Krissi

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.

Church leaders need to stress the biblical command that those who are older in faith and years must mentor those who are younger. Rather than assume this will happen, the command to mentor needs to be stressed. Unfortunately, I've seen very little true commitment of the older to the younger and have never heard any pastor in the pulpit preaching the word on this topic. The church would run far more smoothly if every older person mentored at least one younger person. Seriously mentored. Cared. Prayed. Advised. Watched over. This rarely happens. Older men (and some women) in their 50s+ are often at the peak of their careers, packing in those last few dollars for retirement, pushing their kids through university or starting them in careers. They act as if they cannot prioritize mentoring those outside their families. Similarly, older women often spend their free time raising their grandchildren rather than turn from their child-rearing duties and do something for others. It's too easy to stay in the childrearing rut ... too comfortable to stretch out selflessly toward others. Like the mean, these older women claim they don't have time for others in the church. I wish church leaders would get up and denounce this sort of selfishness, for that's what this is. It is selfish ONLY to give to yourself and your family ... self-serving, sometimes narcissistic. Older Christians have to be taught to see themselves as ready to assume mentoring responsibilities in the church. This is God's plan. He plans for the older to mentor for the younger, the strong to care for the widows, etc. Personally, I'm at the age between the birth of my children and the death of my sole surviving parent. My kids are out of the nest but my father is dying and needs constant care. I'm using this time to pray and grow, write and think, and prepare for the next and best stage of life, as I'm near the point where He can send me and use me most fully.

Last week, I encouraged a young man, a very new Christian, to take his pressing need to the Lord rather than handle it himself. Daily, he said he was praying. Finally, yesterday, he did something wrong -- he took the problem into his own hands. When I asked him why he didn't wait for the Lord to answer his prayer he said, "I couldn't wait any longer ... time ran out." Maybe this wasn't the Lord's battle? I don't know. I'm very worried about this young man, now, and don't understand why God didn't lead him more directly, as He often does with new Christians. Those of us who have "aged" in Christ seem to hear His voice with less clarity, as if He expected us to know how to listen more intently and closely, although this isn't always true. I also know Christians who amazingly hear from God all day, even in the little, insignificant things. I tend to think God doesn't care about the little stuff. I know most people says He does, that we should life up our daily needs and queries to Him, but it seems to me that He is most focused when we are doing the tasks that He set before us to do, His specific will. I hope I'm wrong about this, but fear I'm not. We fight our battles in the flesh, then, because they're not of great concern to God. Most of them. And, frankly, they're not of great concern to us either. Life has big and little battles. We bring the big ones to him, not the little battles. I am confident that, like Moses, when I'm in the middle of my calling, the point of my life ... my destiny, so to speak, that He will fight my battles for and with me. When I'm standing before Pharoah, He'll be there. (But when I'm standing in front of the refrigerator, battling the temptation to have something sweet, He lets me fight that battle alone.) Most battles are internal. Even the big ones are, ultimately, internal. We fight the weakness of character and faith that we possess AS we fight those external enemies, forces, the government, etc.

Most Christians are willing to die for their faith but waffle at the thought of torture, stoning, beating, incineration, being eaten by animals, waterboarding, interrogation and intense suffering ... BEFORE God lets them die. From the comfort of our “easy” chairs, it is a costless mental exercise to opine on a godly death. Such thoughts take on reality when they grok the horror of death at the hands of cruel and sadistic government bureaucrats, cf. martyrs. So, sure, we are willing to die, but are less confident about being tortured to death. To diminish the horrifying persecution and suffering of the martyrs by claiming they were "afraid to take up their cross daily" ... is mindbogglingly cruel. This was not a situation when they said a few cross words and then had to eat crow and apologize. This was torture unto death! That's what the cross represents. Here's what I want to know -- Does God cause Christians to suffer more than non-Christians? Are Christians more greatly persecuted than unbelievers? Could our loving father cease to protect us at the moment of need, after turning up the heat of the crucible to purify our character ... unto death? Is it God's will to be persecuted unjustly? Yes, he gives us words when we need them, but then again, he also lets us die gruesome deaths. Death is the ultimate debilitation, after all. We are asked to overlook this, somehow, believing and trusting the God who caused us to suffer in the first place: note that God did not "permit" suffering, as if he couldn't help it, but actually "caused" our suffering in the sense that He desired we experience intense pain. I simply cannot wrap my brain around the idea that a good and loving God wills for his children to be persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith and sanctification.

What astounds me in this biblical story is Moses' unwavering confidence that he had heard God correctly. Without such a confidence, Moses surely would have waffled as he was not a strong and determined person willing to sacrifice his own life for his own beliefs. Moses, in my opinion, had a rather weak character, but his weakness was mitigated by his absolute confidence he had heard God's voice and understood what God was telling him to do. Such confidence! I pray to be like this. So far, I have never felt this confident that I had heard God's voice. I often wonder if it was my voice, or partly my voice, or even if I had misconstrued His voice. I think Moses' confidence was due to the undeniable clarity of God's revelation. Because of God's clear revelation, Moses had the strength to resist compromise. Without this revelation, Moses would have folded ... quickly. Church leaders can only respond like Moses if the revelation is crystal clear, if there is no doubt that God wills a particular action. Otherwise, compromise should be considered as this is now human-to-human diplomacy. Whatever we, as Christians, desire to do is no more than human emotion and reason unless it's given the imprimatur of God's voice. We should never, even as leaders, discount, demean or overrule the emotions/reasoning of other Christians without, at a minimum, seriously considering compromise.

I was never persecuted until I began to take my faith seriously. Then, strange things began to happen and the persecution has been intense. We aren't persecuted because of our beliefs, but because of our behaviors. If we live out our faith in such a way that others do not understand or agree with, then we'll be persecuted. The venues for persecution occur on the interface between secular and Christian. Often this means between the government and the church or individual believers. Parents who go to school board meetings to protest trannies reading to their children, for example, can find their taxes raised, spurious charges placed against them by social service workers, strange and constant "drive-bys" when they walk in the evening, etc. This isn't paranoia. It's happening. Increasingly. If a person has never been persecuted it's because he or she is not on the interface, but is safely ensconced in the Christian church bubble. The minute a believer confronts people who are secular, confrontations, differences and persecutions begin. People whose light is hidden under a Christian bushel will never shine brightly before secularists -- they will never be persecuted. -- I'm sorry, but persecution is so painful and fear-inducing that I can't imagine being happy as it occurs. I will say, though, that persecution is a form of suffering and suffering always brings us closer to Him. Perhaps this would be a fourth reason to rejoice (when it finally ends) -- that your faith has grown exponentially in ways that would never have happened had you not been persecuted.

I have only seen confrontation done poorly. Suffice it to say that one's motive for confronting someone has to be very, very carefully analyzed. At times, the "confronter" is asserting himself, protecting his bruised ego, or lashing out at someone out of anger and even jealousy. This confrontation is not done out of love, but out of a desire to preserve power, position and reputation. To fear or delay confrontation implies humility and the ability to self-reflect. It's a good thing. It's interesting that Pastor Ralph assumes we don't confront as much as we should. Perhaps that's true, but in my experience, confrontation-like encounters occur far too often. I would have flipped the question to read: "What happens when we eagerly confront when we shouldn't!" Confrontation isn't usually frontal. Most of the time it's oblique or even done behind someone's back. I suppose you could say that this isn't true confrontation -- you'd be correct -- but this is the guise which confrontation often takes. Poor confrontation can blindside the "victim." Rather than settle something privately the leader immediately turns to a public forum, using shaming as a way to force compliance. Many years ago, I watched an academic Christian leader destroy the confidence of a young man who dared to disagree with his premises. I'm certain the younger man has never forgotten what was done to him in that closed door meeting. It would have been easy to simply pull the young man aside and talk to him one-on-one, but the academic wanted to assert himself in such a way that everyone understood he was a big deal to be feared. Sadly, I think it worked. The use of public prayer as a venue for confrontation is particularly disturbing. Recently I heard a prayer in which the leader demanded God help those who "weren't fully in" on his project. I've also heard a person praying that the "timid" be "released" to engage in worship styles and behaviors that the leader wanted. Note that these people were asking, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, for the Holy Spirit to guide or change other people. I have to say that I have never seen church confrontations done well. Usually, the person on the receiving end of confrontation slips away and is never seen again. I've also seen -- perhaps this is what Pastor Ralph is thinking about? -- people not disciplined who clearly should have been, for example, a member of the board/vestry/elders who was having numerous affairs which leaders overlook because he's a big donor. It must be very difficult to be a pastor or leader of a church which is factionalized and back-biting, particularly if that pastor takes his flock's spiritual formation and/or sanctification seriously. In such a situation, confrontation is fraught with downstream social effects that distract from the purity of his motive. It's understandable that pastors in fractious churches decline to rebuke and confront as they will personally bear the brunt of such obedience to their calling. I do feel compassion for them.

This doesn’t make sense. When we think about Christ’s death on the cross, we consider it something He did for us, an act so God-like that we can only stand in awe. Christ’s death on the cross gives us unmerited, undeserved, barely understood, completely God-gracious salvation. The point is that His act stands outside of history, though also in it, as something we can’t imagine or participate in. But, these verses suggest that in this life we’re to participate in this one aspect of his cross – his suffering. Why would God want us to share in His suffering as He completes a completely unmerited act of love for us? I would hope that our suffering doesn’t somehow earn us points in His kingdom, but this is how it sounds to me. I know that medieval Christians often glorified His suffering – even today, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic crosses have the suffering, dying Christ on it; the Protestant cross is empty. As Christians, we can choose to focus on His suffering or on His glorious ascension. I know that I want to live in the light of his resurrection, not his suffering and pain. I can’t help but think that this is an ex post facto attempt by Peter to explain why Christians were suffering. He has turned suffering into a godly act, not a horrible thing that happens to people even people of faith. As someone who has suffered greatly, I must say that I’d do anything to be relieved of the pain and consequences of some of the choices I have made. I’m tired of suffering. I want His relief. But these verses don’t promise relief. They only promise more and more suffering with the benefit of partaking in His suffering.

I can understand Moses' anger toward God. After all, Moses DID obey and then things got worse. He did what God told him to do -- exactly. God had promised that the Israelites would be released, etc., but this did not happen. What was Moses supposed to think? From Moses' perspective: He had heard God wrong. That's the first thing I would think if I were in Moses' predicament: I got it wrong. The timing was off. This is the second thing I would think if I were Moses, that I did the right thing at the wrong time. Thirdly, If I were Moses, I'd question God's goodness. At this point, the faith-spiral downward would start. My faith would falter. I would say to myself, "I did the right thing ... I obeyed, but God didn't do His part." Stubborn? What would make Moses think that God would pull through for him? He had, after all, been banished to the desert for 40 years without being rescued, so why would God suddenly change His stripes and stand behind Moses? Yes, he heard God's voice. His audible voice. That's pretty convincing, I would think, but then again, the evidence of the past 40 years would weigh against a voice, which could have been misinterpreted or, even, self-fabricated. Only after God was unable to fully convince, reason with, cajole and comfort Moses did God resort to His command voice. Moses and Aaron were rational actors who had rightly worried they were getting this wrong, particularly after the initial acts of obedience had failed.