the överflow

A ROOT OF BITTERNESS

When I was converted back in 2005 I had one ferocious idol latch on and sneak in with me into the New World. It is true that when God made me into a new creation that the old things passed away. Formerly, my desires, worldly ambitions, and contentedness were bound up in an insatiable desire for an Earthly legacy. Beyond my ability to explain it, my desire now was for a Heavenly legacy.

Directly on the other side of my conversion, I forfeited a record contract that would have most likely propelled me into worldly fame and success. But I did not abandon music altogether, I became a worship leader of a large church. With this move I would use my musical gifts for God’s glory instead of my own, the problem was that I set out to use my gifts for God’s glory according to my own idea of what that would inevitably look like, a picture not unlike the vision I had for myself when in the world.

Years went by and a deluge of comments like, “The next Chris Tomlin”, or, “Your gifts are meant for more than just these four walls”, made me believe my own press, and worse, ministry success became something that I felt I was entitled to. My entitlement became so severe that I turned down two separate songwriting contracts with a major label because the contracts weren’t “good enough”.  So, after my first worship album, I essentially sat back in my office and waited for the calls, from the ones who "got it", to come flooding in … and as the period of silence increased, the seed of bitterness began to take root.

That root grew steadily for the next 3 years. I became angry with God for ‘wasting’ the musical and spiritual gifts He had given me. I became defeated by the amount of closed doors and I developed a bad case of cynicism and depression.  I did the work, now it was God’s turn. Why not just open one door? It didn’t have to be at the head of the table, but at least a seat at the table.

The reason for the push-back was simple; I cared more about a seat at the ‘worship music table’ than I did about the seat of honor that I had been given at God’s table through Christ. This discontent brought on many trials and vain-pursuits over the next two years, and the root of bitterness grew deeper and deeper and started bearing some ugly fruit.  God brought me through humiliation after humiliation showing me that what I really deserved apart from His grace was not ‘nothing’ … it is worse than nothing … it is death.

It took uprooting my family, moving six times in two years and traveling thousands of miles to come to a simple revelation: I never really laid down my life for Christ’s sake. All of this 'sacrifice' was for the sake of pursuing my own glory. Sure, I had been saved by God’s grace, but the miserable truth was that I never really forfeited any of my own agenda in my heart, just outwardly.  I realized that years earlier, when I rejected the secular recording contract, I assumed my fame and success in music ministry would parallel the fame and success in the world that I had envisioned for myself but had "sacrificed". The only thing I actually forfeited was the venue.

REJECTING THE BREAD OF LIFE

Looking back, God was being a gracious Father in not giving a spoiled brat child what he was tantruming for.  He would never let an idol be worshiped, but especially one in the name of His own worship. This idol was so intertwined and infused with my heart that it took a long, very delicate surgery to remove it, and not without a painful recovery.  I am still in recovery. Yes, He can make the blind to see in an instant, but sometimes He uses the mess of spit-wrought mud on the eyes and a season of hazy vision to achieve this end (John 9). This is so we can truly grasp the miracle of redemption that is taking place and not take it for granted. Admittedly, I am still seeing ‘men as trees walking’, but hindsight is in full 20/20 vision as I consider the time lost, ministry and family neglected, but mostly the years of broken fellowship with my Father. I've repented and am still repenting.

Recently, God focused my vision a bit more with a vivid revelation of myself that went beyond simply "idolatry". We are all struck at times by certain words or phrases during reading. These may be considered “profound” or “insightful”, but there are those times where God takes a phrase or section of a book and uses it as an arrow to the heart. Such a moment happened to me recently.

In this particular book the Author, discussing temptation, refers to the Israelites in the wilderness complaining about the manna from Heaven and desiring to go back into Slavery in Egypt where their bellies were full. He tied this in with Christ in John 6 feeding the five thousand and then having His followers return for more bread. In response, Jesus refuses their request and offers Himself as the Bread of Life; they reject Him. The bread from Heaven (manna) and the single loaf increased to thousands are both pictures of Christ Himself. The Israelites and Christ's followers were rejecting the True, Everlasting Bread from Heaven for flour, salt, water and yeast.

God immediately convicted me and showed me that throughout these years I came to Christ, desired to make Him King (as His followers desired in John 6) but I, like them, wanted Him as King to provide me with my own bread, while rejecting Him as the Bread of Life. And like the Israelites in the desert, I was discontent with the Bread from Heaven and wanted to go back to my former days as a slave to sin where my ‘belly was full’ of worldly promises.  Ironically, when I rejected my worldly success I had always used John 6 to show that I, like Christ, had run away from “being made King” by the world for the sake of God’s will. It took years of eating stale, maggot infested bread to realize that I was in fact like His followers who wanted Him as King for their own desires rather than seeking Him as their only desire.

The following day at Church, having been crushed with this conviction the night before, the communion homily started out with the Israelites discontent with manna in the wilderness and ended in John 6 where Christ’s followers desired the bread He could give them rather than desiring Him as the Bread of Life.  Sometimes God is not so subtle. The “trees” are starting to take shape.

EATING BRAINS

I believe my story is the story of many Christian ministers (and Christians) in America. America calls for us to ‘save our life’ for comfort while Christ is calling us to ‘lose our life’ through suffering. When we are saved by God’s grace, as babes in Christ, it is easy to define ‘losing our life’ as doing what we want with our interests and gifts and simply slap the “Ministry” label onto it; even good things.  This is because, as Americans, the essence of our sinful man, from birth, is one of entitlement, temporal happiness and self-worship. So, when we are converted, there is a need to unlearn everything before we can truly know anything. The 'progress' of sanctification then is more of an unlearning and accepting of what is through the work of Christ than it is strictly a work toward spiritual growth wrought from our obedience; something that your American heritage would have you believe. It is this "unlearning" and "accepting" that enables and realizes true conformity to the image of Christ. This is a painful, agenda-altering, life-ending, humiliating work, but His grace is sufficient and His ends are glorious.

To lose our life means what it means. The world will cry, “Waste!” while our Father sees fruit. The culture of ministry fame is luring us in with its promise of bread and a full belly, and in the name of giving others the Bread of Life.  In our hearts, we must not be like Lot, who, when offered a choice, and in the name of “God’s blessing”, chose the fruitful land near the enticing city, only to end up being corrupted by the close proximity,  and eventually living in the city itself (Sodom & Gomorrah), offering his daughters for sex.  We must instead be like Abraham who knew the lure of the land's bounty and the temptations of the city and kept his heart far from them, choosing the lesser land and trusting God for the increase.  This doesn’t look the same for everyone, but the common link we all share is a guarantee of persecution and suffering. In fact, these are ways to know whether we are, what I call, "American Zombies" or Paul's "Living Sacrifices".

American Zombies are the Christian living dead, but unlike the living dead of the Living Sacrifice, who is laying down their life for the sake of the brethren and God's glory, suffering by means of submitted wills and scorning comfort, Zombies are consumed with their own glory and desires and are unaware of their dire sate. They are suffering, but not in the way God intends. They're not quite alive, they're not quite dead. Jesus describes these Christians in Revelation 3.  These are followers who think they're okay, but can't see that they're poor, blind and naked. These are followers who are neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm.

Then there are those Living Sacrifices that are on death's door, still lying on the altar. I am still on the altar, not seeing perfectly clear, struggling with entitlement, “looking for the occasional brain to eat”, but I believe I'm on "death's door" and that God, by His grace, is making me into a mobile living sacrifice. God knows when I am ready and He will use me in spite of my readiness. The burning-bush call to Egypt may never come, It may be my calling to faithfully serve in Jethro's house. Nevertheless, during our times of waiting, we must seek Him diligently as the Bread of Life and as one who is perfectly content but never satisfied on this side of Heaven. This will yield the good fruit that God desires. By God's grace, I will see that there is every Christian's calling. This is the good fight of faith.

This is a prayer based on November 10th reading in My Utmost for His Highest by Oswald Chambers.

Father, during sanctification, it is difficult to state what my purpose in life is, because You have moved me into Your purpose through the Holy Spirit. You are using me now for Your purposes throughout the world as You used Your Son for the purpose of my salvation. If I seek great things for myself, thinking, “You have called me for this and for that,” I barricade You from using me. As long as I maintain my own personal interests and ambitions, I cannot be completely aligned or identified with Your interests. I know that this can only be accomplished by giving up all of my personal plans once and for all, and by recognizing that You have already placed me directly into Your purpose for the world. My understanding of my ways must also be surrendered, because they are now Your ways.

So, Father, in my best intention, understanding that I can only truly surrender these things by Your grace in the power of your Spirit, I surrender my personal ambitions and interests and plead that I may be completely aligned and identified with Your interests, recognizing that I can do nothing without You. Lord, remove all self-sufficiency and all effort apart from those works done with my eyes focused on Your Son, Jesus.

As you did to Your servant Moses, You have brought me into a desert place; to teach me patience and humility. Like Moses, may I be faithful in Jethro's house and not work with one eye on Egpyt.  If you so choose to bring me to my own burning bush and call me to an impossible task; so be it. Help me Lord to see that the duties of my calling are not my gift to you, but are Your gift to me.  I am a fellow laborer in the gospel.  May I not stoop to be a King.  May I understand that you have no need of me, but include me in Your work because You love me as Your son.

Allow me to quickly learn that the purpose of my life belongs to You, not me. You are using me from Your great personal perspective, and all You ask of me is that I trust You. Help me to trust You, Lord. May I not be like Sarai who laughs at Your timing and doubts Your sure promise. May I never say, “Lord, my dull situation and benign circumstances cause me such frustration.” No! Pull me from this cozy "world within a world" I have created to protect myself from the pain of unrealized selfish ambition.  Create in me a new heart and renew in me a right spirit less I be a stumbling block to Your cause.

Lord, forgive me for telling You what I want, may my willingness and flexibility not be out of indifference; a defeated concession, but may I cherish every task, however menial in the opinion of the world, as a Kingly mandate.  Father, freely work Your will in me without any hindrance. You can crush me, exalt me, or do anything else You choose. Yet, in whatever you choose for me, may I have absolute faith in You and Your goodness.

Forgive me for my cynicism and self-pity; it is of the devil, and my uselessness in the work You have for me in this world has been due to my wallowing in it.   Like the prodigal son, I run from the mire of self-pity, self-indulgence and self-sufficiency so that I may once again be indulged in the Fatherly embrace of Your sufficient power, love and grace.  Amen.

(Other references include Martin Luther and Dr. Arturo Azurdia)

One of my Pastor friends asked me to give my thoughts on this article, Where Rock Stars Go To Die, at The Gospel Coalition blog.  Here is my response:

First of all, the article is not really making any overarching point except documenting a few relevant concerns and Kluck's assumptions, bias and experience. Some points that he makes within the article are valid and I wished there was more focus on these points (e.g., the temptation for talented worship leaders to conform to the world's idea of succes rather than God's).  Kluck's dliemma is within the realm of contextual tensions and he is confusing categories; specifically, absolutes vs relatives within specific contexts.   He seems to offer a truce near the end of his article, but not before completely bashing a specific context/style/genre. So, he can't have his cake and eat it too.  Here are my thoughts concerning the content:

When we set out to minister, or plant a church or are invited to speak/play at some event, a specific context has been determined for us--or is present--whether we want to accept it or not.  As I observe, there are primarily two legitimate contexts for the American church: liberal or conservative(1).  When we set out to fulfill our mission as ministers, we draw a line; we set our boundaries that determine our context and make clear the areas of accommodation, which we are to avoid. This line is either facing the city or the suburb. The suburb is the more conservative context and requires different, less-obvious concerns for accomodation; while the city is the more liberal context where accommodation to the world-spirit is blatant.  Just as Christ is the antinomy of the Lion and the Lamb, the Church is His literal body and it's essence is this tension.  One context is the lamb (conservative), the other is the lion (liberal). We must coexist as the Lion and the Lamb.  This is where the impact of loving each other as proof to the world that we are Christians lies; this is it's significance, that the Lion lays with the Lamb and vice versa. 

Because of sin, the tension often reveals momentary lapses where the teeth of the lion are revealed and the cowardice of the sheep is revealed.  The tendency is for each context to misunderstand each other, and so judge each other while simultaneously truly understanding each other in terms of the gaps that each context is filling as opposed to the other.(2)  The conservative context judges the loud, concert like worship with hip musicians while the liberal context judges the out of touch methodology that incorporates pipe organs, suits and actual hymnals. Or the conservative context judges the social justice focus and the liberal politics of believers in that context while the other (the liberal) judges the conservative context for being Nationalistic, fear mongers, judgemental, and irrelevant. 

The teeth of the liberal context is observed in many different ways but mostly in its tendency to accommodate a world-spirit and call it "relevance" in the name of "not being like the typical evangelical".  The cowardice of the conservative context is observed through "building fortresses" (Churches) that are designed to protect from the world's taint and thus become irrelevant to anyone other than those exactly like them; who's relative traditions (which at one time were fresh and relevant) become absolutes rather than means to an end.  The relatives (i.e., music choices, methodology, attire, particular church culture) and the absolutes of the context (i.e., the gospel, the sacraments, worship) become fused together, and separation would most likely be fatal to the organism.  This is where the two contexts need to support each other.  Each is able to see the lack of the other and each is able to see where the accommodation is occurring, either toward the world (liberal) or toward the parishioners (conservative).  The challenge is for each context to mutually coexist in genuine love.  This is supplied through sharing the main artery of the true gospel.

Take [LIBERAL CHURCH] for instance. They have gospel-centered preaching, gospel-centered worship and a love for their people.  They have the likes of [Seminary Prof.], who wears a suit while preaching, preach in the pulpit. Yet, this church is  incredibly liberal in their politics (yet opposed to abortion and gay marriage), in their demeanor and in their conversation.  Are they wrong?  No more wrong than a church like [CONSERVATIVE CHURCH] that is equally gospel-centered, and equally love their people but who are primarily conservative politically, and are conservative in dress, methodology and demeanor.  The trick of discerment is being able to identify the "respectable" sin or "irrelevance" and understand that it holds the balance with the more noticeably odious "world-spirit accommodation" on the other side.  The sin of world-spirit accommodation is like the sin of murder, it's out there an it's obvious; a sin like accommodating preferences of parishioners over yielding to a context that seeks to truly reach the culture it's placed within seems on the surface to be pious, but is in fact sin.(3)

This is important to understand for both contexts: there does not need to be a perfect balance of each in either context.  God has supplied ministries to be "all things to all men" but not every ministry will be "all things all the time to all men of every kind". When this occurs, we have the total gospel irrelevance of the moderate context (i.e., Joel Osteen).  But there does need to be a comradery and an understanding that we will not understand each other's specific calling but that we unite in the calling of the great commission.  The point of separation and legitimage judgement for me is not methodology, style, genre or context but the gospel.  What is each context saying about Christ and His Church?  What is their Theology, missiology, Christology, Ecclesiology (Ecclesiology being, in some details, a secondary issue)? How are they loving Christ's Bride?

So, for instance, James MacDonald should not be defending Perry Noble or even directly reference him apart from a loving admonishment. On the other hand, Mark Driscoll and John MacArthur should be getting along swimmingly and yet their relationship is based primarily upon the loving admonishment that should be the primary feature in the MacDonald/Noble relationship. Within the Driscoll/MacArthur relationship, admonishment should be a secondary feature. They are both united on the gospel and here is a perfect example of two opposing contexts that should not expect to understand each other's specific calling.(4)

As a side note: The lion and lamb tension in contexts is also observed in the ministers themselves. The lamb (Pastors) can be Pastors to a fault (e.g., James MacDonal and The Elephant Room). The Prophet (in a "polemical defender of the truth" sense) can be a Defender to a fault. (i.e., James White). Yet, for the Body of Christ to be operating at full capacity the lion and lamb ministers must work, not at a distance as differeing contexts do, but linked arm in arm, ministering to the same people with opposing gift sets. Just as legitimate contexts do not understand each other, the Pastor (Lamb) thinks the Prophet too harsh and unloving and the Prophet (Defender) feels the Pastor is too ecumenical, a people pleaser. Yet it is the accountability of working closely with those who posses opposing gifts that keeps the Pastor truly a God-pleaser and the Prophet truly a lover of God's people. The tension is held in balance.

From here, each context (minister and ministry) must at all times be fully aware that they are constantly being pulled towards either a liberal agenda or a traditionalist agenda.  The tendency of the conservative/traditional context is going to be irrelevance to the culture that they are trying to reach through confusing relatives in methodology with absolutes.  (The longer a relative aspect (i.e., hymnal melodies) is practiced alongside absolutes the harder it becomes to know where the separation lies and irrelevance is imminent).  The tendency of the liberal context is going to be accommodation to the culture they are trying to reach through treating absolutes as relative (i.e., Rob Bell).  It is the role of each context, I believe, to help each other from being pulled toward these ends.  This is where iron sharpens iron, this is where we obey the Biblical mandate to admonish one another. 

So what does this have to do with worship music? Everything. Klucks points were valid.  There is a terrible tendency for ministry fame and song publishing/recording to be the end goal of talented worship leaders. We are at a disadvantage with how small the world has become through the technology we use.  We have more severe temptations than our spiritual forefathers did and we need to become more small-minded about missiology and trust that God has the rest of the world covered and if He gives the increase... so be it. We need to think like Andrew Murray who never left his home in South Africa in his lifetime, but was dedicated to the small group that God had given Him, and look at the increase God yielded through revival. There are endless examples like these.  The "fame during a ministers lifetime" scenario is almost unprecedented and is one of Satan's most worn weapons against the Church right now. 

In worship, relevance often requires using the tools and presentation that the world can connect with.  Here is the rule that I live by: my goal in worship methodology/song choice is to alienate the least amount of people, not to be relevant to the most, which is the definition of accommodation. This means that for me, traditional hymn singing with an organ and hymnals is great for church culture but bad for reaching the community.  My wife has said that if her first visit many years ago was to a church that sang old hymns to a hymnal with an organ, she would not have gone back.  Today, she (and I) enjoys it as a reminder of our heritage and because she can rightly and in real-time separate content from context, relatives from absolutes.  We should not be asking visitors to do that.  We will be able to connect with some in this case, but not nearly as many as we could. So, [THE PASTOR OF CONSERVATIVE CHURCH] is making the right adjustments without abandoning altogether the preference of the parishioners. Singing a new song is always wrought with growing pains.  New songs mean change and change means challenge.

We must realize that the traditional context is no longer relevant to our culture, but to a very specific group of Christians.  Archaic Church traditions carry stigmas with them that are themselves stumbling-blocks for those we are trying to reach; where the gospel should be the only potential stumbling-block.  Christ made it clear that our traditions make God's Word void.  We must remember that the traditional context was once very relevant (e.g., hymns were using bar songs).  Because these traditions seem less tainted by the world today, they are given more of a normative treatment than they should receive.  I do not necessarily disagree with a worship service that feels like a concert, to judge it according to how it seems does not make it a legitimate criticism.  What are they saying about Christ? How are they leading the people? Who or what is the focus? The message is the medium, but that does not mean that there will NOT be a medium the message passes through. The idea again is about emphasis and not inclusion vs exclusion. So, I think it was wrong of Kluck to judge these guys the way he did and I think his warnings were valid and should be heeded by every worship leader.  I am not opposed to the styles / genres / and setting if that is what is required.  What is the alternative at an event like this (Aquire the Fire)?  No lights, a pipe organ and a hymnal? At that point, what is it really about?  It may not be worship of the worship leader but it is worship of a context.

At the same time I do not think that we should abandon traditional context altogether in worship, but it must be framed in cultural relevance (all things to all men vein) and used with intentionality.  I am encouarged by [PASTOR OF CONSERVATIVE CHURCH] leadership in this regard.  Laying down our preference for God's purpose is the definition of love. So context determines context, not a movement and certainly not a former context. We must live in tension as either a lamb with Lion or Lion with lamb.  Our point of unity must be the true gospel and specifics within opposing contexts must be defined as a secondary issue. Again, this does not mean that there will not be loving admonition, but it is the lion nipping the lamb and the lamb butting the lion; they must never be separated. We must never separate Christ.

______________________________________

(1) When I say "liberal", I do not mean liberal theology [i.e., social justice] but rather the liberal, Gospel-driven context that may have instances of liberal politics, yet in this case "liberal" means "liberal in appearance, demeanor, tastes, etc."

(2) The tense relationship between MaCarthur and Driscoll is a good example of this.  MaCarthur is rightly offering some legitimate critique but in doing so he throws the baby out with the bathwater and implies that his own context is an aboslute; the only legitimate/Biblical context.

(3) Note: I am not accusing [CONSERVATIVE CHURCH] of this, they are one example of properly living in that tension.  While it is not without struggle and unsatisfied preference there is stretching and growth.  So don't misunderstand because of the sentence context, this is the struggle and tendency of every traditional context. 

(4) It could be argued that MacArthur is one of the greatest failures in this regard. All one has to do is drive through some of the worst ethnic neighborhoods in Sun Valley to get to his church and attend one of his services to have a lesson on how not to approach contextualization.

 An excerpt from: 

The Church Cries “Uncle” (“Sam” That Is)

It has taken me 3 years, 4,000 miles and three life altering failures to understand this truth and it will take me a lifetime to learn it.  I am eager to put it into practice and see the fruit of it:  

Any success that is not birthed out of loving people through self-denial is meaningless. Godly ambition is never detached from a primary concern for His people. The wrong ambition puts the cart before the horse and seeks success for the blessing of others. Godly ambition seeks the spiritual success of others for the glory of God while accepting the personal outcome—good or bad—with joy.

Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.

This verse was read in our Easter service yesterday.  As I was listening, two words jumped out at me: "and Peter".   Why didn't the angels simply say "his disciples", why single out Peter?  Within the context of the Angel's message, the singling out of Peter is staggering.  Two nights before, while Christ was on His way to be crucified, Peter had betrayed Jesus three times; the one thing Peter swore he would never do.  How would you feel the morning after? Considering yourself Christ's most loyal disciple and defender, you betrayed Him at His greatest moment of need.   In a word, Peter was ruined.  Apart from God's grace, Peter would never escape the shame and condemnation of his betrayal.  

Whatever you are going through at this time in your life, whatever you are feeling in regards to shame and guilt for sin that denies God in action, or if you are being tempted to doubt His goodness amidst a difficult trial, I want you to consider such a love as this:  Here, in Mark 16, the culmination of all of history is being declared by messengers of God.  From before "Let there be light", this announcement of a risen savior was predestined to be the climax of human history and the single most profound display of God's glory upon Earth until He returns as Judge.  But God, in this moment, is concerned for a single sheep.  God is leaving the sheepfold to rescue the one who betrayed Him; and, at such a moment as this . . . Peter was on His mind.  Here, it is revealed that the lesson to be learned from Peter's betrayal is not a sharing in shame, having all acted Peter's part; but a sharing in assurance that when we do act Peter's part, our Father will act His.  

You and I often feel so insignificant, that our problems and struggles are so distant from the heart of our Father, but by showing us His concern for Peter during the pinnacle of history, He is showing us How significant our seemingly insignificant moments of shame and despair are to Him.  Whatever you are going through, wherever you are today remember that at such a moment as this . . . you are on His mind. 

I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. (Revelation 3:15-18)

The American Church is one of many examples, between Christ's ascension and today, of the Laodicean Church.  (To claim that it is the Laodicean Church is the epitome of irony.)  The Laodicean churches throughout history have been cultures of self-dependence and self-righteousness.   The Laodicean Christian cannot empathize with the writing of Burroughs (below) and scoffs at such self-mutilation.  The truly Christian response to the below exhortations is a grieving, repenting heart that mourns failing to 'be nothing'.

I can't help but notice an interesting parallel between the Lawyer in Luke 10, the Laodicean Church and Christ's response to both. In Luke 10, the lawyer (I love that he was a lawyer) "put Christ to the test" and asked Jesus what must be done to inherit eternal life. ("Inherit" is an interesting word choice, it reveals some underlying presumptions on the part of the lawyer.) Christ responds: "He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" And he (the lawyer) answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." And Christ said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live."  By bypassing the need for the Father's gift of faith in His explanation, Christ was revealing a self-sufficiency lurking behind the lawyer's apparent dependance.  Christ knew that if the lawyer was one that the Father had given Him then the attempt to "obey the law and live" would drive him to desperate dependance upon God's grace as he consistently and consciously failed to "do this".  

Now consider the broad categorical Laodicean Church, and specifically its modern day instance; the American Church.  Christ, as Judge, has no problem with blunt honesty in Revelation 3; "For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see." Within the poetic setting of apocalyptic literature, Christ points to the underlying man-centered theology of the Laodicean Church, of which the lawyer in Luke 10 was a member.  I can't help but notice a tone of sarcasm in Christ's response; "If you are so rich and need nothing, then buy from me what I have offered freely and you will see."  But what will they "see"?  This depends upon the nature of the heart taking on God's challenge. (See The Parable of the Seeds) Christ came for the sick and not for the well.  The "well" heart will be pleased in their ability to obey the law.  The "sick" heart will see their blindness; they will see that if they "do this to live", they will die.  Seeing our blindness through our failure to be good enough allows for us to see Christ and desire to be nothing.  This is the path to the cross.

Here are something to consider as you read the below segment from Burroughs:  Does your heart ache as you read?  Or, do you disagree with his "negativity"?  Your response will be very beneficial to you as an examination to see whether you are in the faith (1 Cor. 13).  What Burroughs is getting at here is the very heart of Christ's Sermon on the Mount.  

As an American and as a human you have the unalienable right to pursue worldly happiness.  If you are a Christian you have no such right (Matt. 10:39).  Godliness with contentment is great gain.  Make this a Christian mantra, let it convict and transform you . . . 

The Self Denial that Brings Contentment

Christ teaches self-denial and how that brings contentment.  

1. Such a person learns to know that he is nothing. He comes to this, to be able to say, 'Well, I see I am nothing in myself.' That man or woman who indeed knows that he or she is nothing, and has learned it thoroughly will be able to bear anything. The way to be able to bear anything is to know that we are nothing in ourselves. God says to us, 'Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not' (Proverbs 23:5) speaking of riches. Why, blessed God, do not you do so? you have set your heart upon us and yet we are nothing. God would not have set our hearts upon riches, because they are nothing, and yet God is pleased to set his heart upon us, and we are nothing: that is God's grace, free grace, and therefore it does not much matter what I suffer, for I am as nothing.

2. I deserve nothing. I am nothing, and I deserve nothing. Suppose I lack this and that thing which others have? I am sure that I deserve nothing except it be Hell. You will answer any of your servants, who is not content: I wonder what you think you deserve? or your children: do you deserve it that you are so eager to have it? You would stop their mouths thus, and so we may easily stop our own mouths: we deserve nothing and therefore why should we be impatient if we do not get what we desire. If we had deserved anything we might be troubled, as in the case of a man who has deserved well of the state or of his friends, yet does not receive a suitable reward, it troubles him greatly, whereas if he is conscious that he has deserved nothing, he is content with a rebuff.

3. I can do nothing. Christ says, 'Without me you can do nothing' (John 15:5). Why should I make much of it, to be troubled and discontented if I have not got this and that, when the truth is that I can do nothing? If you were to come to one who is angry because he has not got such food as he desires, and is discontented with it, you would answer him, 'I marvel what you do or what use you are!' Should one who will sit still and be of no use, yet for all that have all the supply that he could possible desire? Do but consider of what use you are in the world, and if you consider what little need God has of you, and what little use you are, you will not be much discontented. if you have learned this lesson of self-denial, though God cuts you short of certain comforts, yet you will say, 'Since I do but little, why should I have much': this thought will bring down a man's spirit as much as anything.

4. I am so vile that I cannot of myself receive any good. I am not only an empty vessel, but a corrupt and unclean vessel: that would spoil anything that comes into it. So are all our hearts: every one of them is not only empty of good but is like a musty bottle that spoils even good liquor that is poured into it.

5. If God cleanses us in some measure, and puts into us some good, some grace of his Spirit, yet we can make use of nothing when we have it, if God but withdraws himself. If God leaves us one moment after he has bestowed upon us the greatest gifts, and whatever abilities we can desire, if God should say, 'I will give you them, now go and trade', we cannot progress one foot further if God leaves us. Does God give us gifts and abilities? Then let us fear and tremble lest God should leave us to ourselves, for then how foully should we abuse those gifts and abilities. You think other men and women have memory and gifts and abilities and you would fain have them-but suppose God should give you these, and then leave you, you would utterly spoil them.

6. We are worse than nothing. By sin we become a great deal worse than nothing. Sin makes us more vile than nothing, and contrary to all good. It is a great deal worse to have a contrariety to all that is good, than merely to have an emptiness of all that is good. We are not empty pitchers in respect of good, but we are like pitchers filled with poison, and is it much for such as we are to be cut short of outward comforts?

7. If we perish we will be no loss. If God should annihilate me, what loss would it be to anyone? God can raise up someone else in my place to serve him in a different way.

Now put just these seven things together and then Christ has taught you self-denial. I may call these the several words in our lesson of self-denial.

Christ teaches the soul this, so that, as in the presence of God on a real sight of itself, it can say: 'Lord, I am nothing, Lord, I deserve nothing, Lord, I can do nothing, I can receive nothing, and can make use of nothing, I am worse than nothing, and if I come to nothing and perish I will be no loss at all and therefore is it such a great thing for me to be cut short here?' A man who is little in his own eyes will account every affliction as little, and every mercy as great. Consider Saul: There was a time, the Scripture says, when he was little in his own eyes, and then his afflictions were but little to him: when some would not have had him to be King but spoke contemptuously of him, he held his peace; but when Saul began to be big in his own eyes, then the affliction began to be great to him.

There was never any man or woman so contented as a self-denying man or woman. No-one ever denied himself as much as Jesus Christ did: he gave his cheeks to the smiters, he opened not his mouth, he was as a lamb when he was led to the slaughter, he made no noise in the street. He denied himself above all, and was willing to empty himself, and so he was the most contented that ever any was in the world; and the nearer we come to learning to deny ourselves as Christ did, the more contented shall we be, and by knowing much of our own vileness we shall learn to justify God.

Whatever the Lord shall lay upon us, yet he is righteous for he has to deal with a most wretched creature. A discontented heart is troubled because he has no more comfort, but a self-denying man rather wonders that he has as much as he has. Oh, says the one, I have but a little; Aye, says the man who has learned this lesson of self-denial, but I rather wonder that God bestows upon me the liberty of breathing in the air, knowing how vile I am, and knowing how much sin the Lord sees in me. And that is the way of contentment, by learning self-denial.

8. But there is a further thing in self-denial which brings contentment.

Thereby the soul comes to rejoice and take satisfaction in all God's ways; I beseech you to notice this. If a man is selfish and self-love prevails in his heart, he will be glad of those things that suit with his own ends, but a godly man who has denied himself will suit with and be glad of all things that shall suit with God's ends. A gracious heart says, God's ends are my ends and I have denied my own ends; so he comes to find contentment in all God's ends and ways, and his comforts are multiplied, whereas the comforts of other men are single. It is very rare that God's way shall suit with a man's particular end, but always God's ways suit with his own ends. if you will only have contentment when God's ways suit with your own ends, you can have it only now and then, but a self-denying man denies his own ends, and only looks at the ends of God and therein he is contented.

When a man is selfish he cannot but have a great deal of trouble and vexation, for if I regard myself, my ends are so narrow that a hundred things will come and jostle me, and I cannot have room in those narrows ends of my own. You know in the City what a great deal of stir there is in narrow streets: since Thames street is so narrow they jostle and wrangle and fight one with another because the place is so narrow, but in the broad streets they can go quietly. Similarly men who are selfish meet and so jostle with one another, one man is for self in one thing, and another man is for self in another thing, and so they make a great deal of stir. But those whose hearts are enlarged and make public things their ends, and can deny themselves, have room to walk and never jostle with one another as others do. The lesson of self-denial is the first lesson that Jesus Christ teaches men who are seeking contentment.

(An Excerpt from the Puritan classic The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment by Jeremiah Burroughs via monergism.com)

I'm far from this.  But I am dying . . . and longing for death.  

Listening to conservative talk radio today I heard the host bid farewell with the creedal "Love of family, love of Country, love of God."  This host is a professed Christian (professed earlier in the show in fact) and despiser of liberals.  Listening to this statement caused me to wonder: Are we as Christians supposed to have a 'love of Country'?  A recognition of God's sovereignty in America's prosperity and a national nostalgia is certainly appropriate, but I am referring to the sort of love that is sandwiched between 'God' and 'family'.  

Christ's interaction with the Jewish lawyer in Luke 10 gives us a clue:

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Luke 10:25-29 (ESV)

Jesus answers the lawyer with a parable about a Jew helping a Samaritan.  Culturally, it would have been unthinkable for a Jew to help a Samaritan in this way, a far more severe dichotomy than that which is displayed in the modern Liberal/Conservative relationship.  As the ESV commentary points out, the lawyer's question was the wrong one.  "The lawyer was trying to exclude responsibility for others by making some people 'non-neighbors.' A more appropriate question would be, 'How can I be a loving neighbor?'"

An inappropriate love for Country is incompatible with appropriate love of neighbor.  Love of country that is given equal priority as 'love of God' creates an 'us against them' mentality in professing Christians where 'them' are those who disagree with the moralistic founding principles of America, or are defined primarily as 'anti-Christians'.  

It is just this moralism that makes Christian-Nationalism a 'respectable' sin.  Instead of being defenders of the faith by protecting the church community from wolves while simultaneously loving our neighbor through the fulfillment of our commission, we have become the false teachers defending a non-truth while instead trying to establish dominion over our neighbor.  Unlike the pre-Christ Jew and Samaritan, it is this moralism that would cause a modern conservative to lend a helping hand to a communist, but this sort of charity cannot be categorized under 'Christlike neighbor love' because of the demonizing, on the part of Christians, that occurs over the air wave soapbox, from the pulpits or behind closed doors.  

We are not commanded to love our neighbor as 'much as we can possibly love an enemy' or as a mere dutiful cordiality that 'agrees to disagree' and recognizes the universal brotherhood of man; no, we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves.  "Jesus makes the point in this parable that to love one's neighbor involves showing care and compassion even to those with whom one would not normally have any relationship. (cf. Jesus' command to 'love your enemies': Luke 6:27,35)"*  In fact, this display of love must go further than mere 'care and compassion'.  Self love is a jealous love, a love that objectifies Narcissis and puts self interest above all other interest.  Yet, this still does not go far enough; for to truly 'love your neighbor as yourself' means that you love your neighbor more than yourself.  Consider the words of Paul:

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus. Philippians 2:1-5 (ESV)

This is the mind of Christ.

When we look at the example of Christ, it was His love for the Father which determined the nature and degree of love for neighbor and family.  We see Him departing from His mother without a word for the sake of His 'Father's business'.  We see Jesus ignoring the Canaanite woman to focus on His mission.  Here is a great example.  Christ eventually engaged this woman on His terms and made the issue about faith rather than His good works (Matt. 15).  In the political realm, the Jews were expecting a political Savior who would establish Earthly dominion and Kingship.  In John 6 Christ's followers wanted to make Him King; here was His opportunity to establish a political Kingdom and yet he ran.  During the ascension, Christ's disciples were still convinced that a political-savior solution was in store.   Yet the only political satisfaction His followers received during His ministry was a command to "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's".  Christ was implying that dominion already belonged to God and that the Earthly-dominion solution they had hoped for would happen much differently.    

Today, christian Nationalists have taken their cue from the first century Nationalistic Jews and attempt--through means of man made law--to give Christ's law dominion over the land.   They have put down their trowel and picked up the gavel.  They have decided that Christ's Kingdom and our future inheritance can be had now.  Instead of building the invisible Church of Christ for an unseen but promised future, the nationalistic Christian attempts to take from Christ what is rightfully His and establish an Earthly Kingdom with Christians at the helm.  

We hear 'right to freedom' upon inception, but do Christians really have a right to freedom?  When this right is fueled by love for country how does this affect our commission, which one takes priority?  Did Paul defend his 'right to freedom' or did he accept his imprisonment as the will of God?  ("Everyone loves Pauline theology, nobody wants Pauline pain."**)

If you would say that it is both/and rather than either/or, how is a crusade for Christian Earthly dominion compatible with loving our neighbor as ourselves? If our crusade is a forcing of good for those who do not know better or oppose reason how are we different than the Muslim?  A forcing of good, for the good of others is found nowhere in our commission.  We plant, we water and God gives the increase.  In the realm of political ideas there are black and white 'wrongs and rights' that should be contended for on a basic human rights front, but I would argue that if the Church stayed within its ordained arena of gospel preaching and disciple making there would be a far less urgent need to fight the battle of societal preservation in the arena of political ideas.  

Eventually, a society reaches a point of no return where wrong becomes right and right becomes wrong (See the writings of Francis Schaeffer).  At this stage the Christian will feel the sense of urgency that has long been absent from their Godly ambition and will be tempted to implement means other than the Christian's mandated means--our commission--in order to preserve a perceived moral prosperity.  As tempting and as justifiable as this seems, it is not Biblically allowed for and at this point the fight for preservation must happen solely within the political arena from men who are Christians, not from Christian men***.  The American flag has no place beside the cross, and political activism as the Church puts the cart before the horse while trampling our commission.  Evangelicals need to understand that the reason our Christian nation has failed is because Christians tried to make America a Christian nation instead of simply building the Kingdom of God.  We've spent our inheritance and can't see that we're pigs in the mire, not heros on the horizon.  We need to simply see our failure and depravity, run home to our Father and get about His business, our commission, once again.  

It is all very backwards.  Take a step back and consider; compared to the economy of Heaven, the conservative ideology is far more liberal than liberalism.  Heaven is an autocracy where there is no freedom of religion, where there is no tolerance and where there is no love or compassion for sinful neighbors; instead a destroying of the infidel.  So Christians, as nominally Christian (this specificity is important), attempt to preserve a way of life that in a very large sense will be destroyed upon Christ's return.  I am not implying that we should accept human autocracy as the answer; no, democracy is the necessary evil we must adhere to until Christ reigns physically.  What I am saying is that we should stop attempting to make Christ the earthly King and recognize that He already is.  We seem to have forgotten that He is enduring vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, that He prayed for His people to be left on the Earth despite the Father unleashing the end time judgements into the world upon His Son's ascension.   We are attempting to magnify God's glory through making Christ the Earthly King for 'love of Country' rather than pointing to Christ's Heavenly Kingship in a gospel and eschatological context; our clear commission and sole responsibility.  

I would prefer that there be another category division made (as recently espoused in a Ligonier article) among Christians.  'Evangelical' has lost all meaning.  Many who make it their focus to preserve the 'Christian' nation of America are functioning Deists; even those who profess a Theistic faith in Christ (i.e., Glenn Beck).  Christianity in this case becomes a means to an end rather than the end which determines the means.  Nominal Christianity has destroyed Christianity in America.  Loving a neighbor as oneself has become synonymous with social justice instead of a love that seeks the good of others through the gospel and turns the other cheek when Christian 'rights' are affronted.  

When we place Country on the same pedestal as God we are tempted to ask the same question as the lawyer, "Who is our neighbor?" When we adhere to Christ's command to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" we ask the right question, "How can I be a loving neighbor?"  Truly, there are not equal parts.  We are not to divide our love equally between Country, family and God.  We love God with all of our being--there is nothing left over--and this love determines the nature and degree of the display of our love toward country, family and neighbor.  Our commission does not allow us to be concerned for the safety of our family on the mission field or for our 'right to freedom'; it does not allow for a crusade to preserve a particular way of life for future generations.**** Truly, when we consider others as more significant than ourselves, even our own safety is irrelevant.  

So, as Christians, let us not justify our respectable idol worship by claiming to be fighting for the prosperity of future Christian generations.  Instead, let us show the future Christian generations what loving God above all else and forsaking all Earthly rights for the sake of our neighbor looks like.  Loving our neighbor includes everyone only when we love all equally with the gospel, only when we point them to the coming Earthly reign of Christ and command them to worship Him as King here and now.  As soon as we adopt Christian dominionism we are unable to love particular people groups as ourselves.  When you are tempted to pick the wrong battle to fight, when you are more passionate about political activism than your commission, remember: This is not our home ... this is not our home ... this is not our home.  It's time to put down the gavel that seeks to enforce dominionism for the sake of family, and for the sake of God's glory pick up the trowel that breaks up the fallow ground and is the good news of a future, eternal Kingdom.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5-11 (ESV)

*ESV commentary

**Matt Chandler

***I like Calvin believe that the political arena should be filled with Christian men fighting for democracy; solely for the freedom to worship, not for any reason that would spare the Church from sharing in the sufferings of Christ.  However, this political battle should not be waged as the Church.  Russel Moore  referse to this in God, the Gospel and Glenn Beck as "citizens working together for the common good."  This is far different than Christians, as Christians, working together for a Christian State.  

***I am not saying this as one who follows this easily, but as one who knows it must be said and struggles as much as the next Christian to adhere to such a genuine devotion.

And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Matt. 4:4

How does satan ask this question to us today?  Consider: "If you are a child of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.  Make it your aim to know God's blessing by pursuing success; making something out of nothing, to prove you are His and are blessed.  Do not forget the parable of the talents.  Has the Lord not said He will give you the desires of your heart?"

It seems that many Christians are taking on this challenge.  The premise seems justifiable, yet the weight of it is upon the wrong object.  I have often heard the well-intentioned saint say "I will become rich so that I may bless God's Kingdom.  I must focus on making bread from stones now, but I will return to feed the flock."  Famous last words.  

When we make these types of statements we are answering in the way that Satan hoped Jesus would answer.  Yet, when I ponder satan's question I wonder why it was such a big deal for Christ to simply prove His identity by fulfilling satan's request; why not just turn the stone to bread? (After all, Christ had good reason to do so after going without food for 40 days.)   Firstly, Christ is showing us that our identity is not found in the things we do for God but instead through what God has done for us (e.g., "by every word that comes from the mouth of God").  Secondly, Christ appeals to the authority of His Father, His will, as a mediator and ambassador, and does not take matters into His own hands 'for the Father's sake'.  His mission is clear.  His boundaries are clear.  His priorities are clear.  

If we attempt to go out into the wilderness for the cause of Christ without Christ's clarity we will always tend toward seeking everything that 'bread' represents metaphorically for validation, sustenance, happiness.  Our fallen good intention will justify turning the stones into bread.  So, how do we obtain clarity of mission, boundaries and priorities?  Through knowing and heeding "every word that comes from the mouth of God".  In John 6, Christ ran away from the crowds because they were desiring to make Him King; it seems cowardly yet He was simply heeding God's word.  It seemed to His disciples that Christ ran away from a good thing (as can be seen from their comments during Christ's ascension) and to the Jewish followers, an Earthly Kingship was the means by which their Savior would save them; yet God had an infinitely better plan. Christ trusted this plan to the end, running from good opportunities and even while praying for another way than the cross.  

Christ ran from a good thing.  Christ proved His Sonship more through the wisdom of His response to satan than if He had turned the stone to bread.  We have too many good choices today.  We are barraged from all sides by a wordlview and ethos that tells us 'wisdom' is running to the good things for the sake of God's Kingdom.  We love to say "a man's heart plans his way but the Lord directs His steps", but because we have been so programmed to expect false promises we are often unprepared for the wilderness He directs our steps to.  We thought we would be in the Promised Land by now, we are still in the desert.  We, like the Jews and disciples of Christ's day, believe God's promises would be displayed in an Earthly way when, in fact, His plan for us is still infinitely better.  Paul did not have this confusion, he defined himself and the validity of his mission by his sharing in the suffering of Christ, not by the power bestowed to him by God, nor blessings nor his immense gifts.  And he was able to persevere through the desert because he understood that God's promise is both here and now & yet to be.  

Faith is living by every word that comes from the mouth of God; reminding ourselves of His promises while in the desert, while accepting that this is where we'll be until we reach the promised land.  I love the picture Christ gives us, "comes from God's mouth", in the context of starving for Earthly bread.  I see God literally regurgitating His truth from His mouth into the hungry mouths of His young; is there anything more personal and intimate?  There is.  When we realize that Christ is the Word made flesh and Christ is the Bread of Life.  

I am confronted with satan's question daily.  I am stuffed with bread and starving for the bread of life.  Whenever I think I am doing what God would have me do for His Kingdom and His glory, it turns out in hindsight that it was for my kingdom and my glory.  It is hard to run away from the hypothetical* good things we see ourselves doing for the glory of God, using our gifts to the maximum as the world defines it; to run from the pursuit of good desires is foolish even to many in the church.  A general consensus affirmation concerning our gifts and how this effects our desire is many times (for those in the West) in opposition to the opportunity that God provides.  Much of the affirmation I have received 'adds to God's word' in the wrong way, and ends up no better than the darkened counsel of Job's friends; seemingly wise, but wrong and self-motivated.  We must gain clarity of our mission, priorities and boundaries as individuals.  It is by doing this that we have the strength to lift the shield of faith and block satan's fiery darts.  We gain clarity by seeking what is most beneficial to the community of God, "according to His Word" (as David often prayed).  We begin and end with blessing the Kingdom with the bread of life, not some hypothetical promise of material blessing poorly disguised in our own self glory. Beyond this, if God gives the increase in any other way, if He opens the Heavens and rains down manna; so be it.  At it's very best, material increase is nothing more than something to struggle with.  

One of the Pastors at Sojourn explained Tim Keller's three principles for knowing God's will: Affirmation, Desire and Opportunity. The more I try to align these three things the more it reveals gaping holes in the purity of my ambition and the worldliness of my Kingdom pursuits.  I have decided that the best way to harness my affirmation and desire is to force them in line with my opportunity and run from the good affirmation, desire and pursuit of hypothetical opportunity that is against God's answer (word).  After all, if we believe that God is directing our steps in spite of our typically sinful heart's desire, we must accept where we are. But it doesn't have to be this way (i.e., begrudgingly accepting our plight).  His desires will become our desires as we "lean not on our own understanding and acknowledge Him in all our ways (good and bad) and He will direct your steps".  Yet how often is the latter verse offered up merely as a platitude or with the unspoken caveat of entitlement.  Desire is tricky, probably the most beguiling out of the three, because it is so often tainted with sin and justified with good-intentions; affirmation is tough to discern because it often affirms our wrong desires. How we respond to the opportunity God provides (not the ones we force**), I believe, is the test to determine whether our desire and affirmation are in line with God's Word and will.  

You see, God will direct our steps, yet we will find that we are somehow in our own garden of Gethsemane*** rather than a land flowing with milk and honey, and if our desire is defined by affirmation without understanding we will find ourselves demanding that God provide a different opportunity rather than pleading to a Father and accepting the cup that is given (Luke 22:42).  We skip the "Lord, if You're willing..." and go straight to "Take this cup from me", when our cup is the very means by which He intends to build His Kingdom, to bless His people, to love us and to glorify Himself.  

I share in this frustration and struggle to be a living sacrifice and to know when to run away from the good things that are not a part of God's plan for me.  I am not espousing a monastic way of life or a poverty ethic (the antithesis of the prosperity gospel).  I am speaking to the challenge of "losing our life for His sake".  I don't want to make important decisions that are just about preserving a way of life; I want to go against the grain of the American Way and truly be a living sacrifice in every sense of the word. I have been accepting Satan's challenge; trying to display God's power by attempting to turn stones into bread for too long; my desire and affirmation have been plagued by delusions of Grandeur that believed I could.  I want to be satisifed alone in the Bread of Life and to bring Its aroma with me into whatever opportunity God provides.  This can all be summed up in an exhortation: Do your very best, do not sacrifice your God-ordained responsibilites for the sake of the greater good and accept the outcome even when the outcome is less than the predictions of affirmation.  

My cry resounds in the prayer of Agur.  Make it yours as well, but be careful lest (yes, lest) He answers it: 

The man declares, I am weary, O God; I am weary, O God, and worn out. Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man. I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar. Two things I ask of you; deny them not to me before I die: Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full and deny you and say, “Who is the Lord?” or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God.

*There are indeed good things, as the world defines them, to which God has called His children and brings them into without any doing of their own.  My point is centering around the purity of ambition and the God-given allowance of those pursuits.  There are many factors of higher priority that determine the allowance of a desire-pursuit (i.e., family responsibilities).  It is God who gives the increase, but if we work hard enough and sacrifice enough of the truly good things, the things we have certainly been called to, then we can force the increase.  If we are His, God will use this self-inflicted wound as a means of discipline and sanctification, otherwise--if repentance is always absent--He has simply handed us over to our debased mind (Romans1).  We know we are in line with His Word when we are not sacrificing our known calling for our hypothetical calling.  When we are keeping the main thing the main thing (i.e., Pastoring our home) we will not have the luxury of even well-intentioned pursuits that demand the forfeiting of our highest priorities.  

**In fact, we cannot force opportunity if our prayers are antithetical to such an end.  Such a prayer is one God has guaranteed to answer.  I have prayed for many years that God spare me from His permissive will.  And yet, on the other hand I become frustrated when nothing seems to work out in my own pursuits.  I then find no resistance for the great gospel opportunities that are incongruent with the extent of the affirmation I receive (i.e., "You should be this."  "You will be the next...").  These closed doors offer an opportunity to examine the nature of my desire in contrast to an answered prayer.  It is often not the case that we should simply bite the bullet and do what is our hearts desire at all costs.  We should instead be honest about the nature of our desire and weigh the nature of our given opportunities through a Biblical, commissional worldview rather than through an American worldview. 

***A weak analogy because the essence of Christ's experience here will remain incomparble to anything we experience

_____________________________________________________________________

"You have no reason to complain, as long as you are out of hell. Do you murmur, because you are under pain and sickness? Nay, bless God, you are not there where the worm never dies! Do you grudge, that you are not in so good a condition in the world as some of your neighbors are? Be thankful, rather, that you are not in the condition of the damned!" —Thomas Boston

"God is more interested in our holiness than in our comfort. He more greatly delights in the integrity and purity of his church than in the material well-being of its members. He shows himself more clearly to men and women who enjoy him and obey him than to men and women whose horizons revolve around good jobs, nice houses, and reasonable health. He is far more committed to building a corporate “temple’ in which his Spirit dwells than he is in preserving our reputations. He is more vitally disposed to display his grace than to flatter our intelligence. He is more concerned for justice than for our ease. He is more deeply committed to stretching our faith than our popularity. He prefers that his people live in disciplined gratitude and holy joy rather than in pushy self-reliance and glitzy happiness. He wants us to pursue daily death, not self-fulfillment, for the latter leads to death, while the former leads to life." —D.A. Carson

This excerpt from John Newton How To Know God's Will really blessed me today.  

"But how then may the Lord’s guidance be expected? After what has been premised negatively, the question may be answered in a few words. In general, He guides and directs His people by affording them  answer to prayer, the light of His Holy Spirit, which enables them to understand and to love the Scriptures.  

The Word of God is not to be used as a lottery, nor is it designed to instruct us by shreds and scraps, [verses taken out of context] which, detached from their proper places, have no determinate importance. Rather, the Word of God is to furnish us with just principles and right apprehensions,  to regulate our judgments and affections, and thereby to influence and direct our conduct. 

They who study the Scriptures, in a humble dependence upon Divine teaching, are convinced of their own weakness, are taught to make a true estimate of everything around them, are gradually formed into a spirit of submission to the will of God, discover the nature and duties of their several situations and relations in life, and the snares and temptations to which they are exposed.  

The Word of God dwells richly in them, is a preservative from error, a light to their feet, and a spring of strength and consolation. By treasuring up the doctrines, precepts, promises, examples, and exhortations of Scripture in their minds, and daily comparing themselves with the rule by 12 which they walk, they grow into an habitual frame of spiritual wisdom, and acquire a gracious taste, which  enables them to judge of right and wrong with a degree of readiness and certainty, as a musical ear judges of sounds. And they are seldom mistaken, because they are influenced by the love of Christ (which rules in their hearts), and by a regard to the glory of God, which is the great object they have in view. 

In particular cases, the Lord opens and shuts doors for them, breaks down walls of difficulty which obstruct their path, or hedges up their way with thorns (when they are in danger of going wrong), by the dispensations of His providence. They know that their concerns are in His hands; they are willing to follow whither and when He leads; but they are afraid of going before Him.  

Therefore they are not impatient; because they believe they will not make haste, but wait daily upon Him in prayer. Especially when they find their hearts most engaged in any purpose or pursuit, they are most jealous of being deceived by appearances, and dare not move farther or faster than they can perceive His light shining upon theirpaths. I express at least their desire, if not their attainment, that thus they would be.  

And though there are seasons when faith languishes, and self too much prevails, this is their general disposition, and the Lord, whom they serve, does not disappoint their expectations. He leads them, by a right way, preserves them from a thousand snares, and satisfies them that He is and will be their guide even unto death."