The Greatest Story Ever Told

Have you ever noticed that humans have an innate need for story? That may seem kind of a strange question. You may not have thought of it before, but I sometimes wonder why I have an intense need for story. It seems like a strange kind of a need to, well, need. But I’ve noticed that I’m not the only one. Look at the abundance of movie sites and theatres. And who are the popular heroes of our day? The ones who star in our celluloid stories. (Then we end up consumed with the real-life stories of these people.) This is not a recent phenomena proving the corruption of our times. Good story-tellers have always been revered.

There is something buried in our natures that responds to a story. It’s stronger for some of us than for others, but I think it’s there for all of us. Why? Is it mere escapism? Are our lives so bad that we only feel better by hearing a story about someone else who had it worse, and then hearing how it all came right in the end? I think it’s deeper than that, even. I think this thirst for story is written into our natures because Story is the true nature of things. A romance story, even. Happy ending included.

Let’s analyze a little: What is it about a story that makes it a story? Let’s start there. First, a story must have characters. It must have personalities acting and reacting and interacting. Then, a story has movement. It has forward movement. It has a beginning. Then it has a conflict, it has a climax, it has a resolution, and it must have an ending. If a story doesn’t have a proper ending, we don’t see purpose, and purpose is the essential element in story. We feel a need to see things tie together and go as they ought. We like a little surprise, too, but a satisfactory ending is a must. Even if it’s not a happy ending, it must have an ending where we can see the point behind the story.

All those elements are what make up plot or drama.

For some reason, I got thinking about this subject while lying awake with insomnia one night. I started comparing the little bit of knowledge I have about different world religions and analyzing them in regards to this matter of story. I came to the conclusion that, of all the religions I’m at all familiar with, none of them other than Judaism or Christianity has the forward movement required to be Story (and Judaism-minus-Christianity must always be admitted to be the first installment of a “to be continued…” sequel. There is an unfinishedness to the Old Testament. It ends in breathless, cliffhanger expectation).

Hinduism has a circular movement: the hamster on the wheel of karma and reincarnation. Buddhism has a backward movement of renunciation. The ideal state in Buddhism is the extinguishing of desire rather than its fulfillment (in contrast to Christianity which teaches that desires are meant to be fulfilled and whose whole business is pointing the way to the only real source of their fulfillment). In Buddhism, the snuffing of the candle is nirvana. It’s a backward movement towards cessation. Islam is stationary on its five pillars. With fatalism, everything is set in stone. Only in the Bible do we see the forward movement of story, of plot, of drama — not a forever movement because there is a “happily ever after,” a crossing of the finish line. The goal of a story is its finish.

Amongst religions, only in Christianity do we see a protagonist and a villain, a beginning, a conflict, a climax, a resolution, and an ending — with some surprising twists along the way. And only here do we see the purpose which we all look for our whole lives.

What drives this story is its Main Character. Christianity is unique among the religions of the world, and that’s because its Founder is unique.

Sure, the whole thing about the Dying God-Man may be a great story. It may be great drama. But what’s even better is that we find our need for story being met by what looks very much like a true story. It’s my belief that only in Christianity can we find the ultimate drama wedded to ultimate truth. Only here can we have both our need for story and our need for truth met at once.

Advertisements

Accepting or Rejecting Writing Criticism

Today, when I was cruising around a writers’ website where I’m a member, I came across this old article I’d posted on it.  Still applicable, so I thought I’d share it on my writing blog for all other aspiring writers out there who may happen to stumble onto it.  

We’re all writers here, right? And as writers, we probably realize that the first item on the list of qualities necessary for being a writer is a big ol’ thick hide. Yet, if you’re anything like me, you also realize that your own skin is closer to paper-thin.

Accepting any criticism is a hard thing, even when it’s warranted (maybe especially when it’s warranted). But a further problem is knowing when it’s warranted. Before taking criticism to heart, it’s important to know when it’s constructive and when it’s destructive. We all want to improve, but a criticism or suggestion that moves us in the wrong direction is less than helpful.

With writing criticism, distinguishing the good from the bad is tricky business — even trickier than with other kinds of criticism because literature belongs almost entirely in the realm of the subjective.

How many best-selling authors sold their first manuscript right out of the gate to the first publisher who saw it? For a writer, no matter how talented, it seems that rejection letters in the double digits are the norm for a first project. Rejection does not always equal lack of merit. Then again, sometimes it does. But how is the rejectee to know the difference?

Those “in the biz” are expected to recognize the kind of writing that a majority of readers will want to read. But if film critics are any indication, being “in the biz” may mean being out of touch with the man/woman on the street. (I apologize if you happen to be a film critic. No, wait! I take back the apology. If anyone should be able to take a little criticism, it had better be a critic!)

The subject of literature unavoidably opens up the “objective vs. subjective” can of worms. While there is a certain degree of objectivity involved in identifying good writing, that degree is negligible (as in, there are still a few hard and fast rules of grammar and style which any writer should feel free to break at any time as long as he knows he’s breaking the rules and does so intentionally). Writing is not a hundred metre dash. There are no stopwatches to declare unarguably that one writer is better than another. Good writing is a matter of taste, and tastes differ. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

So, the rookie writer’s dilemma: how to tell good advice from bad advice when the advice being given is all a matter of taste.

Let me share a little personal testimony with you for your reading enjoyment. Once upon a time, when I was young and reckless, I entered a story in a nationwide story contest. It was called, “The Pickett’s Family Vacation” and was about a family (yes, the Pickett family) who are (yes) going on vacation. Almost the entire story is taken up with Mr. Pickett attempting to fit one more piece of oh-so-necessary (according to Mrs. Pickett) vacation rubbish in the already-overloaded vehicle. It involves, of course, unpacking and repacking the vehicle, losing the car keys, getting a smack in the head with the car door while crawling around on the ground looking for the keys, wondering to oneself about the wisdom of having family vacations or maybe of having families, and all the usual fun and frolic that accompanies getting a family vacation underway. (At least, that’s how I remember family vacations.)

It was quite a funny story. I thought so. Subtle. Yet hilarious. And seeing I’ve since lost the story, you’ll have to take my word for it.

Okay, maybe it wasn’t funny at all. I don’t know. One man’s trash, after all. If you’d been forced to read it, maybe the best you could have managed would have been a polite chuckle. But I’m sure you would at least have grasped that the story was intended to be funny. You probably grasped the intent-to-be-funny just from my description of it. I know you are all people of discernment and discriminating tastes. (After all, you’re reading this article.)

In the story contest, I drew a judge who was plainly not a kindred spirit; a judge who, in my humble opinion, had no sense of humour. Or sense, period. Yet, I was informed, she was a best-selling author. Definitely “in the biz.”

Apparently, she didn’t like my Pickett family story. Apparently, she didn’t find it funny. Apparently, she couldn’t even manage a polite chuckle. But, here’s the kicker: apparently, she hadn’t even grasped that it was intended to be funny.

She suggested that I give the family “something to fight.” “Try burning their house down,” she offered helpfully. (Whaddyamean? I did give the family something to fight. I gave them each other. What more could they ask?)

Really? Burn down the house? Sure, I probably could have written a story where I burned the Pickett family’s house down, but then I would have called it, “The Pickett Family House Fire.” Not, “The Pickett Family Vacation.”

So, the advice I was given by the illustrious, best-selling, “in the biz” judge on how to improve my story boiled down to, “Write a different story. Write the kind of story I would have written.” Problem being, that me — li’l-ol-woman-on-the-street-me — wouldn’t have bothered to read the kind of story she would have written. I say so because I’ve never read any books by this particular best-selling author. (I can’t remember her name, to be honest.)

For me, the deal-breaker was when she advised me not to tell the reader it was a hot day but to show the reader how hot it was. “Use an expression like, ‘Skin sticking to the vinyl of the car seat.’ ” There is the objection that if she wanted my story to be written in her style and voice, she should have written it herself in the first place and saved me the trouble, but that wasn’t the clincher. This was the clincher: she spelled “vinyl,” “vynal.” I kid you not. (The judges’ comments were handwritten which explains the malfunction in her spell check.)

At that point, I’m afraid I said to myself rather haughtily, “Do I really have to take seriously the opinions of a best-selling author who spells ‘vinyl,’ ‘vynal’?” (Okay, that whole thing I said about writers being able to break any rules they wish doesn’t cover “vynal.” I have my limits!)

As you can tell, my amusement or bitterness (or bitter amusement or amused bitterness) at the story-contest incident has stayed with me through the years. But I learned a valuable lesson through it: Don’t enter story contests. In fact, don’t let anybody read what I’ve written. Not unless I’m willing to have it misunderstood. Not unless I’m willing to have people manage only the barest of polite chuckles over my subtle-yet-hilarious creations. Or to tell me that I ramble. Or to correct MY spelling and grammar errors. (And I know, I know. They’re numerous).

In fact, unless I’m willing to open myself up to criticism, I should keep my writing to myself. On the other hand, if I find that I’m not satisfied just keeping my writing to myself, I have to open myself up to criticism. Or correction. Or rejection. Or misunderstanding. It comes with the territory.

And the wise thing to do is to consider thoughtfully every piece of advice I’m handed. Whether or not I take it.

If I was to write my Pickett family vacation story all over again, I still wouldn’t burn down their house. Upon mature consideration, I rejected the honourable judge’s advice, not only because of the “vynal,” but because she’d failed to understand anything about my story. If she had said, “You’re not funny. Quit trying,” I might have listened and written a story about a family who burned down their house. But when she failed to understand that I was trying to be funny (when any reader of discernment and discriminating tastes can tell just from my description of my story that I was trying to be funny), I can acknowledge that my story was misunderstood on a very deep level by the judge and move on.

Still, though I didn’t accept her basic premise (that I should have written the kind of story she would have written), I didn’t reject everything she had to offer. She made another comment which, though it was the product of misunderstanding a detail of the story, helped me see that I hadn’t described the detail very well.

My conclusion is that all advice requires sifting. And ultimately, the individual being handed the advice is the only one who can decide what to keep and what to toss.

I may never be “in the biz,” but I still need to write. And I need to write what I need to write.

Only I can be I. And only you can be you. And only I can write what I can write. And only you can write what you can write. Yet I might be able to help you write a little better or clearer what only you can write. And you can help me write a little better or clearer what only I can write. Yet both of us need to sort through the help we can give each other to know what is me helping you write a little better what only you can write and what is me trying to help you write a little more like me (and vice versa).

I admit it. I’m no Hemingway. I never will be. But then again, neither was Wodehouse. Then again, Hemingway was no Wodehouse. And I like Wodehouse. I don’t like Hemingway.

I’m allowed to like Wodehouse and not to like Hemingway. There’s no stopwatch to inform me infallibly that Hemingway was a genius and Wodehouse was a goof. It’s a matter of taste.

I admit it. I’m no Wodehouse, either. But then again, he’s not me.

An Uber Driver Named Leo

I had a year-long temporary resident visa for Mexico when I first came.  But I’m here in Mexico for thirteen months.  So I needed to make a quick run north to Texas to exit Mexico and re-enter on a tourist visa.  Mission accomplished, but none of that is really the story I want to tell.  It’s all background.

I’d decided that while I was in Texas over the Easter weekend, in order to make me less bitter about needing to do a red-tape trip rather than a trip for fun (red-tape trips feel like such a waste!), I would hop a greyhound on Saturday to spend the day in New Mexico and check off one of the fifty states I’d never visited.  Mission also accomplished, but that’s still also just background to the story I want to tell.

I’d bought my tickets to New Mexico in advance online, and I’d booked a seat on a 9:25 a.m. bus to give myself all day in Las Cruces.  For some reason, I was extremely dawdly that Saturday morning—more dawdly than usual (which is saying something!).  By the time I got around to booking my uber, it was after nine, and it was at least a twenty minute drive to the greyhound station.  It took a few minutes for the uber to arrive, and by then, catching my bus was no longer an option if my uber driver did the speed limit.

My uber driver’s name was Leo.  (That’s an irrelevant trivial pursuit fact for you, but it’s what I titled this post, so I may as well throw it in for no extra charge.)  Leo was amazing.  When he heard what time my bus left, he did not do the speed limit.  Maybe that’s not a good quality to look for in an uber driver, but I have to admit, I appreciated it.  He didn’t even scold me for being a dawdly idiot.  He didn’t need to.  I was doing it for both of us.  I spent most of the drive berating myself mentally in the backseat and pretty much giving my bus ticket up for lost.  Leo didn’t talk much at first.  He concentrated on weaving in and out of traffic on the freeway until we were nearing the bus station.  When he could see he was going to get me there on time, he relaxed a little and began to chat.  Where was I from, he wanted to know.  “Canada,” I told him.  I seldom get more specific.  Who on earth has ever heard of Creston, B.C. if they’re not from there?

So I told Leo, “Canada,” and left it at that.  He didn’t ask me, “What part?”  Instead, he said the most surprising thing.  “I used to spend vacations in a little town called Creston, B.C.” he said.  I unhinged my jaw like a python going in for a large snack.  I could hardly believe my ears.  Then, Leo proceeded to describe the place to me, so I knew we were thinking of the same Creston, B.C. (like, maybe there’s another one that I haven’t heard of?  Not likely!)  He definitely knew Creston well.  My Creston.  Of course I explained that Creston was the town I was from and that was the reason for the python-like expression.  I’m not sure he believed me, but that’s neither here nor there.

Leo’s dad was from Couer d’ Alene, Idaho which explained his familiarity with Creston.  (His mom was from Mexico.  And he lives in Texas.  I would have liked to get more of his story—I’m sure it was interesting—but I had a bus Leo had broken laws for me to catch.)  So I thanked Leo quickly and ran for my bus.

Turns out, when I had purchased my tickets online, I’d bought them for the Saturday a week earlier than I needed them.  I’d already missed my bus.  By a week.  But the driver let me on for no apparent reason, anyway.  And off we went.

Once seated on the bus, I was finally able to cogitate a little, and Leo and his sojourns in Creston were fresh on my mind.  Then, I started to get all philosophical about Leo and his sojourns in Creston.

I soon arrived at the conclusion that none of what had taken place all odd-morning-long was coincidence.  For one thing, I don’t believe in coincidence.  Like, at all.  I’m not even an agnostic about coincidences.  I am strictly an acoincidentist.  I actively disbelieve in them.

That is, as a life’s philosophy.  On a day-to-day basis, while I still reject the idea of coincidence, I accept the idea that I’ll likely never get to see most of the reasons behind the weird-and-seemingly-meaningless happenings that we term “coincidence.”  But I still (philosophically) hold to the idea that there are reasons.  For everything.

Obviously, my acoincidentist beliefs are not disconnected from my Christian beliefs, but quite a lot of other Christians manage to be both coincidentists and Christians, so I’m just weird that way, I guess.  But I do happen to believe that God cares about (and cares to the point of managing and arranging) even the minute details.  Of everything.  (Though I do believe in freedom of the will, but we’re not rabbit-trailing into tiptoeing through the TULIPs right now, I can promise you!)

The God of the Bible has every hair on my head numbered.  He knows how many were in that handful I pulled out of my comb this morning, and He has successfully subtracted that number from the number that used to be on my head.  The God of the Bible can be in charge of the infinitely big because He’s in charge of the infinitely small.  He’s infinite.  And infinite runs both ways.

Now, obviously, I live my life as a practical coincidentist.  I mean, I don’t look for the deeper meaning behind everything; behind the handful of hair in my comb or the reason I just committed a typo or why I have an old coffee stain on the (clean!  Really!) shirt I’m wearing at present.  I mean, I just live my life, as regards the really small stuff, trying not to think too deeply about it for the most part.  I don’t stress about what I’ll put on when I get up in the morning (a shirt with a coffee stain today, apparently) or what I’ll eat for breakfast.  I don’t ask for divine guidance and seek to discern God’s will over that kind of minutiae.  That way lies the loony bin.  The fast track to it, in fact.

But every once in awhile, something significant enough to make me sit up and take notice grows out of something as insignificant as the coffee stain on my T-shirt or the muesli I had for breakfast.  (I eat that every morning, so that’s not even mildly out of the ordinary.  Maybe the coffee-stained T-shirt isn’t either, now that I think about it.)  Like my Saturday-morning dawdling (also entirely in-the-ordinary) enabling me to catch, just at the right moment, not the uber driver I would have caught if I’d been on time, but an uber driver named Leo who picked Creston, B.C. out of thin air as the one place he knew in Canada to talk to me about.  It was sooo weird that I thought there just may be some deeper meaning that I was actually meant to decipher in the strange happening.

The only message from God I could see in the whole event was the reminder that I don’t actually, as a life’s philosophy, believe in coincidence (even though I live, for all intents and purposes, as though I do).  I wondered if God might be trying to remind me of that fact that I forget often (for all intents and purposes).

After I arrived in “Las Cruces” (which wasn’t really, but instead was a bus stop/gas station/convenience store on the outskirts of nowhere which is where the bus to Las Cruces stops), I realized I might not want to spend the whole day I’d been planning in New Mexico.  Fortunately, I’d bought a ticket for last Saturday anyway, I wasn’t planning on testing my luck again by trying to get back to Texas on an outdated ticket, and I felt quite justified in buying a new ticket for the first bus back that I could get.  I’d successfully earned my checkmark over New Mexico on my map of the fifty states, so I was quite happy to get back to Texas as soon as possible.  It still meant, I think, five or six hours exploring the little piece of New Mexico that I had unwittingly chosen to see.  I spent about three of them walking around the countryside, soaking in the sights of farms and trees.  I’ve been very countryside-deprived where I live now, so that wasn’t a bad thing.  I spent the remainder of them sitting in the shade of the trees of a ballpark that I had to myself all day.  And thinking.  Shady trees and time alone to think–also not a bad thing.  (But I’ll come back to my day in New Mexico and that train of thought I was riding after we ride the bus back to Texas and stop there, briefly.)

So I returned to Texas a few hours ahead (though one week late) of my original schedule.  I tried to catch an uber from the bus station back to the guest house where I was staying, but the wifi at the greyhound station was too weak (and I do all that kind of thing from my iPod and require a pretty decent wifi connection for it).  It was around my suppertime.  I was getting hungry.  So I decided to take a short walk around the greyhound station neighbourhood to look for some fast food and free wifi.  I found both.  But I also found another encounter that looked as though it had God’s fingerprints all over it.  The specifics aren’t relevant to the story.  I’ll just tell you that I, again, was reminded that there are no coincidences and was happy that I’d received that message earlier in the day so that I would recognize this encounter for the non-coincidence it was when it appeared in front of me.  Again, details as insignificant as the earlier arrival time (thanks to my original idiocy in booking my first ticket), the shoddy wifi at the greyhound station, and my weakness for Taco Bell (yes, even after having lived in Mexico for a year) all culminated into an encounter that seemed significant enough to consider, well, significant.

Now, I’ll take you back to New Mexico and the thinking I was doing in the shade of the trees of the ballpark.  Along the lines of “No coincidences,” the verses in Joel about God restoring the years the locusts had eaten jumped into my head for some reason.  I suppose, because when I think about my firm stand against the reality of coincidences, it sometimes takes the form of the saying, “God wastes nothing!”  Really?  Nothing?  The handful of hairs I threw in the garbage after combing them out this morning?  The coffee stain on my T-shirt (I’ve gotten a lot out mileage out of that stain, anyway!)?  My morning dawdliness?  My idiocy in booking a bus ticket for the wrong day (I’ll have you know I’ve never booked a ticket for the wrong day before, just in case you were wondering if this is also a regular thing.  I have written down the wrong time and missed a bus before… but that’s another story for another time.)?  The shoddy wifi?  My Taco-Bell weakness?  Yeah, I don’t know about the handful of hair and the coffee stain, but for a brief moment, I saw behind the curtain we call “reality” that keeps us separated from real reality to see some reasons behind all those other tiny bits and bites of my reality that came together that odd day in Texas/New Mexico into some kind of recognizable pattern.  It doesn’t often happen that I catch those glimpses.

So when the phrase, “I will restore the years that the locusts have eaten,” jumped into my head there under the shady trees of a New Mexican ballpark, let me tell you why I think it did.  Because, whatever other meaning is hidden inside that phrase, I think it certainly holds the meaning, “God wastes nothing!”  It was the meaning I saw in it, anyway.

And let me tell you why I think I needed to hear that particular message at this particular time.  Because it’s all too easy to look back over my life (especially the past six and a half years of it) and see a barren, locust-devastated wasteland.

I need to know that there is no such thing as coincidence.  I need to know that God is in control, and He is good.  And He is orchestrating everything—yes, everything—according to His own good plans.  Even for my life.  Even through all the apparent dead-ends and random bits and bites that don’t seem to lead anywhere or mean anything.

I believe it.  But I do, on a day-to-day basis, for all intents and purposes, forget that I believe it.

A Small and Piecemeal Life (and Learning to Be Okay with It)

I chuckled (humourlessly) when I saw this little drawing shared on Facebook the other day.  The chuckle was humourless because there’s nothing actually funny in the cartoon–just the straight-up, cold, hard truth.  I chuckled only from the recognition of shared experience.

When we read Proverbs 3:5-6, we may come away from the passage thinking that if we just trust and seek God, He’ll make our paths easy.  Clear.  Plain.  Smooth-sailing.  Non-confusing.  Without a single apparent dead end.  But the NKJV says it this way:  “And He shall direct your paths.”

What does that directing end up looking like?

In this race of life, I often feel as though He’s had me running around and around in circles.  For years.  Getting visibly nowhere.

And it may be the case that He’s had me running around and around in circles for years, getting visibly nowhere.  In the sports’ world, I think they call it a track.  The visible nowhere I’m getting is really an invisible somewhere.  It’s a place of training; of growth; of greater strength and endurance.

I think of Abraham wandering in circles around Canaan, just wandering and waiting for the promised son to appear.  But without that agonizing waiting time, would there have been a Mount Moriah?  Would Abraham’s faith have been strong enough to go through with the complete and total surrender of his long-expected son? (Even though God cut short the physical sacrifice of Isaac, the oh-so-necessary spiritual sacrifice was complete.)

*****************

I once thought (as most of us think) that I would “be” something when I “grew up.”  I mean, “be” one, specific something.  We’re trained from an early age to think so.  Adults (who we presumed already “were” something) would descend from their lofty heights down to kid level to ask the age-old, “So, what do you want to be when you grow up?”  If we didn’t know, we had to make something up on the spot.

We didn’t realize that a lot of adults have no idea what to say to kids, so they fall back on this time-worn conversation starter.  We also didn’t know that most adults still had no idea what they would “be” when they grew up and likely didn’t wear the title “grown-up” all that comfortably.  (They all looked ancient to us.)  We just assumed it was important that we “be” something someday because almost every adult we knew asked us the same question.

Well, I’m now a hair’s breadth away from forty-five, and I have less idea what I’ll “be” when I “grow up” (if that ever happens) than I had when I was knee-high to one of those lofty, ancient adults.  I’m indisputably one of them now.

But the indoctrination that I must “be” something has been deeply ingrained.  I don’t think that’s entirely the fault of the lofty, ancient adults in my younger life.  I think it also comes from my over-inflated sense of self-worth.  Shouldn’t a life as important as mine undoubtedly is (to myself, I mean) have one, great, abiding calling?  Some powerfully meaningful task laid upon me that only I can accomplish?  Call it a Hercules complex.

Am I alone on this one?  Or are you with me?

Yet, when I look around, the polestar of a profession or vocation that gives our lives meaning and purpose and value doesn’t often materialize.  The kid who, when he was five, was going to be an astronaut or a fireman or a policeman is now a garbage collector or a house painter or a UPS driver.  For now.  Among other things.  Until something better comes along.

When I was five (or a little older.  I don’t know how old, but I was young), I was going to “be” a missionary.  It wasn’t my idea.  At all.  In fact, when I received my “call” at that age, I cried from the sheer terror of the thought.  But (in a story too long to tell here) I knew that I had received some kind of undeniable calling.  (Receiving a “call” at a very young age may have been a large contributing factor in my Hercules complex, I realize.)  In fact, to this day, I don’t discount that experience.  All evidence to the contrary, I still can’t quite shake my certainty of this “calling.”  I still think I have to “be” a missionary.  I just have no idea now what that “being” looks like.

I’m at the tail end of a year in Mexico where I worked with a mission organization in a missionary kid school as a school secretary.  I thought maybe it would turn into something bigger.  I thought maybe my calling would find actualization and I’d see the next step forward to my life’s “being.”  But it hasn’t turned out that way (at present, at least).  I now have much less of an idea than I once thought I did as to what the rest of my life will look like.  Right now, it looks pretty much like a clean, blank slate.  I have to admit, it’s a little unnerving.

Not really in an attempt to find a sense of direction but more because I have a lot of time on my hands and I’ve been doing way too much thinking, I sat down the other day and made a list of all my passions and pastimes.  Some that don’t seem particularly significant.  And others that have, at one time or another, for one reason or another, pulled strongly at my heartstrings.  Maybe I was looking for a common thread, but here’s what I noticed instead:  None of the things I wrote down had any apparent relation to any of the others.  I mean, if I’m just supposed to “follow my passion” to find my life’s direction or area of ministry, I would have to somehow find a group of poor and disadvantaged, maybe disabled, Jewish-Muslim tribal people in a home-for-the-elderly/orphanage in Mexico to work amongst.  Not going to happen.  These different tugs on my heartstrings tug in entirely different directions.  They can’t all be my one life’s direction.

Similarly, what do writing, language-learning, house-building, acting and word puzzles all have in common?  Not a thing except that they’re all different interests of mine.

It’s still taking me time to process, but I’m coming to accept that my life may end up looking a little piecemeal.  Maybe I’ll build a tiny house, do some more writing, act in a local drama, keep learning a little Spanish here and there, and sit down to solve a word puzzle or two when I’m bored.  And maybe I’m drawn to Israel because I’ll travel there someday.  Maybe I’ll someday have a Syrian refugee neighbour to befriend or teach English.  Maybe I’ll resume my visits to my elderly friends in a local care home when I go back to my hometown.  Maybe some other segment of the population that sits heavily on my heart occupies the place it does in that organ for the sole purpose of causing me to pray for them.

My new understanding?  What a person does for a “living” is not what a person is.  And what a person does for a “living” (to call a spade a spade, how a person earns money) may change regularly.  And for myself, how I end up having enough money to survive (I don’t need much more) may not end up bearing any relationship to what I finally end up doing with large portions of my time.  But even when I finally end up doing something, doing should never be confused with being.

Maybe I’ll someday find that one area of ministry that finally ends up looking something akin to some kind of life’s mission.  I just don’t know.  And I just don’t know what shape that life’s mission may take on.  I now suspect it will look quite different than I once envisioned.  I still think it will involve cross-cultural ministry of some kind.  Mexico, in general, for me feels very unfinished.  It still has a very strong tug.  I sense a “To be continued…” written over the story of my year here.  But for now?  I’ll wait to be shown.  That’s all I can do (besides building the tiny house, writing, learning Spanish, acting, doing the word puzzles…)

 

Happiness Is…

Yesterday, I brushed past a Q & A with Ravi Zacharias on my way to another YouTube destination, but one of the questions a young lady asked him has stayed with me since then.  Essentially, she wanted to know why Ravi would recommend God to a person who is happy the way she is without Him.  In other words, “What can God do for me?  What can He add to my experience?”  And if the asker believes the answer to be, “Not much!  I don’t feel any need for what He has to offer!” then… why bother?

I didn’t stay long enough to hear Ravi’s answer.  But off and on all day, I thought about what I would say to her.

I arrived at the conclusion that the only answer I would have for the young woman is that the starting point of, “What can it do for me?” is the wrong starting point.  Where a person needs to start when considering the question of “Why God?” or “Why Jesus?” (meaning, “Why should I believe what the Bible has to say about God/Jesus?”) is a place, not of, “Does it make me happy?” but, “Is it true?”

Now, my reasoning is not that an individual’s happiness or unhappiness is unimportant in the God + humanity equation.  Quite the opposite!  While the starting point, “Does it make me happy?” seems a little narcissistic–at the very least self-centred–it’s a natural starting point.  Our own pain or pleasure levels are of vital importance to ourselves.  Of course they are!  They’re meant to be!  The Bible tells us that they’re of vital importance to God, too (but also that He’s an end-game thinker).  The Bible even teaches us that God experiences pain and pleasure and that our pain and pleasure levels directly affect God’s.

Now, the place of, “What makes God happy?” is obviously not the starting point for someone who has zero relationship with Him–who doesn’t care about God and His pain and pleasure levels; who doesn’t know Him at all; possibly doesn’t even believe there is a God.  That consideration is properly the first consideration for those who do know and love Him.  It’s one consideration that drives people to a mission field or other area of service, knowing from His own words and actions God’s passionate love for people, His joy in restored relationship with them, and His heartbreak over their rejection of and separation from Him.  It is (or should be) a more important consideration than my own personal happiness quotient.  But again, not the starting point for the one who doesn’t know Him.  That, I believe, must be the question, “Is it true?”

As I chewed it over all day yesterday, it occurred to me that, even from the young lady’s own (very natural) self-focused perspective, the starter question, “What’s true?” has to come before the question, “What makes me happy?”  The question of lasting happiness hinges on truth.  If happiness is based on something that isn’t true, then it can’t last.  Sooner or later, truth prevails.  And when it does, happiness built on a sham will crumble.  I’d be curious to ask the young lady if she’s after short-term happiness or the kind that lasts, even if it requires some short-term unhappiness. Because it is true that the truth often hurts.  Temporarily.  It hurts.  It doesn’t harm.  Only untruth harms, in the end.

Although, as Christians we should know better, having been well-warned by Jesus Himself, we do still tend to approach life as the young questioner on the Ravi Zacharias video.  We tend to live in a place of, “Does it make me happy?”; not, “Is it true?”

And if following Jesus was meant to make us happy (short-term), I don’t think He would have compared obedience to Him to walking the road to a cross.  To losing a life to find one.  To hating father, mother, sister, brother, etc. in comparison to a love for Him.  We have been well-warned.  A life spent following Him will not be easy.  It’s a promise.

The Passover

(An Excerpt from Portraits of Christ (from the Epistle to the Hebrews), a Bible Study by Connie Cook)

(From Hebrews 11:28 and Exodus 12)

Faith led Moses to establish the Passover and spread the blood on the doorposts so that the destroying angel would not kill the firstborn sons” (Hebrews 11:28).

Let’s start our look at the Passover today with the character Exodus 12:23 calls “the destroyer” as he is one of the key players.

It seems to me, from hearing this story told in Sunday School as a child, that “the destroyer” was always called “the death angel.”  From that title, I had gleaned the notion that “the destroyer” was one of God’s angels.  It seemed to me that God was the one who went through the land of Egypt and killed all the firstborn not protected by the blood of a lamb.  From Exodus, I can see where I gleaned that notion.

From Exodus 12:12-13, 23, and 29, God states clearly that He would be responsible for the slaying of the firstborn of Egypt.

The idea of God being responsible for the deaths of all the firstborn — children, adults, animals — presents a few mental hurdles we need to get over in order to understand this account properly.

The first mental hurdle to, er, hurdle is the necessity of death.  The first fact we need to grasp is that no one lives forever.  Because sin entered the world, because we’ve all sinned, we all will die one day.

And I’m grateful for it.  Who could want to live forever with this imperfection — in a world of genocides and war and child abuse and hatred and greed and oppression and pain and sorrow?  Who wants to live forever here when there’s a perfect reality waiting just around death’s corner?  I’ve come to realize that, because of sin, we all must die.  It was the only merciful solution once sin infected the world.

The next mental hurdle to be overcome is the realization that God is the one who has the right to decide when life should end.  While the killing of the innocent (relatively innocent, I mean) is a great wrong when any human performs that act, God is well within His rights to decide when is the proper time for any death to happen.  Everyone dies someday.  It’s up to God to decide when that day is.  He made my body and my soul.  It’s up to Him to choose when the two will go their separate ways.

If He chose that the lives of millions of firstborn in the land of Egypt should end on the night of the first Passover, well, all those lives would have ended in the not-too-distant future, anyway (like, seventy years or so in the future.  A short time in terms of eternity).  It was His call to make.

Then, the third mental hurdle to get over is seeing the respective roles of God and the one Exodus calls “the destroyer.”  Although God said repeatedly that He would be the one responsible for the deaths of the unprotected firstborn, I believe Exodus 12:23 makes it clear that it was the one called “the destroyer” who was directly responsible.  This verse changes the entire picture I had of the Passover as a child.  It was “the destroyer” who would strike the firstborn.  God was responsible for who died and who didn’t simply because He was in charge of allowing or not allowing the destroyer into the house.

It was God who struck the Egyptian firstborn (as stated in Exodus 12:12-13, 23, and 29), but He used an instrument to do the striking.  And that instrument was “the destroyer.”

“The destroyer” is not one of God’s angels.  God’s nature is essentially creative, not destructive.  He is responsible for the destruction that goes on in our world because Satan (whose nature is now essentially destructive) is still answerable to God.  Satan can do nothing that God refuses to him.  But the destruction belongs to him as God allows it to him.

The book of Job gives us this kind of a behind-the-scenes peek.  Satan was directly responsible for the havoc wreaked on Job and his family.  Yet at the end of the book, God came along and seemed quite willing to accept responsibility.  And that’s because He was responsible.  He is the one in ultimate control.  Satan can only act according to his destructive nature by God’s permission.  Yet God gives permission and uses Satan’s destruction only insofar as He can turn it to some good and loving purpose.

But for what good and loving purpose did God allow Satan to destroy the firstborn in Egypt?

I can see a few, obvious answers: For the purpose of freeing His people, His firstborn.  Then, for the purpose of showing Pharaoh, the Egyptians, and the rest of the world who is really God in order for the world to have the opportunity of knowing Him.  And for the purpose of encapsulating, in a moment of time, an object lesson that would illustrate the central event of our history that had been planned from all eternity past — that decisive battle in the cosmic war fought over our universe.

Let me share something with you that I learned about the Hebrew word for “pass over.”  I learned that the Hebrew word translated “pass over” in Exodus 12:23 is “pasach,” and it can carry the meaning, not only of passing over (as in, skipping over), but it can also be translated, “to halt.”

For years, I held the picture in my mind of God seeing the blood of the lamb on the doorposts and skipping over the house.  He “passed” it “over” for destruction and didn’t go in to kill the firstborn.  But when I think of “pasach” as “to halt,” I begin to get an entirely different picture of the Passover.

What happens if we substitute the word “halt” in Exodus 12:23 for the words “pass over.”

The LORD will go throughout Egypt to kill the Egyptians.  When he sees the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe, he will  [HALT] over that doorway, and he will not let the destroyer come into your house to kill you.”

Notice the wording of Exodus 12:23.  Over what part of the house would the Lord “halt”?

Right!  The doorway!

This new picture of mine lends such meaning to, what had always seemed to me to be, the random and arbitrary placement of the lamb’s blood on the two doorposts and on the crosspiece running horizontally along the top of the door (or the lintel).  There was nothing random and arbitrary about it.  There was enormous meaning in the location of the lamb’s blood.

This is the new understanding I now hold of what really happened at that first Passover:

God and His enemy went together through the land of Egypt to strike down the firstborn of all those who were the rightful property of God’s enemy.  This included everyone in the land.  Since the beginning of human history, each human inevitably, for a time, chooses to obey God’s enemy, thereby making Satan master.  Humanity has sold itself into Satan’s service.  And hard service — slavery — is Satan’s service.  Satan has the right to do as he wills with his property, and he wills to enslave and destroy.

Satan is only capable of destroying, and that was what he roamed throughout the land of Egypt that fateful night to do.  Destroy the firstborn of all those who had sold themselves to him.

Yet God wasn’t willing to see it happen. He wanted to buy back — redeem — a people for Himself.  His firstborn, Israel.

In Exodus 4:22-23, there’s a “life for a life,” a “firstborn for a firstborn,” kind of a situation happening.  If Pharaoh refused to give God back His firstborn, then God would require the life of Pharaoh’s firstborn in exchange.

But there was another exchange that had to happen first.  The people God had chosen as His firstborn had sold themselves (very cheaply — for promises of a freedom that turned into slavery) into Satan’s service.  God had chosen a people for His firstborn, but they were the property of His enemy.

Yet God had another Firstborn — His first Firstborn.  One who is the Firstborn from all eternity.

As God and Satan passed through the land of Egypt on that Passover night, God had given Satan access to all the firstborn — all those who were Satan’s own to do with as he wished.  But the problem was, that number included absolutely everyone.  And God wasn’t content with that state of affairs.  So God arranged a signal with His people.  He arranged for any who were willing to come over to His side, any who were tired of slavery and ready to serve God again, to signal their decision by painting blood on their doorposts and lintels.  By the “sprinkling of blood,” a household claimed for itself the protection that God had promised to all who obeyed — the protection of the blood of a lamb.

It’s where the faith of Hebrews 11:28 comes in.  It was a very simple act, but it was the acknowledgement back of it of who is really God that made it an act of faith.

Now, an interesting speculation occurs to me:  What if an Egyptian had noticed what the Israelites were up to?  What if an Egyptian had said to himself, “I don’t know what’s about to go down.  All I know is that Pharaoh and our gods are helpless against this Israelite God, and it sure looks like something else is about to happen.  I don’t know why these crazy Israelites are painting blood on their doors, but maybe … just in case, I’ll do the same thing”?  What would have happened to that Egyptian’s household?  Exodus 12:23 says that when God saw the blood on the door, He would pass over it.  Period.

I imagine if any Egyptians had been clever enough to copy their Israelite neighbours (through fear of the Israelite God) their firstborn would have been protected.  2 Peter 3:9 makes it plain that God is not willing that any should perish.

At any rate, to return to our reenactment of the first Passover, God and Satan went together throughout the land of Egypt, and Satan was allowed to enter any household and slay any firstborn who belonged to him.  But when they came to a house with the blood painted on the doorposts and the lintel, God “passed over” the door.  Not the house.  But the door.  He halted before that door.  In fact, He passed Himself over the door.  He barred Satan’s way.  He matched His hands to the bloody patches on the doorposts.  He put His head up against the bloody spot on the lintel.  He took up a “you-shall-not-pass-this-threshold” stance.

Satan had the right to the firstborn of those inside.  There could be no question about it.  All the inhabitants of all the houses had sold themselves willingly to Satan for no other sum than the sum of all the destruction Satan could heap on them.  But God was determined that any who were willing should be bought back by Him.  At the cost of His own blood.  His own life.

The lamb’s blood was only a symbol.  It wasn’t really any ordinary old lamb’s blood painted there on the doorposts and the lintel.  It was the blood of the Lamb of God.

Those who painted the blood on their doors were simply asking God for His protection from the destroyer.  They were admitting that they’d had enough of Satan and His slavery and destruction.  They were asking to be rescued.  And God will never turn a deaf ear or a blind eye to any who paint His blood on their doors to ask Him for rescue.  For those who say to Him, “Okay, I give in.  I’m willing for You to save me,” there’s nothing He won’t do.  He’s proved it.

It wasn’t only a “you-shall-not-pass-this-threshold” stance that God took with Satan.  On the cross, it was a “do-with-me-what-you-will” stance.  He opened Himself up to the worst the destroyer could do to Him, rather than let Satan get at his own rightful property.  There was another exchange of firstborns.  He redeemed back His firstborn, His people, at the cost of His true Firstborn — who was God Himself.

It was Satan’s right to destroy his own property, all those who had sold themselves into his service.  Yet God gave Himself in exchange, to buy back a people for Himself.  It was His own bloodied head and bloodied hands that left the bloody marks on the cross which the bloody marks on the doorposts and the lintel represented.

What a picture that first Passover paints of the kind of God to whom we are privileged to belong!

Have you painted His Lamb’s blood on your own “doorposts” and “lintel”?  Have you turned to Him for rescue from the destroyer?  Then, there’s nothing He wouldn’t do to rescue you.  Do you believe it?

 

Genesis 11

(An Excerpt from Portraits of Christ (from the Epistle to the Hebrews), a Bible Study by Connie Cook)

After the flood of Noah’s day, the next big event in the history of the world as told by Genesis is a happening called “the tower of Babel.”  We’ll need to touch down on this story before we can land on Abraham’s because the story of the tower of Babel sets the stage for the story of the beginning of the nation of Israel (which story was the story of Abraham’s life).  The tower of Babel comes in at the start of Genesis 11, right before Abraham comes in.

The “tower of Babel” was more than a tower.  It was a city and a tower (Gen. 11:4-5).  That’s an important fact to know because the reincarnation of the city of “Babel” becomes very important again later on in biblical history.  In fact, it becomes iconic.  And I believe the reason for its “iconic-ness” was the reason for the building of the tower and the city.

The people of Babel desired to build a tower “whose top may reach unto heaven” in order, a) to make a name for themselves and in order, b) to keep from being “scattered” all over the earth.

Funny thing!  As to their second motive, God had commanded them to scatter.  He issued this command to Noah and his descendants in Genesis 9:1:  “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.”  Humanity was meant to spread out and fill the earth.  Pretty hard to fill the earth if all of earth’s population has decided to cluster in one spot and to build a city large enough for that purpose.

Genesis 11:8 comments that God “scattered” the people abroad over the face of the whole earth.  When humanity disobeyed His command to fill the earth, He made sure they “scattered” one way or another.  We’ll discuss His means of “scattering” briefly in a moment.

It’s the a) motive I’d like us to concentrate most of our attention on today.  The builders of Babel wanted to make a name for themselves.  In other words, they were interested in self-glorification.

When I was much younger and learning this story in Sunday School, I had the idea that the goal of the builders was to build a tower tall enough to reach heaven — as in, God’s perfect home.  Even as a child, I thought it was a ridiculous idea.  (I suppose I’d had a little education on the immensity of outer space.)  Wherever God’s heaven happens to be, no one could build a tower that tall, I reasoned.

Reading the story as an adult, I now have a better understanding of the “heaven” in Genesis 11:4.  It’s an old English word which simply means “sky” in this context.  The builders of Babel wanted to build the first skyscraper.  In their tower-building, they weren’t thinking about God and His heaven at all.

The motives behind the building of Babel were ones of self-glorification and disobedience.  The motives behind Babel were the same motives behind eating the fruit of the tree that became the tree of death.  That fruit was the fruit of independence from God.  Self-first.  The fruit of the tree of life was the fruit of dependence on God.  Faith.  And here, in Genesis 11:1-9, is humanity, galloping down the same, old, well-trodden pathway of “flesh.”

Because of the motives for its building, Babel became a Scriptural icon of the way of the “flesh.”  It became iconic as the city, the nation, and the people of pride.  Self-worship.  Independence from God.  The city of Babel was eventually reborn as the city and nation of Babylon.

As I was thinking about writing today about the tower of Babel and the iconic city of Babylon, my thoughts turned instantly to Isaiah 14 — a passage descriptive of Satan’s fall through pride and self-glorification.  Isaiah 14 is addressed to “the king of Babylon” (v. 4).  That title as applied to Satan makes good sense when we understand what Babylon came to represent in the Bible.

My thoughts also simultaneously turned to the book of Revelation and “Babylon the Great” (at least, “Babylon” thought it was) (Rev. 17-18).  Again, I believe a major reason the name “Babylon” is given to the city and regime of the “man of sin” is because of Babylon’s representation of the pathway of pride.

When it comes to the city/tower of Babel as iconic of spiritual truth, I was not far off the mark in my childhood understanding, thinking the builders of Babel were attempting to reach heaven all on their own.  Contrary to the desire to build a tower to God’s heaven, though, I believe the desire behind the tower of Babel was the desire for total independence from God.  Humanity thought it could be its own god and make its own heaven.  That is the still the direction most take who attempt towers of Babel.  There are still those (astonishingly! Given the facts of human history!) who believe that we can create our own utopias on earth; that being our own gods will make a utopia of this earth.  Like Satan learned, that kind of effort is only building a skyscraper to hell.  Any striving to unseat God from His throne would turn into the foulest nightmare if it could be realized.  Thank God it never can!  He proved it in Genesis 11.

There are fewer and fewer who believe in God’s heaven at all, but there are still some, believing in  God’s heaven, who take the route of thinking they can make it to God’s heaven by their own efforts of goodness.  This is another form of the tower of Babel.  We have to understand that any attempt to reach heaven that exalts self, thereby debasing God, can never lead to heaven.

Can you see the foolishness of trying to reach God while ignoring what He has to say on the subject of how He can be reached?  In fact, He does want to be reached.  But He can only be reached on His own initiative.  Unless heaven reached down to us, we could never reach up to heaven.

Back to the literal Babel, if God had let humanity go on in its natural course, the world would shortly have found its way back to the state it was in in the days of Noah.  With their unity of language, God saw that, “…nothing will be restrained from them…”  (Gen. 11:6).  Whatever they chose to do they would do.  But God had promised Noah never to destroy the earth again (by water).  At Babel, God found a gentler, less extreme, but equally effective method of stopping humanity in its wayward tracks.

From Genesis 11:7, it seems that God created the seeds of all the nations of the world by creating the seeds of all the different languages.  Then, He supernaturally separated people into language groups and so “scattered” them, dividing them through language.

The next thing we see from Genesis is God, busy doing His creating work of separating out for Himself a special nation; calling one of those nations created at the tower of Babel to be His own people.  And that nation would also be iconic — iconic of the people of faith.

He had (and has) an inheritance for that nation, Hebrews 11:8 and Genesis 12:1-7 tell us.  But that inheritance is claimed only through faith.  We’ll see more of it a little later on.

The end of Genesis 11 may look like verse after verse of irrelevant detail.  Not so!  What I’d like us to notice today from the end of Genesis 11 is something that struck me just recently — the method God used to guide Abram.  A method He often employs in His guidance of me.

Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot (the son of Haran), and his daughter-in-law Sarai, wife of his son Abram.  They set out together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan.  When they came as far as Haran, they stayed there” (Gen. 11:31).

Compare this verse with Hebrews 11:8: “Faith enabled Abraham to obey when God called him to go to a place that he would receive as an inheritance.  Abraham left his own country without knowing where he was going.”

When I first noticed Genesis 11:31 — really noticed it, possibly for the first time ever — I recognized God’s method of guidance instantly from my own experience.  God led Abram without telling him exactly where he was going.  Hebrews 11:8 is very clear on that point.  Boy, do I recognize that method!

The meaning I find in Genesis 11:31 is this: Abram and his family were already on their way to Canaan.  We’re not told why.  But it was the direction in which they had been moving.  In Genesis 12:1-3, when God spoke to Abram to call him to a land that He would show him, Abram’s family had already been travelling toward it.  Putting together Genesis 11:31 with Hebrews 11:8 and the information that Abram had no idea where he was going when he set out gives me this picture of God’s guidance:

God:  “Abram, get moving, and I’ll bring you to a land I’m going to give you.”

Abram:  “Uh, okay.  Which way?”

God: (silence).

Abram:  “Hmm!  Well, Dad was taking us off to Canaan.  The only thing I know is that I’m not supposed to go back to Ur.  Canaan’s in the opposite direction.  Uh, God?  Should I just keep moving forward in the direction of Canaan, then?”

God: (silence).

I suppose I visualize Abram’s calling in this way, having experienced this method of God’s guidance so  regularly myself.  Here’s a little sampling of the way God often guides me:

Me:  “Lord, You know I want to do Your will in this situation.  Just not sure what it is.  Any thoughts on the matter?”

God: (silence).

Me:  “Okay, then.  Well, I was thinking of doing such-and-such.  It was kind of the direction I was heading already.  Any thoughts on the matter?”

God: (silence).

Me:  “Okay, Lord.  I guess I’ll go ahead with such-and-such, then.  You’ll stop me if it’s the wrong way, right?”

God: (silence).

He is the God who speaks.  It’s one of the first characteristics of His that we need to know.  All the same, He doesn’t talk just to fill airtime.  He speaks when He has something to say that we need to hear.

Terah was already leading Abram and co. off to Canaan-land.  God had already been guiding Terah, probably unbeknownst to Terah.  All God needed to do was get Abram on the hoof again.  He didn’t need to change his direction.

In Genesis 12:6-7, we read of God speaking to Abram again — this time in Shechem in Canaan.  God says (in effect), “Look around!  This is it!  You’re here.”  I looked up Shechem on a map.  It’s pretty much right smack-dab in the middle of the land of Israel.  How long had Abram been wandering around in his promised inheritance before God let him know he was in the right place?  Probably for some little time.

To finish off my scenario of God’s guidance in my life, I’ll sometimes find myself in a situation that resulted from a decision made weeks, months, or years earlier, after seeking God’s leading and hearing only His silence.  But in the middle of the later situation, then I’ll hear God’s voice.  “Look around!  This is it!  You’re here.  I didn’t need to speak to you earlier.  I knew you’d go the way I had planned all along.  Whether you can see it or not, I will always guide the one seeking to go My way.”

Why does God seem to delight in leading us through the midst of uncertainty and silence?  I think there can only be one answer:  He leads us on the pathway of faith.  And what is faith?

Here are three definitions for you, hinted at in the book of Hebrews:  Faith is the sight that sees the unseen.  Faith is believing that God is who He is and that He rewards the diligent seeker.  Faith is dependence on God.

It’s that last definition particularly that I see through God’s method of guidance in Abram’s life (and mine).  He delights in leading us through uncertainty, in the midst of silence, because He delights in growing our faith.  It is of vital importance to Him that we learn total dependence on Him.  (“For we walk by faith, not sight,” (2 Cor. 5:7) is a verse we’re going to see acted out a lot in the Christian life.)

Yet faith in God is never gullibility.  It’s never blind faith.  It’s the lack of faith that is blindness.  But there is certainly an aspect to the walk of faith that feels to us as though we’re stumbling along blindly.  Faith is not blind, but the walk of faith often leads us through dark places.  We can’t see where we’re going; all we can see is the One leading us, step-by-step.  And He often seems to be veiled in a thick fog.

Now.  I want to tie God’s leading in Abram’s life back into the city/tower of Babel.  We walk by faith, not sight.  We walk by the sight that sees the unseen.  The way of faith is the way of dependence on God.  Conversely, then, the way of the flesh is the way of dependence on the visible and dependence on self.

Israel started off as a tiny, invisible nation.  Very invisible.  The people of Babel were all about the visible.  The very visible.

The children of Abraham go out, not seeing where they’re going.  The Babel-ites build cities so they don’t have to go anywhere.  Certainly not anywhere they can’t see or understand.

When God started forming His little, fledgling nation — iconic of the faith-pathway — He began with Abram “…not knowing whither he went…”  Perhaps it was the only way God could start off a faith-nation.  All this has great relevance to us.  We must know that God’s people will and must encounter a whole lot of walking by faith, not sight.  God’s leading will often mean a great deal of uncertainty that teaches us dependence on Him.  The only way to claim our inheritance is by faith.  Not sight.

One more thought, and then we’re done.  I need to get Psalm 127:1 in here somewhere because it seems to me that, “Except the LORD build the house, they labor in vain that build it…” has to come somewhere into a post about the city and tower of Babel.

True enough!  If God doesn’t want a house (or tower) built, it just, plain doesn’t get built.  (God is the Builder of everything, as we learn from Hebrews 3:4.)  If God doesn’t keep a city, the watchmen can’t keep it.  But if God does build a house, it stays built.  Even the gates of hell have no power against it (Matthew 16:18).  Hasn’t the little nation of Israel proven the truth of it time and again?

The way of the flesh and the visible looks safe and sound.  The way of faith looks scary and uncertain.  But the visible gives poor security for our deposit.  Faith is the only way of safety and security.