cool quote

I was reminded of this quote today as I was flipping through the pages of old books today. This is from C. S. Lewis' flagship book, Mere Christianity:

I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man, then His sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, 'because it must have been so easy for Him'. Others may (very rightly) rebuke the ingratitude and ungraciousness of this objection; what staggers me is the misunderstanding it betrays. In one sense, of course, those who make it are right. They have even understated their own case. The perfect submission, the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus because He was God. But surely that is a very odd reason for not accepting them? The teacher is able to form the letters for the child because the teacher is grown-up and knows how to write. That, of course, makes it easier for the teacher; and only because it is easier for him can he help the child. If it rejected him because 'it's easy for grown-ups' and waited to learn writing from another child who could not write itself (and so had no 'unfair' advantage), it would not get on very quickly. If I am drowning in a rapid river, and a man who still has one foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout back (between my gasps) 'No, it's not fair! You have an unfair advantage! You're keeping one foot on the bank'? That advantage--call it 'unfair' if you like--is the only reason why he can be of any use to me. To what will you look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself?

Such is my own way of looking at what Christians call the Atonement. But remember this is only one more picture. Do not mistake it for the thing itself..."

Christ can rescue us from this river in which we are drowning because He is God and therefore has the power to save us. But Christ can also save us because He is man and, therefore, was able to take our place.

Submission is Christ

God has blessed me by allowing me to go to Seminary and to learn a lot of things about Him. i have been convicted recently to write more about what i am learning...here is one of the really cool things i recently read.

These are some quotes from Bruce Ware's book "Father, Son & The Holy Spirit"... "There is an ordering in the Godhead, a "built-in" structure of authority and submission that marks a significant respect in which the Persons of the Godhead are distinguished from one another. Surely, they are not distinct in essence, for each shares fully the identically same divine nature. Their distinction, rather, is constituted, in part by taxis (which Ware describes as) "the ordering of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within the Godhead" ...Intrinsic to God's own nature is a fundamental taxis, and He has so designed creation to reflect His own being, His own internal and eternal relationships, in part, through created and designed relationships of taxis."

Ware had just recently quoted 1 Corinthians 11:3 which says, "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." Then he said, "Without question, the Son stands under the authority, or, if you will, the headship of the Father."

See...I see a gaping lack of authority in our culture. I see people who should take authority--they shun it. I see people who should submit to authority--they shake it off and rebel. "This is not the way you learned Christ!" No, intrinsic to the Godhead is structure: authority and submission. Not only are men supposed to submit to God, God Himself--God the Son, submits...willingly submits...to God the Father. And Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11, uses this illustration of the Son submitting to the Father as an example of how we as humans should submit to each other. God has built-in to humanity and human relationships a structure of authority. This is not something "man" as put on "woman" or "masters" have put on "slaves". No, this is something the Son has willingly submitted to...He willingly submitted to the Father. And He asks that we follow His example.

Ware goes on to explain this very excellently, and I won't make this a longer blog post by quoting more and more of him, but it was incredible and eye-opening to see that God the Son willingly (and not just while He was on earth, but even from eternity past and into eternity future, as Ware proves from Scripture) submits to the Father. And this is not just a fact that we learn about Him. This characteristic is what makes Him the Son. For, how else is God the Son different than God the Father besides in His submission? He is not different in His power, His knowledge, His wisdom or in any of His attributes. The only distinction between the Son and the Father is His submission. This is what makes the Son the Son. The authority of the Father is what makes the Father the Father. These characteristics are essential. And for us to shun authority, or to rebel against it, is to rebel against who God is. It is to rebel against the image of God in us. He has imparted to us authority and submission. We would do well to accept these positions gladly, as a way to reflect Him.

Ulysses vs. Jason

as some of you know, one of my most favorite books is called "One Thing" by Sam Storms. And this is a part of the book I go back to time and time again. I hope it is encouraging to you...A little context: Sam's main idea of the book is that if/when we see God for Who He is (a beautiful, amazing, all powerful God) then we will be captured and captivated by Him, His grace and His beauty, so that sin will be an easy opponent...it will not really even be tempting to us because it is not attractive to us in light of the beauty of Christ. So now, for the quote:

When temptation comes knocking, what good is grandiose talk of beauty and splendor and the God of quarks and quasars?

The answer is found in a story that could change your life. It's about one mysterious island, two heroic men, and a host of 'women' whose beauty was quite literally skin-deep. But mostly its about radically different perspectives on the nature of Christianity and living to the glory of God.

...I've told this story many times...Don't be put off that it comes from Greek mythology. The point it makes is thoroughly biblical.

The first of our two characters is well known to most. Some call him Odysseus, others Ulysses. When I hear his name I close my eyes and envision the craggy features and dimpled chin of Kirk Douglass, the actor who portrayed him in the film version of our story...Ulysses was a devoted husband to his wife, Penelope, adored his son, and agonized at leaving his home of Ithaca. But he was also a Greek, and duty called.

Paris, the prince of Troy, had stolen away helen, the woman 'whose face launched a thousand ships'. She was the wife of Menalaus, the king of Greece. He, together with his brother Agamemnon, Ulysses, and a a mighty Greek army undertook the daunting task of recapturing her and restoring dignity to their beloved land.

To make a long story short, hidden in the belly of a huge Trojan horse, Ulysses and his men gained access to the city, slaughtered its inhabitants, and rescued the captive Helen. But the return voyage to Ithaca, which lasted nearly a decade, would prove to be far more challenging.

...My fascination...has always been with the infamous Sirens. Countless were the unwitting sailors who, on passing by their island, succumbed to the outward beauty of the sirens and their seductively irresistible songs. Once lured close to shore, their oats crashed on the hidden rocks lurking beneath the surface of the sea. These demonic cannibals whose alluring disguise and mesmerizing melodies had drawn them close wasted little time in savagely consuming their flesh.

Ulysses had been repeatedly warned about the Sirens and their lethal hypocrisy. Upon reaching their island, he ordered his crew to put wax in their ears lest they be lured to their ultimate demise. He commanded them to look neither to the left nor right but to row for their lives. Ulysses had other plans for himself. he instructed his men to strap him to the mast of the ship, leaving his ears unplugged. 'I want to hear their song. Not matter what I say or do, don't untie me until we are safely at a distance from the island.'

The songs of the Sirens were more than Ulysses' otherwise strong will could resist. He was utterly seduced byt heir sound and mesmerized by the promise of immediate gratification. One Siren even took on the form of Penelope, Ulysses' wife, seeking to lure him closer on the delusion that he had finally arrived home. Were it not for the ropes that held him tightly to the mast, Ulysses would have succumbed to their invitation. Although his hands were restrained, his heart was captivated by their beauty. Although his souls said 'Yes', the ropes prevented his indulgence. His 'no' was not the fruit of a spontaneous revulsion but the product of an external shackle.

Ulysses' encounter with the Sirens, together with his strategy for resisting their appeal, is all to similar to the way many Christians try to live as followers of Jesus Christ. Like him, their hearts pant for the passing pleasures of sin. Their wills are no match for the magnetic power of sensual indulgence. Although they understand what it at stake, they struggle through life saying 'no' to sin, not because their souls are ill-disposed to evil, but because their hands have been shackled by the laws and rules imposed by an oppressive religious atmosphere. It is the extra-biblical taboo that comes thundering form a legalistic pulpit or a long-standing denominational prohibition that accounts for their external complicity. Their obedience is not the glad product
of a transformed nature, but a reluctant conformity born of fear and shame.

I have no desire to live that way. Neither do you, I suspect. So, how do you account for your 'obedience'? Is it the expression of your deepest heart-felt joy? Is it the product of a passion that spontaneously and urgently springs from the depths of your being? Or are you firmly bound to the mast of religious expectations, all the while yearning for the opposite of what you actually do? What is the most effective scheme for confronting the sinful sounds of Sirens?

A Sweeter Song
Jason, like Ulysses, was himself a character of ancient mythology, perhaps best known for his pursuit of the famous Golden Fleece. Again, like Ulysses, he faced the temptation posed by the sonorous tones of the Sirens. But his solution was of a different sort. Jason brought with him on the treacherous journey a man named Orpheus, the son of Oeager. Orpheus was a musician of incomparable talent, especially on the lyre and flute. When his music filled the air it had an enchanting effect on all who heard. There was not a lovelier or more melodious sound in all the ancient world.

When it came time, Jason declined to plug the ears of his crew. Neither did he strap himself to the mast to restrain his otherwise lustful yearning for whatever pleasures the Sirens might offer. But this was not the reckless decision of an arrogant heart. Jason had no illusions about the strength of his will or his capacity to be deceived. He was no less determined than Ulysses to resist the temptations of the sirens. But he chose a different strategy.

He ordered Orpheus to play his most beautiful and alluring songs. The sirens didn't stand a chance! Notwithstanding their collective allure, Jason and his men paid no heed to the Sirens. They were not in the least inclined to succumb. Why? Was it that the Sirens had ceased to sing? Was it that they had lost their capacity to entice the human heart? Not at all. Jason and his men said 'no' because they were captivated by a transcendent sound. The music of Orpheus was of an altogether different and exalted nature. Jason and his men said 'no' to the sounds of the sirens because they had heard something far more sublime. They had tasted something far sweeter. They had encountered something far more noble.

For many people Christianity is a tedious and ultimately unsatisfying aversion to temptations they would much prefer to indulge. Nothing depresses me more than to think of expending my one life on earth merely suppressing my deepest desires, always acting contrary to what my soul continues to crave. But there is little hope of it being otherwise, so long as I seek satisfaction in something other than God.

Here is my point, both in this story and in the book as a whole. I don't want simply to live the Christian life. I want to love living the Christian life. Ulysses may have survived the sounds of the Sirens. But only Jason triumphed over them. Yes, both men 'obeyed' (in a manner of speaking). Neither succumbed. Neither indulged his desires. Both men escaped the danger at hand. But only one was changed.

Who But Christ?

I love thumbing through the book "The Loveliness of Christ" which is a collection of extracts from letters written by Samuel Rutherford. There are so many powerful quotes in this book. Here is one which has become one of my favorites:

I beseech you in the Lord Jesus, beware, beware of unsound work, in the matter of your salvation: ye may not, ye cannot, ye do not want Christ. Then after this day, convene all your lovers before your soul; and give them their leave, and strike hands with Christ, that thereafter there may be no happiness to you but Christ; no hunting for anything but Christ; no bed at night (when death cometh) but Christ; Christ, Christ, who but Christ? I know this much of Christ, He is not so ill to be found, not lordly of His love; woe had been my part of it for evermore, if Christ had made a dainty of Himself to me; but God be thanked, I gave nothing for Christ; and now I protest, before men and angels, Christ cannot be exchanged; Christ cannot be sold, Christ cannot be weighed.

...and now I protest, before men and angels, Christ cannot be exchanged; Christ cannot be sold, Christ cannot be weighed.

Can I say the same? Truly, I gave nothing for Christ. I had (and still have) nothing to give! It is only because salvation is a free gift that I now have it. But, now that I do have it, can I honestly say, and protest before men and angels, that I will not exchange Christ for anything? That I will not sell Christ for any price? That no thing, no matter how great, how alluring, or attractive, can outweigh Christ and His beauty? I know that these things are true, but does my life and the way I live moment by moment prove that my heart believes these truths?

Packer on Knowing God

this is an excerpt from J. I. Packer's book Knowing God...

I walked in the sunshine with a scholar who had effectively forfeited his prospects of academic advancement by clashing with church dignitaries over the gospel of grace. 'But it doesn't matter,' he said..., 'for I have known God and they haven't.' This remark was a mere parenthesis, a passing comment on something I had said, but it has stuck with me, and set me thinking.

Not many of us, I think, would ever naturally say that we have known God. The words imply a definiteness and matter-of-fact-ness of experience to which most of us, if we are honest, have to admit that we are still strangers. We claim, perhaps, to have a testimony, ...we say that we know God--this, after all, is what evangelicals are expected to say; but would it occur to us to say, without hesitation, and with reference to particular events in our personal history, that we have known God?...

I think, [rather, that] many of us [would never] naturally say (in the light of the knowledge of God which we have come to enjoy) that past dissappointments and present heartbreaks...don't matter. For the plain fact is that...they do matter. ...Constantly we find ourselves slipping into bitterness and apathy and gloom as we reflect on them, which we frequently do. The attitude we show to the world is a sort of dried-up stoicism, miles removed from the 'joy unspeakable and full of glory' which Peter took for granted that his readers were displaying (1 Peter 1:8).

...But...those who really know God...never brood on might-have-beens; they never think of the things they have missed, only of what they have gained. 'What things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ,' wrote Paul. 'Yea verily, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as dung, that I may gain Christ, and be found in Him...that I may know Him...' (Phil. 3:7-10) When Paul says he counts the things he lost 'dung', he means not merely that he does not think of them as having any value, but also that he does not live with them constantly in his mind: what normal person spends his time nostalgically dreaming of manure? Yet this, in effect, is what many of us do. It shows how little we have in the way of true knowledge of God.

We need frankly to face ourselves at this point. ...We can [perhaps] state the gospel clearly...If anyone asks us how men may know God, we can at once produce the right formula...Yet the joy, goodness, and unfetteredness of spirit which are the marks of those who have known God are rare among us--rarer, perhaps, than they are in some other Christian circles, where, by comparison, evangelical truth is less clearly and fully known. Here, too, it would seem that the last may prove to be first, and the first last. A little knowledge of God is worth more than a great deal of knowledge about Him.

As Christians, do we know God? Do we seek to know Christ? Can we say, unhesitatingly, that we have known Him? And do the attitudes, actions and emotions that characterize our lives PROVE that we do truly know Christ?

what should a preacher be?

this is a quote about the baptist's view in the early 1800s of
what a preacher should be...

"It is of primary importance that the preacher should be clothed with the garment of salvation; that he should be filled with a sense of the immense worth of the truth, the guilt, depravity and danger man is in; the unsearchable love of Christ in the bloody purchase, and His ability and willingness to save redeemed penitents. Without this robe, he will preach a distant Jesus, by an unfelt gospel, and with an unhallowed tongue."

Revival and Revivalism - Ian Murray, p. 303

j-wards strikes again

If some Christians who have been complaining of their ministers had said and acted less before men and had applied themselves with all their might to cry to God for their ministers--had, as it were, risen and stormed heaven with their humble, fervent, and incessant prayers for them--they would have been much more in the way of success.

~Jonathan Edwards

a thought on reformation day

I am privileged to be assigned Spurgeon's "Lectures to My Students" to read. I love to read, but I don't know if I would have read this otherwise. But I'm loving it! It's written powerfully and it's actually pretty easy to read. And he was humorous too, so that helps!

But, seeing as how it's Reformation Day, I'll share what Spurgeon said about Luther (and some related thoughts):

Luther was the man for decision. nobody doubted that he believed what he spoke. he spoke with thunder, for there was lightning in his faith. The man preached all over, for his entire nature believed. You felt, 'Well, he may be mad, or he may be altogether mistaken, but he assuredly believes what he says. he is the incarnation of faith; his heart is running over at his lips.'
We have a fixed faith to preach, my brethren, and we are sent forth with a definite message from God. We are not let to fabricate the message as we go along. We are not sent forth by our Master with a general commission arranged on this fashion: "As you shall think in your heart and invent in your head, so preach. keep abreast of the times. Whatever the people want to hear, tell them that, and they shall be saved." Verily, we read not so. There is something definite in the Bible. it is not quite a lump of wax to be shaped at our will....There is something told me in the Bible...revealed to me as infallible fact, which must be believed, the opposite of which is deadly error, and comes from the father of lies."

Scripture is true. We must preach it as Truth. We must teach it as Luther did. Let no one doubt our belief in it.

illumination

so, i'm studying for a mid-term, but i read this in my notes and had to share it.

when you think of the word "illumination" (think outside of any spiritual context for a minute) what do you think of? the light bulb going on (literally or figuratively!), plugging in the lights to a CHRISTmas tree, turning on a flashlight on a dark night to "illuminate" your path. really, that's what Spiritual illumination is too...it's having the eyes of your heart enlightened so that you might see the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ (Eph. 1:18-20; 2 Cor 4:6).

here's the quote I wanted to share:

...We are there abundantly taught, that the saints differ from the ungodly in this: that they have the knowledge of God, and the sight of God, and of Jesus Christ...this plainly shows, that there is a discovery of the divine superlative glory and excellency of...Christ, peculiar to the saints; and also, that it is as immediately from God, as the light from the sun...For it is compared to God's creating the light by His powerful word in the beginning of creation [cf. 2 Cor 4:6]...The change made by this spiritual opening of the eyes in conversion would be much greater, and more remarkable every way than if a man born blind should have the sense of seeing imparted to him at once, in the midst of the clear light of the sun discovering a world of visible objects. For though sight be more noble than any of the other external senses, yet this spiritual sense is infinitely more noble and the object infinitely more important.

~Jonathan Edwards

wow. pretty cool, huh?

Christ, all-sufficient.

I'm reading a book for my Bibliology class called "The All-Sufficient Savior". It's written by Steve Fernandez, the president of the Seminary (and the pastor of Community Bible Church). It's really good so far, and I've only read the first chapter! But I read this and wanted to post it:

Here are the issues: Does the Lord Jesus Christ need the insights of fallen men to help His people? Does the Scripture anywhere indicate that the church must look to natural revelation or any other source to supplement Christ? In other words, does Christ need more than His Word, His Spirit, His Body, and His all-sufficient Person to help emotionally devastated people? We contend that He does not! We also contend that any other position diminishes His glory. It makes Him less than He is. It diminishes His glorious, all-sufficiency as Savior and Deliverer...[this] is a central issue because it concerns the well-being of the church. A church not focused on Christ, however well-intended, will be powerless and infirm. Is the Evangelical church any stronger, or has it had more impact on the world after a generation of being enamored with psychology? The answer is self-evident. The church, if it is to see a reformation and revival, if it is to see a movement of the Spirit, must be marked by a Christ-centered, Christ-dependent ministry."

Sola Christus!

revealed

"What of God it is needful and beneficial for us to know, He has revealed in Christ, and whatsoever is not there, we may rest assured it is unfit and unnecessary for us to know. Truly the revelation is by no means scant, for there is vastly more revealed in the person of Christ than we shall be likely to learn in this mortal life, and even eternity will not be too long for the discovery of all the glory of God which shines forth in the person of the word made flesh, Those who would supplement Christianity had better first add to the brilliance of the sun or the fullness of the sea. As for us, we are more than satisfied with the revelation of God in the person of our Lord Jesus, and we are persuaded of the truth of His words 'he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.'"

~C. H. Spurgeon

content

"Lord, teach us whatsoever state we are in, therewith to be content."

~A Method for Prayer Matthew Henry

Mr. Joseph Alleine

i've never heard of this guy before. but i'm reading "lectures to my students" by C. H. Spurgeon for my "Leadership" class. Spurgeon quotes Alleine's wife as saying of him, "At the time of his health, he did rise constantly at or before four of the clock, and would be much troubled if he heard smiths or other craftsmen at their trades before he was at communion with God; saying to me often, 'How this noise shames me. Does not my Master deserve more than theirs?' From four til eight he spent in prayer, holy contemplation, and singing psalms, in which he much delighted and did daily practise alone, as well as in the family. Sometimes he would suspend the routine of parochial engagements and devote whole days to these secret exercises, in order to which, he would contrive to be alone in some void house, or else in some sequestered spot in the open valley. Here there would be much prayer and meditation on God and Heaven."

quotes from "God Has Spoken" by J. I. Packer

I'm reading this book for my class "Bibliology" and it is arguing that the Bible truly is God's Word and, as such, it is clear, understandable, and sufficient.

Packer's words are (sad but) so true for our generation:

"...the Word of God is in a real sense lost. Why is this? For it is not as if the Bible were no longer read and studied in the churches. It is read and studied a great deal; but the trouble is that we no longer know what to make of it. Mesmerized by the problems of rationalistic criticism [and, may i add, post-modernism], we can no longer hear the Bible as the Word of God. Liberal theology, in its pride, has long insisted that we are wiser than our fathers about the Bible [can you say 'Rob Bell', 'Erwin McManus'?], and must not read it as they did, but must base our approach to it on the 'assured results' of criticism, making due allowance for the human imperfections and errors of its authors. This insistence has a threefold effect. It produces a new papalism--the infallibility of the scholars, from whom we learn what the 'assured results' are. It raises a doubt about every single biblical passage, as to whether it truly embodies revelation or not. And it destroys the reverent, receptive, self-distrusting attitude of approach to the Bible, without which it cannot be known to be 'God's Word written'." (page 25-26)

"...it appears that modern theology, for all its claim to stress the personal quality of God's revelation to us and our knowledge of Him, actually takes a sub-personal view of both. To maintain that we may know God without God actually speaking to us in words [which is what many are saying today when they propose that God's word cannot be taken at face value] is really to deny that God is personal..." (page 53)

questions

I ordered a number of my books for this quarter from Amazon. As I get them I am beginning to familiarize myself with them so I can be better prepared for when classes start. One book I just got earlier today is "Our Sufficiency in Christ" by John MacArthur. In the Preface of his book he quotes a letter from C. S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters." Here's a quote I found quite relevant to today's culture:
[Note: "the Enemy" in this quote is God since the one writing this letter is a demon, Screwtape.]

The Enemy loves platitudes. Of a proposed course of action He wants men, so far as I can see, to ask very simple questions; is it righteous? is it prudent? is it possible? Now if we can keep men asking "Is it in accordance with the general movement of our time? Is it progressive or reactionary? Is this the way that History is going?" they will neglect the relevant questions...As a result, while their minds are buzzing in this vacuum, we have the better chance to slip in and bend them to the action we have decided on."

How much this reflects the current attitude of what calls itself "the church"! How sad, yet how true.

may this not be true of us!

the gospel cont'd

reading further in "In My Place Condemned He Stood" I read this (and thought it went really well with what i posted a few days ago):

One of the miserable ironies of our time is that whereas liberal and radical theologians believe themselves to be restating the gospel for today, they have for the most part rejected the categories of wrath, guilt, condemnation, and the enmity of God, and so have made it impossible for themselves ever to present the gospel at all, for they cannot now state the basic problem that the gospel of peace solves."

Sad but true.

the gospel

We have all heard the gospel presented as God's triumphant answer to human problems--problems of our relation with ourselves and our fellow humans and our environment. Well, there is no doubt that the gospel does bring us solutions to these problems, but it does so by first solving a deeper problem--the deepest of all human problems, the problem of man's relation with his Maker. And unless we make it plain that the solution of these former problems depends on the settling of this later one, we are misrepresenting the message and becoming false witnesses of God--for a half-truth presented as if it were the whole truth becomes something of a falsehood by that very fact. No reader of of the New Testament can miss the fact that it knows all about our human problems--fear, moral cowardice, illness of body and mind, loneliness, insecurity, hopelessness, despair, cruelty, abuse of power, and the rest--but equally no reader of the new Testament can miss the fact that it resolves all these problems, one way or another, into the fundamental problem of sin against God.

~J.I. Packer
In My Place Condemned He Stood
p. 41

I think so many of us are guilty of this: trying to make the gospel more palatable but ending up preaching something that is not the gospel. I know I am guilty of trying to make the gospel more palatable and missing the main point in the process. The heart of the gospel is that we are sinners who deserve the wrath of God, but God put forth Jesus to receive His wrath so that, when He shows eternal grace to those who have put their trust in Him, He is just...the penalty we deserve has been paid. Anything that does not have at its center the reality of our sin, the penalty it deserves and the provision made by Christ is not the gospel.

5 martyrs

just about done reading "Through Gates of Spendor" by Elisabeth Elliot. I highly recommend it, it's a quick read and a great book. i only have the two epilogues left to go...which look really good, i started reading the second one but figured i should stop since it's getting late. but i wanted to share these quotes with you...

"Wherever you are, be all there. Live to the hilt every situation you believe to be the will of God." ~Jim Elliot

"Obedience is not a momentary option; it is a diecast decision made beforehand." ~Nate Saint

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." ~Jim Elliot

"When it comes time to die, make sure that all you have to do is die." ~Jim Elliot

"That is the most beautiful little cemetery in the world."
~Marj Saint after being flown over the martyrs' common grave

"We look forward to the day when these savages will join us in Christian praise." ~Elisabeth Elliot

The book finishes with this excerpt from Jim Elliot's journal:

    I walked out to the hill just now. It is exalting, delicious, to stand embraced by the shadows of a friendly tree with the wind tugging at your coattail and the heavens hailing your heart, to gaze and glory and give oneself again to God--what more could a man ask? Oh, the fullness, pleasure, sheer excitement of knowing God on earth! I care not if I never raise my voice again for Him, if only I may love Him, please Him. Mayhap in mercy He shall give me a host of children that I may lead them through the vast star fields to explore His delicacies whose finger ends set them to burning. But if not, if only I may see Him, touch His garments, and smile into His eyes--ah then, not stars nor children shall matter, only Himself.
    O Jesus, Master and Center and End of all, how long before that Glory is thine which has so long waited Thee? Now there is no thought of Thee among men; then there shall be though for nothing else. Now other men are praised; then none shall care for any other's merits. Hasten, hasten, Glory of Heaven, take Thy crown, subdue Thy Kingdom, enthrall Thy creatures."

resist

as most of you know, i successfully lacerated my spleen while snowboarding a week and a half ago. i haven't been able to do much, not even read or journal 'cause the pain meds i was on made me a bit loopy and when i tried to write i would see double.

thankfully the pain has gone down and i haven't had to take as many pills (it's also a good thing that i haven't had to use so many 'cause i only have one left!), and now my brain is functioning more normally and my eyes can see straight!

so, i was able to get some reading done yesterday. i'm still reading "pleasures evermore" which i've been on for about the past year and a half (haven't had much time for personal reading)...but i only have like 60 pages left! w00t! here're some notable quotes i read yesterday:

"If [God] didn't love you, if His heart wasn't for you, why would He care what you do?" (p.228)

"What are all these rationalizations [of why it's okay to sin] based on? One lie. The most pernicious, heinous, satanic lie of all. They are based on the lie that God really isn't good after all; that God is neither able nor willing to do for our souls or bodies what they so desperately need done; that therefore God can't be trusted with our fears and doubts and hopes and hurts. Because God doesn't care and can't be trusted, we'll find satisfaction somewhere else. And so often, we do." (p.233)

"The reason we resist God's laws and pursue our own sinful strategies is because we believe that we can do better at securing our happiness than God can." (p.237)

wonder

"Wonder rather than doubt is the root of all knowledge." ~Abraham Joshua Heschel

saw this just now and thought it was interesting and worth some thought. but "late" is approaching and i need to get to bed before it comes.