Month: November 2013
1 Peter 1:8
New International Version (NIV)
8 Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy,
I asked myself today how has God blessed me in the past? I asked that because I heard my spirit say that my wilderness experience is temporary. On Thanksgiving Eve day I have been in constant meditation about my present posture and position in Life. Instead of looking only at my physical lack, I chose to look at my spiritual richness and “rejoice” about what God says I am in His precious word.
I remember the mother of one of my team members from college. She was fearful about the outcome of the surgery she faced. Doctors had not been able to discover the reason for her symptoms, and cancer seemed an undeniable possibility. To add to her concern, she had little in savings, and being self-employed, she had no insurance or paid sick leave.
As the day of her surgery drew closer, she found herself reading her Bible more and more frequently. A passage in Habakkuk that her son and I would read every night we shared it with her and she called and said I am puzzled.
The prophet obviously knew his nation was about to be invaded and ravaged, but he said;
New International Version (NIV)
Though the fig tree does not bud
and there are no grapes on the vines,
though the olive crop fails
and the fields produce no food,
though there are no sheep in the pen
and no cattle in the stalls,
yet I will rejoice in the Lord,
I will be joyful in God my Savior.
She began to write us and tell us that she knew God was always with her and always loved her. Instead of asking for healing, finances, or peace, her prayer became simply, ” I love You, Too! I love You, too!”
As it turned out, the surgeons removed a benign cyst. Her recovery passed quickly. Friends helped with meals, laundry, housekeeping, errands, and even a mortgage payment. She reflected later, “This experience made my love for God grow deeper. And that was far more meaningful than a good medical report.”
If you are facing a burdensome situation today, Rejoice, reflect on God’s love for you. remember His faithfulness in the past. Then, with joy in your heart, tell God what I am saying, Lord I love you even if what I presently am enduring doesn’t work the way I feel it should, I love You so much. I don’t have a daisy peddle love with my God.
No prayer of adoration will ever soar higher than a simple cry: “I love You, God! I know You love me…
Read: Psalms 86
A Prayer of David.
In one way or another, we can all relate to Psalms 86:1 where David says, “I am poor and needy.” Even the richest among us should understand that poverty and need relate more to the spirit than to the wallet. When billionaire Rich DeVos speaks to groups, he often says, “I’m just a sinner saved by grace.”
Psalms 86 tells us that the help God provides is not measured by a monetary ledger sheet. When we acknowledge that we are poor and needy, it’s not so God will lavish material riches on us. No, we do so to open the door to other, more valuable treasures.
Here’s what God does for the poor and needy. He will “preserve’ our lives and “save” all those who trust in Him. He will be “merciful” and “ready to forgive”. He will listen to and answer prayer. But we’re not to take God’s blessings without giving back. We have a responsibility to learn God’s ways, walk in his truth, “fear [God’s] name”, praise the Lord, and glorify [His] name”.
Do you consider yourself among the “poor and needy”? If so, welcome to the club. Let’s not forget all the spiritual blessings God has for us and the godly response we should have towards His generosity.
We’re thankful for the blessings, Lord,
You give us day by day;
Now help us show our gratitude
By walking in Your way.
The poorest man is he whose only wealth is money….
The struggles of a convicted individual are just as severe as a terminal cancer patient, or how about being still incarcerated mentally after being released. There are contingencies set in place within the law that will not render a felon success without a faith in God to succeed. Interviewing for jobs and resources are just the crust of the problem. A felon is denied decent housing as well as resources from the county or state they are trying to re-enter-grate within.
The pain associated with this plight of life is beyond the words I can articulate here. I have made mistakes and I have even second guessed some of the decisions I’ve made like serve my country and tell the truth always only to be condemned and rejected by those who are still practicing their hypocrisy. I refuse to be defeated by the minds that have put this system of disenfranchisement into exsistance. I will continue to fight and advocate for myself and others until the victory I declare and decree is seen in this life I now have.
Walter Fortson is a young man with impressive credentials: He graduated with honors from Rutgers University this year and is headed to the University of Cambridge on a prestigious Truman scholarship.
But on a typical job application, the first thing an employer might notice about Fortson is that he’s an ex-felon.
Fortson, 28, served two years in prison for dealing crack cocaine: He got out in March 2010 and has been clean since. Though he’s successfully turned his life around, he says discrimination against those with a criminal record is very real.
“There have been a lot of times that I haven’t been offered an opportunity because of the stigma,” said Fortson, a Philadelphia native. “A lot of companies have a blanket policy that excludes anyone who’s had any contact with the criminal justice system.”
Fortson is now backing a campaign to make employers remove questions about criminal history from job applications, postponing such queries until a later stage of the hiring process–an initiative widely known as “Ban the Box.”
A growing number of states are coming on board. This week, Rhode Island became the eighth state in the country to pass a statewide Ban the Box law, and it’s one of the most expansive versions out there: The state will require all private and public employers to delay questions about criminal history, following Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Hawaii. Four other states and 51 municipalities have already passed similar measures for hiring public employees, according to the National Employment Law Project. Ban the Box bills are now being considered in New Jersey and California, which passed an executive measure covering public employees in 2010.
“People who have made mistakes need to be able to move on, to move forward with their lives, and we need to change our laws to allow them, even encourage them, to do so,” Rhode Island state senator Harold Metts, a Democrat, said in a statement last week. “They are not being allowed to do so if every job application they fill out looks like an instant dead-end because of that one question about criminal history.”
Supporters say the change is a simple, cost-effective way to help ex-offenders who face major barriers to getting their lives back on track, making it more likely that employers will look at their qualifications first.
“We’re not even saying don’t ask us the question–we’re saying don’t ask the question as the first thing that you do,” said Dorsey Nunn, director of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, an ex-felon-turned-advocate who helped spearhead the movement in the Bay Area. “We are asking for opportunity to compete.”
Ban the Box laws generally make exemptions for schools, law enforcement, and other institutions that already require more stringent screening of their employees. But for other kinds of employers, no matter if it’s violent felony, a sex offense, or misdemeanor–They are prohibited from asking about applicants’ criminal histories when they first apply for a job.
The campaign has come at a time when a record number of Americans have tangled with the criminal justice system. About one in three Americans has some kind of criminal record, including arrests that did not lead to convictions, according to the Department of Justice. And NELP estimates that one in four Americans–65 million people–has a record that would show up on routine background check.
Advocates point out that employment is one of the most effective ways to reduce the recidivism rate and support low-income communities–and they insist there’s an upside for employers as well. “In my experience, a lot of times these folks actually make exemplary employees because they work a lot harder and they have something to prove in a way, or that’s how they feel,” said Rhode Island state representative Michael Chippendale, a Republican who spent decades in the manufacturing industry.
Ban the Box supporters stress that employers are under no obligation to hire such candidates and can still conduct background checks and make the usual inquiries, just later in the hiring process. In Rhode Island, for instance, employers can make such inquiries at the first interview, while Hawaii prohibits criminal history questions until employers make a conditional job offer.
Victims’ advocates haven’t rallied to oppose the Ban the Box laws, arguing that it’s more important to ensure that employers follow through with their background checks when they do conduct them. ”Everyone has a right to interview for a job, but there’s an onus on employers to get somebody who’s well fitted,” says Mai Fernandez, executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime.
But many businesses groups say the new rules are too rigid and time-consuming, on top of newly revised federal guidelines employers must follow in using criminal records in hiring. “If you have an applicant who was convicted of murder, and you were never going to hire that person anyway, why would you go through the whole process of doing an interview to discover that information?” said Michael Kalt, a San Diego employment lawyer and lobbyist for the California branch of the Society for Human Resource Management.
Employers also argue that Ban the Box could lead to excessive litigation. According to Michael Egenton, senior vice-president of the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce, “People may say, ‘I didn’t get hired because I was asked that question,’ and then there’s a lawsuit.”
The effort to downplay criminal records in hiring isn’t new: Hawaii first passed the first statewide Ban the Box law in 1998. But the idea began to spread after 9/11 as employer background checks became increasingly commonplace, at the same time that record numbers of Americans were coming out of prison in many states. Boston and Chicago passed citywide Ban the Box initiatives in 2004, and cities from Carrboro, North Carolina, to Travis County, Texas, have followed suit.
But it wasn’t until the financial meltdown that Ban the Box started to take off at the state level, and the ranks of the unemployed everywhere began to rise.
With far fewer job openings than applicants, employers have been especially picky about who to hire, making it harder for job seekers with any marks against them–let alone a criminal history. Advocates believe this has made it even harder for African-Americans and other minority groups to benefit from the economic recovery, as they’re arrested and convicted at higher rates than the rest of the population.
Such pressures seem to have accelerated the pace of change. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Mexico passed statewide laws in 2010, followed by Colorado, Maryland, and Minnesota, which expanded a 2009 law to cover private employees as well as public ones. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has also promised to pass a directive in banning the box for state employees. “The political atmosphere has changed,” said Nunn, the Bay Area advocate. “My measure in terms of the successfulness of the issue is how many people have begun to replicate this.”
There’s a good chance that California could become the next state to come on board: a “Ban the Box” bill that would apply to public employees just passed out of committee this month, with hopes for a vote later this year. But the idea has received a more lukewarm reception in New Jersey, whose bill would regulate private employers as well.
“We recognize and appreciate the question of whether we should hold a college student who had a keg party at his dorm to the same level that an individual who held up a convenience store and shot the clerk, said Egenton, of New Jersey’s Chamber of Commerce. “But when you legislate something like this, it’s easier said than done.”
While simply removing the box asking about criminal history seems simple enough, the fine print is more complex. According to the New Jersey bill, for instance, employers can consider only misdemeanors committed in the last 5 years and felonies that have been committed within the last decade, although they can ask about murder, attempted murder, arson, terrorism and registrable sex offenses at any time. If they withdraw a job offer after a background check, employers must submit a form to the state explaining why.
Ban the Box supporters say that such measures are necessary because discrimination can be difficult to pinpoint: Applicants aren’t typically told their criminal histories are problematic, they say–they just don’t get a call back.
There’s some research to back up their claims: in one study, Princeton sociologist Devah Pager sent out job applicants with fictitious resumes and found that those with criminal histories received one-half to one-third the number of callbacks for similar kinds of entry-level positions. Black applicants were even less likely than white applicants to get a job interview even when they had the same criminal histories, Pager found.
The Obama administration also has flagged some of the more egregious violations. While employers are not prohibited from using criminal records in hiring, the federal government has long held that the discriminatory use of criminal records is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as such hiring practices have a disproportionate impact on racial minorities.
The administration has updated its guidelines for Title VII discrimination, but it also hasn’t been afraid to use litigation as well: Last month, it filed suit against BMW for a blanket exclusion of employees with criminal records and against Dollar General for revoking a job offer to a woman convicted for drug possession.
The new Ban the Box laws have yet to prompt a wave of lawsuits. But supporters admit there also isn’t a lot of evidence right now to show whether Ban the Box has actually made a difference in lowering barriers for ex-offenders. They assert, however, that it’s a welcome step at a time when Americans are increasingly required to disclose any criminal history–not only when applying for jobs, but also for housing, insurance, and other basic life necessities.
For Forton, the Rutgers graduate, talking about his criminal past lets him explain the progress he’s made since then–how he discovered his passion for fitness while in prison, became a certified personal trainer, and ultimately decided to go to college to study exercise physiology, attending classes while he was still in a halfway house.
“I can show and explain how far I’ve come,” he said. “All of which ultimately gives me an actual shot for the position.”
November is National Adoption Month. Many advocates, and in particular evangelicals, are making the case for why Christians should prayerfully consider adoption. In reading through some of the material I was surprised to find a “hard sell” from one of an influential Christian leader against adoption.
“Don’t Adopt!” This is how Dr. Russell Moore began a recent article concerning adoption. Why would Moore, an outspoken proponent for adoption speak so emphatically against adoption? He simply wants people to consider why they want to adopt and how that motive will translate into a life of “cross-bearing love.”
Dr. Moore writes:
If you want your “dream baby,” do not adopt or foster a child: buy a cat and make-believe. Adopting an orphan isn’t ordering a consumer item or buying a pet. Such a mindset hurts the child, and countless other children and families. Adoption is about taking on risk as cross-bearing love.
Moore is saying that if you are considering adoption and approaching it like a consumer then you should stop and go buy something. Don’t adopt. The mindset behind adoption is not about meeting a need for you the parent. Instead, it is about meeting a need for the child.
If we are thinking biblically we would understand immediately what Moore is writing. His point is, “Don’t adopt in order to love yourself. Adopt in order to love someone else.”
We learn in the Bible that love “…does not seek its own…” (1 Cor. 13:5). The Bible also teaches that God is love (1 John 4:8). How does God demonstrate that love? By sending Jesus to lay down his life to save sinners like you and me (1 John 4:10). Love, therefore, is about a willful, joyful sacrifice of ourselves in the service of another for their holiness. Certainly you can hear Dr. Moore saying, “Don’t adopt if you are trying to love yourself through this.” What a disaster for the kids and the parents if this is the case.
His hard sell continues. Moore insists that we should not adopt if we are not ready to be hurt. This goes for all parents of course, but should be considered for prospective adoptive parents also.
Love of any kind brings risk, and, in a fallen world, brings hurt. Simeon tells our Lord’s mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, that a sword would pierce her heart. That’s true, in some sense, for every mother and every father. Even beyond that, every adoption, every orphan, represents a tragedy. Someone was killed, someone left, someone was impoverished or someone was diseased. Wrapped up in each situation is some kind of hurt, and all that accompanies that. That’s the reason there really is no adoption that is not a “special needs” adoption; you just might not know on the front end what those special needs are.
Don’t adopt if you are not ready to be hurt. When you give yourself to someone you give yourself to another sinner. This is done in the midst of a world that is cursed for sin. As a result, the stage and the actors, so to speak, are all beset by weakness. We should be surprised when good things happen. We should treasures such times and persevere by grace through the tough times.
Once we have examined our motives, counted the cost, and felt the stiff wind of a cursed world upon our face then we are able to, if God leads, to consider moving forward with adoption. In other words, Moore is arguing, once you have come to steep in the gospel for some time you will remember who you are, that you have been adopted, that you have been lavished with grace, that you have been loved (as defined above) by the One who is love, and that you are now motivated to show that love to others. Christian should never ignore the gospel in anything we do, but especially not in parenting.
A Florida judge on Tuesday set bail for George Zimmerman at $9,000 and ordered a number of conditions for his freedom — including that he not possess weapons — while he awaits trial on charges he pointed a shotgun at his girlfriend.
Zimmerman, arrested Monday at his girlfriend’s Apopka home, four months after he was acquitted of murdering teenager Trayvon Martin, might post bail Wednesday morning after all the conditions for his release are arranged, a public defender representing him said.
Zimmerman said little as a judge, during Zimmerman’s first appearance Tuesday afternoon in Seminole County court, said he found probable cause for Zimmerman’s arrest on a felony charge of aggravated assault and misdemeanor counts of domestic violence battery and criminal mischief. Zimmerman’s arraignment has been scheduled for January 7.
A prosecutor revealed a new allegation against Zimmerman while trying to argue for a higher bail — that Zimmerman tried to choke his girlfriend a week and a half before Monday’s alleged shotgun incident, and that Zimmerman had talked about suicide.
Assistant State Attorney Lymary Munoz argued for $50,000 bail, saying that new information should heighten concern for the accuser’s safety, though the alleged incident hadn’t been reported to police.
The new allegation is not reflected in the preliminary charges. But Judge Fred Schott cited the choking accusation when he put the bail at $9,000, saying it prompted him to set it higher than the $4,900 requested by the defense.
Jeff Dowdy and Daniel Megaro, the public defenders representing Zimmerman, told reporters afterward that they hadn’t known of the choking allegation previously.
“That was news to us,” Dowdy said. “… That was not contained in the arrest report, and that’s the first we’ve heard about it.”
Schott put conditions on Zimmerman’s bail: That he cannot go to two Florida addresses; he cannot have contact with the accuser, Samantha Scheibe; he cannot possess weapons; he must wear a monitoring device; and he cannot travel outside Florida.
The judge initially said Zimmerman could return to one of the banned addresses with law enforcement to retrieve his belongings, but later — at Munoz’s urging — reversed that allowance, saying a third party could get the belongings instead.
Megaro told reporters he was confident Zimmerman would be acquitted. Dowdy said Zimmerman would post bail perhaps by Wednesday, “regroup and try to address the charges.”
“He’s maintained his innocence, I’ll tell you that,” Dowdy said
Megaro was asked about Scheibe’s alleged claims that Zimmerman talked about suicide.
“He’s back in jail. Obviously that causes a certain amount of anxiety and stress on somebody. I would not characterize him as what the state attorney has said, meaning he’s suicidal and volatile. We did not get that impression from him,” Megaro said.
Zimmerman claims dispute arose over alleged pregnancy
Zimmerman was arrested Monday afternoon at Scheibe’s Apopka home after she called 911, said Dennis Lemma, chief deputy with the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office.
Watch this video
Zimmerman accused of domestic violence
Watch this video
Girlfriend to 911: Zimmerman has a gun
Watch this video
What’s next for George Zimmerman?
Zimmerman told police the argument erupted after he tried to leave because Scheibe was pregnant and wanted to raise their child by herself, though police say Scheibe disputed the account.
“She told me it was better if we co-parented and she raised the child on her own,” Zimmerman said to a 911 dispatcher in a separate call. “I said, ‘Are you sure this is what you want to do?’ She said, ‘Yes.'”
Zimmerman continued, “As soon as I started packing up my stuff to leave, she just completely changed.” Asked to elaborate, Zimmerman said he wanted to leave amicably, but Scheibe “just started smashing stuff, taking stuff that belonged to me and throwing it outside, throwing it out of her room, throwing it all over the place.
“I guess she thought I was going to argue with her, but she’s pregnant. I’m not going to put her through that type of stress.”
In a question-and-answer session after Monday’s news conference, Lemma told reporters, “At this time, the victim has disclosed to us that she is not pregnant.”
Differing 911 calls
According to a police report about the incident, Scheibe said that after an argument, Zimmerman broke a table with a shotgun and then pointed it at her “for a minute.”
Scheibe called 911 at 12:30 p.m. ET, Lemma said.
On a 911 call recording released by police, a woman can be heard telling authorities: “He’s inside my house breaking all my (things) because I asked him to leave.”
The woman then says to someone at the house, “I’m doing this again? You just broke my glass table. You just broke my sunglasses and you put your gun in my freaking face and told me to get the (expletive) out.”
A man is heard telling her to calm down, but then she tells the dispatcher that the man just pushed her out of the house and locked the door.
In his 911 call, Zimmerman says that his girlfriend was, “for lack of a better term, going crazy on me” and throwing his things out. He says the woman is outside with police.
Asked why he is calling, Zimmerman says, “I just want everyone to know the truth.”
He says he never pulled a firearm and that it is in a bag, locked. He says she was the one who broke the table.
When deputies arrived at the house, Scheibe gave them a key. When they pushed open the door — which was blocked by several small pieces of furniture — they found Zimmerman, who was sitting and unarmed, Lemma said. He was passive and cooperative, Lemma said.
The sheriff’s office was seeking a search warrant to look for two guns deputies believed were inside the home, he said. According to the police report, Zimmerman had locked up the guns before police arrived.
Zimmerman’s wife has doubts about his innocence
Scheibe ‘in a safe place,’ mother says
Scheibe’s mother, Hope Scheibe, said on Monday, “My daughter is doing good, and she’s in a safe place.”
Scheibe and Zimmerman have been friends for 11 years, and Zimmerman has been living with her for the past several months, her mother said.
Zimmerman’s estranged wife, Shellie Zimmerman, filed for divorce on September 5. Days after the filing, Shellie Zimmerman called 911 and alleged that her husband had threatened her — one of several brushes that George Zimmerman has had with law enforcement since he was acquitted in July of murder and manslaughter in the 2012 shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin.
Recent contact with authorities
Police detained George Zimmerman on September 9 after his estranged wife told a 911 dispatcher that he had threatened her and her father at her father’s house in Lake Mary, Florida. But earlier this month, Lake Mary police said no charges would be filed, saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the case.
In late September, Shellie Zimmerman told NBC’s Matt Lauer on the “Today” show that she had doubts about her husband’s innocence in the Martin case.
Zimmerman also has been stopped for speeding twice since his July acquittal. He was pulled over the first time in Forney, Texas, in July and told the police officer he had a concealed weapon permit and a gun in his glove compartment. The officer wrote on his incident report that he gave Zimmerman a verbal warning.
Zimmerman was pulled over in early September going 60 mph in a 45-mph zone in Lake Mary and received a $256 ticket. He was not carrying a weapon at the time.
Zimmerman fatally shot Martin in the Sanford neighborhood where Zimmerman and Martin’s father lived in February 2012. Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, had a confrontation with the unarmed African-American teen after calling police to report a suspicious person, and he said he shot Martin, 17, in self-defense.
Zimmerman was acquitted by a six-person jury in July on second-degree murder and manslaughter charges.
The high-profile case sparked a heated nationwide discussion of race as well as debate over Florida’s “stand your ground” law.
His attorney in the murder trial, Mark O’Mara, no longer represents him.
Zimmerman’s public defenders said Tuesday they were appointed to the case because Zimmerman said he couldn’t afford an attorney.
Truth is Exclusive and Absolute
Some people are offended by truth because of its very nature— it is exclusive and it is absolute, not relative. The absolute nature of truth means that it does not depend on, nor is it changed by, people’s opinions. For example, if someone says, “There is no God,” that does not affect the existence of God. It only shows that the person is ignorant. Truth is also exclusive, meaning that it is “narrow” because it excludes anything contrary to it. Unfortunately, in the spiritual world, some people view the narrow nature of truth as “narrow mindedness.” We all recognize the narrowness of truth when it comes to the physical world. People do not put water in their gas tanks or jump from tall buildings if the elevator is full. We train our children to do what is “right” (like looking both ways before crossing a street), and not to do what is “wrong” (like running with a knife) so they will live safely in our “narrow minded” world.
There is a false belief held by some Christians, sort of a Christian myth, that if you are a good Christian you will not offend anyone. In fact, a Christian who offends people is sometimes considered to be just one more arrogant, insensitive, narrow-minded Christian, because it is thought that “true” Christians are sensitive and considerate, and never offend anyone.
To be sure, there are Christians who offend others by their tone of voice, overbearing manner, or by insistence on things that could be called “dogma” rather than truth. This article is not intended to excuse prideful Christian behavior, attitudes, or hardheartedness. History shows that there have been and still are many Christians who do not act very Christ-like. Much could be said about the great need for Christians to walk in love, have good character and demonstrate the fruit of the spirit.
Luke 7:23 (King James Version)
It is sometimes very difficult not to be offended in Jesus Christ, for the offense may be the result of my circumstances. I may find myself confined to narrow areas of service, or isolated from others through sickness or by taking an unpopular stance, when I hoped for much wider opportunities. Yet the Lord knows what is best for me, and my surroundings are determined by Him.Wherever He places me, and my surroundings are determined by Him. Wherever He places me me, He does so to strengthen my faith and power and to draw me into closer communion with Himself. And even if confined to a dungeon, my soul will prosper.
The offense that causes me to turn from Christ may be emotional. I may be continually confused and troubled over questions I cannot solve. When I gave myself to Him, I had hoped that my skies would always be fair, but often they are overcast with clouds and rain. But I must believe that when difficulties remain, it is that I may learn to trust Him completely–to trust and not be afraid. And it is through my mental and emotional struggles that i am being trained to tutor others who are being tossed by the storm.
The offense causing me to turn away may be spiritual. I had imagined that once within His fold, I would never again suffer from the stinging winds of temptation. Yet it is best for me the way it is, for when I endure temptation His grace is magnified, my own character matures, and heaven seems sweeter at the end of the day. learning to trust a righteous God that has proven Himself faithful, wonderful, marvelous and excellent is a painful but worthwhile endeavor to encounter in this life. Once I arrive at my heavenly home, I will look back across the turns and trials along my path and will sing the praises of my Guide. So whatever comes my way, I will welcome His will and refuse to be offended in my loving Lord.
Blessed is he whose faith is not offended,
When all around his way
The power of God is working out deliverance
For others day by day;
Though in some prison dark his own soul does fail,
Till life itself be spent,
Yet still can trust his Father’s love and purpose,
And rest therein content.
Blessed is he, who through long years of suffering,
Not now from active toil,
Still shares by prayer and praise the work of others,
And thus “divides the spoils.”
Blessed are you, O child of God, who does suffer,
And cannot understand
The reason for your pain, yet will gladly leave
Your life in His blest Hand.
Yes, blessed are you whose faith is “not offended”
By trials unexplained,
By mercies unsolved, past understanding,
Until the goal is gained.
I am experiencing the trial of my life at this very moment as I write this post. I cannot understand how any of this is working out for my good. I cannot see the victory coming or even piercing the doom and gloom I am faced with, but by faith I believe God is here and will make a way out of what seems to be no way. Our Father is forever acquainted with His permissive will and will see us through every storm. The pain is I believe to burn away our reliance on self.
I am going to cloth myself in His clothing, I am going to walk in the spirit, I am going to give thanks for Him trusting me to stand in His finished work and declare and decree victory though it seems so far away from reality. He will rescue me and receive His glorious praises from my unworthy vessel.