Jesus is a pain in the ass for those of us who would like to fully execute our rights in the name of justice. It is remarkable that those who profess to know him most, can often be the first to disclaim responsibility to live a life that preaches his message. I'm not talking about reading a passage from a book in front of an audience and claiming to have “preached”. I'm talking about something else altogether. For those playing along at home, I'm talking about a particular aspect of his teachings, found in Matthew's gospel, chapter 18:23-35.

"Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, 'Pay what you owe.' So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. Then his master summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

No miracles for Jefferson to eliminate, so it could be read and contemplated by even such anti-theists as Dawkins or Hitchens.

It's an interesting passage, particularly in today's economic climate, most of the Western Economic System is constructed using layer after layer of credit and debt. To go into that would be to well and truly go beyond the point.

As we can see, the passage is talking about a King, who has servants (which is anyone who lives within his kingdom), and these servants owe him money. They rightfully owe him money, and now the rent is due, so to speak. Some owe phenominal amounts. In this parable, Jesus quotes “ten thousand talents” as the amount that is owed by one individual.

Mark Schaefer preaching at Wesley Theological Seminary, goes into a little detail on the amount of money being described. In Jesus' time, to say “ten thousand” would bring much a similar response that Dr. Evil's demands brought him in the Austin Powers movies. It is plainly ridiculous.



The point that Jesus is making is that it is simply an impossible amount. Any economists in the room with Jesus would have pointed out that this amount of money, would be an impossible amount for any single individual to produce. Approximately 150,000 years wages.

One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Years wages. That, in a time with no stock market, no international banking industry to speak of, no Microsoft IPO, no Google stock offerings and no fiat currency structures.

The debtor is brought before the King, who tells him to pay up, otherwise he and his family will have their assets seized, and they will be thrown in Jail until the amount can be repaid. Yeah, right. This is a permanent sentence. There isn't a way out of this particular sentence.

He throws himself at the mercy of the King, who forgives him. Doesn't just say, “pay me when you can as the debt still stands” he flat out wipes out the debt. Free and clear. Stupid. Unwise stewardship. Squandering the resources that have been entrusted.

This is then contrasted with the relatively small yet still substantial figure of 100 denarii. This is contrasted with 100 days wages. Just under a financial quarter. In todays terms, between 10 and 15 thousand dollars. A lot of money, but compared to the previous amount? Nothing.

The freshly forgiven individual, now takes the opportunity to execute his legal right, and demand the fulfillment of his own debtors responsibility. This is pursuing justice. Real legal justice in real legal terms and with real legal provisions, and real legal consequences.

He finds the debtor in the street, and demands his money. The debtor begs for mercy, asking for time to pay, and finds no mercy, with his proposal refused. The debtor is thrown in prison until he can pay the debt. That is his legal right and privilege. That is the debtor's responsibility as well. We don't do that anymore, as prison costs too much, and the individual is worth more to the government in social and economic capital as a taxpayer than as a prisoner. Prison was a very different place in those times, as were the basic human rights associated with imprisonment.

We bankrupt people these days, which is owing to our development as a Christianised history. Thankfully we don't jail debtors anymore, but we do seize their assets, and we bankrupt them, which while temporary, leaves a permanent scarlet letter branded on the individual as a badge of shame. This is a service and some say, a responsibility to the community that the individual is known for their failure to pay a debt.

The King hears about this and is pissed off. What kind of association does this merciful King want with someone that would take this type of mercy and piss it away for a few months wages? The King orders the arrest and imprisonment of the first man, until he can pay a couple thousand lifetimes worth of debt.

Rev. Schaefer makes the argument that God isn't actually like this, that this message was given to illustrate what God isn't going to require of us. I respectfully disagree, stating that our failure to forgive others will have the effect that the King describes here, as the Last verse in the passage has Jesus saying that the Father will do precisely what the King has done in this story.

James states that “Mercy triumphs over Judgment”. And that the merciful will be shown mercy.

At the end of the day, I still believe that God's mercy will be extended even to those who have unwittingly or even not realised their error in enforcing Judgment rather than Mercy. However, those that would accept mercy on one hand, and refuse to offer it on the other, when shown the parallel in their own lives, will not find God to be the most wonderful reality come the resurrection. Those that demand justice will find it, much to their own grief.

If we unrepentantly refuse forgiveness favouring Justice over foolish Mercy, then why would we want to associate with such a foolish King? Why would he want to associate with us? C.S. Lewis would again be supported in his observation that where the Repentant would declare to God “Your will be done”, the unrepentant would hear from God “Your Will be Done – Depart from me ... ”

The Epistle to the Hebrews 10:32-39

But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. For,
"Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;
but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him."

But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

This passage really sucks. This passage reflects on the lifestyle that becomes representative of that which lives out this teaching. The early church followed this to the point that outsiders identified them as easy prey for such plundering. Mike at thegrateful.org, has picked up on this a little, and expresses the impossibility of running a publicly listed insurance company with the intention to please Christ. I'm leaning in that direction lately, as obedience to corporations law, overcomes the possibility of mercy, except where government legislated and recognized charitable institution tax benefits are available.

Unfortunately, the Hebrews passage still carries meaning for Christians that have been screwed by other Christians. While the original context was Christians being screwed by the Roman Empire, today it carries further meaning. No righteous indignation, or righteous shaming of the individual or organization as a service to other Christians. An acceptance of the plundering, with the knowledge that there abides a greater posession in Christ's kingdom.

We Christians can be such losers sometimes, especially when it comes to the requirements of Ceasar. The only hope we have is that Jesus does what he says he will, and accepts us into his bizarre kingdom.


References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badge_of_shame

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlet_Letter

http://thegrateful.org/2008/10/01/gods-economics-unquestioning-generosity-or-giving-with-discernment/

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:23-35;&version=47;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:32-39;&version=47;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs&feature=related

http://www.aumethodists.org/sermons/sermon020915.html

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:13;&version=47;

Repentance and Belief

So, you honestly believe that persons who have never had the chance to hear the Gospel- will be shown the same judgment as those who have willfully rejected it? This is the point I was trying to make... Not that there is any "excuse," scripture declares- "Creation displays the glories of God, so that man is unexcused.' Still...
In creation there is still the very contraversy as to whether some one may actually "find" enough knoweldge as to even be able to "know" Christ... within what can ne SEEN, alone.... to me, Creation does not infact "preach the Gospel..." although perhaps logic and Created order tend to draw us to conclusions which reveal a God who is benevolent, transcendant; yet near-, perhaps even "1." In this way, a Muslim who has never heard the Gospel- may in fact be held accountable for the fact that all logic should reveal the contradictory, hypocritical, even sinful nature of Allah and his prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him.)
However, my point is that there are so many things in the mind of God which we do not know... And, of course there are instances of salvations wrought by God in the desert- to those who have never heard of Christ by word of mouth- ie they have visions etc. of the resurrected Christ... But, I can not believe that a benevolent God would enact such strict regulations for the damnation of those who "know no better"- simply because "the workers are few." I can not believe a theology in which the hands of God some how become tied because of my (or others) lack of evangelism... You are right in saying that ALL men a part from worshippers of Yahweh through Christ- ARE idolators, and this in itself is rule enough for judgement. All I am saying, - is that God in His justice must also be a God who in order to be just; offers the same adequate-represenation/ and opportunity for salvation to all- in order to judge men accordingly. This is not an assumption as much as it is Scriptural- God knows the intentions and the hearts of man, better than we know our own consciences - even ourselves or our own ability to "be right" before God. I liken this concept to the idea of "the age of accountability" and so many persons belief that children who have not yet "prayed the prayer/ do not have a personal relationship with Jesus on par with that of an adult"-will still go to heaven if they die; because God is just. If we believe that a 2-3 year old who can not even conceptualize the meaning of death and resurrection/ Jesus being the ONLY God etc.- can/will fo to Hevean based upon his/her inability to receive the 'fullness' of the 'understanding' of this gift of grace...how can we not believe that it is possible for God to save the adult sinner (children are sinners as well...I am not a semi-pelagianist that believes one is infected by sin through societal tainting.)--- who also does not have adequate knowledge.
The issue here, then of debate is not whether God "can" work this way- but the debate is- "does, He?" or "How?" In this Scripture does not give detail to believe He does/ does not... It simply instructs us to preach and that God in His omniscience knows who perhaps "Would have followed Him, were they given the option."
Sorry, that last statement presupposes death - in case it wasn't explained well. Also, I apologize if I havent taken the time to read through your note with correct interpretation- I skimmed, and am incredibly tired :) as it is late...

Is belief the precondition of repentance or is repentance the precondition of belief? If we view the Gospel's demand of repentance to be simply related to the violation of the Law and the Prophets as recorded by Israel, then we must posit direct evangelism as an immediate pre-requisite of Salvation. Otherwise, of what laws can any individual repent without education?

I am far too Augustinian to allow this to be the case. Repentance is better understood, not as a checklist of one off and recurring sins that one must say “Sorry” for, but as a state of recognition of the sinfulness of sin, a recognition of the evil of being evil. Or, in the case of my previous post, the recognition of the idolatrous state of being which is common to the “not-fully-human”. The Spirit does not need for an individual to have been exposed to the Pentateuch in order to bring them to a recognition of their need for forgiveness. After all, Lao-Tzu wonderfully stated that “It is only when Righteousness is lost that we need to speak of propriety”

The place of evangelism then, is to direct the already repentant towards appropriate belief, which will provide the basis for self and communal identification with Christ in Baptism.

Once more, I betray my Augustinianism by the recognition that the opportunity to have the gospel preached within my experience is a coalescence of God's grace, through the outworking of the Spirit through the obedience and rebellion of the individuals in my life, particularly in the individuals who directly presented me with the gospel message, as well as those that influenced my life through their own idolatry, and as I have matured, the recognition of the influences of my own idolatries.

These perspectives are influenced by Sartre's concept of “Bad Faith”, and the desire to avoid the charge as much as is practicable. At the end of the day, The justice of God within a courtroom metaphor could find the individual condemned for not seeking out the salvation that according to Paul is close to them.

With Crystal, I am a supporter of the concept of the age of accountability, and am not Augustinian enough to demand that all children are baptised in order to escape limbo, and I am neither a proponent of infant baptism, preferring the existential individual response and identification with Christ and His community.

This affirmation of infant salvation opens up the possibility for those who are not existentially aware of the Death and Resurrection of Christ to be saved. Particularly, the Mentally Challenged and the Infant. Others may wish to expand this to those who have not yet heard, but I think that this would make the commission of Christ to be counter-productive. By restricting condemnation to those who actively reject the gospel, we would be better off staying home, so that the unreached could be ushered into Heaven, and ironically creating a possibilty of demonstrating the injustice of God at not allowing ALL people to have the opportunity to be “unreached” by the Gospel and thereby welcomed into Heaven.

Essentially one must come to the question of whether sinners can be saved, and the immediate response must simply be Yes. God ONLY saves sinners. He just doesn't necessarily save all of them. They are the only ones that need saving in the first place.

An extension of my position finds that within the foreknowledge of God, (and the inevitable predestination that occurs within that foreknowledge), the precise times and places of birth, along with the borders of nations which are established and maintained by God (and secondarily outworked through sinful institutions and individuals). The submission to these social constraints, are either to be rejected, or accepted, on the basis of their compatibility with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


Creation preaches the qualities of God, including his righteousness and by contrast, our own unrighteousness. Creation then, preaches repentance. The Spirit reveals the Gospel and enables belief and the baptismal response.

Ultimately though, I happen to believe that I am one of God's instruments that He has foreknown and foreordained for the (hopefully positive) communication of the Gospel to the lost in not only my social setting, but in the social settings of others. I am that one that God has sent to those around me, inasmuch as they are the ones that God has sent towards me. Whether or not my outworking of this reality is legitimate outworking of faith through love or idolatrous legalism is existentially another issue. Thankfully, not one that God will hold over the heads of those that I influence towards Christ.

Churchianity?

An insightful note by Crystal:

So, how about I have become so sick with "Churchianity," that I started reading my Koran and Bhagavad Gita again...and whoa! God is so alive! For anyone who has discernment enough to pick up something other than the Good-Ol Word of God; those of you who recognize that the world of Christianity does not own the truth about who God is... I would seriously suggest if you are dry and need God to speak to you in a non-conventional way... Well, perhaps be selective on your Quranic readings lol. But, philosophically, the 'Song of God'/ Bhagavad-Gita (Hindu Scriptures) can't do you wrong... I have re-discovered in them God's individualistic desire to be intimately interconnected with each person and their personality...(through the very plot line of Krishna's dialogue with Arjuna)... ps. boo to all those who say these writings are heathenistic and non-applicable to the passivist... who are they kidding? Let's be open-minded!) My desire to be meditative, disciplined, and constantly seeking the universal truth of the nature of God in all things...has been awakened! Moksha, here I come! lol. Surely, I'm not pro-idolatry...but how much better the attributes and goodness of God are portrayed through this work of poetry- than most Westernized Christian literature. There are even accurate portrayals of the demonic realm and original sin/ the divine spirit that indwells all mankind... After reading, I completely understand why in the inherent goodness of this faith- there is no reason to believe that those who have never heard of Christ, who are (not idolatrous) within their Hindu practices... *this does not in my opinion, count those who bow to idols of Vishnu alone etc.- ex.) Sihks...will go to hell. Romans proclamation of how each man is judged according to their personal "knowledge" is making a lot more sense, as well. Friends, I miss you all! Let's read some Gita together, practice some Karma- and Bhakti- and follow the Creator of it all! ~ Jesus Christ. Thanks Jon, Nikki, Matt, Jared, and my other analytical peeps for appreciating the Lord in all His diversity! ~ oxoxo

From Reading Anti-Christian Material


I was pleased to see a new friend write about her rejection of “Churchianity”, more than likely a play on the concept of Christendom, in contrast to classical Chrisitanity. Incorporated with this rejection of Churchianity, there seems to be a reactionary and highly charged move towards embracing those that Churchianity has traditionally rejected in the attempt to maintain religious purity.

In this embrace of the Muslim, the Hindu and the Sikh, she makes a statement that would far too readily be misinterpreted by many as an embrace of syncretistic pluralism. The mere mention of the Qu'ran and the Bhagavad Gita is initially off putting to those within Churchianity who have “discerned” that they should not be concerned with the reading material of a couple billion people. Rightfully mentioned, is that a selective reading of the Qu'ran and the Gita, combined with an element of discernment can reveal elements of the singular Truth, who Jesus claims to embody.

What are we to do with this? The awareness that “all truth is God's truth” is a start, but not sufficient to deal with the concerns attached to the indiscriminate reading of a text, combined with the indiscriminate practices attached to that reading. It is certainly not enough to justify the proclamation of Salvation to the houses of those who practice their respective religions without falling into idolatry. This is probably best understood referentially to the distinction between a protestant expression of Christianity, in contrast to a perceived idolatrous expression of folk Roman Catholicism. My reason for stating this will become evident soon enough.

I think the primary problem is that of “excluding the middle” in our pulpit, when discussing the religions of the lost. That is to say, we have jumped from the start of the question (can insert religious group be saved?) to the conclusion (there is no salvation outside of Christ) without “showing our work”. I think that this is the key. The inevitable question begging that arises from this exercise and the faulty second generation theological exclusionism that arises, eventually gives rise to this type of rejection of frail theologizing. There are also issues in causality that are being regularly overlooked when engaging with individuals from other belief systems, especially in the light of these previous problems.

My next question is simply this: What is it that causes individuals to be condemned? I'm going to go ahead and say that it is not the religion of an individual that causes them to be saved or condemned. This is a classic dissonance within Evangelical Christianity; We claim “relationship [with Jesus], not religion” but then proceed to condemn those from alternate religious groupings forgetting that it is not their religion that is the problem, but their relationship with Christ that is the matter.

The short cut answer to my previous question, (without showing much of my work) is that following Augustine reading Paul, we are condemned because of our own idolatrous sinful natures, which cause us (via an existential choice) to outwork our own idolatrous religious proclivities and preferences, and following Bruce Bradshaw, these causes and effects reify each other, feeding one another, perpetuating further idolatry, even to the point that some would call demonisation.

What does this mean? That to be not-fully-human is to be idolatrous. How we express this idolatry, is incidental, whether we express this idolatry by attempting to attain Moksha, Nirvana or even the seemingly capricious approval of Allah, or we express this idolatry by giving into our own reductionist material isms or even 'immoral' sexual expressions and finally and most controversially, seeking the one true meaning of Scripture or one true Denomination at the expense of other heterodox conclusions.

Postmodern uncertainty under girds this viewpoint, because it requires a humility of perspective in relation to alternates. The deconstruction of certainty has allowed for the rise and necessity of existential faith which seems to coincide with the individual response seemingly required by the Gospel message. This uncertainty undermines the previous idolatry of religious expression or even irreligious expression.
An existential reading of Paul would seem to affirm the reality of the chosen idolatry of the individual and it's further chosen outworking in further idolatry. The only distinctions are matters of degree, whether an individual existentially chooses not to believe because of social ramifications, religious ramifications of such a response, such are still idolatrous actions.

All of this is said for the purpose of undermining the possibility of individuals remaining “non-idolatrous” within alternate religious expressions.

Now what? A remembrance that we are not saved by works of the (or any alternate) law, but by grace outworked through an existentially appropriated belief in the Resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ. This existentially appropriated reality is found through the outworking of the Spirit, which sustains and animates all being, and as Paul declares, draws and convicts individuals towards the righteousness of God. All alternate religious expressions are as Paul declares, indicators that “God is not far from you...and commands people everywhere to repent”

What if?

“...having money's not everything, not having it is... “
Kanye West, 'Good Life' Graduation (2007)

The desperation of the soul can be simply awe inspiring. The pure emotive state that struggles to be defined by even the most intuitive and learned amongst us, and spawns the creativity and experience of the ordinary and extraordinary alike, the saints, the sinners, the prophet, the prostitute, the rapper and the reverend; They seem to scream from a base awareness of the poverty of human experience.

Jesus' own treatment of the awareness of the state of the soul receives the ironic and iconoclastic label of being called “blessed”.

“Makarios?” Are you serious?

This is not the aristotelian “makarios” that we have heard about, the ideal good that we should all aspire towards, in Jesus' usage of the term, this type of happiness is only discovered by recognizing the patent unreality of the aristotelian “good”

“if being happy is wrong, then I don't want to be right”
Ignorance is bliss after all...isn't it?

All great literature has essentially built on and tapped into this common experience in one way or another. Whether it be Oscar Wilde, Jeremy Bentham or Saint Augustine. The very concept of religion (or as Paul Tillich defines it, “ultimate concern”), for example, is built on this common recognized reality, We need to be liberated from our poverty. Whether we do the rescuing ourselves through the near endless cycles of birth and rebirth, or through maintaining identity with a particular group; the capitalists and the communist, the Ceasars or the commoners, the catholic or the muslim, they all betray and point to a particular reality that we desire to avoid rather than confront: Our poverty is killing us.

“...by the sweat of your brow you will eat bread...” Yahweh, Genesis

“...do not worry saying 'what will we eat?' or 'what will we wear?'...for the pagans run after all these things...” Yahweh, St. Matthew

I think that, ultimately, the iconoclasm to be found in Jesus' gospel proclamation has always been intended to lead us into this newly redefined state of makarios, and yet I dont think that we as humans were designed for this task, just as we were not designed for the violation of relationship, just as we were not designed for the violation of life through death.

“...so it is with he who is born of the wind...”

The utter unpredictability of those born of the Spirit, contrasted with the complete predictability of the encyclopaedic effort.

“Ordem e progresso” The catchall cry of the scientific experiment.

What if it was never meant to be this way?

Sex and Nudity

It may seem strange to see this post immediately after the previous posts listed, and this post is in no way a progression from the previous series. I simply found this while at the Boar's Head Tavern, and thought I would add this to my own blog for posterity.

There’s nothing wrong with nudity or sexuality. There’s something wrong with us. The sexual appetite is fallen, but the glory of the human body is good. That means that all people can lust whether they are looking at a nude or a burka, and it also means there’s nothing inherently wrong with nudity in the right context. There’s nudity in the Bible, and I assume the author of Song wanted me to think of certain body parts when he mentioned them in certain ways. If human beings understand themselves, they won’t be afraid of what they are, but they will account for what they’ve become.

Michael Spencer

Reflections seen through Her

You mean she was there the whole time?

How deliciously painful.

I mean, its not like I never thought about it, or even never assessed it as a possibility. I mean, yeah…she is attractive after all, and since I’ve known Her she always has been. Except for that space of about 12 months in which I genuinely thanked God that we never got together.

I mean, hell, she annoyed me so much. Probably because I’ve secretly liked Her the whole time or something pathetic like that. I’ll need a shrink to work that one out for me.

But I can only reflect on that which I recognized. Those thoughts are too far removed from the present to be legitimately analysed. That being said, she annoyed me. Oh man did she annoy me. But now…

When I first met Her, she was everything that I thought I wanted. Thankfully, my grasp of what my desires are have been reformed somewhat from what they were, to something along the lines of what they are now. But even in that, I suppose we have both grown up a little throughout this period of time. I’ve grown, she’s grown, and rather than Her remaining unattractive to my undiscerning mind, she has become more attractive.

Much more attractive, but also therefore, much more dangerous.

I mean, at the end of the day, we’ve been down a similar road before. The circumstances were considerably different, as we still barely knew each other. The problem is that now, we are much closer than we were back then, (although not as close as we once were), and the danger or the severity of the rejection is much more pronounced. At least it is in my head.

After all, I’m the guy that asks once, and never asks again. I was so rejection phobic that I would sometimes even only go out with the people that I subconsciously knew were too insecure to say no. Hell, I was even too insecure to say no.

That has changed though…and it doesn’t make things any easier. It simply moves the field and the conditions of the pitch. Better in some senses, but still no simpler.

I suppose the state of annoyance really did allow for legitimate relationship to develop, without the pretences of romantic attachment having a discretely manipulative effect. Less offensive and defensive walls to worry about and all. It is with this more honest and open friendship that I notice a new situation forming.

New issues arise when I look at the relationship. The reality is that I now see Her in such a light, that when I imagine Her with anyone else, I simply don’t see them as “worthy” of Her. Much of this happens to come out of my own relationship with my own daughter, and my projection of those issues back over Her.
No matter what the origins of these emotions, the primary issue is how they function. It is a particular type of desperation to see any and all comers as unsuitable; however this is not followed with some arrogant false sense of my own worthiness.

In staying away from the type of depressive attitude that would simply cry out of my own unworthiness in a particularly irresponsible attempt at justifying and wallowing in my own “disqualification”, I am not saying that my unworthiness is grounds for disqualification. I am saying that my unworthiness makes me unqualified.

It is an important distinction to retain. I look at her, and lament my lack of qualification in modelling the relationship between Christ and Church to her, and indeed receiving her same relationship-modelling towards me. My lack of qualification in modelling and mediating even the material provision of God in both directions, is only a reflection of the immaterial mis-qualifications that I sense.

Why the sense of unworthiness? It is the weight and the gravity of the task. It is simply too much to ask (ultimately) for a complete self-giving towards the other, when we have a hard enough time leaving ourselves as living sacrifices on the altar of God. To live well as believers is “impossible enough” as it is, with only the re-assurance that the grace of Jesus is indeed sufficient for me. Now, I need to believe that the grace of Jesus is sufficient for both of us together.

This is true regardless of whom “she” is, but it also just so happens to remain true in relation to Her. After all, if this is how I see relationships through this particular individual, how much more will it be true for the one which I do ultimately enter into marriage with?

It is fascinating to me that in seeing Her, I ignore the fact that she is likewise “unworthy” to function in the same way towards me. I just flat out ignore it. The outworking of her privations will probably come out in different forms than the out workings of my own privations towards her, but ultimately of course, there must come the decision to endure them, praying that the portion of the Spirit that God imparts into marriage is quite simply sufficient for us, individually AND corporately.

All of this is being said of course, before I have even decided to engage the gears of hope towards action. The tone of my writing is intended to reflect the self-reflection taking place throughout this attraction, rather than simply elevating the attraction. It is not that these reflections and conclusions are intrinsically connected to HER, as if these reflections would not be possible elsewhere. Indeed, God takes ALL things, and works them together for good whether this particular attraction be reciprocal or otherwise.

But as I write this, I still hope that it is Her…holding this hope in open hands and prepared through faith that either way. God knows what he is doing. As painful as that may be.

Its been a long time, I shouldn't have left you...

Ok, so my last post not withstanding...it has been a really really long time since I have written anything. There are multiple reasons for this.

The first one has more to do with the fact that I never got into a really comfortable writing position after I moved house. When I moved off campus, I lost that comfy spot. You know the one...where you can sit and just write.

The second one, is that I kept waiting for that triumphalist moment where I could sit back, absorb everything that had happened over the holidays, compress it into a ball of meaning...and then slam dunk it into a blog. It didn't happen. In fact, its still not done yet. The great anticipation that was built up over this year being a massive change from the usual...has turned out to include a long, drawn out transitional period. So...instead of the dramatic high g-force 90 degree left-roll bank...I've realised that it is much closer to a gentle rudder adjustment on a cruise liner. Or should that be an oil tanker?

Slightly anti-climactic.


Which has pretty much been the theme for the last 5 months. Hopefully not for too much longer...because the irony would really be laid on quite thick if my expectations shifted back towards the gentle course correction, only to experience my blackout inducing over-g 90 degree left-roll bank.

Anti-climactic indeed.

Some details...

The trip to the States, wasn't exactly what I thought it was going to be...but it was everything that it NEEDED to be. But again, THANK YOU to everyone who helped make it happen.

I met some amazing people, and got to hang out with some great new friends in San Diego, as well as having the time of my life just chilling out in LA with old and new friends. I really was treated like I was one of them.

Biggest discovery over the last 6 months now?

That I really don't like the way God does things.

Like, I'm a Christian and all...and I live for the purposes of his will. You know...all the appropriate Christian answers. Check all the boxes. They really are true for me. But then I discover...what if his will for me goes much deeper than I am ever prepared to go?

A friend of mine suggested to me in relation to some issues I've been looking at through the binoculars..."pray about it..."

and my immediate response was..."Hells no, because if God is REALLY good, he'll actually teach me a lesson through this, and the only way I learn lessons is painfully..."

So...I'm starting to be afraid of God's goodness.

There isn't much left to do but throw myself at his mercy, wait for his mercy, and endure his mercy...whatever forms they take.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"


It better be...because I'm freakin out over here. But at the end of it all...I know that God is good. That which is within me which has reason to fear, should fear God.

Its an interesting place to be, I'll tell you that much.