"Commit"

Many times i've read the statements in the Bible that we should "commit" our ways or our plans to God, and the promises that He would bless those things in return. And I've always been confused by this because i had no idea how, practically, I was supposed to "commit" anything. Usually i assumed it was related to the idea of "give," like i was supposed to give the thing to God. But that seemed to be practically meaningless since I was still responsible, at least to some degree, to take care of the thing. I couldn't really "give" him my responsibilities.

But the other day i think God helped me stumble across something that has been helping me with this. What i've been doing is thinking of it in terms of stewardship - I "give" it to God in that it is His ministry, but i still take care of it - not as an owner but as a steward. It's God's ministry - He owns it, He is ultimately responsible for it, and it operates to serve Him, but i do my best to take care of it as a hired manager. Thinking of it this way has been working pretty well so far.

"Individuals"

Have you noticed how many times, when we're talking about people, we refer to them as individuals? On the news, in church, in writing, all the time, even when a person's individuality is irrelevant to the topic. Even when we refer to groups we'll say how many "individuals" there were - when the point of the statement is to understand them as a group! It's as if we think the defining characteristic of a person is their individuality. Do we really think we need to keep reminding ourselves of our individual-ness? Is it that sacred to us? Why don't we just call them "people"?

The Lord is my shepherd,
He doesn't let me get into situations too dangerous for me.
He protects me.
He gives me what I need.
He gives me rest.

You might be a preacher if . . .

. . . "entire sanctification" is one of your autotype entries in your word processor.

A Bad Apologetic for American Religious Freedom

It's the national day of prayer, and my local Christian radio station is talking about how we need to remember that "our nation was founded on Christian principles," and they're saying that because of this people have no right to change our laws in any way that would limit Christian religious freedom or obscure our nation's religious heritage. I've heard this argument so many times, and i don't think it holds water.

I am a Christian, I'm all for religious freedom, and I'd love to live in a country where they pray in Jesus' name and read the Bible in school. But saying that our nation was founded on certain principles and therefore we shouldn't change them doesn't hold up.

The United States, when it was created, had built in to its government the ability to change its government. And since its creation we've changed a ton of things. Its the way the system works. The government adapts to suit the ethics and beliefs of the people. When the majority of the people are Christians, the government is going to reflect that set of ethics. Most Christians like this kind of adaptation. But when most of the people aren't Christians, the government adapts to that too. It's the way the system works.

We don't tell the Islamic nations that, because they were founded on strict Islamic law, they shouldn't change. Many Christians and many others want to see the hard-line Islamic nations change their rules because we believe those rules are unfair. We don't believe that the past justifies the present when we're talking about anyone else. We only use that argument if it works in our favor.

Again, i'd love it if our country was still a run by Christian principles. But arguing that it should be because it was in the past isn't going to convince anyone. The problem is not the laws - the laws just reflect the people. We made it that way. We should stop whining when it doesn't work in our favor.

Which is the greater tragedy - that a minority of Americans are losing some of their religious freedom, or that a majority of Americans are living without the freedom that is found in Christ? Lets focus on the real problem.