Month: June 2015
And let me be clear, the Hispanic community is very religious, traditional and family-oriented as well. An ill-conceived assault against the church — a rallying point across the minority communities — could bode dismay for the liberal progressives of the Democrat party heading into the 2016 election year. It could be a policy issue that works against the left and galvanizes those who support traditional marriage.
I know there are folks on the liberal progressive left who frequent this website. So here is my message. The Christian church community is a lot bigger and more powerful than you think — they kept a Republican from winning the White House. And these aren’t just old white men – there’s a growing young Christian constituency. You can criticize the Christian right all you want, but surrendering one’s faith principle for political gain is not a viable proposition. And in the case of prosecution of the Christian church, there could be a rallying of churches, regardless of race, the likes of which this nation has not seen.
The SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage is not about the issue itself — it is about individual religious freedom and the imposition of the State’s will against faith. After all, it is the original reason why the Pilgrims fled England. And since there is no place for men and women of faith to retreat — they will make a stand. This ain’t first century Rome.
He who obeys God’s laws finds him a father. He who disobeys them, finds him a judge.
This week the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of same sex marriage in all 50 states. My friends, we are witnessing the end of federalism in our nation. In a single vote, 5 folks basically just told the states to “stick it.”
Consider this: what happens when a gay couple goes into a church wanting to plan a ceremony and the pastor says no? We now have a conflict between the First Amendment and individual behavior.
Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia summed up his disgust with this ruling in a footnote on page 7 (note 22). He says, “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”
With this ruling, the Supreme Court is essentially saying individuals have civil rights based on their sexual behavior, and setting up a monumental battle with the free exercise of religion. This could well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back – that camel being the up till now silent, passive Americans who have been cowed into “tolerating” societal changes that go counter to their fundamental beliefs.
As reported by the Christian Post in April, “The United States Supreme Court may soon liberate the biblically conservative church from old “prejudices” that should have long ago been “jettisoned,” forcing it into “rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity,” in the words of a recent writer in The New York Times.”
“Homosexuality must be removed from the “sin list” and, according to an MSNBC commentator, traditional marriage proponents must be forced “to do things they don’t want to do.” Sadly, this crusade will be like the Marxist “liberation” movements that promised to “free” people, but really were about control and suppression. The culmination may come as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on same-sex marriage cases beginning April 28. By July 1 the Court possibly will issue an official ruling regarding the constitutional right to homosexual marriage. The Court’s decision may impact the form of biblically based churches dramatically. Churches that hold to a strict and conservative interpretation of the Bible’s teaching about gender and marriage may find themselves “Romanized”. The elites of first century Rome would not allow the church an institutional presence in society. “The Christian churches were associations which were not legally authorized, and the Roman authorities, always suspicious of organizations which might prove seditious, regarded them with jaundiced eye,” writes Kenneth Scott LaTourette.”
I found the statement “rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity” as rather odd. And the comments from the MSNBC commentator of “traditional marriage proponents being ‘forced’ to do the things they don’t want to do” as somewhat threatening.
These statements by progressive socialists are indicative of a lack of regard and respect for the First Amendment right of religious liberty. Here is where I see an incredible philosophical battle looming. Now that SCOTUS has ruled there is a constitutional right to marriage – which I fail to see how that could be construed — and the radical gay left decides to push the envelope against churches, it will be a strategic miscalculation for the liberal left.
This is why the solution of civil unions should have been the solution. If the country is “forced” to accept something that goes counter to a traditional value, there will undoubtedly be push back. And that push back will result in a galvanizing issue which I do not believe the liberal progressive left fully comprehends.
t’s simple — in the 2012 presidential election there were some five to seven million evangelical Christian voters who sat it out. They were not inspired and therefore did not participate. However, I believe with this decision, the left has overextended itself — as it has already based on courts overturning electorate decisions – and you will see a social conservative issue that will have greater prominence. Some on the center-right will say, drop it, that’s a bad policy recommendation. This issue will not lend itself to dismissal and cognitive dissonance — there must be a solution. The social conservative issue of marriage will not be thrown upon the ash heap. It shouldn’t be the prominent issue, but it does have cross interest appeal.
The Christian Post postulated, “What happens if local churches that do not embrace same-sex marriage find their legal status shaky or non-existent, as well as parachurch groups, conservative Christian colleges, church-based humanitarian agencies, and all other religious institutions – Christian and otherwise – supporting the traditional view of marriage. Without state-recognized corporate status everything from mortgages and building permits to employment and hiring practices is threatened – all of them essential for institutional function.”
“Journalist Ben Shapiro notes that there is already a movement on the state level “to revoke non-profit status for religious organizations that do not abide by same-sex marriage.” The Supreme Court’s decision could make churches refusing to comply “private institutions engaging in commerce,” and therefore subject to laws already in place. Refusal to perform a same-sex wedding would put a church out of business. Current trends seem to flow against conservative religious institutions. All the elites that set and propagate cultural consensus are aligned in support of same-sex marriage – the Entertainment Establishment, Information Establishment, Academic Establishment, and Political Establishment.”
However, are the entertainment, information (media), academic, and political establishments truly representative of American culture? Or do they just have a more prominent position, making us believe they have a majority opinion?
There has been little talk about how, during the Obama wave of 2008, same-sex marriage ballot proposals in two states did not win as liberal progressives and the gay left had hoped – in Florida and California. The quiet point that no one wanted to comprehend was that countless droves of black voters swarmed to the polls. And as they voted for the “first black president” they did NOT vote to bring about gay marriage in their states. Why? Because of traditional biblical beliefs. Now, in 2008, Obama stated he didn’t support gay marriage — when he decided to flip flop — the hushed-up secret was the anger and disdain this caused with many black pastors and ministers. We all know the Democrats wholeheartedly depend on an obedient black electoral patronage — what if 25 percent of blacks say no? Click to view pt;2 Part 2
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
THE PRESIDENT: For too long, we’ve been blind to the unique mayhem that gun violence inflicts upon this nation.
Removing the flag from this state’s capitol would not be an act of political correctness; it would not be an insult to the valor of Confederate soldiers. It would simply be an acknowledgment that the cause for which they fought — the cause of slavery — was wrong, the imposition of Jim Crow after the Civil War, the resistance to civil rights for all people was wrong. It would be one step in an honest accounting of America’s history; a modest but meaningful balm for so many unhealed wounds. It would be an expression of the amazing changes that have transformed this state and this country for the better, because of the work of so many people of goodwill, people of all races striving to form a more perfect union. By taking down that flag, we express God’s grace.
But I don’t think God wants us to stop there. For too long, we’ve been blind to the way past injustices continue to shape the present. Perhaps we see that now. Perhaps this tragedy causes us to ask some tough questions about how we can permit so many of our children to languish in poverty, or attend dilapidated schools, or grow up without prospects for a job or for a career. Perhaps it causes us to examine what we’re doing to cause some of our children to hate. Perhaps it softens hearts towards those lost young men, tens and tens of thousands caught up in the criminal justice system and leads us to make sure that that system is not infected with bias; that we embrace changes in how we train and equip our police so that the bonds of trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve make us all safer and more secure.
Maybe we now realize the way racial bias can infect us even when we don’t realize it, so that we’re guarding against not just racial slurs, but we’re also guarding against the subtle impulse to call Johnny back for a job interview but not Jamal. So that we search our hearts when we consider laws to make it harder for some of our fellow citizens to vote. By recognizing our common humanity by treating every child as important, regardless of the color of their skin or the station into which they were born, and to do what’s necessary to make opportunity real for every American — by doing that, we express God’s grace.
THE PRESIDENT: For too long, we’ve been blind to the unique mayhem that gun violence inflicts upon this nation.
Sporadically, our eyes are open: When eight of our brothers and sisters are cut down in a church basement, 12 in a movie theater, 26 in an elementary school. But I hope we also see the 30 precious lives cut short by gun violence in this country every single day; the countless more whose lives are forever changed — the survivors crippled, the children traumatized and fearful every day as they walk to school, the husband who will never feel his wife’s warm touch, the entire communities whose grief overflows every time they have to watch what happened to them happen to some other place.
The vast majority of Americans — the majority of gun owners — want to do something about this. We see that now. And I’m convinced that by acknowledging the pain and loss of others, even as we respect the traditions and ways of life that make up this beloved country — by making the moral choice to change, we express God’s grace.
We don’t earn grace. We’re all sinners. We don’t deserve it. But God gives it to us anyway and we choose how to receive it. It’s our decision how to honor it.
A Letter From Black America
Yes, we fear the police. Here’s why.
Last July 4, my family and I went to Long Island to celebrate the holiday with a friend and her family. After eating some barbecue, a group of us decided to take a walk along the ocean. The mood on the beach that day was festive. Music from a nearby party pulsed through the haze of sizzling meat. Lovers strolled hand in hand. Giggling children chased each other along the boardwalk.
Most of the foot traffic was heading in one direction, but then two teenage girls came toward us, moving stiffly against the flow, both of them looking nervously to their right. “He’s got a gun,” one of them said in a low voice.
I turned my gaze to follow theirs, and was clasping my 4-year-old daughter’s hand when a young man extended his arm and fired off multiple shots along the busy street running parallel to the boardwalk. Snatching my daughter up into my arms, I joined the throng of screaming revelers running away from the gunfire and toward the water.
The shots stopped as quickly as they had started. The man disappeared between some buildings. Chest heaving, hands shaking, I tried to calm my crying daughter, while my husband, friends and I all looked at one another in breathless disbelief. I turned to check on Hunter, a high school intern from Oregon who was staying with my family for a few weeks, but she was on the phone.
“Someone was just shooting on the beach,” she said, between gulps of air, to the person on the line.
Unable to imagine whom she would be calling at that moment, I asked her, somewhat indignantly, if she couldn’t have waited until we got to safety before calling her mom.
“No,” she said. “I am talking to the police.”
My friends and I locked eyes in stunned silence. Between the four adults, we hold six degrees. Three of us are journalists. And not one of us had thought to call the police. We had not even considered it.
We also are all black. And without realizing it, in that moment, each of us had made a set of calculations, an instantaneous weighing of the pros and cons.
As far as we could tell, no one had been hurt. The shooter was long gone, and we had seen the back of him for only a second or two. On the other hand, calling the police posed considerable risks. It carried the very real possibility of inviting disrespect, even physical harm. We had seen witnesses treated like suspects, and knew how quickly black people calling the police for help could wind up cuffed in the back of a squad car. Some of us knew of black professionals who’d had guns drawn on them for no reason.
This was before Michael Brown. Before police killed John Crawford III for carrying a BB gun in a Wal-Mart or shot down 12-year-old Tamir Rice in a Cleveland park. Before Akai Gurley was killed by an officer while walking in a dark staircase and before Eric Garner was choked to death upon suspicion of selling “loosies.” Without yet knowing those names, we all could go down a list of unarmed black people killed by law enforcement.
We feared what could happen if police came rushing into a group of people who, by virtue of our skin color, might be mistaken for suspects.
For those of you reading this who may not be black, or perhaps Latino, this is my chance to tell you that a substantial portion of your fellow citizens in the United States of America have little expectation of being treated fairly by the law or receiving justice. It’s possible this will come as a surprise to you. But to a very real extent, you have grown up in a different country than I have.
As Khalil Gibran Muhammad, author of The Condemnation of Blackness, puts it, “White people, by and large, do not know what it is like to be occupied by a police force. They don’t understand it because it is not the type of policing they experience. Because they are treated like individuals, they believe that if ‘I am not breaking the law, I will never be abused.’”We are not criminals because we are black. Nor are we somehow the only people in America who don’t want to live in safe neighborhoods. Yet many of us cannot fundamentally trust the people who are charged with keeping us and our communities safe.
As protest and revolt swept across the Missouri suburb of Ferguson and demonstrators staged die-ins and blocked highways and boulevards from Oakland to New York with chants of “Black lives matter,” many white Americans seemed shocked by the gaping divide between law enforcement and the black communities they are supposed to serve. It was no surprise to us. For black Americans, policing is “the most enduring aspect of the struggle for civil rights,” says Muhammad, a historian and director of the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in New York. “It has always been the mechanism for racial surveillance and control.”
In the South, police once did the dirty work of enforcing the racial caste system. The Ku Klux Klan and law enforcement were often indistinguishable. Black-and-white photographs of the era memorialize the way Southern police sicced German shepherds on civil rights protesters and peeled the skin off black children with the force of water hoses. Lawmen were also involved or implicated in untold numbers of beatings, killings and disappearances of black Southerners who forgot their place.
In the North, police worked to protect white spaces by containing and controlling the rising black population that had been propelled into the industrial belt during the Great Migration. It was not unusual for Northern police to join white mobs as they attacked black homeowners attempting to move into white neighborhoods, or black workers trying to take jobs reserved for white laborers. And yet they strictly enforced vagrancy laws, catch-alls that gave them wide discretion to stop, question and arrest black citizens at will.
Much has changed since then. Much has not.
To a very real extent, you have grown up in a different country than I have.
Last Fourth of July, in a few short minutes as we adults watched the teenager among us talking to the police, we saw Hunter become a little more like us, her faith a little shaken, her place in the world a little less stable. Hunter, who is biracial and lives with her white mother in a heavily white area, had not been exposed to the policing many black Americans face. She was about to be.
n the phone, she could offer only the most generic of suspect descriptions, which apparently made the officer on the other end of the line suspicious. By way of explanation, Hunter told the officer she was just 16. The police called her back: once, twice, then three times, asking her for more information. The interactions began to feel menacing. “I’m not from here,” Hunter said. “I’ve told you everything I know.”
The fourth time the police called, she looked frightened. Her interrogator asked her, “Are you really trying to be helpful, or were you involved in this?” She turned to us, her voice aquiver. “Are they going to come get me?”
“See,” one of us said, trying to lighten the mood. “That’s why we don’t call them.”
We all laughed, but it was hollow.
My friend Carla Murphy and I have talked about that day several times since then. We’ve turned it over in our minds and wondered whether, with the benefit of hindsight, we should have called 911.
Carla wasn’t born in the United States. She came here when she was 9, and back in her native Barbados, she didn’t give police much thought. That changed when she moved into heavily black Jamaica, Queens.
Carla said she constantly saw police, often white, stopping and harassing passersby, almost always black. “You see the cops all the time, but they do not speak to you. You see them talking to each other, but the only time you ever see them interact with someone is if they are jacking them up,” she said. “They are making a choice, and it says they don’t care about you, it tells you they are not here for your people or people who look like you.”
click here to view columbian-exposition….
“The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart”
― Helen Keller
“Part of the problem with the word ‘disabilities’ is that it immediately suggests an inability to see or hear or walk or do other things that many of us take for granted. But what of people who can’t feel? Or talk about their feelings? Or manage their feelings in constructive ways? What of people who aren’t able to form close and strong relationships? And people who cannot find fulfillment in their lives, or those who have lost hope, who live in disappointment and bitterness and find in life no joy, no love? These, it seems to me, are the real disabilities.”
― Fred Rogers, The World According to Mister Rogers: Important Things to Remember
The same apostle who said, “Let us not love in word or tongue, but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:18), also recorded Jesus saying, “These things I speak . . . that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves” (John 17:13), and, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63).
If the “speaking” of Jesus imparts joy, and the “words” of Jesus give spiritual life, then surely such speaking is love.
It has always troubled me that 1 John 3:18 could be taken to imply that what we do with our mouths is a less real or less frequent form of love than what we do with our hands. “Little children, let us not love in word or tongue but in deed and in truth.” It seems to me that we have practical and biblical reasons for saying that the muscle of the tongue is more frequently the instrument of true love than any other muscle of the body.
So let’s step back and see what John is saying in 1 John 3:18 and what the wider witness of Scripture is. Notice the context, the structure of his words, and what other witnesses say.
1. The Context
The preceding verses give us a clue what John means:
By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? (1 John 3:16–17)
If it comes down to your life or my life, and I take the bullet, no demonstration of love could be greater. “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
Then John draws out a principle of love which is more pervasive and less dramatic: “If anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” In other words, true love not only gives its life for the loved ones, but also its goods.
This is what James was saying: “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” (James 2:15–16). This is what John is criticizing: Saying, “Be warmed, be filled,” but giving no food and clothing when you have them to give.
So the first thing John has in mind is people who say they love others, but when it comes down to practical sacrifices, and acts of self-denial, they don’t do them. That’s what John means by loving “in word and tongue.” It’s not real. Deeds of sacrifice validate words of love.
2. The Structure of His Words
But there are more clues. You can’t see this one in the English translation, but the contrasting pairs of words (“word and tongue” vs. “deed and truth”) are not exactly parallel. The first two are dative, and the second two are objects of the repeated preposition en. Hence literally: “Little children, let us not love by word orby tongue but in deed and in truth.” The difference may be incidental. Or perhaps there is a reason for it: “Let us not think of love as actions of instruments like tongues and the sounds they make (words). Let us rather think of love as a reality that is happening in our deeds and in truth.”
In other words, love can never be reduced to sounds (words) or muscle movements (whether the tongue or any other muscle). Rather love is always something real within and beneath those actions. Something true. That’s why Paul said, “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love . . .” (1 Corinthians 13:3). Deeds by themselves are never love. Never. Love is “in” the deeds. So John’s point is: Don’t identify love with words or tongue-acts. Love is deeper. It is active in muscle actions, but is never identical with such instruments. The words, “in truth,” push the issue deeper.
But even more important than the grammar is the surprising contrast between “tongue” and “truth.” “Little children, let us not love by word or tongue but in deed and in truth.” We expect the contrast between “word” and “deed.” But not “tongue” and “truth.” We might have expected something like “not by tongue but by hand.”
The simplest lesson to draw from this is: Don’t make loving promises with your tongue that don’t come true in reality. If you say you are going to come to help, come. The promise is encouraging, and therefore loving. But all that encouragement dies when you don’t show up. Tell the truth. Love in truth.
A second lesson to draw from the contrast between tongue and truth is that truth itself is a wonderful gift. “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). Speaking the truth to someone, whether they like it or not, is a great gift. “The words that I have spoken to you are . . . life” (John 6:63). That was true for Jesus, and for the apostles: “Speak to the people all the words of this Life” (Acts 5:20).
Which means that when the tongue and its sounds (words) are “in truth” they become acts of love. The line of lovelessness is not drawn between speaking and doing, but between speaking and doing in the truth, and speaking and doing in emptiness. Truth turns word-love into deed-love.
Which leads us now to . . .
3. What Other Witnesses Say
The concern I raised at the beginning was that 1 John 3:18 could be taken to imply that what we do with our mouths is a less real or less frequent form of love than what we do with our hands and feet. I don’t think John was saying that. Here is how real and frequent and important mouth-love is.
With the mouth everlasting joy is imparted.
“These things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.” (John 17:13)
By the mouth faith is awakened.
“Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17)
With the mouth courage imparts profitable things.
“I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable.” (Acts 20:20)
With the mouth blessing comes.
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.” (Romans 12:14)
With the mouth grace is given.
“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up . . . that it may give grace to those who hear.” (Ephesians 4:29)
We will be judged according to our mouth-deeds as much as by our hand-deeds.
“On the day of judgment people will give account for every careless wordthey speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:36–37)
Two Ways to Get it Wrong
When John says, “Little children, let us not love in word or tongue but in deed and in truth,” he does not diminish the reality or frequency or importance of loving with our words. In fact, even though the most dramatic and decisive expression of love may be the deep sacrifices we make for those we love, two things remain true.
The need to love in deed does not diminish the importance of loving with our words.Tweet
One is that there are sacrifices which have ulterior motives and are not real love (“Though I give my body to be burned . . .”). Love is not identical to deeds. Ever. It is always “in” the deeds, or not.
The other is, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34). Therefore, the most frequent witness to the love of our hearts is what comes out of our mouths. In this sense our words are deeds. And God knows when they are true.
But let us never treat the mouth-deed or the hand-deed with neglect, or preference. Many fail as lovers by thinking they can replace words with deeds. And many fail, thinking words are enough. Rather let us always think: Both! Both word and work! Mouth-work and hand-work! Both!
“Whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Colossians 3:17)
“I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience — by word and deed.” (Romans 15:18)
“May God . . . comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.” (2 Thessalonians 2:16–17)
Conduct…click to gauge yours….
Jesus came to redeem and restore a shattered world—and He won’t stop until He’s done.
The world breaks everyone, and afterward, some are strong at the broken places.
It’s hard to tell what’s really going on in people’s lives. For instance, at church on Sunday mornings,or Saturday worship people smile, greet friends, and tend to look their best. But what if we could see the truth of their interior lives manifested in their physical bodies? We would discover that many of our fellow churchgoers are walking around crippled by pain. We’d know instantly if something was wrong and would do whatever we could to help them.
That’s probably how Jesus perceived people as He sought to minister to them. Although their physical ailments were more obvious, He also discerned the spiritual darkness and emotional hurts that left them fractured within. And while Christ always intervened to heal them physically, His main purpose was to save them from sin and give abundant life (John 10:10).
I wonder how many believers today could honestly say they enjoy that great gift. Sure, they’ve been saved and are going to heaven, but life seems more like a dry desert than an overflowing, vibrant stream. What causes a believer to live this way? It’s certainly not what Christ intends for His followers.
Fragmentation is the result of sin.
Brokenness began when sin entered the world through Adam and Eve. It created an immediate separation between mankind and God, produced discord between people, and resulted in illness and death. Because of our fallen environment, we suffer the emotional damage of painful childhoods, broken relationships, and devastating circumstances. However, sometimes we suffer not because of what has happened to us but as a result of our own poor choices. If we allow sin in our lives, we’ll experience internal conflict and division.
The Lord’s desire is to put the pieces back together, and seal them with His love and grace.
Whatever the cause of our fragmentation, it negatively affects every area of our lives—job performance, relationships, health, thought patterns, attitudes, and emotions. The tragedy of this situation is that we’ll never have the abundant life Christ promised if we settle for something less. How the Lord must grieve over the brokenness sin causes. His desire is to heal the fractured areas, put the pieces back together, and seal them with His love and grace.
Jesus came to make us whole.
As we consider what it means to be complete, we must first understand that the Lord created people as trichotomous or “three-part” beings composed of spirit, soul, and body. The spirit enables us to relate to and interact with God. The soul is our innermost being that consists of the mind, will, and emotions. And the body is the physical part of us. When Jesus ministered to people, He dealt with all three aspects of their humanity.
The Spirit. In His encounter with Nicodemus, the Lord explained that the only way to enter the kingdom of heaven was to be born of the Spirit (John 3:5-6). Since we are all born spiritually dead in our trespasses, the only way to be made alive is to receive Christ’s forgiveness (Eph. 2:1-5). Until that need is met, we will never be whole. However, once we are born of the Spirit, He comes to live within us forever. As we yield to His leadership and let Him fill us, the Holy Spirit produces fruit in our character (Gal. 5:22-23).
The Soul. Jesus also focused on the internal issues of the soul. In John 4, the Samaritan woman’s failed marriages and current extramarital affair revealed her deep emotional hurt. Christ offered her living water, the only thing that could truly satisfy and spring up into eternal life (vv. 10, 14). Believing in Him resulted not only in forgiveness but also in her transformation. After she encountered Jesus, her testimony caused many others in that city to believe in Him (v. 39). Christ desires the same for His followers today—He wants to transform us into people who can grow spiritually and become emotionally healthy.
Jesus began restoring us to wholeness with His first coming and, when He comes again, will complete the good work He began.
Do you feel alone, isolated, or out of place even when you’re with others? Do you see yourself as unloved or think no one really cares about you? Are you struggling with feelings of inadequacy or inferiority? If you answered yes to any of these questions, know that you don’t have to live in bondage. Jesus wants to heal your soul so you can live abundantly, fulfilling His plan for your life.
Just consider what He’s already done for you. First of all, He has made you a citizen of His kingdom, a member of God’s family, and a part of His body, the church. No matter what you’ve experienced, you belong to the Lord forever, and He delights in you. Moreover, He sent His Spirit to live within you as your comforter and helper. He walks beside you every moment, giving you the ability and confidence to accomplish whatever He requires of you.
The Body. Ever since Adam and Eve’s disobedience, mankind has suffered with infirmity, sickness, and death. No one can avoid it. Perhaps the question that so often haunts us is why the sick aren’t healed. After all, wherever Christ went, He ministered to physical needs. The Gospels are filled with stories of the blind gaining their sight, the lame walking, and the sick being made well.
The truth is, we don’t always know what causes sickness or why the Lord doesn’t cure every ailment. Although Jesus did restore many people to health, He didn’t heal everyone in Israel. His purpose was to give people a taste of His future kingdom, when He will come to rule on earth as King of Kings. Constant good health isn’t promised in this life. Only after we receive our glorified bodies will we be made completely whole—spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
Christ will accomplish His work.
Jesus began restoring us to wholeness with His first coming and, when He comes again, will complete the good work He began. At the moment of salvation, He gives life to our spirits. Then He works to restore our souls through the process of sanctification, whereby He progressively transforms us into His image. The final stage will be glorification, when we are given new bodies that never age, suffer illness, or die (Phil. 3:20-21).
However, until that day arrives, we will continue to deal with brokenness. But we have hope because the Lord never gives up on sanctifying us. His goal is that our spirit, soul, and body “be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:23). And as He works in our lives, we discover the boundless joy that comes from being children of the King. Check this out …Discernment
Question: “How can I increase my spiritual discernment?”
Answer: Discernment is defined as “the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure; an act of perceiving something; a power to see what is not evident to the average mind.” The definition also stresses accuracy, as in “the ability to see the truth.” Spiritual discernment is the ability to tell the difference between truth and error. It is basic to having wisdom.
Arguments and debates surround spiritual truth because it is obscure. Jesus, speaking to His disciples about the Pharisees, said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given” (Matthew 13:11). Satan has “blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 4:4), so God must shed light on the human mind to enable us to understand truth. It is impossible to attain wisdom without God. He gives discernment or takes it away (Job 12:19-21).
Some have mistakenly defined spiritual discernment as a God-given awareness of evil or good spiritual presences—the ability to tell if a demon is in the room. While some people may possess this capability, it is not the biblical meaning ofdiscernment. Spiritual discernment ultimately has to do with wisdom and the ability to distinguish truth from error.
Wisdom is personified inProverbs 1and described as someone that we can “get to know” (vv. 20-33). The Bible says that Jesus Christ is “wisdom from God” (1 Corinthians 1:30). Therefore, wisdom, or spiritual discernment, is something that comes from knowing Jesus Christ. The world’s way of getting wisdom is different from God’s way. The learned of the world gain knowledge and apply reason to knowledge to solve problems, construct buildings and create philosophies. But God does not make the knowledge of Himself available by those means.First Corinthians 1:18-31says the “wisdom of the wise” is frustrated by God who delivers wisdom to the “foolish” and the “weak” by way of a relationship with Jesus Christ. That way, “no human being can boast in His presence” (verse 29). We learn to be spiritually discerning by knowing Him.
It is not wrong to possess knowledge or have an education, and it is not wrong to use reason and logic to solve problems. However, spiritual discernment cannot be attained that way. It must be given by the revelation of Jesus Christ to the believer, and then developed by way of training in righteousness (Hebrews 5:14) and prayer (Philippians 1:9).Hebrews 5:11-14shows how spiritual discernment is developed. The writer speaks to those who had become “dull of hearing,” meaning they had fallen out of practice discerning spiritually. The writer of Hebrews tells them that everyone who lives on “milk” (rather than the “solid food” desired by the mature) is unskilled in the word of righteousness; however, the mature Christian has been “trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” The keys, according to this passage, are becoming skilled in the Word of God (by which we define righteousness) and “constant practice” (through which we gain experience).
So, how does one increase spiritual discernment? First, recognizing that God is the only one who can increase wisdom, pray for it (James 1:5;Philippians 1:9). Then, knowing the wisdom to distinguish good from evil comes by training and practice, go to the Bible to learn the truth and, by meditation on the Word, reinforce the truth.
When a bank hires an employee, he is trained to recognize counterfeit bills. One would think that the best way to recognize a counterfeit would be to study various counterfeits. The problem is that new counterfeits are being created every day. The best way to recognize a counterfeit bill is to have an intimate knowledge of the real thing. Having studied authentic bills, bank cashiers are not fooled when a counterfeit comes along. A knowledge of the true helps them identify the false.
This is what Christians must do to develop spiritual discernment. We must know the authentic so well that, when the false appears, we can recognize it. By knowing and obeying the Word of God, we will be “trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” We will know God’s character and will. This is the heart of spiritual discernment – being able to distinguish the voice of the world from the voice of God, to have a sense that “this is right” or “this is wrong.” Spiritual discernment fends off temptation and allows us to “hate what is evil; cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9).
Click this link to see recent deception Deception Confused…