Category: Thoughts from Others

Categories
Thoughts from Others

The Sin of Self-Sufficiency

Since the beginning of humanity, the sin of self-sufficiency (of having, power, and being) has been a constant temptation, first manifested in the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Satan, cunning in his strategy, used these same devices to tempt humanity from the start, leading our first parents to fall by suggesting they could be like God, knowing good and evil and independent of His will.

Christ faced the same temptations in the desert, where Satan tried to seduce Him with the offer of power, authority, and personal satisfaction. In each of these temptations, Jesus remained faithful to the Father’s will, rejecting self-sufficiency, the pursuit of having, the desire for power, and false identity.

The passage in Luke 14:33 reminds us of the importance of renouncing all we have and following Christ.

So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:33

It challenges us to abandon the mindset of self-sufficiency and the relentless pursuit of having, power, and being, placing God at the center of our lives and fully trusting in His provision and guidance. By doing so, we demonstrate our faith and dependence on God, overcoming the temptations that surround us.

To overcome the sin of self-sufficiency, it is essential to cultivate a life of faith and obedience to God. We must seek humility, acknowledging our dependence on the Lord in all areas of our lives. Additionally, prayer, the Word, and fellowship with other believers are crucial to strengthen our faith and resist the temptations that come our way.

Therefore, when facing the same temptations that plagued Adam, Eve, and even Jesus, let us remember that our victory lies in following Christ’s example, renouncing self-sufficiency, and fully trusting in God. May we find strength and encouragement in faith, overcoming the snares of sin and living a life that glorifies the Lord in all things.

Subscribe

* indicates required

Intuit Mailchimp

Categories
Thoughts from Others

Adam & Eve After the Pill, Revisited

Sexual revolution is key cause of America’s social disarray, asserts book author.

Mary Eberstadt’s new book is ‘Adam and Eve After the Pill, Revisited’ — and not everyone will like what she says.

Article by Lauren Green. Lauren Green currently serves as Fox News Channel’s (FNC) chief religion correspondent based in the New York bureau. She joined FNC in 1996. Her new book is “Lighthouse Faith: God as a Living Reality in a World Immersed in Fog.” She is host of Fox News Digital’s “Spirited Debate.”

You may not like author Mary Eberstadt’s conclusions about the effects of the sexual revolution. You may even vehemently disagree with them.  But the data is solid. 

As she herself says, “I’m using perfectly secular sources. There is no theology in this book. I’m looking at what the evidence tells us about the way we are living now and what it’s doing to the wider world around us.” 

Eberstadt, a senior fellow at the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C., took a look at the long-term effects of the movement of the ‘60s and ’70s that was supposed to liberate society from its religiously uptight and outdated beliefs about marriage and romance. It was heralded as a good thing. But something happened that few predicted. 

Eberstadt’s research shows that the sexual revolution was a Pandora’s Box, unleashing so many of the ills we see today in our culture, including one of the largest — fatherlessness.

On “Lighthouse Faith” podcast, she talks about her book, “Adam and Eve After the Pill, Revisited” (Feb. 2023)  in which she writes, “Some people, mainly on the political left, think there is nothing to see here. They are wrong. The vast majority of incarcerated juveniles have grown up in a fatherless home.”

She goes on, “Teen and other mass murderers almost invariably have filial rupture in their biographies. Absent fathers predict higher rates of truancy, psychiatric problems, criminality, promiscuity, drug use, rape, domestic violence and other tragic outcomes.”

Eberstadt knows she has a fight on her hands with raising this kind of thesis. “When you advance a counter-cultural theory like this, people often wag their fingers and say, ‘Oh, you’re saying that it all comes down to one thing.'”

But she says, “I am saying that this one thing, the sexual revolution, is the single least acknowledged causation of our social disarray.” The fierceness of these ills, she also says, caused the rise of what she describes as a “secular religion” that is challenging Christianity’s moral foundations. 

She asserts, “It’s not true that the battle out there is between faith and no faith, between people who believe things and people who believe nothing. Everybody believes something. And after the sexual revolution, what you see is this fierce desire on the part of many people to repudiate traditional moral teaching.”

Eberstadt continues, “The traditional family and Christianity have always had enemies … That’s what Marxism had in its sights. It wanted to destroy the family. And other utopians have always wanted to destroy the family. But this revolution, I think, was different because no one really intended that.”

She says that “when the birth control pill came into existence, many people embraced it because they thought it would be a good thing. The argument was made that it would strengthen families. The argument was made that it would reduce abortion.”

The conventional wisdom was that reliable contraception would give women the opportunity to better time their pregnancies, that it would make abortion obsolete and out-of-wedlock births a thing of the past. Children would be brought into loving homes, with families ready to give them all the nurturing they needed. But it turns out the opposite happened. 

Her research shows that with the introduction of artificial contraception, abortion and out-of-wedlock births all increased exponentially. And Pandora is still on the move today. Eberstadt says, “The skyrocketing of non-marital births and the breakup of families on a scale never seen before all starts in the 1960s.”

She goes on, “And the story that I’m telling … is multiplied again, not only in every town across the United States, but across the Western world. So that’s one measure of how dramatic this revolution has been.” While Eberstadt makes no theological claims, it’s obvious her findings are shouting them.  For instance, contraception. The evil is not in the pill … it is in us.

To really understand this requires a trip back to the Garden of Eden, where our ancient ancestors had an unfortunate run-in with a snake, AKA the devil. The fall from grace was more than a one-time deal. It’s not whether Adam and Eve ate an apple, a grape or an orange. The point is they disobeyed God. 

And that one act allowed evil to plant a seed in them and in creation. The world became a broken place, as humanity’s congenital defect of selfishness and self-absorption was passed down from generation to generation.

In his book “The Beginning of Wisdom,” Leon Kass explored the Book of Genesis from a purely academic and social science point of view. His study is not whether Adam and Eve existed, or whether the story is only allegory. 

It’s about what we learn about ourselves and about God. He says we should understand these seminal stories in Genesis as paradigmatic — meaning, it’s not that it happened, but that this is what always happens absent the knowledge of and fealty to God. 

He writes, “The fault lies not with the world or with God but in ourselves — and not only once upon a time. By serving as a mirror, the story enables us to discover this truth also about ourselves.”

God warns that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil will bring death. But just reading the story, we know that Adam and Eve didn’t die immediately from some poisonous fruit.

Kass writes, “God could be threatening to kill them directly if they disobey, but if so, it is a threat He later fails to carry out. More likely, ‘Thou shalt surely die’ could mean that they will become mortal, rather than potentially immortal beings; independence and loss of innocence are incompatible with immortality.”

Kass’s understanding has a real-life example in Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s quote about evil from “The Gulag Archipelago.” The Russian dissident lost his faith in Christianity when he was young and became an atheist. He embraced Marxism. 

While serving as a captain in the Red Army during World War II, he was arrested and thrown in the Gulag prison. There he witnessed and was subject to unspeakable evils.  After his experiences, he turned back to faith with a new understanding of the disease of sin and evil. 

He writes in his famous quote, “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart.”

There are two juggernauts that the sexual revolution introduced. First, “it flooded the zone with potentially available sexual partners, and this reduced the incentive for any man to settle down with any given woman.”  Sex could be recreational. The hook-up culture on college campuses is a sure example.

The second, says Eberhardt, is the “destigmatization of non-marital sex. In other words, the disappearance of the so-called shotgun wedding.” No longer did men feel obligated to wed the women they might impregnate. And no longer did women feel the need to force them. Men evolved, or devolved, into the belief that it’s the woman’s responsibility to take the appropriate measures to prevent pregnancy.  If she didn’t, government would step in and play the role of daddy.

This brings up what the sexual revolution really did. In unmooring sex from marriage and the bond of whole-life oneness, it unwittingly disconnected it from love. If sex is severed from love or the act of giving life and procreation, pregnancy becomes a problem to be solved, at best — or, at worst, to be treated like a disease to be healed from.  Abortion then becomes health care. Instead of being rare and safe, abortion is on demand for any reason.

Now we can see the cavalcade of effects start to take shape. What happens to the economy? The crime rate? Divisiveness in politics? And the Church? Economically speaking, one of the biggest indications that a child will live in poverty is if there’s no father in the home. The stats show 65% — some say over 70% — of African American children live in a single-parent household.

Now look at the crime rate. Stats show 85% of inmates in prisons today grew up without fathers in their lives. The weakening of the family has given rise to identity politics.  As family ties grow weaker, people still look for ways to find close communities of equal strength. And in today’s society, sexual identity has become the sacred cow of politics.

From a biblical perspective, though, it has become a Golden Calf, the idol the Israelites created and worshipped instead of God.  Hence, Eberstadt’s “secular religion.”

Eberstadt’s critics accuse her of wanting to go back to the 1950s of having this utopian view of the “barefoot and pregnant” housewife tied down with a husband she doesn’t love or children they can’t afford. And the statistic trotted out shows that back then, 20% of women were pregnant while walking down the aisle.

Her point is that while 20% were pregnant before marriage, back then marriage was expected. And men were expected to take responsibility for the children they fathered. 

Eberstadt gives an example of how attitudes have changed. In a village in upstate New York in the 1970s, there was a scandal when a 17-year-old high school girl became pregnant by her boyfriend. The scandal ensued not because she was pregnant, but because the boyfriend refused to marry her. The young woman dropped out of school, had her baby and returned to school.   

Twenty years later in that same school, a third of the girls in the graduating class were pregnant. And there were certainly more pregnancies than that because abortion was fully legal then. Why the difference?

Pastor Tommy Nelson of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas, speaks often about God’s plan for dating and marriage using the Song of Solomon, the short book in the Bible that is a sort of snapshot of a romantic relationship.  He says one of the problems is that men and women need and want unconditional love in romance regardless of what century they were born in. 

One of the complications with the sexual revolution is that men and women see sex differently.  He says, “Men use romance to get sex, and women use sex to get romance.” The sexual revolution created men and women who are in a battle using arsenal that creates many heartbroken losers … and few winners.

And finally, what about the effects of the sexual revolution on the Church?  Eberstadt says it has wounded her from within, as nearly every denomination of Christianity is being divided on the issue of what constitutes morality in sexual relations. Divorce, adultery, homosexuality, transgenderism — these are the fault lines on which churches are being torn apart.  Both Mainline Protestantism and Catholicism are having this debate, and it’s likely to only increase.

Eberstadt contends that most people on the Left, and some on the Right, have denounced her take on how the sexual revolution reconfigured the world.  And she admits that our problems today could have many causes … and could have many corresponding solutions.

But for a moment, take a good look at what she’s found — and see if anything else could create so much chaos in the world.

Categories
Thoughts from Others

Dualism

I am posting an article and a audio series that talk about Dualism and it’s impact on Christianity.

Dualism: “Christian” Enemy of Christian Culture by P. Andrew Sandlin

https://docsandlin.com/2015/10/11/dualism-christian-enemy-of-christian-culture/

The need to rediscover the Hebrew roots of the Bible and Church, and practical examples of how Greek influence in our education and culture gives rise to un-biblical thinking and behavior.

Audio series by David Pawson. Website

De-greecing the Church part 1

De-greecing the Church part 2

Categories
Thoughts from Others

Identity Theft

A Case of Identity Theft: How “Ekklesia” Became “Church” from Jesus Movement Blog

It may come as a shock to discover that the English word “church” is a made-up word. But stay with me. I’ll explain. 

William Tyndale, the first scholar to translate the entire Bible into English in the 16th century, translated the word ekklesia consistently as “congregation” everywhere it appeared in the New Testament. This was a reasonable way to translate the word, given that ekklesia meant something like “congregation” or “assembly” in its non-biblical usage. In fact, when the NT was written, the word ekklesia was not a “religious” word at all, but one with secular connotations.

However, Tyndale’s use of the English word “congregation” was opposed by Thomas More, the English Roman Catholic scholar. On what grounds did he dissent? Simply put, the word “church” had come to be associated with a religious institution (the Roman Catholic Church), and translating ekklesia as “church” aided in preserving that association (one that was foreign to the original meaning, but essential for maintaining institutional authority over the masses).

But how did we get from the Greek word ekklesia to the made-up English word “church”? The word “church” is a transliteration (not a translation) of another Greek word, kuriakos, which means “the Lord’s.” From kuriakos comes “kirk” (in Scotland) or “church.”  It is an ambiguous word that could be applied to a people who “congregate,” but equally to an institution, a building, a clerical hierarchy or whatever else. It was a “wax nose” that could be easily shaped and manipulated. 

After Tyndale died, translators of the King James Version of the Bible (the one “authorized” by the King of England and Head of the Church of England), while using much of Tyndale’s prior translation word-for-word, when it came to translating ekklesia, usually chose the word “church” instead of “congregation.” This move assured that the true meaning of ekklesia would be obscured for future generations in both Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions. 

Five hundred years later, when we pick up an English Bible and read the word “church,” what comes to mind? Do we think primarily of the collective of faithful Jesus-followers in a house, a city or around the world; or do we associate the word with an institution, a building, religious services and rituals, a clerical hierarchy or a denomination? It seems our minds effortlessly now gravitate towards the latter, while we struggle with great difficulty even to envision the former.  

Categories
Thoughts from Others

The X Factor

The Trouble With X…excerpt from C.S. Lewis

I suppose I may assume that seven out of ten of those who read these lines are in some kind of difficulty about some other human being. Either at work or at home, either the people who employ you or those whom you employ, either those who share your house or those whose house you share, either your in-laws or parents or children, your wife or your husband, are making life harder for you than it need be even in these days. It is hoped that we do not often mention these difficulties (especially the domestic ones) to outsiders. But sometimes we do. An outside friend asks us why we are looking so glum, and the truth comes out.

On such occasions the outside friend usually says, “But why don’t you tell them? Why don’t you go to your wife (or husband, or father, or daughter, or boss, or landlady, or lodger) and have it all out? People are usually reasonable. All you’ve got to do is to make them see things in the right light. Explain it to them in a reasonable, quiet, friendly way.” And we, whatever we say outwardly, think sadly to ourselves, “He doesn’t know X.” We do. We know how utterly hopeless it is to make X see reason. Either we’ve tried it over and over again–tried till we are sick of trying it–or else we’ve never tried because we saw from the beginning how useless it would be. We know that if we attempt to “have it all out with X” there will be a “scene”, or else X will stare at us in blank amazement and say “I don’t know what on earth you’re talking about”; or else (which is perhaps worst of all) X will quite agree with us and promise to turn over a new leaf and put everything on a new footing–and then, twenty-four hours later, will be exactly the same as X has always been.

You know, in fact, that any attempt to talk things over with X will shipwreck on the old, fatal flaw in X’s character. And you see, looking back, how all the plans you have ever made always have shipwrecked on that fatal flaw–on X’s incurable jealousy, or laziness, or touchiness, or muddle-headedness, or bossiness, or ill temper, or changeableness. Up to a certain age you have perhaps had the illusion that some external stroke of good fortune–an improvement in health, a rise of salary, the end of the war–would solve your difficulty. But you know better now. The war is over, and you realize that even if the other things happened, X would still be X, and you would still be up against the same old problem. Even if you became a millionaire, your husband would still be a bully, or your wife would still nag, or your son would still drink, or you’d still have to have your mother-in-law live with you.

It is a great step forward to realize that this is so; to face up to the fact that even if all external things went right, real happiness would still depend on the character of the people you have to live with–and that you can’t alter their characters. And now comes the point. When you have seen this you have, for the first time, had a glimpse of what it must be like for God. For of course, this is (in one way) just what God Himself is up against. He has provided a rich, beautiful world for people to live in. He has given them intelligence to show them how it ought to be used. He has contrived that the things they need for their biological life (food, drink, rest, sleep, exercise) should be positively delightful to them. And, having done all this, He then sees all His plans spoiled–just as our little plans are spoiled–by the crookedness of the people themselves. All the things He has given them to be happy with they turn into occasions for quarreling and jealousy, and excess and hoarding, and tomfoolery…

But… there are two respects in which God’s view must be very different from ours. In the first place, He sees (like you) how all the people in your home or your job are in various degrees awkward or difficult; but when He looks into that home or factory or office He sees one more person of the same kind–the one you never do see. I mean, of course, yourself. That is the next great step in wisdom–to realize that you also are just that sort of person. You also have a fatal flaw in your character. All the hopes and plans of others have again and again shipwrecked on your character just as your hopes and plans have shipwrecked on theirs.

It is no good passing this over with some vague, general admission such as “Of course, I know I have my faults.” It is important to realize that there is some really fatal flaw in you: something which gives others the same feeling of despair which their flaws give you. And it is almost certainly something you don’t know about–like what the advertisements call “halitosis”, which everyone notices except the person who has it. But why, you ask, don’t the others tell me? Believe me, they have tried to tell you over and over and over again. And you just couldn’t “take it”. Perhaps a good deal of what you call their “nagging” or “bad temper”… are just their attempts to make you see the truth. And even the faults you do know you don’t know fully. You say, “I admit I lost my temper last night”; but the others know that you always doing it, that you are a bad-tempered person. You say, “I admit I drank too much last Saturday”; but every one else know that you are a habitual drunkard.

This is one way in which God’s view must differ from mine. He sees all the characters: I see all except my own. But the second difference is this. He loves the people in spite of their faults. He goes on loving. He does not let go. Don’t say, “It’s all very well for Him. He hasn’t got to live with them.” He has. He is inside them as well as outside them. He is with them far more intimately and closely and incessantly that we can ever be. Every vile thought within their minds (and ours), every moment of spite, envy, arrogance, greed, and self-conceit comes right up against His patient and longing love, and grieves His Spirit more than it grieves ours.

The more we can imitate God in both these respects, the more progress we shall make. We must love X more; and we must learn to see ourselves as a person of exactly the same kind. Some people say it is morbid to always be thinking of one’s own faults. That would be all very well if most of us could stop thinking of our own without soon beginning to think about those of other people. For unfortunately we enjoy thinking about other people’s faults: and in the proper sense of the word “morbid”, that is the most morbid pleasure in the world.

We don’t like rationing which is imposed upon us, but I suggest one form of rationing which we ought to impose on ourselves. Abstain from all thinking about other people’s faults, unless you duties as a teacher or parent make it necessary to think about them. Whenever the thoughts come unnecessarily into one’s mind, why not simply shove them away? And think of one’s own faults instead? For there, with God’s help, one can do something. Of all the awkward people in your house or job there is only one whom you can improve very much. That is the practical end at which to begin. And really, we’d better. The job has got to be tackled some day; and every day we put it off will make it harder to begin.

What, after all, is the alternative? You see clearly enough that nothing… can make X really happy as long as X remains envious, self-centered, and spiteful. Be sure that there is something inside you which, unless it is altered, will put it out of God’s power to prevent your being eternally miserable. While that something remains, there can be no Heaven for you, just as there can be no sweet smells for a man with a cold in the nose, and no music for a man who is deaf. It’s not a question of God “sending” us to Hell. In each of us there is something growing up which will of itself be Hell unless it is nipped in the bud. The matter is serious: let us put ourselves in His hands at once–this very day, this hour.

Categories
Thoughts from Others

There Are Days

From a friend of Francis Kong

Elijah hiding in his cave


-There are days when we feel like Paul
we just want to write letters & strengthen our brothers.
-There are days when we feel like Peter
we just want to deny everything & everyone.
-There are days when we feel like Job
we just want to die and end the pain & suffering.
-There are days when we feel like Solomon
we want godly advice to make good decisions.
-There are days when we feel like Jonah
we just want to escape our responsibilities.
-There are days when we feel like Moses
afraid of not being able to speak.
-There are days when we feel like the Good Samaritan
we want to do good no matter what.
-There are days when we feel strong like Joshua and Caleb
ready for war.
-There are days when we feel like Jeremiah,
the anguish of our heart is too great.
-There are days when we feel like Daniel;
our strength is in prayer & no one can stop us.
-There are days when we feel like Elijah;
we prefer to hide in the cave.
-There are days when like David & Miriam;
we feel like singing & dancing.
-There are days when we feel like Hannah
we don’t really want to eat, we just want to cry.
-There are days when we have faith like Abraham,
to win it all, jump over walls & overcome armies.
-There are days when we look at the hills & wonder,
“Where will my help come from? “


It does not mean that we are strong or weak. It means that we are just human and have limits and therefore we need God’s power to accomplish our daily purpose on earth.


I don’t know what your day is like today.  But remember “Whatever your day is like, our loving Heavenly Father is with you today, tomorrow & forever.”


“My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Corinthians 12:9a)

Categories
Thoughts from Others

Free the Finances

I have pulled out some quotes from a great blog entitled How Churches Really Spend Their Money, the intersection between faith and finance by Dan Foster.

The average U.S. church spends the largest portion of its finances on personnel. Wages accounted for around 49% of the collective U.S. church’s spending in 2018. The second greatest expense was building and maintaining buildings — 23% of the budget.

With around three quarters of the church’s finances dedicated to wages and buildings, the remaining funds are distributed between missions (spreading the message of the church), programs (doing the work of ministry) and dues with 11%, 10% and 6% respectively.

As interesting as the raw data is, I can’t resist making some personal comments about the picture that the data paints. Author James W. Frick once said, “Don’t tell me where your priorities are. Show me where you spend your money and I’ll tell you what your priorities are.”

If you asked the church what it’s primary interests are, you might expect them to say things like spreading the Gospel, developing mature followers of Christ, helping the poor and needy, maybe even fighting against injustice. If this were actually true, you would expect church’s spending actually reflect these priorities. So, do they? The answer must be a resounding, “No!”

Churches spend much more money acquiring real estate and developing property than they do on helping the poor and needy. For every dollar spent doing the actual work of helping the poor and needy, the church spends at least five dollars paying wages to its pastors and leaders. This represents a profound cognitive dissonance between the church’s stated values and its actual values. It all reeks of a system that is determined to preserve itself at all costs. The very idea must make Jesus turn over in his grave — if he were still in it.

To maintain the traditional model of church, where people turn up each Sunday, sit in a pew and hear a sermon from a paid ‘expert,’ is an expensive exercise with — one could argue — limited benefits in terms of real transformation and growth in an individual. In fact, according to Francis Chan, in his book, Letters to the Church, it costs a church $1000 — $3000 per year for each person who attends a church in the traditional model. Let me explain. If you divide a church’s annual budget (say $100,000) by the number of members (say 100), it comes to $1000 per person. Depending on location, the number can be much higher (up to $3000).

What would it look like if Churches did away with their two greatest expenses — paid clergy and buildings? What would it look like if they redirected this money toward the actual work of the Christian faith?

The church that I attend meets in the humble home of one of our members. We gather each week around their table and share a simple meal together where we intentionally remember Jesus. We catch up. We share our joys and struggles. We encourage each other and keep each other accountable. We pray and give. We do all of this without paying a person to lead it. When our church takes up offerings, 100% of the money it given back to bless and help needy and hurting people.

This model of church is reproducible, relocatable, virtually free to run and, to be honest, much more enjoyable and life-giving than anything I’ve ever experienced in the institutionalized church. We all feel like we are growing as people — emotionally, relationally and spiritually.

Critics of this model — usually those who stand to lose the most from it — argue that such a model would proliferate false teaching and heresy because there may not be anyone in the room with the theological training to correct all the misguided others. Ironically though, small group meetings in individual homes was the traditional model of the early church in the Book of Acts and, so far as I know, none of Christ’s apostles had any kind of theological training. notwithstanding the fact that they knew Jesus personally. That wouldn’t be possible now though, would it? The sad reality is, the institutionalized church is just as capable of producing its own kind of false teaching and heresy, with the added possibility of thrusting it onto a much bigger crowd.

In 2017 U.S. churches received $124.52 billion in donations and spent around $90 billion of it paying staff wages, buying more land and building more buildings. But, what could the church achieve with that $90 billion if it were suddenly freed up? Well, it turns out, the global impact would be massive.

Consider this. According to an article in Relevant Magazine:

  • $25 billion could relieve global hunger, starvation and deaths from preventable diseases within five years.
  • $12 billion could eliminate illiteracy globally within five years.
  • $15 billion could solve the world’s water and sanitation issues, specifically at places in the world where 1 billion people live on less than $1 per day.
  • $1 billion could fully fund all overseas mission work

That would only leave the church a paltry $37 billion dollars for additional ministry expansion at a local level. How ever would the church cope on such small change?

It’s time for the church to put its money where its mouth is — literally. The Church talks so much about changing the world, and transforming peoples’ lives. Well, it turns out, it has the financial means to actually carry out this mission. However, it’s not going to happen until the institutionalized church surrenders its desire to build its own kingdom at the expense of God’s Kingdom. As for me, you can bet your bottom dollar that I am not going to be part of maintaining the status quo.

Categories
Thoughts from Others

The Beauty of the Bummer Lamb

I am very fond of sheep. I grew up on the west coast of Scotland with sheep all around me, field after field of white wool and incessant crying when things seemed a little off. They stick together like girls out on a bachelorette party. They are quite shy.

I spent the first ten years of my life trying to get close enough to hug one but they’re not big on hugging. Even if I crept up quietly behind one it was as if they had a sixth sense and saw me coming. I now know that sheep have a field of vision of around 300 degrees, so they had a built-in heads up on annoying Scottish children.

Interestingly enough they have poor depth perception. For this reason, sheep will avoid shadows or harsh contrasts between light and dark. They will move towards the light.

They head into the wind and towards the light. What a beautiful lesson for those of us who follow The Shepherd!

I try to remember that most days.

Of all the lessons I have learned from these defenseless, gentle animals, the most profound is the most painful. Every now and then, a ewe will give birth to a lamb and immediately reject it. Sometimes the lamb is rejected because they are one of twins and the mother doesn’t have enough milk or she is old and frankly quite tired of the whole business. They call those lambs, bummer lambs.

Unless the shepherd intervenes, that lamb will die. So the shepherd will take that little lost one into his home and hand feed it from a bottle and keep it warm by the fire. He will wrap it up warm and hold it close enough to hear a heartbeat. When the lamb is strong the shepherd will place it back in the field with the rest of the flock.

“Off you go now, you can do this, I’m right here.”

The most beautiful sight to see is when the shepherd approaches his flock in the morning and calls them out, “Sheep, sheep, sheep!”

The first to run to him are the bummer lambs because they know his voice. It’s not that they are more loved — it’s just that they believe it.

I am so grateful that Christ calls himself the Good Shepherd.

“He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. After he has gathered his own flock, he walks ahead of them, and they follow him because they know his voice.” (John 10:3-4 NLT)

In the most painful place in my life, hospitalized with severe clinical depression, I too learned the most profound lesson: we are loved because we are His, not because we can do tricks like seeing people approaching from behind!

Until the day I see Jesus face to face I will be a bummer lamb. It’s no longer the bad news. It’s the best news in the world because it’s not that Jesus loves his bummer lambs more — it’s just that they actually dare to believe it.

Author: Sheila Walsh