Do you really have your own mind?

This quote is obviously from a book written before the age of the internet, but it is still very relevant to today. It makes me want to spend even more time actually reading and thinking on things than I already do.

"There is some feeling nowadays that reading is not as necessary as it once was. Radio and especially television have taken over many of the functions once served by print, just as photography has taken over functions once served by painting and other graphic arts. Admittedly, television serves some of these functions extremely well; the visual communication of news events, for example, has enormous impact. The ability of radio to give us information while we are engaged in doing other things--for instance, driving a car-- is remarkable, and a great saving of time. But it may be seriously questioned whether the advent of modern communications media has much enhanced our understanding of the world in which we live. 

Perhaps we know more about the world than we used to, and insofar as knowledge is prerequisite to understanding, that is all to the good. But knowledge is not as much a prerequisite to understanding as is commonly supposed. We do not have to know  everything about something in order to understand; too many facts are often as much of an obstacle to understanding as too few. There is a sense in which we moderns are inundated with facts to the detriment of understanding.

One of the reasons for this situation is that the very media we have mentioned are so designed as to make thinking seem unnecessary (though this is only an appearance). The packaging of intellectual positions and views is one of of the most active enterprises of some of the best minds of our day. The viewer of television, the listener to radio, the reader of magazines, is presented with a whole complex of elements--all the way from ingenious rhetoric to carefully selected data and statistics--to make it easy for him to 'make  up his own mind' with the minimum of difficulty and effort. But the packaging is often done so effectively that the viewer, listener, or reader does not make up his own mind at all. Instead, he inserts a packaged opinion into his mind, somewhat like inserting a cassette into a cassette player. He then pushes a button and 'plays back' the opinion whenever it seems appropriate to do so. he has performed acceptably without having had to think." pgs 3-4

- Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren

from: http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Touchstone-book/dp/0671212095/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359163488&sr=8-1&keywords=how+to+read+a+book

Flattery vs. Encouragement

  I tend not to trust people who spend a lot of time flattering others. Not just someone who pays a compliment here or there, or someone who encourages you in an area that you're struggling with, but someone who constantly praises those around them. In many cases, flattery is disingenuous. It often makes me wonder what the true motives of the flatterer might be (and those motives usually show up clearly when you don't respond to the flattery). The truth is as humans we have sins and failures along with gifts and God-given good qualities. To focus too heavily on one part of someone could lead to either a condemning judgment of someone or a building up of the person's pride. Not to say that we shouldn't spend time in a place of repentance for our sins and failures, which is an integral part of the Christian life, or in thanksgiving for the goodness that God cultivates in His children. But if we only flatter others, we aren't acknowledging who they actually are as human beings and aren't learning how to really love them. Real love takes into account both the good and the bad in others (and ourselves), being willing to be open about our sins, pains, and desires with each other. 

  I didn't necessarily connect flattery to something as serious as being used to control another person, however, until I started reading up on the subject. I also realized that I've actually seen it happen in various relationships I've been in or other's relationships around me. Flattery is many times used to manipulate those who have a low view of themselves and is usually coupled with all sorts of dangerous designs on the part of the flatterer. In my own experience, it seemed some people used flattery to distract me from the fact that they were doing something in their life that didn't add up to being a follower of Jesus and they didn't want anyone calling them on it. Or in other cases, flattery was used to try to get close enough to me that they could actually harm me either emotionally or spiritually. I've seen flatterers divide families, cause bitter fights between friends, and ultimately lead people to trust the flatterer in ways that they should never be trusted. It seems at times almost like a fog that blinds those being flattered. Their insecurities are being pulled on and the flatterer makes them feel good, so how could the flatterer ever have any evil intentions? One thing I've learned over the years, evil is not always done overtly. Subtlety is much more effective when one wants to commit something truly wicked.

So, I would encourage you to always pray when you come into contact with a flatterer. They may not always mean you harm, but the Lord can definitely let you know and protect you from getting into a close relationship with someone who does. Thankfully He's gotten me out of some terrible situations with people who tried very hard to control and manipulate me for their own sinful desires. 

Here's some further reading that really got me thinking about all of this: 

Bible verses that talk about flattery:

http://www.openbible.info/topics/flattery

How flattery is used in psychological manipulation:

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

"We usually like to think that we can spot flattery from a mile away, but unfortunately this is rarely the case. In the first place, we don’t see flattery for what it is because we really don’t want to. This brand of cunning toadyism is designed to maneuver your ego to a point at which it obscures your common sense and then proceed to swell it and swell it until it is quite impossible to see around it unless the most assiduous efforts are made. And by this point we are usually feeling a sort of bloated complacency which unfortunately results in a crippling inability to see clearly. And this makes perfect sense when you think about it: why on earth would you question something that makes you feel so good?":

http://ridiculouslikeafox.blogspot.com/2010/09/four-tools-of-manipulation-part-three.html

"Kolakeria (Greek)

There is a difference between encouragement and flattery. The Greek definition of flattery means "motives of self-interest". If someone uses flattery on you, they want something. On the other hand, when someone says they like the way you play the piano or guitar they are trying to say, "your edication to learning to play an instrument is becoming evident." That is encouragement. That kind of encouragement will cause someone to continue the pursuit of their craft, free from the strife that comes from trying to live up to the overstatements.":

http://www.voiceofthetrumpet.org/blog/2011/08/05/Flattery-by-Don-Potter.aspx

"Whoever said that "flattery will get you nowhere" didn't know what he was talking about. Flattery as a religious mind-manipulative technique works remarkably well. Droves of men and women are rushing to embrace the esoteric doctrines of the New Age Movement, complete with its flattering messages of self-deification, self-redemption, and self-enlightenment.

But why would humanity embrace this obvious grand illusion of self-deification? After all, even a casual observation of human nature - with all its corruption, evil-intent, and degradation - completely blows the idea of self-deification out of the water.

Anton LaVey's earlier statement gives us a clue; "…it makes them all feel good." :

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/teichrib/flattery.htm

Christianity vs. Religion

"Most people in the world believe that if there is a God, you relate to God by being good. Most religions are based on that principle, though there are a million different variations on it. Some religions are what you might call nationalistic: You connect to God, they say, by coming into our people group and taking on the markers of society membership. Other religions are spiritualistic: You reach God by working your way through certain transformations of consciousness. Yet other religions are legalistic: There's a code of conduct, and if you follow it God will look upon you with favor. But they all have the same logic: If I perform, if I obey, I'm accepted. The gospel of Jesus is not only different from that but diametrically opposed to it: I'm fully accepted in Jesus Christ, and therefore I obey." pg 39

"The gospel of Jesus Christ is an offense to both religion and irreligion. It can't be co-opted by either moralism or relativism. 

...The moralist says, 'The good people are in and the bad people are out--and of course we're the good ones.' The self-discovery person says, 'Oh, no, the progressive, open-minded people are in and the judgmental bigots are out--and of course we're the open-minded ones.' In Western cosmopolitan culture there's an enormous amount of self-righteousness. We progressive urbanites are so much better than people who think they're better than other people. We disdain those religious, moralistic types who look down on others. Do you see the irony, how the way of self-discovery leads to as much superiority and self-righteousness as religion does?

The gospel does not say, 'the good are in and the bad are out,' nor 'the open-minded are in and the judgmental are out.' The gospel says the humble are in and the proud are out. The gospel says the people who know they're not  better, not more open-minded, not more moral than anyone else, are in, and the people who think they're on the right side of the divide are most in danger.

Jesus himself said this to the Pharisees earlier when he told them, 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners' (Mark 2:15-17). When Jesus says he is not coming for the 'righteous,' he does not mean that some people don't need him. The clue to what Jesus does mean is his reference to himself as a physician. You go to a doctor only when you have a health problem that you can't deal with yourself, when you feel you can't get better through self-management. What do you want from a doctor? Not just advice--but intervention. You don't want a doctor to simply say, 'Yes, you sure are sick!' You want some medicine or treatment. 

Jesus calls people 'righteous' who are in the same position spiritually as those who won't go to a doctor. 'Righteous' people believe they can 'heal themselves,' make themselves right with God by being good or moral. They don't feel the need for a soul-physician, someone who intervenes and does what they can't do themselves. Jesus is teaching that he has come to call sinners: those who know they are morally and spiritually unable to save themselves.

Because the Lord of the Sabbath said, 'It is finished,' we can rest of religion--forever."

pgs 46-47

-Tim Keller

from: http://www.amazon.com/Kings-Cross-Story-World-Jesus/dp/0525952101/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357684516&sr=1-1&keywords=king%27s+cross

Keller, Timothy. King's Cross: The Story Of The World In The Life Of Jesus. New York: Penguin, 2011. 

The Rise of Deism and It's Affect On Relationships

"For the millennia that passed before the Enlightenment, the vast majority of humans on the planet believed that in the beginning, God--or gods or some impersonal mass of cosmic energy--created the heavens and the earth. Scientific discoveries and philosophical developments that emerged in the seventeenth century would undermine this belief in the West. But this chapter isn't about creation. It's about the far more subtle change of perspective that germinated in the Enlightenment and later took root deep in the modern Western mind, permanently affecting the way Westerners--including Western Christians--understand the way the world works.

For Christians before, during and after the Enlightenment, belief in creation includes an important assumption about the relationship between God and his creation. Christians have always believed that God not only created the universe but also actively maintains it. All things have their being in God's creative act, and they continue to exist because of his ongoing support (Acts 17:28; Colossians 1:17; Revelation 4:11). God knows the number of hairs on our heads and when a sparrow falls from the sky (Matthew 10:29-30). Scripture attests that God has established certain natural processes to keep the universe spinning the way it should. In the very beginning, God made the moon to mark the seasons; likewise, 'the sun knows when to go down' (Psalm 104:19). It doesn't need daily instructions. Plants and animals produce 'according to their kinds' (Genesis 1). Nonetheless, the conviction remained that God is intimately involved even in these seemingly natural phenomena. God 'sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous,' after all (Matthew 5:45). In fact, the Bible teaches that God's relationship with his creatures and creation is such that he can at times interrupt the natural order of things to bring judgment on the unrighteous--as when the sun stood still until Israel 'avenged itself on its enemies' (Joshua 10:13) or when God parted the Red Sea and secured deliverance for his people (Exodus 14:21-30). The most significant case of God's intervention in the natural order, of course, was when he raised Jesus from the dead. 

In short, God's people have always recognized divinely ordained laws and patterns in nature. At the same time, they have maintained that God is not confined  by these laws. His intimate relationship with his creation enables him to bend his 'natural' laws when it suits his purposes. Most non-Western Christians still feel this way. They don't believe in coincidence. I (Randy) was praying with a group of Indonesians about a serious matter. We were uncertain if God wished us to proceed. On that clear day, we suddenly heard a boom of thunder. I scarcely noticed and continued praying. My friends all stood up to leave. Clearly God had spoken (Psalm 18:13). 

The Western understanding of this relationship between Creator and creation was among the first casualties of the Enlightenment. Through advances in mathematics, physics, astronomy and medical science, Western intellectuals learned more about the fixed rules or laws by which the universe operates. For some Western Christians, such discoveries increased their awe of and dependence upon the Creator God. New England pastor and theologian Jonathan Edwards, for example, believed that 'the things of the world are ordered [and] designed to shadow forth spiritual things.' Based on the orderliness of creation, Edwards concluded, 'We see that even in the material world God makes one part of it strangely to agree with another; and why is it not reasonable to suppose he makes the whole as a shadow of the spiritual world?' So, for example, 'The sun's so perpetually, for so many ages, sending forth his rays in such vast profusion, without any diminution [sic] of his light and heat, is a bright image of the all-sufficiency and everlastingness of God's bounty and goodness.' The more Edwards learned about the laws--the divine laws--that governed the cosmos, the more he understood about the Creator himself. 

Many other Western Christians, however, became convinced that the universe is a closed system in which God no longer plays an active role. On the whole, the Western world did not abandon the idea of a Creator until the nineteenth century. What changed first was our understanding of God's relationship to the cosmos. Sure, God created the heavens and the earth. Before Darwin's theory of evolution sparked humans to look at other aspects of the universe through the lens of natural law, most folks assumed God made the material world. However, Westerners increasingly assumed that God no longer tampered with the world he had made. He was a master watchmaker who skillfully creates a quality timepiece, winds it up and then lets it run on its own. No longer was God assumed to be the sustainer and maintainer of the universe. He was now a distant deity whose relationship to creation ceased after the event of creation. He left the world to operate according to rules and laws, which he prescribed. The God of the deists, whom we've been describing, was a creative genius, but he was not an engaged father. Increasing knowledge of the natural world did not, in general, inspire greater awe of and dependence upon God, but less. 

This new view of God's relationship to the universe had enormous implications. It has affected how Westerners view all of life and, truly, all our relationships. If God created the universe to operate by prescribed rules, we think, he must have created everything to operate by established rules. The most faithful way to emulate God's activity in the world is to establish rules for nations, states, cities, and families. Our job as humans is to create little universes with rules that imitate the rules God put in place to govern creation. God planned laws and principles in the world, this view says, and it is the duty of humans to discern them and apply them to our different needs. This new perspective is clear from writings that shaped Western culture, especially North American culture, in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations powerfully and persuasively demonstrated how economics behave according to fixed and predictable laws, just like the universe itself. Common Sense applied natural law to politics. Ben Franklin looked to natural law as a guide for morality. Franklin was raised by pious Calvinist parents but rejected traditional religious views by his teen years, when he had decisively become a deist. He set out to identify morality in nonreligious terms. 'I grew convinced,' Franklin explained in his autobiography, 'that truth, sincerity, and integrity in dealings between man and man were of the utmost importance to the felicity of life.' Nature and experience told him that. The command of God impressed him very little. 'Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such,' because a person could determine how best to live simply by discerning the laws that governed human behavior. To be moral, one must determine what principles or laws produce the desired results in society. There effectiveness approves their value. 

Today Westerners have a tendency to view all relationships in terms of rules or laws. The way we relate to the cosmos, to each other and to God is determined in large part by reference to natural and even spiritual 'laws.' This, of course, influences the way Westerners read the Bible. In this chapter we'll look at two ways this view of reality affects the way Westerners misread the Bible: relationships as rules, and rules excluding relationships." pgs 157-160

- E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O'brien

from: http://www.amazon.com/Misreading-Scripture-Western-Eyes-Understand/dp/0830837825/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357955233&sr=1-1&keywords=misreading+scripture+with+western+eyes

Richards, E. Randolph and O'brien, Brandon J. Misreading Scripture Through Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders To Better Understand the Bible. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2012. 

Body vs. Spirit

After having a discussion with someone during a Bible study last week, it got me thinking about the times when I have mistaken the meaning of a passage by reading into it my own beliefs through my own cultural lenses (i.e. White, Female, Middle-class, American, Western World, etc). I've been reading a couple of books lately that communicate just how much I do need to pay attention to how I read and study the Bible, being careful to learn the actual intended meaning of each passage. Being so far removed from the culture and happenings of the authors of the Bible, it is very important to learn about the context that the books of the Bible are written in. There are many specifics that we tend to overlook, such as original language/translation, culture, class structure, relationships between males and females, geography, etc. What the original hearers understood can be vastly different than what we understand the Scriptures to mean in various areas. If we are not careful to learn the context of what we read in the Bible, we can end up adding to the Scriptures or taking away from them, and in doing so, we end up misunderstanding God even more than we already do. 

  The first part of the 8th chapter in Romans brought up in conversation the idea that is prevalent in Western culture, that the spirit of a person is somehow more important or "higher" than the body. This comes from the Greek philosophy of Neo-Platonism. The idea that we should look down on the body and focus only on our souls or spirit, is actually not Biblical. In reality, both our bodies AND our souls are fallen, and both need to be redeemed by Jesus and what He did on the cross. In the life to come, we will be getting new spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians 15:35-49), not floating around like ethereal ghosts or becoming angels. Think about this: why would Jesus have bothered to heal those who were sick around Him if the body had not been important to Him and God the Father? And why would Jesus have bothered to come back to life in a body, still possessing the scars of His death, if the body is not important even now?

   This philosophy even plagued the New Testament writers and churches when the Gnostics (http://carm.org/gnosticism) started preaching a false gospel, claiming that Jesus wasn't actually Divine and human, and that when He was resurrected from the dead, He did not have a physical body. This goes against all of the New Testament writings. The gospels say that Jesus is the Son of God and is one with Him. Jesus came to earth as a human, the Word wrapped in flesh (John 1:1-18). And after Jesus rose from the dead, He was seen by hundreds in a physical body, including Thomas who physically stuck his fingers into Jesus' wounds (http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Luke/Resurrection-Jesus). Paul stresses in 1 Corinthians 15 that there were over 500 witnesses, including himself to the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and that if Jesus had not been resurrected in a body, there would be no reason to follow Christ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2015&version=ESV). 

  If we start to ignore the importance of the body, we ignore what God created and called "good." He didn't say "Oh I'll create these guys in these disgusting bodies now, but eventually it'll work out how I'd rather it to be. They'll just be souls floating about in the clouds." I would encourage you to read or re-read the account of Creation in Genesis and see how God reacted to each of His creations 'in the flesh.' Now this is not to say that everything that happens with the body now is therefore to good. Like I said above, our bodies are fallen too. We experience pain, physical illness, disability, and eventually death in these bodies because of sin. But that doesn't mean that the body is therefore unimportant to God. We tend to lean in that direction, I think, because we want to come up with another explanation as to why God might not heal us or others we love. I can't say that I know the specific reasons as to why God doesn't heal when we would like Him to, and at other times does, but I will definitely say that it's not because He looks down on the body. 

Here's the passage and a section from the IVP Bible New Testament commentary on the passage:

"Life in the Spirit

8 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.[a] 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you[b] free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,[c] he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus[d] from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." Romans 8:1-11 (ESV)

"8:1-11

People of the Spirit Versus People of the Flesh

In the Old Testament 'flesh' could designate any mortal creature but especially designated human beings. It connoted weakness and mortality, especially when contrasted with God and his Spirit (Genesis 6:3; Isaiah 31:3; cf. Psalm 78:39). By the New Testament period this connotation of weakness was extended to moral weakness, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and could be translated 'human susceptibility to sin,' or 'self-centeredness' as opposed to 'God-centeredness.' A life ruled by the flesh is a life dependent on finite human effort and resources, a selfish life as opposed to one directed by God's Spirit. Paul's use of 'flesh' and 'Spirit' refers to two spheres of existence -- in Adam or in Christ -- not to two natures in a person. 

'Flesh' per se is not evil in the New Testament writings; Christ 'became flesh' (John 1:14), thought not 'sinful flesh' (Romans 8:3). (The NIV translation 'sinful nature' can be misleading, because some people today think of spirit and flesh as two natures within a person where as 'Spirit' here is God's Spirit -- it is not a special part of a person but the power of God's presence. Romans 7:15-25 describes a struggle of two aspects of human personality -- reason and passions -- trying to fulfill divine morality by human effort; but this struggle is not in view here, where people either live that struggle by the flesh or accept God's gift of righteousness by the Spirit. The radical bifurcation of a human being into a morally upright 'spiritual' part versus an immoral 'bodily' part is a Neo-Platonic idea foreign to Paul. It was first introduced into the interpretation of the New Testament by Gnostics and would not have been the natural interpretation to Jewish readers or to Gentile Christians who knew about the Spirit.)

But flesh, mere bodily existence and human strength, is mortal and inadequate to stand against sin (which abuses bodily members that could have been harnessed instead by the Spirit). Although the term is used flexibly in the Bible, in one sense we are flesh (especially in the Old Testament use of the term); the problem is not that people are flesh but that they live life their own way instead of by God's power and grace. The New Testament does sometimes distinguish the human body from the soul, but this distinction is not the point of the contrast between walking according to the flesh and walking according to the Spirit (8:4).

The Spirit especially anointed God's people to prophesy in the Old Testament but also endowed them with power to do other things. Here, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls and occasionally in the Old Testament, the Spirit enables a person to live rightly (see especially Ezekiel 36:27). In Judaism, the Spirit indicated God's presence; here the Spirit communicates the very presence, power and character of Christ. 

8:1-4. Paul's point here is that whether the law brings life or death depends on whether it is written in one's heart by the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:27) or practiced as an external standard of righteousness, which is unattainable by human effort (cf. 3:27;9:31-32, 10:6-8)

8:5-8. Philosophers often urged people to set their minds on eternal things rather than on the transitory affairs of this world. Philo condemned those whose minds were taken up with the matters of the body and its pleasures. Philosophers divided humanity into the enlightened and the foolish; Judaism divided humanity into Israel and the Gentiles. Paul here divides humanity into two classes: those who have the Spirit (Christians) and those left to their own devices. 

Some people believed that inspiration came only when the human mind was emptied, as in some Eastern mysticism. But Paul speaks of the 'mind of the Spirit' as well as the 'mind of the flesh.' Instead of opposing reason and inspiration, he contrasts reasoning that is merely human (and thus susceptible to sin) with reasoning that is directed by God's inspiration. 

8:9. Most Jewish people did not claim to have the Spirit; they believed that the Spirit would be made available only in the time of the end. After the Messiah had come, all those who were truly God's people would have the Spirit working in them (cf. Isaiah 44:3; 59:21; Ezekiel 29:29).

8:10. Jewish people in this period usually distinguished soul and body, just as the Greeks did, although for Jews the division actually functioned only at death. (Some Jewish writers were more influenced by Greek categories than others.) But Paul does not say here that the (human) 'spirit is alive' (NIV, NASB); literally he claims that the 'Spirit is life' (KJV, NRSV, TEV). Thus he means that the body was still under death's sentence, but the Spirit who indwells believers would ultimately resurrect their bodies (8:11). 

8:11. Jewish people believed that God would raise the dead at the end of the age. Paul modifies this teaching only by one step: God has already raised Jesus, and this event is a sure sign that the rest of the resurrection will happen someday. " pgs 428-429

-Craig S. Keener

from: http://www.amazon.com/The-IVP-Bible-Background-Commentary/dp/0830814051/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357868717&sr=8-1&keywords=the+ivp+bible+background+commentary+new+testament

"Follow the Thread"

"About 150 years ago George MacDonald wrote a children's book called The Princess and the Goblin . Irene, the protagonist, is eight years old. She has found an attic room in her house, and every so often her fairy grandmother appears there. When Irene goes to look for her she's often not there, so one day her grandmother gives her a ring with a thread tied to it, leading to a little ball of thread. She explains that she'll keep the ball. 

'But I can't see it,' says Irene. 

'No. The thread is too fine for you to see it. You can only feel it.' With this reassurance, Irene tests the thread. 

'Now, listen,' says the grandmother, 'if ever you find yourself in any danger...you must take off your ring and put it under the pillow of your bed. Then you must lay your forefinger...upon the thread, and follow the thread wherever it leads you.'

'Oh, how delightful! It will lead me to you, Grandmother, I know!'

'Yes,' said the grandmother, 'but, remember, it may seem to you a very roundabout way indeed, and you must not doubt the thread. Of one thing you may be sure, that while you hold it, I hold it too.' A few days later Irene is in bed, and goblins get into the house. She hears them snarling out in the hallway, but she has the presence of mind to take off her ring and put it under the pillow. And she begins to feel the thread, knowing it's going to take her to her grandmother and to safety. But to her dismay, it takes her outside, and she realizes that it's taking her right toward the cave of the goblins.

Inside the cave, the thread leads her up to a great heap of stones, a dead end. 'The thought struck her, that at least she could follow the thread backwards, and thus get out....But the instant she tried to feel it backwards, it vanished from her touch.' The grandmother's thread only worked forward, but forward it led into a heap of stones. Irene 'burst into a wailing cry,' but after crying she realizes that the only way to follow the thread is to tear down the wall of stones. She begins tearing it down, stone by stone. Though her fingers are soon bleeding, she pulls and pulls. 

Suddenly she hears a voice. It's her friend Curdie, who has been trapped in the goblins' cave! Curdie is astounded and asks, 'Why, however did you come here?'

Irene replies that her grandmother sent her, 'and I think I've found out why.'

After Irene was following the thread and removed enough rocks to create an opening, Curdie starts to climb up out of the cave--but Irene keeps going deeper into the cave. Curdie objects: 'Where are you going there? That's not the way out. That's where I couldn't get out.'

'I know that,' says Irene. 'But this is the way my thread goes, and I must follow it.' And indeed the thread proves trustworthy, because her grandmother is trustworthy. 

When Jesus told the disciples, 'We're on the way, follow me,' they had no idea where he was going. They thought he was going to go from strength to strength to strength. They had no idea. 

Imagine sitting down with a seven-year-old and saying to her, 'I'd like you to write me an essay on what you think it's like to fall in love and be married.' When you read the essay, you will say it isn't very close to reality. A seven-year-old can't imagine what love and marriage will be like. When you start to follow Jesus, you're at least that far away. You have no idea how far you'll have to go.

Jesus says, 'Follow me. I'm going to take you on a journey, and I don't want you to turn to the left or to the right. I want you to put me first; I want you to keep trusting me; to stick with me, not turn back, not give up, turn to me in all the disappointments and injustices that will happen to you. I'm going to take you places that will make you say, 'Why in the world are you taking me there ? Even then, I want you to trust me.' 

The path Jesus takes you may look like it's taking you to one dead end after another. Nevertheless, the thread does not work in reverse. If you just obey Jesus and follow it forward, it will do its work. 

MacDonald, author of The Princess and the Goblin , put it like this in another story, 'The one secret of life and development, is not to devise and plan...but to do every moment's duty aright...and let come--not what will, for there is no such thing--but what the eternal Thought wills for each of us, has intended in each of us from the first.' And in yet another, 'You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die.' That is, you will be dead so long as you refuse to die to yourself. Follow the thread. You say, 'That sounds pretty hard,' and you're right. How can we possibly follow the thread? It's simple but profound. Jesus himself does absolutely everything he's calling us to do. When he called James and John to leave their father in the boat, he had already left his Father's throne. 'He left his Father's throne above, so free, so infinite his grace.' And later he's going to be ripped from his Father's presence, on the cross. It's going to look as if your thread is taking you into dead ends, places where you'll get bloody, where the only way to follow the thread looks like it could crush you. But don't try to go backward. Don't turn to the left; don't turn to the right. Jesus Christ's kingship will not crush you. He was crushed for you. He followed his thread to the cross so you can follow yours into his arms." pgs 22-25

- Tim Keller

from: http://www.amazon.com/Kings-Cross-Story-World-Jesus/dp/0525952101/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357684516&sr=1-1&keywords=king%27s+cross

Keller, Timothy. King's Cross. New York: Penguin, 2011. 

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,  in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.  If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." Romans 8:1-11

"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us..."

"Biblical Thinking through a Powerful Parable

The pattern for mortifying ungodly emotions starts with biblical thinking. We need to get our heads straight on the issue, and there is no better place to start than with our Lord's parable in Matthew 18:21-35. It is a great place to start because we connect with Peter's question about forgiveness, and then Jesus tells us a story that is designed to inform and move us into right thinking, right feeling, and right actions.

'Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?'" (Matthew 18:21). This question comes in the context of community relationships and sins within the church (verses 15-20). It is a natural question, and Peter is wondering, 'What's the limit, Lord? I mean there must be a limit.' The rabbinic view held that one might forgive three times, but come the fourth time there is no forgiveness. Peter, feeling large-hearted and generous, suggests seven times. Jesus, never one for quick and easy answers, replies with a bombshell and nukes Peter's perceived large-heartedness, saying, 'I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven' (Matthew 18:22). 

This answer is not a math problem. 'Okay, that equals 490 times!' Kistenmaker underscores the significance: 'Completeness times completeness and completeness.' Jesus is telling Peter and us that the way of discipleship is the way of forgiveness. Forgiveness marks those who follow Jesus. 

Jesus then tells a parable about the seriousness of forgiveness. The parable unfolds in three acts, showing that all of God's true people have been forgiven for far more than they will ever forgive. Therefore, forgiveness from the heart is the true indication that they have received God's forgiveness and cherish it. 

The First Act of Jesus' Parable (Matthew 18:23-37)

     '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.'

A day of reckoning had come when the books were opened and accounts were settled. The slaves who were to appear before the master were, perhaps, those who had leased property to farm. Now their April-fifteenth appointment with the tax man had arrived. One particular slave had to be brought before the master; his debt was 10,000 talents. A conservative estimate by today's economic standards would be in the neighborhood of a billion dollars. The amount, of course, is outside the bounds of reality, but that is the point. What the slave owed was an incalculable amount. The amount is so astronomical in the financial realm that it is unbelievable. But in the realm of God and sin, it is an accurate reflection of the magnitude of our sin against God. The point is the man has no possible way to pay it back. 

According to the custom of the day, the master sells the servant, the servant's wife and children, and all the servant's assets. The primary point here is that the man had no way to cover the liabilities. As Morris puts it, 'The sale was a gesture, not a settlement....His being sold is no more than punishment.' There is no chance of being free. Everything is lost. The scene puts a knot in the pit of our stomach if we read it with a little imagination. In an act of absolute desperation the servant does the only thing he can. He falls down on the ground, jettisons any appeal to justice, asks for patience, and then promises the impossible. The master is moved with compassion by the scene and acts graciously. 

The analogy in the parable is obvious. The master's compassion reflects God's character. The master does more than the man asks and shows unbelievable magnanimity and abounding mercy. He cancels the debt in its entirety. Again, in the realm of finances, it is an unbelievable turn of events. But in the realm of sin and grace it is an apt portrayal of the greatness of grace.

The Second Act of Jesus' Parable (Matthew 28-31)

     'But when the 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.'

The scene is designed to grip and amaze us. As this servant leaves his master's presence, he should have been so overwhelmed with the profound reality of mercy as to be shouting praises to the master with tears of joy. Instead, he looks for another servant, an equal, a peer, who owed him some money. The amount was 100 denarii, which, although not a small sum, was a pittance compared to what he had owed and had been forgiven. Upon seeing his debtor, he violently grabbed him, threatened his life, and threw him into prison, enforcing the same penalty from which moved the master to pity and forgiveness. But his fellow servant's plea for mercy leaves him unmoved. 

The scene is disturbing. The servant sends his peer to the torturers without one shred of mercy. The one who had received mercy now acts with strict justice, revealing a small heart and no understanding of what's been done for him. The fellow servants who see it are deeply disturbed by the event and react by reporting it to the master. 

Our Lord, just like Nathan the prophet before King David, is setting up his audience. As we read the words of the parable we shake our heads in disgust and unbelief. 'What a fool! How could somebody be so blind, so cruel? Can't he do the math?'

The Third Act of Jesus' Parable (Matthew 18:32-35)

     '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.' 

This is high drama. The lord calls him in, calls him on the carpet, and calls him evil. 'You evil  slave!' Don't miss the significance of this adjective in connection to what he says next. '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?'  What the master had done to the servant should have been so valued by the servant that he in turn acted in a way that showed he valued mercy. The heart of the parable is we are to act towards others as God has acted towards us. 

The scene is not over. The master in the parable experiences righteous wrath. What moved him to wrath? The servant spurned the master's mercy by demanding justice from another. Mercy spurned produced holy, white-hot wrath. The master turns over the servant to the torturers until everything is paid. Since the man had no way to repay, this was a life sentence. The language implies eternal punishment. By demanding justice, the servant cuts himself off from mercy. 

That is a chilling parable. But Jesus is not quite done. After the sobering end of the parable, Jesus gives his listeners, including us, the prophetic, 'thou art the man' application: 'Likewise, my heavenly Father will do to you if you do not forgive your brother from the heart.'

Forgive from the Heart

There are two things we must not do with this parable. First, we must not minimize this text and explain it away because we believe in eternal security. Second, we must not miss the emotional element of forgiveness, which our Lord specifically calls attention to when he says, 'Forgive your brother from the heart,' that is, with all sincerity, all that we are. This passage holds out the wonderful offer of forgiveness to sinners of all shapes and sizes. As Fanny Crosby said:

     The vilest offender, who truly believes,

     That moment from Jesus forgiveness receives!

Nevertheless, the passage also emphasizes a serious threat. God's boundless grace to forgive sin is offered, and his awful wrath against all who would spurn that grace through unforgiveness is threatened. Jesus unambiguously teaches the awful fate of being an unforgiving person. Jesus taught us in what we call the 'Lord's Prayer' to pray, 'Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors' (Matthew 6:12). He then immediately warns, 'For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses' (Matthew 6:14-15). D. A. Carson states, 'Jesus sees no incongruity in the actions of a heavenly Father who forgives so freely and punishes so ruthlessly, and neither should we.' In order for us to think biblically about forgiveness, we must truly believe the threats against unforgiveness." pgs 112-117

- Brian S. Borgman

from: http://www.amazon.com/Feelings-Faith-Cultivating-Emotions-Christian/dp/1433503638/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357097593&sr=1-1&keywords=feelings+and+faith

Borgman, Brian S. Feelings and Faith: Cultivating Godly Emotions in the Christian Life. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009.