives regular contributions from Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary and Ed Komoszewski.

The majority of the posts have little to do with dispensationalism, but there are exceptions. Having grown weary of the wrong-headed, dismissive attitudes of some ill-informed opponents, Komoszewski has begun an overview of the three principal schools of dispensational theology. You can find the first installment here: What Comes to Your Mind When You Hear the Word “Dispensationalism”? (Part 1).

Advocates and wannabe critics alike will profit from his survey.

2 Cor 1.13

 

A remote planet and a ponderous star conspired this morning to send my thoughts spiraling off into the nether regions of space - or, perhaps, the limited depths of my thoughts about God.

The distant planet was a post by Dan at TeamPyro in which he discussed what he calls “gutsy grace.”

(For Dan, “gutsy grace” stands in contrast to his pejorative “gutless grace.” I find it curious that, while admitting that he struggles to adequately define grace he nevertheless can label some manifestations as “gutsy” (his own, of course) and others as “gutless” (anyone who disagrees with him). But I digress.).

One of the things Dan endeavors to do is to define grace. This is no mean feat for, as he rightly notes, it is possible to offer definitions that are accurate but fail because they are not sufficiently comprehensive. I sympathize with him and any others who seek to define the term; that, however, will not stop me from trying.

My own attempt to define grace centers on the twin concepts of divine enabling and divine compelling, neither of which cease operation once salvation is initiated. The problem with my definition is the problem with all definitions: the terms I use have to be defined themselves.

Divine enabling should not be construed to mean that salvation or sanctification is a mutual or shared effort involving God and the elect sinner. Salvation is completely a work of God to which we are somehow responsible to yield. God’s enabling could be likened to that provided by an elevator that takes me to the top of a building: it is true that I must get on the elevator, but that is (a) made possible by God (cf. Jn 6.44) and (b) the sum total of my “contribution.”

Divine compelling makes change a passive imperative, i.e., a Christian will be changed. How much a believer changes is contingent on time, but all will be changed to some extent. I suspect, though, that the difference between the change of a stubborn, willful believer and that of a eager, compliant one is insignificant compared to the monumental change each will undergo when they behold Christ (1 Jn 3.2).

The giant star whose gravity altered my own journey this day was a chapter in Henry Cloud’s book Changes That Heal. Cloud speaks of the necessity of grace, truth, and time for believers to heal, change, and grow. He adds,

Change only takes place in ‘good time.’ Good time is time in which we and our experiences can be affected by grace and truth. If we have removed some aspect of ourselves from time, grace and truth cannot transform it . . . Grace and truth cannot affect the part of ourselves we won’t bring into experience.”

These words reminded me of a realization I had some years ago that people, including Christians, hide from others and God the very areas in which we most desperately need to be loved. It is only when we allow God, others, and God-through-others to love us in those most hideous areas that change can occur.

Love, it seems to me, is perhaps best defined as the marriage of grace and truth. Its perfect demonstration is found in Jesus Christ (Jn 1.17; cf. Ps 85.10) but it may also be gleaned on almost every page of Scripture. Love without grace is not love; love without truth is not love. It is only when grace is combined with truth and truth is joined with grace that the love of God is present. All else falls short.

It is precisely this manner of love to which believers are called and held accountable. It requires the enabling of God, certainly; the Spirit’s presence is relentlessly compelling. God takes us as He finds us - that is grace - but He does not leave us where we are - that is truth. But the grace present in God’s finding us is not separate from truth, and the truth of God’s changing us is not divorced from grace.

We may display one or the other - i.e., grace or truth - or one at the expense of the other, but God cannot. These two attributes of God - grace and truth - compose the essence of God, which is love. All that God does is characterized by love, the presence of grace and truth.

When we, enabled and compelled by God, embody such love then - and only then - do we abide in Him and He in us:

Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” - 1 Jn 4.15-16

2 Cor 1.13

 

This post, or one very much like it, has been asking to be written for some time now. It is an explanation, though not an excuse or apology, for my lack of substantive blogging for however long it has been. The problem has not been one of lack of time to write but more a lack of desire.

Life events, of the negative variety, conspired to make serious inroads on my desire. It has been the presence or burgeoning of good things, however, that seem to have finally decimated my need to blog. This is not something to be grieved and not something about which I feel any sense of loss.

A few months ago I began teaching systematic theology to a Thursday night men’s group of which I am a member. There are usually twelve or so of us on any given evening, although the number of men involved is closer to fifteen or sixteen. We’ve been at it, as I said, a few months and are still in the Prolegomena, i.e., introductory matters. We spent a month covering covenant theology and will spend a similar amount of time on dispensational theology. It will take years to finish. There is no need for haste: we would rather relish than rush.

The contrast between real ministry and real relationships is remarkable and nothing short of miraculous. There is an additional Person (or Two or Three) present when we gather and He facilitates not only meaningful teaching and learning but wonderful fellowship, too. I can sometimes feel the Holy Spirit carrying me along as I read Scripture and teach truth; at the same time, I feel the Spirit minister to me through the men who challenge, disagree, and join with me to deepen our relationships with God.

This is totally lacking in blogging. I don’t think there’s much biblical basis for genuine fellowship through the internet, though certainly normal, uninspired connections can be made. We can benefit spiritually from reading Scripture on one another’s sites but it is not feasible for the Spirit in me to minister to those who might read my words, nor is it possible for an intangible reader’s spirit to be a vehicle of blessing to me. Sharing theologies and favorite verses is not fellowship; living life together is biblical fellowship.

But, someone might say, what about Paul’s letters and the blessings his original readers and subsequent readers have had from them? The answer is obvious, of course: the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit in its writing and continues to be inspired today as He gives life to it through His teaching and comforting ministries. Blogs are educational and entertaining but fall short of being inspired, illumined, and invigorated by the Spirit.

The contrast, as I mentioned earlier, is much like night and day. It is the presence of God in the men at Bible study versus the unanimated, lifeless words of a blog post. I still read and find some excellent thinking and points, but it is like getting a phone call from my wife when she is away versus kissing her when she is here. One quickens the imagination with longing, the other quickens it with desire. There is no comparison.

This is not to say that I will not continue to blog from time to time, but it is to say that it will likely be infrequent. Real life awaits and beckons and the detached pseudo-communion of blogging has, like the emperor’s new clothes, been exposed for what it is - and isn’t.

Perhaps this will fall on the deaf ears of some who stumble across this post or will cause a defensive reaction on the part of others. My hope is that anyone and everyone who spends too much time writing and reading blog posts will withdraw their energies from this artificial spirituality and find a real, loving, Spirit-indwelling fellowship of which they can be a contributing giver and a grateful receiver.

Again, the difference is that which exists between reading a menu of heavenly delights versus actually tasting a sample of what has been promised and will be provided. Don’t spend too much time merely reading the menu, collecting recipes, and studying ingredients. Enjoy a taste of heaven now: it will make you yearn for the full meal that awaits us one day.

2 Cor 1.13

 

For those of you interested in following along, this is the first post on the Spiritual Discipline of Silence Conference now underway.

Session I

Next: Session II

2 Cor 1.13

 

There is more over there.

2 Cor 1.13