Krissi

The bible verse that has to do with putting our hands on the head of the sacrificed animal is found in Leviticus 1.3, ““If the offering is a Whole-Burnt-Offering from the herd, present a male without a defect at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting that it may be accepted by God. Lay your hand on the head of the Whole-Burnt-Offering so that it may be accepted on your behalf to make atonement for you.” Putting our hand on the animal about to be killed somehow connects the sinful human to the animal, specifically to the animal’s blood. It’s a practice that’s also practiced in New Testament times by the laying on of hands to bless, heal, anoint with oil and, most interestingly, to impart or acknowledge a gift of the spirit or special assignment by God. Such a ritual is tangible; a physical re-enactment of some sort of divine transference that cannot be seen. What happens in the animal sacrifice of the Old Testament is that the sinful person’s curse is transferred to the animal via the physical connection of the person’s hands on that animal. Frankly, i"m surprised that we don't have to plunge our hands in blood rather than put our hands on the head of the animal; so much of this is beyond what I can understand. I suppose the person making the sacrifice has to kill the animal because it symbolizes the killing of his own sin. The entire animal is burnt after the priest tosses the blood on the altar which may suggest that the entire sin has been burnt and therefore released or eliminated. I don’t understand why God chose this rather brutal way of eliminating sin. It’s not for me to know. I’m certain that the repulse I feel toward murdering an innocent, flawless, male animal was NOT felt in Old Testament times. They were used to killing animals for food, not going to Safeway to pick up a piece of bloodless meat neatly tucked under cellophane. Food in ancient eras had to be hung, I’ve been told, to drain the blood out of the animal before it could be cooked and eaten. Today, we spent effort to rid the meat of blood – in the Bible, our effort is spent collecting the blood. Blood to represents the life force in the animal, it’s “spirit” so to speak. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. Actually, the person sacrificing doesn’t collect the blood, but rather the priests. I’m not certain why it’s important for the person to kill the animal but not collect it’s blood, though perhaps the “holiness” of the blood renders it untouchable by mere non-priests. When Jesus was sacrificed on the cross, he was the last blood offering to God. Jesus’ blood “took away” the sins of the world. Jesus as a man was sacrificed so that His blood could be metaphorically “shed” on the cross as an altar to eliminate the sins of those who desired and understood, though through a glass darkly, what getting rid of one’s past sins really means. His life gave us life; the life of Jesus was in His blood (as was that of an animal) and the blood makes “atonement” for our sinful lives. This satisfies God. “The blood makes atonement for one’s life.” It’s interesting that the atonement isn’t for the sin, or described as such, but for our lives, as if everything we do has to be purified and atoned for.

The tabernacle was built according to a blueprint given to Moses by God Himself. This includes the Holy of Holies and the Ark. I have to admit that I’m bothered by the hierarchy which permitted only one person into the Holy of Holies, only priests into the antechamber and ordinary people peering from outside but not allowed inside. Christ got rid of such castes and elevated the most common of the common people to an equal "rank" with others. The importance of the ark and it's trapping is in it's ability to hold the awe and attention of the people who were not well-schooled in God's nature or desires. It made tangible that which is difficult to comprehend and gave God an aura of mystery and power. To say that God was limited to the ark, or was somehow "more" within the tabernacle than in other places gave the people an identity of being special, chosen, set-apart and possessing the place where God lived. Obviously, God is everywhere. He's never been limited to a tent, or little area within the tent. The meaning of the tabernacle, ark and tent must be symbolic. It symbolizes God's utter holiness by being inaccessible and mysterious ... and, conversely, symbolized the sinfulness of the people who were so "soiled" by sin that they could not approach God. -- Thankfully, we are in the new covenant, not this old one. From the Message version, 2 cor 3: Unlike Moses, we have nothing to hide. Everything is out in the open with us. He wore a veil so the children of Israel wouldn’t notice that the glory was fading away—and they didn’t notice. They didn’t notice it then and they don’t notice it now, don’t notice that there’s nothing left behind that veil. Even today when the proclamations of that old, bankrupt government are read out, they can’t see through it. Only Christ can get rid of the veil so they can see for themselves that there’s nothing there. Whenever, though, they turn to face God as Moses did, God removes the veil and there they are—face-to-face! They suddenly recognize that God is a living, personal presence, not a piece of chiseled stone. And when God is personally present, a living Spirit, that old, constricting legislation is recognized as obsolete. We’re free of it! All of us! Nothing between us and God, our faces shining with the brightness of his face. And so we are transfigured much like the Messiah, our lives gradually becoming brighter and more beautiful as God enters our lives and we become like him.

1. This layout reminds me of American settlers who would circle their wagons in the evening to let the children and animals safely play in the centre. It's a defensive strategy that protects, in this case, the tabernacle. Any enemy would have to fight through a tribe or two as well as the priestly groups to get to the tabernacle. 2. This layout puts the tabernacle and priests in the centre of the activity. To get from one side to the other, an Israelite would have to walk through the tabernacle, or around it. The layout also fosters solidarity between similar tribes by grouping them together. 3. It is my understanding that hundreds of thousands of non-Israelites followed the Israelites out of Egypt. What happened to them? They're not located in this drawing, but maybe had already been absorbed in the tribes via marriage and understanding. 4. This layout is also remarkably egalitarian. No tribe is above another except the priests who are separated by function. The 12 tribes around the periphery have equal access and distance to the centre.

This is an amazing story. Moses would go outside the city, away from the other residences, to what seems to be an isolated place where he had erected a tent. He took with him one person, a young man. There, he would UNCOVER his face to talk to God. Moses' uncovered face is unlike that of Elijah who immediately covered his face with his shirt at the mouth of the cave where God spoke with him. Other biblical stories are similar. So, until the tabernacle was built, Moses was to cover his face before people and uncover it before God. An uncovered face is intimate. It’s almost like undressing before your spouse … something no one else sees but one’s beloved. I don’t know why it is called the tent of meeting other than the obvious, that God met Moses there. It was a temporary structure, a tent, which makes sense since this was a temporary time of intimacy before the institutionalization of the tabernacle. I spend a long time with God daily. My mind often wanders, however, so it’s not as focused as it should be. Much time is sadly wasted. For now, I have a little spot in my home for meeting Him which I do early in the morning. My father just died so I’ll be leaving this residence in a couple weeks – I pray to have a similar place of study and worship. Please pray that the Lord clearly leads me to where He wants me to go. As an aside, I’ve been designing floor plans for a small cottage and am going to include a special place of prayer and study, a little room set-aside just for Him, if He permits me to build.

This has been, so far, the most important lesson I have had in all of Pastor Ralph's teaching ... I pray to understand it far, far more deeply. -- There seems to be no limit to what we can ask God in intercession. Furthermore, God Himself doesn't act according to our notions of love and forgiveness but has His own exacting ideas to which we are not privy. When God wanted to slaughter all the Israelites, Moses did not appeal to God's character -- he did not remind God that one of His essential characteristics is love therefore He should overlook and forgive the wayward Israelites -- rather, Moses told God that in the past, He had declared the Israelites to be His people and that they were still His people, even though they had abandoned Him at a crucial point in history. God had promised the Israelites would inherit the land which means there had to be a few Israelites left to get that land. This was the basis of His appeal. Moses, then, interceded for a people whom God had rejected. HE interceded as an individual who knew God well and could speak to God in the first person, as a man to God, not as a nation to God. God did not relent in vengeance -- He killed most of the Israelites with slaughter and plague. He did, however, keep a remnant to enter the land ... as He had promised. But note that the ones who survived did so because they had turned "against their own sons and brothers." Turning away from and rejecting horrible people (idolators) is what permitted the remaining Israelites to be set apart for His service. Slaughtering the horrible Israelites, "killing brother, friend and neighbor," preserved a remnant. Interceding for the remnant saved them. -- So many questions: Should we intercede like Moses? Can we intercede for people who have cruelly and wrongly persecuted us as well as denied Him, can we ask God to separate and slaughter our/His enemies? If we are strong in our beliefs and ethic, must we necessarily oppose our apostate "sons and brothers?" What about turning the other cheek? Is this somehting new for believers, or does God Himself look away when we are persecuted? The strong connection between OUR INTERCESSION and HIS VENGEANCE/PURITY cannot be ignored. We may intercede; He may answer in ways we don't expect or seems cruel. God kills the sinners. He slaughters them. He sends plagues. He does so because worshipping a hand-conceived idol is horrible to God. IN many ways, Moses' intercession didn't make much of a difference: God still slaughtered and judged. Intercession appears to have created a remnant, however, a smaller group of people that could carry on His will. God's character isn't as sweet, fuzzy and loving as we'd prefer -- He easily and willingly slaughters when angry and does demand vengeance. So, to intercede effectively means we have to take both the happy-making and fear-inducing aspects of His character into consideration. Regarding His promises, it's difficult to know what is historically conditioned (for a particular people and place) from what we can ask of Him legitimately here and now. A promise to Moses may not be a promise to me. Probably isn't, in fact. But God's character doesn't change.

I'm struck by the fact that Aaron wasn't punished for leading the Israelites into idol worship ... in fact, he is made a priest in the tabernacle. Yet we know that God was angry enough for Moses to feel the need to plead to God to spare the people, which presumably includes Aaron. So, what was the nature of his sin, and why was it turned into a blessing -- becoming priests? I would think that idolatry and syncretism would be HUGE sins in the eyes of God, which were then compounded by the libertine and uncontrolled behavior of the people. That's the sin of Aaron. It's a doozy. On top of this, Aaron effectively downplayed the nature of his sin, which was to lead people into idolatry, syncretism and social libertinism. I don't know why he didn't fall to his knees in shame, but perhaps Aaron didn't quite understand the gravity of what he had done, or, conversely, was afraid and tried to sidestep it. Again, I don't know why God accepted Moses' intercessory prayer for the people/Aaron. Moses DID seem to get off easily. God's anger abated. The rest of Pastor Ralph's questions have to do with the application of the principles learned in this story. I think leaders, as well as laity, must be responsible for their actions -- I do not think leaders are "more responsible" than the people. We all are responsible for whatever God has commanded us to do or has put in front of us. If we do not do it, or if we blatantly disobey, God may punish us. That punishment arrests and causes us to focus on the sin as well as our own motives and weaknesses that caused us to do it. Thus, we can, if we not only understand the sin but feel the gravity of it's horror to God, repent and change, that is learn from our mistakes.

An idol isn't "just" anything that pulls us away from the worship of God ... many distractions and detours are not idols, though they can be sin. An idol is a substitute god, a god of our own creation. I've noticed that pagans/unbelievers/seculars tend to create idols when they give up on the true God. For example, the "green" religion makes an idol of nature and has instituted religious-like rituals and sub-beliefs that sustain their fantasy. Environmentalism is a godless religion -- loving nature as God's creation can be part of worshipping God, however. Thus, I think that people need God, that there is something constitutive in us that needs to worship, and that once God is rejected, political values, power plays, money and the shallow aspects of communal life (entertainment) become gods. It is shocking that Aaron so quickly conspired with the weak Israelites to jettison God for a substitute. Perhaps he was afraid of being lynched by the mob? Perhaps his own faith in God had been teetering? It's difficult to know why he was so disloyal to the God who had done so many miracles in front of him. God hates sin so he would have hated the golden icon. Individuals within churches have to be primed, because of their immaturity in faith or faithlessness, to abandon faith when the pressure toward unbelief is overwhelming to them. It's not that "churches" leave God, but that individuals within the church choose to worship another god. The church is not greater than the sum of it's people.

Old covenant law (ten commandments, mosaic laws) written on tablets of stone carried around in tabernacle only applies to Israelites ratified with blood of animals has to be done repeatedly -- not lasting has to be done via priests or mediators New covenant grace written in the hearts of believers carried within us applies to all who accept Him -- universal ratified by the blood sacrifice of Jesus one time sacrifice is sufficient -- everlasting no priests or mediators needed

In what sense is Israel a “holy” nation? What does it mean to be holy? Why do you think that personal holiness is de-emphasized in our time? I was praying for understanding about this this morning, the idea that there are two realms, the holy/heavenly and profane/earthly, and that somehow I live in one/profane but have access to the other/holy. There seems to be another reality superimposed -- at a distance -- on this one, that is, a heavenly realm as well as an earthly one with "little connectors" between the two. Prayer taps into those connectors. So when we say Israel is a holy nation, we're saying that Israel's existence or fate goes beyond the earthly realm and connects to the heavenly realm where Israel's holiness has been predetermined. Since all creation is determined by God, I'm not sure why Israel is different -- God created everything and had a plan and purpose for the wee feathers that fall off a sparrow, so in that context, why is Israel any different than the rest of creation? It is simply the case that Israelis are not different than the rest of us -- they're quite sinful, not moral paragons. So we have to admit that the people of Israel are not holy, or even more holy, than the non-Jewish nations that surround them. The bible clearly describes the repeated rise and fall, faith then apostasy, of the Jewish people. So there's nothing objectively "better" about the Jewish people that sets them apart from non-Jews, including Christians. It must be the case, then, that the only reason Israel is holy is that God declared it to be so, and it's holiness exists in the heavenly realm, not on earth. I'm not sure what it means TO ME that Israel is holy except that I have to suspend reason and judgment to believe this is the case. ---- Personal holiness is deemphasized only among some groups or divisions of Christianity, and emphasized in other groups. Personally, I find the idea of striving for holiness or sanctification by the Spirit incredibly important ... even though I'm failing at it.

What did priests do in the Old Testament? In what sense are you a priest? How do you function as a priest? In what sense are you a "royal" priest? In what areas can your personal priestly function improve? Pastor Ralph mentioned that the caste of priests hadn't yet been instituted at the time of Moses, so the verse can't refer to priests in the OT sense of the word, although it could futuristically or prophetically refer to this caste. In time, priests would mediate between the Jewish people and God. I believe this verse alludes to Luther's priesthood of all believers. Luther's radical idea of the priesthood of all believers was faith-upending at that time. In essence, Luther put all Christians on the same level, destroying the gap between lay and priests. Just by being a Christian, we all function as priests, he said. I believe this is true. We are royal only in the sense that we are grafted into His family thus, like little princelings or princesslings -- sons and daughters -- we are His. Christians function as priests in our everyday faith as expressed in both word and deed, belief and behavior. There is nothing special about Christian priests/pastors that sets them above the laity which means behavior and faith alone commends us to God. No mediator is needed. No in-between advisor or priest. The radical idea of Luther is that we approach God alone, unmediated and unmerited, and only by His grace can we be accepted.

I have no physical treasures. I do have things I like such as my huge collection of books and some paintings, but if the house burned down, I wouldn't grieve (much). I like the way books look on shelves, randomly sized and coloured -- it's a beautiful sight, really -- and the way my art looks on the walls when the light from the windows strikes them in a certain way. Perhaps it's possible to make something into a treasure by investing yourself in it, for example, spending hours scrubbing and rescrubbing the words of a poem. That poem becomes a treasure to give away to someone who may also treasure it. To me, people are not treasures though they can be precious. (I've met two people in the last year who both admitted they wished their homes would burn down so they could be free from the burden of the things they've collected. One of them was a relatively well-known artist who has hundreds of paintings that never sold and are gathering dust on her porch.)

Thank you for another wonderful study, Pastor Ralph.

Honestly, the most meaningful phrase in this verse to me, right now, is the promise that says that my suffering will eventually end. When I read this, I skipped over the promises of restoration, strengthening and security to focus on the words “a little while …”. It’s been 14 years.

Moses heard God speak directly so he may have doubted that God's command would be extended to others as well. I imagine, after hearing God speak to him alone on the mountain, that Moses felt that God had set him aside for this task and it was his duty to perform it. The qualifications in the verse were accountability, honesty, God-fearing and competent. These are character traits which would be good in all of us. I do find it interesting that Moses didn't look beyond these traits. If a church needs an accountant or preacher, these four traits would be a good start, but there are worldly skills necessary as well. In Ephesians, the five-fold ministerial gifts are listed: teacher, pastor, prophet, apostle and evangelist. The other gifts are not mentioned in this verse. Moses was a bit of all of these. God had greatly called him. I'm not exactly certain what the "anointing" means. Obviously, it's a special set-apart or calling on a person to do a particular task, but it seems that it also validates that person for that tasks. The anointing gives the power to do the task and is teh calling to that task as well. That's how I see it, anyway. Some charismatics anoint often. It's a way of going beyond the prayer request ... beyond the proclaiming and decreeing, to claim or assert the Spirit's power on a particular person.

God only provided for his people when they were unable to meet their own needs. Why he used manna and not some "real" food ... I don't know. Manna was clearly supernatural, unlike other food, suddenly appearing when they were hungry. A diet of meat and bread does sustain human life -- that's pretty much what my oldest son eats (he's supposedly grown up now and is making his own food choices!) He is very athletic and healthy. The fact that God's provision of manna began when they were hungry and ended when they were able to provide for themselves gives us a clue as to what God expects from us. God takes over when we can't do it ourselves, expecting us to do what we can; if that's enough, He doesn't step in. When people are given something unearned, they weaken. They lose the ability to figure out ways to achieve what they need -- they grow increasingly dependent on the gift-giver. This is the problem with government social services. I firmly believe that churchgoers should never depend on the government but instead turn to their own families and the church. If we were more generous toward others, no one would have to be reduced and weakened by the nanny state. Tragically, the West has created a culture of dependency and with it, weakness. Similarly, the Israelites grew dependent, lazy and weak because of God's unearned provision. They didn't have to work for manna other than picking it off the ground -- manna was like welfare checks from heaven. When the heavenly spigot was turned off, they had to re-learn a work ethic and the ingenuity that solves problems, in this case, hunger. What a huge cultural shift that must have been! I take far too many things for granted for which I should be thanking God. My life, though not easy, has had times of extreme wealth and poverty. I thank God for getting me through both!

Comparing Peter in c5 to Paul in Ephesians c6: Peter is describing a current, ongoing circumstance in which Satan is the main antagonist who has to be resisted both passively and actively. Peter also notes that such diabolical persecution happens to all Christians. Paul is referring to an event that will happen in the future (when the day of evil comes ...) that must be resisted passively, not aggressively. Christians are NOT told to resist but to stand their ground and if they lose terrritory, to keep standing. Paul does not reference Satan.

I suppose, at times, a complaint against a leader is, in reality, a complaint against God, but also dare say that the overwhelming majority of the time, when a congregant complains about the leader, it is ABOUT THE LEADER. Why is it that congregants are to submit to church discipline -- if it ever happens -- but the leaders of the church are supposed to slough off criticism without self-reflection by pretending it is misplaced? Leaders should take criticisms personally. After all, those words are aimed at them. This doesn't mean that the criticism are well-founded, though some may hit the target, but only that the criticism should be taken seriously. Then, after a cool-headed analysis, if the criticisms are wrong, they should be discarded and forgotten; if right, they should be heeded prayerfully. Without suffering and criticism, sanctification rarely proceeds. This means that criticism may be of the Lord, not against Him. I simply don't see any evidence that contemporary church leaders are taking flak directed at God.

Here’s my problem. I never know when evil is of Satan, of other human beings or of myself. One of the consequences of the fall is that people, even Christians, received evil tendencies that are sometimes expressed in word and deed. Governments, too, have been impacted by the fall – bureaucratization, incompetence and bigotry are ubiquitous because of the fall. We don’t need Satan to do evil. WE can do evil all by ourselves. We don’t even need Satan to prompt us. So, when evil happens, it’s difficult to know where to point. The flip side is true, too. Secular people who deny God or even hate Him can do good deeds. As humans, we have agency. We are responsible for our deeds because we could have done differently. We can choose to do evil. We can choose to do good. Now, Satan can make doing evil more likely, but we are still responsible for what we do. Furthermore, God is all powerful. He overrules Satan in every manner and way. In the cosmic struggle between God and Satan – good and evil – God wins. So though Satan is powerful, He is not all-powerful. Should we, then, worry? Frankly, I worry more about the evil tendencies within me, the things I could think or do, than what Satan is implanting in my mind and circumstances. I may be wrong about this.

I think a lot of the Israelites' complaints made sense. "Grumbling," pejoratively termed, is a rational response to a circumstance which God has not corrected. It's a response to suffering. It's the stage BEFORE giving up, or losing faith entirely. I do not see the Israelites' complaints, dissents and comments as caused by fear but rather by a RATIONAL analysis of the circumstances in which they found themselves. 1. The complaint that Moses' demands to Pharaoh had made their lives miserable and worse was valid. This really did happen. This wasn't a fear of punishment but rather a cold-considered analysis of their condition. They were suffering. That was their complaint. 2. It did look like they would die of either starvation or dehydration. This, too, was a rational assessment of their circumstances. These weren't mere complaints. Moses had brought them into an unfamiliar desert without any provision including water ... so yes, they were understandably angry about the situation. 3. They were NOT in any condition to fight a war. Moses had brought them into a desert to fight in a weakened physical condition. This would be a that they would lose. No wargaming needed -- they were toast. And, they knew it. 4. Their impatience and disappointment with their circumstances must have been palpable. They were stuck in a desert, without homes or hope, for years and years ... until they died. Snakes were the least of their problem. They had lost hope. -- Desperation is better than despair. That's a phrase I saw in one of my morning devotionals, today. In this story, I see desperation turning to despair. Why? It is very, very difficult to have faith in deliverance when desperation never ends, when it grinds on and on, year after year, with no resolution and no path forward. That was the situation of the Israelites (and myself). Faith and the fading glimmer of hope kept them above despair ... but not by much. I'm sure they teetered on the edge of desperation many times nearly falling into despair. Grumbling doesn't describe what they felt. That word demeans their emotional experience -- do not consider their plight as a mere consequence of deformed moral character or a lack of gratefulness. They weren't merely complaining ... they really had no reason to have hope. They were stuck. Desperate. Nothing was happening. It was hot, ugly, dangerous, never-ending so they were desperate. I'm sure they prayed to die. Death would be preferable, they may have thought, to another year of waiting in the desert with no path forward. -- What does a Christian do when the desert times of suffering never end, and no path forward can be seen, when the pain continues and continues ... when hope recedes? Endure it. That's it. These are times when one lives to exist, hoping God notices and delivers, while not seeing any evidence of His loving concern or willingness to help.

According to this verse what should you do with your fears? What reason is given why you should do this? In what manner should you do it. How will you apply this verse's instruction in your own life? It's incredibly difficult to throw at Christ my worries/fears/anxieties/cares. I throw them to Jesus and then, when nothing happens, I begin to worry again and thereby take them back. Yes, this means I don't fully trust God. If I did trust God fully, I would be much lighter and waiting much easier. Fear and faith are opposites. I am to throw my fears at Jesus Himself because, it is said, He loves me. Believing in God's love toward me is even more difficult than casting away my fears! This is a familiar verse to most of us. We say the words and understand them but when it comes to actually doing what these words command, we stand paralyzed, unable to truly cast onto Christ the worries and similarly unable to trust Him. What does it mean to CAST my worries onto Christ? I know that I'm supposed to throw them at Him, but in my daily life, how do I do this? In prayer ... mouthing the words, "Jesus, take this I'm throwing it at you ..."? Is that enough? I would think I'd feel a sense of relief, but I don't, probably because I still have to learn to truly cast my cares on Him (rather than work things out on my own.) God is testing me with bigger and bigger cares to cast ... cares that are too big to handle by myself. Perhaps through suffering and trial, we learn to cast quickly?

God's glory, as described here, reminds me of the Mideastern notion of honor. Westerners, unlike Mideasterners, generally take criticism lightly ... yes, there were feuding families like the Hatfields and McCoys, but they were rare, very rare. IN the Mideast, if a family's honor is abrogated, family members are obligated to revenge or protect the honor of the family. Thus, honor killings of young girls who fall in love with undesirable men, etc. In the West, we simply don't have this. Not only is it illegal, it's also thought of as unethical. Because we are so stridently individualistic, we take pride in ourselves and nuclear family, not our extended families, church or country. So the idea of protecting God's honor has been forgotten, if it ever existed in the first place. God's glory is like His honor. When God is insulted, His ancient people took up arms to defend His name. THey weren't acting as individuals but as a tribe with God as it's head. To insult God, then, was to insult His tribe. To insult oneself. Glory has to be seen/sensed to be glory. Glory hid under a rock is not glory. I think that's important to the understanding of God's glory, that glory has meaning only to the degree that it is seen or felt corporately. Yes, Moses was alone with God when He saw God's glory while receiving the Ten Commandments, but that glory became historically/tribally significant only after Moses came down from the mountain "glowing." I have seen prideful church leaders, but none of them took credit for what God was clearly doing. Thankfully. Protecting the self against pride would take a different form in each leader. My hunch is that most leaders have their egos in check.

I'm not sure it's possible to truly discern another person's humility-quotient. As circumstances change, latent pride may come to the surface -- many pastors with a big tv/Internet platform succumb to Hollyweird-like pride even though they began their ministry humbly. People do change. I've also watched politicos who had tendencies toward pride become full-blown narcissistics/egoists -- i.e. France's Macron. It's also difficult to discern when a man is firm in his faith and morality and when he is overweening and proud. We all want leaders to be men of conviction -- we don't want leaders to be proud little Mussolinis. But pride and conviction seem to track together and it's difficult to pry one fully away from the other. Pride seems to be foundational sin that supports and gives heft to other sins. It's good to know that God will eventually stand against the proud, though I haven't seen much evidence of it. Nor have I seen the humble elevated. This may happen after death, in heaven. We all have negative or sinful qualities and tendencies. This doesn't necessarily disqualify us from service. Some people struggle their entire lives against a particular sin or tendency, but keep it under control. Others cave in quickly. Anecdote: A certain pastor was "outed" after having long-term affairs with many women in the church which rarely got to the point of sexual intercourse but were nonetheless manipulative and abusive. He's been in counseling for quite a while. Recently, his church has been debating "restoring" him to ministry. I wonder, now, since his sin has been exposed, if the church will be able to channel him within moral boundaries. Will he cave in quickly or stay the course? He was, admittedly, a very effective leader and preacher ... but proud.

THe image Pastor Ralph described -- that of cornered Israelites facing an approaching army of greedy, angry and pride-filled Egyptians -- was enough to cause the Israelites to doubt their previous beliefs. This, then, was a test of faith. Would they give up on God and run? Would they stay together as a unit and potentially be slaughtered? Would they trust Moses as God's voice against the obvious juggernaut quickly approaching? Frankly, the fact that they didn't give up on God in such difficult and threatening circumstances, but only griped at Moses, is remarkable. Moses neither bothered to respond to their doubt nor defended himself. He only told them to hang in there and deal with their fear, so that God would fight for them. (I wonder if Moses had moments of doubt. If so, I admire him more for overcoming his own doubt and hedging his life on God.) I like this story, as do most Christians. I guess I'm drawn to a God who promises to protect as long as I can stand still and steady and not be afraid -- so often, it seems, that God's protection is contingent on something much more difficult I must do, think or say; often I worry I won't be "good enough" to merit his concern. This story is an antidote to that fear. (Could I not fear or stand steadily still???)

Arm-twisting is … vile. But so is not reaching out and asking people to serve in a particular way. I have seen many, many people in churches who leave without ever finding a niche for service. Some of them are very talented and quite willing to serve but are never asked or approached and by their own initiative couldn’t find space for their calling. So, yes, 1) arm-twisting is one extreme – coercing people into service --; 2) ignoring gifted believers because the church is top-heavy or differently oriented is the opposite extreme – blocking people from service. Either extreme damages the church. People who are willing to serve but can’t find a niche often leave the church because they rightly feel out of place spiritually. Similarly, people who don’t want to serve eventually stop going to church because they’re too selfish, busy, or have lousy priorities. Churches must be places where people grow and thrive spiritually. Having written this, I do not think every church needs to accommodate every gift. Some gifts belong in other churches or parachurch ministries. Some gifted people don’t fit well in a particular church but may be a much better fit in another church. Gifting always comes with a calling. If a person is called to do something and the church doesn’t accommodate or have a desire to see that calling actualized, that means that person is in the wrong place. God is leading him or her to another venue. Obey and go. Arm-twisting produces temporary, shallow leaders. They’ll leave. That’s what they really want anyway, to observe not give, so in time, unless their character changes, they’ll just leave. In this way, the problem corrects itself, though it could harm other Christians along the way. Those who want to serve but cannot find a niche will also leave. They’ll be led to another church or program where they are able to serve. Again, the problem corrects itself.

I believe, but am not certain, the logic goes something like this: 1. Passover. God saw the blood and spared the people who had sacrificed. 2. Jesus. Jesus/God's blood spared the people who believed. 3. Eucharist. The wine is the blood, or a symbol of it, which spared the people who participated in this "feast." This may be too reductionist. The idea, perhaps, is that Yahweh=Jesus=wine, and the sacrificing Israelites=believing Christians=sacrificing-symbolically Christians.