Archive for June 7, 2012


For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if — had drones existed at the time — King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is urging the use of violence against the government.

Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect information about U.S. persons.”

It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. And, any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the U.S.?

The quoted phrases above are extracted from a now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama’s Secretary of the Air Force on April 23, 2012. The purpose of the memorandum is stated as “balancing … obtaining intelligence information … and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution…” Note the primacy of intelligence gathering over freedom protection, and note the peculiar use of the word “balancing.”

When liberty and safety clash, do we really expect the government to balance those values? Of course not. The government cannot be trusted to restrain itself in the face of individual choices to pursue happiness. That’s why we have a Constitution and a life-tenured judiciary: to protect the minority from the liberty-stealing impulses of the majority. And that’s why the Air Force memo has its priorities reversed — intelligence gathering first, protecting freedom second — and the mechanism of reconciling the two — balancing them — constitutionally incorrect.

Everyone who works for the government swears to uphold the Constitution. It was written to define and restrain the government. According to the Declaration of Independence, the government’s powers come from the consent of the governed. The government in America was not created by a powerful king reluctantly granting liberty to his subjects. It was created by free people willingly granting limited power to their government — and retaining that which they did not delegate.

The Declaration also defines our liberties as coming from our Creator, as integral to our humanity and as inseparable from us, unless we give them up by violating someone else’s liberties. Hence the Jeffersonian and constitutional beef with the word “balancing” when it comes to government power versus individual liberty.

The Judeo-Christian and constitutionally mandated relationship between government power and individual liberty is not balance. It is bias — a bias in favor of liberty. All presumptions should favor the natural rights of individuals, not the delegated and seized powers of the government. Individual liberty, not government power, is the default position because persons are immortal and created in God’s image, and governments are temporary and based on force.

Hence my outrage at the coming use of drones — some as small as golf balls — to watch us, to listen to us and to record us. Did you consent to the government having that power? Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in America? I don’t know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are complaining.

If we remain silent when our popularly elected government violates the laws it has sworn to uphold and steals the freedoms we elected it to protect, we will have only ourselves to blame when Big Brother is everywhere. Somehow, I doubt my father’s generation fought the Nazis in World War II only to permit a totalitarian government to flourish here.

Is President Obama prepared to defend this? Is Gov. Romney prepared to challenge it? Are you prepared for its consequences?

Judge Andrew Napolitano

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. He sat on the bench from 1987 to 1995, during which time he presided over 150 jury trials and thousands of motions, sentencings and hearings. He taught constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School for 11 years, and he returned to private practice in 1995. Judge Napolitano began television work in the same year.

http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2012/06/07/where_is_the_outrage/page/full/


Among the people who are disappointed with President Obama, none has more reason to be disappointed than those who thought he was going to be “a uniter, rather than a divider” and that he would “bring us all together.”

 

It was a noble hope, but one with no factual foundation. Barack Obama had been a divider all his adult life, especially as a community organizer, and he had repeatedly sought out and allied himself with other dividers, the most blatant of whom was the man whose church he attended for 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

 

Now, with his presidency on the line and the polls looking dicey, President Obama’s re-election campaign has become more openly divisive than ever.

 

He has embraced the strident “Occupy Wall Street” movement, with its ridiculous claim of representing the 99 percent against the 1 percent. Obama’s Department of Justice has been spreading the hysteria that states requiring photo identification for voting are trying to keep minorities from voting, and using the prevention of voter fraud as a pretext.

 

But anyone who doubts the existence of voter fraud should read John Fund‘s book “Stealing Elections” or J. Christian Adams‘s book, “Injustice,” which deals specifically with the Obama Justice Department’s overlooking voter fraud when those involved are black Democrats.

 

Not content with dividing classes and races, the Obama campaign is now seeking to divide the sexes by declaring that women are being paid less than men, as part of a “war on women” conducted by villains, from whom Obama and company will protect the women — and, not incidentally, expect to receive their votes this November.

 

The old — and repeatedly discredited — game of citing women’s incomes as some percentage of men’s incomes is being played once again, as part of the “war on women” theme.

 

Since women average fewer hours of work per year, and fewer years of consecutive full-time employment than men, among other differences, comparisons of male and female annual earnings are comparisons of apples and oranges, as various female economists have pointed out. Read Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute or Professor Claudia Goldin of Harvard, for example.

 

When you compare women and men in the same occupations with the same skills, education, hours of work, and many other factors that go into determining pay, the differences in incomes shrink to the vanishing point — and, in some cases, the women earn more than comparable men.

 

But why let mere facts spoil the emotional rhetoric or the political ploys to drum up hysteria and collect votes?

 

The farcical nature of these ploys came out after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared that Congress needed to pass the Fair Pay Act, because women average 23 percent lower incomes than men.

 

A reporter from The Daily Caller then pointed out that the women on Nancy Pelosi’s own staff average 27 percent lower incomes than the men on her staff. Does that show that Pelosi herself is guilty of discrimination against women? Or does it show that such simple-minded statistics are grossly misleading?

 

The so-called Fair Pay Act has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with election-year politics. No one in his right mind expects that bill to become law. It will be lucky to pass the Senate, and has no chance whatever of getting passed in the House of Representatives.

 

The whole point of this political exercise is to get Republicans on record voting against “fairness” for women, as part of the Democrats’ campaign strategy to claim that there is a “war on women.”

 

If you are looking for a real war on women, you might look at the practice of aborting girl babies after an ultrasound picture shows that they are girls. These abortions are the most basic kind of discrimination, and their consequences have already been demonstrated in countries like China and India, where sexually discriminatory abortions and female infanticide have produced an imbalance in the number of adult males and females.

 

A bill to outlaw sexually and racially discriminatory abortions has been opposed and defeated by House Democrats.

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of  The Housing Boom and Bust.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/07/the_real_war_on_women/page/full/

Hydrate Your Soul

Posted: June 7, 2012 in Max Lucado

Hydrate Your Soul.


“Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial.” James 1:12

There I was driving along, half hypnotized by the steady flow of traffic. I glanced at the car ahead of me. The bumper sticker read, “When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping!” I chuckled. But then I thought: Could you really call yourself “tough” if you headed for the mall every time life went sour? As I drove, I pondered how to really finish that sentence, “When the going gets tough, the tough . . . do what?”

A quick Internet search on the phrase returned endless possibilities for completing the thought. Here are some of the wackiest endings: “When the going gets tough, the tough “go to Asia,” or, the tough “start knitting.” One even said, “The tough lighten up!”

All of these alternative endings are humorous in their own way. But, they also represent ways to deal with “tough going.” For example, shopping could symbolize immediate gratification. Racing off to Asia might mean you’re running away from the problem. Starting to knit is a picture of distracting yourself from the trouble at hand. And if you simply lighten up, or laugh it off—that’s kind of like denial.

I don’t think any of us would get very far in life if we repeatedly chose those responses to trouble. They all contradict the traditional ending to the phrase. “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” The tough hang in there; they persevere. James 1:12 says: “Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life.”

In the Greek language, the word perseverance is literally made up of two words. One means “to remain.” The other word means “under.” That tells us that perseverance is the ability to remain under the pressure of difficulty with a good spirit. As Christians, we have a responsibility to bear the stress until God accomplishes His purposes. This gives us the assurance that our suffering has meaning.

In fact, God intends that we, in time, will blossom under the pressure. That’s why James exhorts us to submit to the trial and let perseverance finish its job of sanctification. In James 1:4, the text tells us, “Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” And, check out Romans 5:1-21 where Paul says that perseverance produces character!

In addition to the blessings that God brings to us when we persevere, perseverance also allows others to see Christ at work in our lives. With the growing interest in spirituality today, people are watching us more than ever before. They are looking to see if there is anything of value in our walk with Jesus. Or, are we just like anyone else when the going gets tough? They want to know, would a Christian use a string of four-letter words if she lost the big sale? Would a Christian booze it up after a crazy stressful day at the office? What would it take for a Christian to throw in the towel on his marriage? When we invite God to help us through situations like these, He furnishes the power to persevere so that onlookers can see that our Jesus is worth being faithful to regardless of the stress.

The next time a problem comes up and you’re tempted to go shopping, gallivant off to Asia, or knit yourself into oblivion, remember: Since God has a purpose in your problem, it’s worth hanging in there! So, if you are a follower of Jesus, your bumper sticker announces, “When the going gets tough, the tough hang in there!”

YOUR JOURNEY…

  • Many people in the Bible struggled with difficult circumstances, but they did not give up. Read Hebrews 11:1-40. What enabled those people to persevere?
  • Do you have true grit? Write down some recent responses to trouble in your life. Do you tend to stay the course, or do you look for a way out?
  • If you need encouragement to persevere, read the following Scriptures: Psalm 73:26; 2 Thessalonians 1:1-12; Hebrews 10:19-39; 12:1-3.

http://getmorestrength.org/daily/when-the-going-gets-tough/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GetMoreStrength+%28Strength+For+The+Journey%29


Whatever you ask in My name, that I will do . . . —John 14:13


Am I fulfilling this ministry of intercession deep within the hidden recesses of my life? There is no trap nor any danger at all of being deceived or of showing pride in true intercession. It is a hidden ministry that brings forth fruit through which the Father is glorified. Am I allowing my spiritual life to waste away, or am I focused, bringing everything to one central point— the atonement of my Lord? Is Jesus Christ more and more dominating every interest of my life? If the central point, or the most powerful influence, of my life is the atonement of the Lord, then every aspect of my life will bear fruit for Him.

However, I must take the time to realize what this central point of power is. Am I willing to give one minute out of every hour to concentrate on it? “If you abide in Me . . . “— that is, if you continue to act, and think, and work from that central point— “you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you” (John 15:7). Am I abiding? Am I taking the time to abide? What is the greatest source of power in my life? Is it my work, service, and sacrifice for others, or is it my striving to work for God? It should be none of these— what ought to exert the greatest power in my life is the atonement of the Lord. It is not on what we spend the greatest amount of time that molds us the most, but whatever exerts the most power over us. We must make a determination to limit and concentrate our desires and interests on the atonement by the Cross of Christ.

“Whatever you ask in My name, that I will do . . . .” The disciple who abides in Jesus is the will of God, and what appears to be his free choices are actually God’s foreordained decrees. Is this mysterious? Does it appear to contradict sound logic or seem totally absurd? Yes, but what a glorious truth it is to a saint of God.

http://utmost.org/the-greatest-source-of-power/


“Therefore these days were called Purim, from the word pur. Because of everything written in this letter and because of what they had seen and what had happened to them.” — Esther 9:26

The struggle described in the book of Esther between Haman and Mordecai is part of an epic battle that began long before the two ever lived and continues until this very day. Haman is a descendent of Amalek. Mordecai is a Jew. The first confrontation between the Amalekites and the Jews occurs just after the children of Israel were freed from Egypt. What happened then describes the conflict that continues today.

The Amalekites are the first nation to attack the Israelites after the miraculous plagues and the parting of the sea. Until then, the Israelites were invincible. They had God on their side and no one was about to mess with them. The Amalekites come along with the intent of showing the world that there is no such thing as Divine providence. From their perspective, the Israelites got lucky with Egypt, but their luck would run out.

Unfortunately for the Amalekites, they were wrong. God does watch over His people, and the weaker Israelites were able to defeat their aggressors. But that didn’t stop the Amalekites from trying again and again and again. They were not going to stop until they could prove to the world once and for all that life is random and that there was no such thing as God.

The Jews, or in Hebrew, Yehudim, were all about the opposite. The root of the word Yehudim means “to acknowledge.” The Yehudim acknowledge that there is a Creator. They acknowledge that nothing in the world is happenstance. The hand of God permeates every single aspect of life. The struggle recounted in the book of Esther is the eternal struggle between those who believe in the existence of God and those who believe that life is little more than a random accident.

There is one word in the Book of Esther that captures the essence of the battle between the believer and the non-believer and gives the holiday of Purim its name. That word is “pur,” Persian for “lots.” When Haman wants to pick a date for the annihilation of the Jews, he picks it at random, using a lottery. However the message of the Book of Esther is that nothing, not even the lottery, is the result of chance. The events recalled in Esther shout out that every single thing that happens is totally by design — divine design.

You are a warrior in an eternal spiritual battle. Every time you acknowledge the hand of God in your life, and everywhere you see divine providence, you deliver a blow to the spirit of Amalek and you bring the world one step closer to God.

http://www.holylandmoments.org/devotionals/divine-design


In the days before there was a king in Israel a woman called Naomi, whose name means “the pleasant,” lived in the little village of Bethlehem; and when at one time food was scarce, she left the place with her husband and two sons, and went over into the land of Moab, where there was plenty of food to eat.

For ten years she lived in that land, and there her sons married Moabite girls. Then heavy trouble came upon Naomi, for she lost not only her husband, but her two sons also. In her sorrow Naomi’s heart turned to Bethlehem, with its cluster of white houses among the hills of her own country. But before going back she bade her daughters-in-law return to their mothers’ houses, where they would be happy. They both wept, and Orpah, the elder, kissed Naomi and went away; but Ruth clung to her and refused to go.

“Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee,” she said; “for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God; where thou diest, I will die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me.”

So they went back together to the village of Bethlehem, and Naomi in her sorrow said to her old friends, when she met them once more, “Call me not Naomi ‘the pleasant,’ but Mara ‘the bitter;’ for God hath dealt bitterly with me.”

Ruth wore the dress of the village girls, of deep green and bright red, with a white veil streaming over her shoulder, and a row of coins upon her brow; and she was pleasant to look upon as she went up and down the stony path which ran from the gate in the wall to the women’s well, carrying her pitcher to get water. As she moved along the path her eyes often strayed over the plains of dry grass and the fields of golden grain; for it was the rich harvest time, and she was very poor.

Rising one morning before the clouds were red over Hebron, she went down into the valley where the harvesters were at work, and followed the reapers and binders, picking up as a gleaner all the stray heads of barley she could find. As the binders were women she kept near them; and they talked kindly to her, for they knew her and had heard her sad story.

Now when Boaz, the farmer, came down to the village to see how the work went on in his field, he called out, “God be with you” to his reapers; and they answered, “May God bless you.” Turning to the women, he asked the name of the strange maiden, and spoke kindly to her, calling her his daughter, and telling her to keep close to his women, where no one would touch her, and not to leave his fields. If she was thirsty, she might drink from the water-bottles from which the reapers could drink when they wished.

Kneeling before him with head bowed down, as if this farmer were a king, Ruth thanked him for his kindness to a stranger; and the man replied that he had heard of her goodness to Naomi, her mother, and praised her.

When the midday heat was great the reapers gathered in a shady place, and Boaz bade Ruth come and share their bread and light wine, and he gave her parched corn, as much as she could eat. In the afternoon they rose to work again, and Boaz told the reapers to let the girl glean among the sheaves, and pull out a handful here and there; and she gleaned there till the sun went down over the hills.

Now the corn that she gathered was too heavy for her to carry away as it was, so she sat down and beat the barley out between two stones, and tying it up in her veil, put it on her head, and went home with a light step. Naomi was astonished when she opened out her store in the little house; for she had gleaned more than a bushel of barley.

When she told Naomi where she had been, her mother said that Boaz was a relative of her own; and the elder woman was glad indeed to hear that he had given Ruth leave to glean in his fields during the whole of the harvest time.

And so it came about that every day at the red dawn Ruth went singing down the rocky pathway to work with the reapers in the warm Eastern valley; and as the wheat harvest followed close upon the barley harvest, she worked for many days, returning home at night with her ruddy cheeks burnt brown with the sun, to lay her heap on the floor of her mother’s house; for they were laying up a little store with which to bake bread in the months of wind and rain that were before them in the coming winter.

But as time went on they did not need to live in poverty, for Boaz married Ruth at the end of the wheat harvest; and this Moabite girl became the great-grandmother of King David, the most famous king of Israel, and one of the ancestors of Jesus Christ our Lord Himself.

http://kids.ochristian.com/Children-in-the-Bible/Ruth-The-Gleaner.shtml


And they laughed him to scorn–Luk 8:53

From Lament to Ridicule

This incident occurred in Capernaum, whither our Savior had just returned. He had scarce landed when the ruler of the synagogue besought Him that He would come and heal his daughter. Then had occurred the interruption in the crowded street, and we can picture the father’s agony at the delay, an agony that would dull down into despair when word came that the little maid was dead. So Jesus entered the house with Peter and James and John. it was very crowded and noisy and disgusting. “Weep not,” He said, “the maid is not dead, but sleepeth.” Were it not better to be quiet when a tired one sleeps? And it was then, not catching what Christ meant, nor guessing that He spoke of a sleep that here has no awakening, that they laughed Him to scorn, knowing that she was dead. One moment there was nothing heard but wailing, and the next the shrill lament was drowned in laughter. One moment there was wild beating of the breast, and the next the heaping of ridicule on Christ; and it is of ridicule, in some of its aspects and suggestions, that I wish to speak.

Jesus Was Often Assailed with Ridicule

Now the first thing which I want you to observe is how often Jesus was assailed with ridicule. Our Lord had to suffer more than bitter hatred. He had to suffer the sneering of contempt. When a man is loved, his nature expands and ripens as does a flower under the genial sunshine. When a man is hated, that very hate may brace him as the wind out of the north braced the pine. But when a man is ridiculed, only the grace of heaven can keep him courteous and reverent and tender; and Jesus Christ was ridiculed continually. “Is not this the carpenter’s Son; do we not know His brothers?” “He is the friend of publicans and sinners.” Men ridiculed His origin. Men ridiculed His actions. Men ridiculed His claims to be Messiah. Nor in all history is there such exposure of the cruelty and bestiality of ridicule as in the mocking and taunting at the cross, with its purple robe, and its reed, and crown of thorns. Think of that moment when, all forspent and bleeding, Jesus was brought out before the people; and Pilate cried to them, “Behold your king! Is not this broken dreamer like a Caesar?” That was the cruel ridicule of Rome, often to be repeated by her satirists, and it was all part of the cross which Jesus bore. It is not enough to say that Christ was hated, if you would sound the deeps of His humiliation. There is something worse than being hated, and that is being scorned; and we must never forget that in the cup, which Christ prayed in Gethsemane might pass from Him, there was this bitter ingredient of scorn.

Jesus Was Not Impervious to Ridicule

Nor should we think that because Christ was Christ He was therefore impervious to ridicule. On the contrary, just because Christ was Christ He was most keenly susceptible to its assault. It is not the coarsest but the finest natures that are most exposed to the wounding of such weapons, and in the most sensitive and tender heart scorn, like calumny, inflicts the sorest pain. When Lord Byron published his first little book of poems, and when he was covered with ridicule by the Scotch reviewers for it, he was stung into an act of swift retaliation, but there is no trace that he felt that derision deeply. But when Keats, casting his poems on the world, met with like treatment from the same reviewers, it almost, if not quite, broke his heart. Both were true poets, touched by the sacred fire, but the one was of finer fibre than the other, and it was he of the sensitive and tender heart who was like to be broken by the pitiless storm. Now think of Christ, uncoarsened by transgression, exquisite in all faculty and feeling, and you will understand how, to a soul like His, it was so bitter to be laughed to scorn. I thank God that the Savior of the world had not the steeled heart of a Roman Stoic. I thank God He was so rich in sympathy, and so perfectly compassionate and tender. But I feel that the other aspect of that beauty must have been exquisite susceptibility to pain, and not alone the pain of spear and nail, but the more cruel and deep-searching pain of ridicule.

Ridicule Most Keenly Felt by the Young

Probably it is thus we may explain why ridicule is most keenly felt when we are young. It is not at sixty, it is at one-and-twenty, that we are most afraid of being ridiculous. “He was one of those sarcastic young fellows,” says Thackeray of young Pendennis, “that did not bear a laugh at his own expense, and of all things in the world feared ridicule most” and Sir Walter Scott, speaking of the enthusiasms of his own boyhood, said, “At that time I feared ridicule more than I have ever done since.” There are many young men who could bear to be thought wicked, but I never met one who could bear to be thought ridiculous; indeed I have found them doing ridiculous things just to escape the taint of being thought so; and my point is that that temptation–for it is such–falls at its fiercest on the heart of youth, because in youth we are sensitive and eager, and not yet hardened by traffic with the world.

Christ Was Ridiculed because People Failed to Understand Him

It is notable, too, that Christ was laughed to scorn because the people failed to understand Him. It was because they had not caught tits meaning that they burst thus into derisive laughter. “The maiden,” said Jesus, “is not dead but sleeping”; and they were without imagination, and they took it literally. They had no heart for that mystic and poetic speech that calls the last closing of the eyes asleep. “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth,” He said once, “but I go to awake him out of sleep.” He thought of His friend whose spirit had departed as of one who had fallen upon the peace of slumber. So here, to the noisy mourners in Capernaum, “The maiden is not dead, but sleepeth”–and they laughed Him to scorn and covered Him with ridicule; and they did it because they could not understand.

Disciples Ridiculed at Pentecost

The same truth meets us in the story of Pentecost, as we read it in the vivid narrative of Acts. There also, on the birthday of the church, we light on ridicule, and there also it is the child of ignorance. For there came a sound as of a mighty wind, and the spirit of God fell on the little Company, and they were exalted marvelously by the gift, and went out in the glory of it to preach Christ–and the people, .blind to the source of their enthusiasm, mocked at them as though they had been drunk. “These men are filled with new wine,” they said. It was not an argument, it was a sneer. They could not comprehend what this might mean, but at any rate they could heap derision on it. So once again, on the page of Holy Scripture, that perfect mirror of the human heart, we have an instance of ridicule which sprang from an incapacity to understand.

Ridicule Is Often the Weapon of Incapacity

I therefore trust that people will appraise ridicule at its true value. It is not always the token of superior cleverness. It is far oftener the mark of incapacity. Many of us remember how, not so long ago, it was the custom to ridicule the Salvation Army. In the press, on the street, and on the stage at pantomimes, the Army was held up to derision. But no one ridicules the Salvation Army now. Men may object to its methods, but they do not laugh at it. And why? because they know it better now, and have learned how gallant and pure is its enthusiasm. It is the gradual increase of knowledge and of light that has made that ridicule impossible today. It has died a natural death, and been replaced by admiration or by argument. And if in this case, and a thousand other cases, a clearer knowledge makes ridicule ridiculous–do you not see the point I am driving at, that ridicule is the handy weapon of the ignorant? You cannot refute a sneer, said Dr. Johnson; but if you cannot refute it, at least you can despise it. A sneer is the apology for argument made by a man who does not understand. And that is why, though you find Christ Jesus angry, you never find Him ridiculing anybody, for every secret of every human heart was perfectly understood by the Redeemer.

The Ridicule of the Wise versus the Ridicule of the Ignorant

Of course I am aware that in a world like this there is a certain’ work for ridicule to do. So long as shams and pretensions are abroad, a little gentle ridicule is needed. There are some things that should never be taken seriously–they are in their nature so utterly ridiculous–and against these things no man with any humor would ever plant the great guns of his argument. A jest is sometimes the wisest of all answers, and a little raillery the best of refutations. The world owes not a little to these ready spirits who can answer a fool according to his folly. Professor Lecky tells us that in the Middle Ages the troubadours did one great service to humanity. It was a time when the minds of men were darkened by grotesque and horrible teachings about hell. No one dared argue with the mediaeval church–it might have cost a common man his life to argue–but the wandering troubadours, in their fantastic songs, poured ridicule upon these priestly horrors, and by their badinage helped on a brighter clay. So too in Spain in the sixteenth century, when the popular literature was the romance of chivalry, do you think that preaching could have weaned the people from those so vapid and unedifying books? But Cervantes, in his superb Don Quixote, turned the whole literature of romance into a jest, and brought men to their senses by a laugh. At a party, at which Charles Lamb was present, there was a gentleman who was loud in his praises of Mohammedanism. He would have all the company convinced that Mohammed was far superior to Christ. It does not appear that Lamb discussed the matter. There is certainly not a sign that he got angry. Probably he felt himself incompetent to debate the high matters in dispute. But as the company was dispersing, the gentleman lost his hat, and when Lamb was asked if he had seen it, “I thought,” said the stammering and gentle Elia, “I thought that our friend came in a turban!” That was a stroke of the most exquisite ridicule. It was answering a fool according to his folly. You may depend upon it that it would be remembered when all the arguments were quite forgotten. And so long as the world has foolish people in it, who strain at the gnat and swallow down the camel, so long will there be an office in the world for the gentle raillery of ridicule. But remember that the ridicule of genius is very different from the sneering of the world–that mockery which the world loves to cast upon every enthusiasm and aspiration. It is not because it understands so much, it is because it understands so little, so that in Capernaum, and here, it laughs to scorn.

The Danger of Only Seeing the Ridiculous Side of Things

I should like to say also to those who are tempted to see only the ridiculous side of things, that perhaps in the whole gamut of the character there is nothing quite so dangerous as that. The man who is always serious has his risks, for there is more laughter in God’s works than he imagines. The man who always argues has his risks, for there are truths too fine to be meshed in any argument. But the man who ridicules what is true and high and noble had a thousand times better never have been born into a world so strangely built as this. It is so easy to raise a laugh at things. It is so cheaply and absurdly easy. And there are men whose only claim to being superior is that they are able to win that little triumph. But I call that the most degrading of all triumphs, and that not only for the harm it does to others, but far more for the irreparable harm that it surely brings upon the man himself. Life is not worth living without some high ideal. Life is quite worthless unless we live it reverently. If there be nothing above us and beyond us, we may as well give up the struggle in despair. And the strange thing is that when we take to ridiculing all that is best and worthiest in others, by that very habit we destroy the power of believing in what is worthiest in ourselves. It was not a caprice that when Jesus Christ was ridiculed, He turned the mockers out of the miracle-chamber. That is what the Almighty always does when men and women take themselves to mocking. He shuts the door on them, so that they cannot see the miracles with which the universe is teeming, and they miss the best, because in their blind folly they have laughed the Giver of the best to scorn. Therefore I beg of you never take to ridicule. If you have started the habit, give it up. I beg of you also, never be turned by ridicule from what you know to be right and good and holy. You serve a Master who was laughed to scorn, but you also serve a Master who despised the shame, and the servant is not greater than his Lord.

http://devotionals.ochristian.com/george-h-morrison-devotional-sermons-devotional.shtml

 

Set Your Affections on Jesus

Posted: June 7, 2012 in J C Ryle

Set Your Affections on Jesus.


Ezekiel 46:1-24

When the people of the land come into the LORD’s presence for the festivals, those who enter through the North Gate to worship should go out through the south, and those who come in through the South Gate should go out through the North Gate. They shouldn’t turn around and go out the same way they came in. Instead, they should go out the opposite gate.

I’ve been in plenty of church meetings that seem to pit the “spiritual” people against the “practical.” The “spiritual” people want to raise the mission budget in the next year; the “practical” people wonder how we’re going to pay for it. The “spiritual” people want to let the Spirit be free in worship services; the “practical” people wonder when the services will be over so the Sunday School teachers can plan adequately. Sometimes, the “spiritual” folk get exasperated. They think that they can play their “spiritual” trump card, which means that the “practical” folk should back down. Is this right?

In fact, Scripture often balances the “spiritual” and the “practical.” It might be better to say that Scripture doesn’t recognize such a distinction. The God who created the heavens and the earth to be orderly seems to understand that the “spiritual” always takes shape in the “practical.”

Consider the case of Ezekiel 46, for example. This chapter explains in detail the practical matters associated with sacrifices in the temple. Verse 9 describes how the people are to flow in and out of the temple: “When the people of the land come into the LORD’s presence for the festivals, those who enter through the North Gate to worship should go out through the south, and those who come in through the South Gate should go out through the North Gate. They shouldn’t turn around and go out the same way they came in. Instead, they should go out the opposite gate” (46:9). Talk about practical! This verse is about crowd control. (I checked several commentaries to see if I had missed some sort of symbolic significance here. But scholars are agreed that this verse is simply trying to make sure the people pass in and out of the gates in an orderly fashion.)

So, if you happen to be someone with “practical” talents, if you’re an engineer or a planner, if you’re an accountant or an attorney, don’t feel as if you have to always play second fiddle to the visionaries and mystics. All of us have gifts to contribute to the body of Christ, and God has formed the body so that all of us matter. Deep spirituality is not incompatible with realistic practicality. As Paul writes to the Corinthians, “Everything should be done [that is, all spiritual gifts should be exercised] with dignity and in proper order” (1 Cor. 14:40).

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER REFLECTION: How do spirituality and practicality come together in your experience of Christian community? What are some of the talents and gifts that God has given you for the upbuilding of the body? Are you using these talents and gifts in your church?

PRAYER: Gracious God, thank you for the example of Ezekiel 46:9. As one who tends to worry about the practical side of things, I’m encouraged by this part of your revelation to Ezekiel. I’m glad to know that you care about things like crowd control.

Help us, dear Lord, not to get stuck in unedifying debates between the “spiritual” and the “practical.” May we see how these two dimensions of life are thoroughly overlapping and interconnected. In our churches, may we learn to value the differing perspectives of others. Let us be glad for the visionaries who see what more we could become by your power. And let us be equally glad for those who tend to the details.

Help me, Lord, to use well all the talents and gifts you have given me for your purposes and glory. Amen.

http://www.thehighcalling.org/reflection/should-spirituality-always-trump-practicality