Blog

by Nathan Buck

When we bought our home where we live now, our realtor shared how hard it was to work with some Christians when buying a home. She shared stories of people who sought 'signs from God' or made 'vows to God' in order to get the house they wanted. Instead of considering their income, stewardship, and ministry to others, they would bargain with God to seek spiritual permission to overextend themselves for the "perfect" house.

It's sad really. I have seen many Christians and non-Christians do the same thing. They seek a supernatural "free pass," some impossible happenstance that must be a sign that God wants them to have that house, or that car, or whatever else they are doing emotional gymnastics over acquiring. In my opinion, the saddest people are not the the 'sign' people, it's the ones who make sweeping promises or grand vows of what they will do if God grants them what they want. Rarely does it work out the way they planned, and even more rarely do they follow through with their vow.

Jephthah had a similar moment in his leadership. Read Judges 11:29-33.

With the smell of victory just in front of him, and with what I imagine was the testosterone-fueled exuberance of a pro-wrestler on fight night, Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever first comes out of his home if God would allow him to beat the Ammorites.

Well, I don't know about you, but I tend to pause and think logically about this kind of thing. Unless a huge windstorm blows something out of his tent upon his arrival, there are probably very few 'un-alive' things coming out of his tent. So, what was Jephthah thinking? Did he have someone in mind already? Did he have a severe dislike for the family cat? Did the family dog pee on the goat hair blankets before he left for battle?

Seriously, why would a smart leader commit to such a dangerous and unpredictable promise? Was it a matter of really trusting God that much? Or was it that his desire for victory overwhelmed his good sense? We may have a clue next week.

For now, let me ask you: Have you bought into the habit of seeking signs and making promises to God in exchange for His blessing? Do you know that we don't have to bargain with God?

He wants to give us good things. He is a good father who wants to bless His children. He is also a good father who will let us experience the consequences of our choices and selfish desires.

Over and over again in the Bible, God seeks to have people trust Him and wait on His plans. And over and over again, people bargain, charge ahead, and flat out don't listen (or wait) for God. It never ends well.

What are you bargaining with God about right now? Are you willing to pay the real price for what you are trying to gain?

Pray and ask God to help you lay down your desires so that you can see where He desires to lead you. And He will make it clear, without magic signs and sparkly glitter dust, jingling tinker bells, or mental gymnastics to solve the mystery of His will. Lay down your idol, your craving, and your bargain, and seek God's plan, for He will empower you to serve others and display His love and character.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.

by Charlie Wolcott

For those of you who have been following my posts for a while, I have spent the last five months studying prayer. One of the things that God exposed in that study is how much of my Christian walk is purely on the intellectual level. I know the theory. I know the correct doctrine. I know the Bible. I know how to debate atheists. I know the facts. My brain has such a high level of retention of knowledge that I can be considered a walking encyclopedia or, as my old Intervarsity friends would call me in college, a walking concordance. Hear me: I am not boasting. I am not saying: “Look at who I am and what I know!” What I am saying is that despite all this knowledge, I need a new beginning. A new start.

One of the things God began to do with me is tear down my understanding of Christianity. So much of it was pure theoretical. It was not in practice, and even more so, it lacked the power that Christianity demands. I have longed to return to true Christianity. I have listened to preachers such as Eric Ludy, Paul Washer, Leonard Ravenhill, David Wilkerson, and others who know what it is supposed to look like and are not seeing it in action much at all in our American culture. And they are preaching a message that gives me fire, but I am not yet retaining the fire. It grieved me to be with my church youth group who went away to camp and came back on a high and wanting to be hot for God, and less than a month later, the youth either revert back to what they were or fall even further back. And how often did that happen with me? More times than I can count.

As God has been exposing my own short-comings, I have seen how much people’s faith is purely on an intellectual level. They believe God exists. They claim to believe in Jesus and his work on the cross. But it is mere intellectual ascent. There is no actual belief, trust, or dependency upon that being true in their lives. But it is more than that. Nearly ten years ago, I was witnessing to a co-worker who had some dabblings in the dark arts. I did not catch it right away, but it soon ended up where I was dealing with a demon. I knew the theory. I knew that Christ has the authority, and that I had authority in him to drive it out, but it was theoretical. I did not have the “high ground.” I did not have the authority or the working of Christ in power. Now did God pull that from me to keep me humble? Possibly. But I was in very close danger of entering the territory of the Seven Sons of Sceva. I’ll dig into that more next week.

What is more is in this situation, my co-worker told me had said the Sinner’s Prayer and “accepted” Christ, and honestly I did not know what to do with that. I did not get how it “did not work,” because that is what I grew up with. I did explain to him that he needed to surrender to Christ and let him have the authority to get the demon out, but I did not understand at that point what I was dealing with. I knew the theory. I knew the battle plan. But I did not know how to walk it out and engage in the POWER of the Holy Spirit.

Eric Ludy gives a great illustration of what we think is true Christianity versus what is actually true Christianity: He compares us to elk. I grew up in Colorado and I’ve seen elk, creatures that get you to slam on the brakes and get out your cameras and stare in awe. Those are 5-8 feet tall, but Ludy describes what is now considered extinct: the Irish Elk. Over 10 feet tall at the brow with 12 foot wide antlers adding an additional 5 feet over its head. And he suggests that we have settled for the smaller elk, thinking the Irish Elk no longer exists. He calls for a return of the Irish Elk form of Christianity.

I would love to not merely see that kind of Christianity in action, but to be one of them. However, as I have read the testimonies, the biographies, and the stories of the Christians who would fit this “Irish Elk” form of Christianity, I learned this: there is a cost that comes first. Rees Howells was one of these “Irish Elk Christians.” During a plague in Africa, he made a declaration that no one would die on his mission, and no one died. During World War II, he prayed many of the battles through to victory. He was a man who did great things, but very few of us have what he had.

BEFORE he reached this point, God took him through a process of complete surrender of self. His job was at the direction of God. His prayer time was at the direction of God. His finances were at first dedicated to missions first, but then God even asked for complete control of every penny. He could not even buy a thank-you card without permission from God. He was willing to take on tuberculosis in order to intercede for someone who had it, even to the point where he was to be a “living martyr.” His life was on “borrowed” time completely yielded to Christ. Will God find such surrender in us? In me? If not, do not be surprised if God does not do much in and through us.

James 1:22-25 cannot be much clearer. We cannot merely hear the words of Truth. We must obey them or they have no purpose in us. And what is more, if we have heard truth, we are responsible for how we deal with it. We will be responsible for obeying the truth, or for rejecting it. I talk about taking what I teach seriously because I don’t want to find out what is worse than a millstone for teaching falsely, but do I obey and practice what I am preaching?

I have said this before and I will said it again. I am tired of the mere theory and no action. I am tired of the bold claims and nothing coming out of them. But do I really want it? Do I really want to put it all aside to go after it? I have to start anew. I need a new beginning. I need God to finish tearing down my Christianity that is built upon intellectual ascent and plant a new, firmer foundation built upon obedience and living Christianity in his power. So with this post, I am starting a short series (only 6 posts this time) about the difference between a faith of intellectual theory and a faith of actual practice and life. Let our faith be real and something more much than a brain exercise.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.

by Steve Risner

Last week, we started discussing the Enlightenment and what that era and the “Dark Ages” were really like. (Go here to read that post.) This discussion is based on the following statement from an atheist: “The Enlightenment was a time when people started to question the translated tales and discovered how the natural world actually worked.”

In that blog post, we discussed rationalism and reason and that they are not the same thing. Rationalism is basically an over zealous or hyperactive form of reason. Reason is a tool we can use to discover the world around us, analyze processes that make the world around us work, and understand God. When used appropriately, reason is a powerful tool for us.

Another idea that was birthed out of the Enlightenment was tolerance. This might sound like a good thing on the surface, and it is. Tolerance means we can live together with different ideas and beliefs and be at peace. But “tolerance” is nothing of the sort today. To me, it seems like tolerance has defied our first staple of the Enlightenment—reason. We have decided as a society that anything goes; you must be tolerant of everyone's ideas and views. This is nonsense and has made a mockery of Western society. Tolerance doesn't mean anything goes, and it certainly doesn't mean that all worldviews or belief systems are equal.

As a side note: it's because of the Christian foundation of our nation that we have written tolerance into our Constitution in the Bill of Rights. You would be hard pressed to find other faiths that are as accepting or as tolerant as Christianity. You may think this is crazy talk—that Christians are well known to be hateful, intolerant people. Even Voltaire, who is credited with the movement of tolerance, said, “Of all religions, the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.” We, as Christians, are human and we get it wrong sometimes. We also get a great deal of credit when we do it wrong. But this isn't an accurate representation of Jesus Christ.

We need to be clear that Jesus was accepting to those who were deemed “sinners” by society if they were humble and repentant. He was very intolerant of the self-righteous and prideful. You can read more about that in Matthew 23. The whole chapter is eye-opening. Tolerance is an act of love. However, correction and even punishment should be an act of love as well. A loving parent disciplines their child (see Hebrews 12:4-11). God is no different, aside from the fact that He is perfect in His discipline and in His responses to us, where as a human parent I know I get it wrong sometimes.

But Jesus demonstrated perfect tolerance. He was perfect—sinless—and had done no wrong, yet He submitted to the intolerant government that would butcher and mutilate His body before killing Him on the cross. He was tolerant. This means Christians can be sure of the truth of the Gospel as Christ was sure of His divinity and authority and be open minded and tolerant. But let's not be so open-minded that our brains fall out, as my pastor is fond of saying. Tolerant obviously doesn't mean you must accept everyone's ideas. It does mean we should give them the right to have those ideas. But we should also be able to discuss ideas and expose ideas that are clearly askew and to reject those ideas. Christ has shown us that God accepts us through the sacrifice of His Son, but will absolutely respect the fact that He has given us the right to choose. If we choose poorly there are consequences, but we are welcome to make that choice. Strangely, people will often scoff at God for giving us a choice and that He then respects the choice we make by giving us what we've asked for.

Notice that “tolerance” in America means you must accept whatever nonsensical idea comes down the pike unless it's Christian in nature. Today, we have people who are extremely intolerant of others' ideas and beliefs that need “safe spaces” so they can color and get hugs and play with Play-doh. That's not tolerance. We have people forcing their beliefs on others while claiming to be tolerant. That's not tolerance at all. We have people marching and rioting and chanting nonsense, all the while claiming to be the civil and against the intolerant. We have artists demanding public figures return artwork. We have endorsements being withdrawn. We have people crying and taking time off work or class to cope with their intolerance. We may live in the most hypocritical society the world has ever known. You can bash a Christian or a conservative and that's the “moral” thing to do. But if you show them your worldview is Christian in nature in an attempt to expose someone's warped philosophy, you're intolerant, hateful, and a bigot. That's how “tolerance” works in the United States. For the most part, those who cry “Tolerance!” are the least tolerant people around. Take a look at the nation after the election on November 8th, 2016. Compare that to the nation immediately after the election in 2008 or 2012. Who is tolerant?

The art of tolerance is being able to discuss different ideas without being hostile. It means you can show someone why you disagree with them and still be friends. We should be able to have differing ideas and still work together. In fact, I believe there can be great strength in diversity. However, if someone has a belief that is erroneous, we should be free to show them this in love. If they reject your evidence for the insanity of their worldview, that's on them. However, I feel if I know you are wrong about something that is critical, I am obligated to inform you of this. The old analogy works perfectly here: If I walk by your house and see you laying on the couch asleep but notice there is smoke billowing out of the upper windows, should I tell you? You're happy. You're unaware of the problem. Should I be “intolerant” and wake you up to tell you there's a big problem that you will suffer terrible consequences for? Or do I just let the house burn to the ground while you're inside? Of course the only right answer is to take action and help you. Once I inform you, my hands are clean. The course of action you take is up to you.

Again, this all must be done in love and not from an arrogant heart. That's the tricky part sometimes. Many of the discussions that take place concerning issues regarding worldviews get very heated very quickly. People will jump all over you for asking them a question that exposes the contradictions in their beliefs. They get very defensive if you simply want to engage in an intelligent conversation on a topic just because they can see the discussion will not go their way. Can't we be honest about it? Why would someone be offended if you show them they have a big problem with their worldview? It means I care about you if I show you something you're basing your life or your eternity on is not consistent. If I didn't care, I'd let you walk in darkness without saying anything.

What I am not saying here is that we should try to argue people into the Kingdom. That doesn't work. Discussing worldview issues is wonderful. But when a discussion gets into insults or personal attacks, the conversation needs to end. This is hard for me sometimes, especially if the person I'm talking with is making terribly inaccurate statements (much like the statements I've been referencing in this series of blog posts from my high school friend). If someone misrepresents Jesus Christ or His people, it's difficult for me not to say something. I'm getting better at it, but I still have a lot of work to do. Learning to communicate the truth of the Gospel with oversensitive people has been a challenge and their numbers continue to grow. Tolerance has been replaced with hypersensitivity and intolerant bigotry.

The Enlightenment did have some great ideas that, when applied via the Biblical worldview, are wonderful things that Jesus Christ Himself demonstrated perfectly. However, like so many other things, mankind has distorted and twisted those things to be something irrational and just wrong. Let's view the world through the lens of the Bible. It's literally the only way to make sense out of this place.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.

by David Odegard

Last week I suggested that perhaps if you don’t like the flavor of a frozen Siberian nightscape of vodka-fueled nihilism, perhaps you would prefer the tropical flavor of nihilism’s watered-down little sister, pluralism. Let’s talk about that. Pluralism is the idea that everything is true. All roads lead to God or heaven or whatever is the greatest good; all religions are basically saying the same things and moving toward the same goal. There are several false stories that pluralists push to convince the naïve.

All paths lead to the top of the mountain. All roads lead to the same place, even if there are fifty different trails some going east some going west, some through brambles and some over stones, some easy, some difficult, but they ultimately all get to the top. Really? Who says they do? This is actually quite an arrogant statement. In saying that Buddha, Christ, and Mohammed were all right, one has to also say that they were all wrong. There is no all-knowing sky gallery from which pluralists can see the whole mountain and be able to judge whether all the roads in fact lead to the top. They certainly cannot.

The same is true of the 5 blind men who are trying to describe the elephant, each one feeling a different part of the elephant. The blind man on the tail describes it as snake-like. The blind man on the trunk agrees, but he says it is a much bigger snake. The blind man on the belly calls them all liars, etc. But this illustration also underscores the arrogance of pluralism. Pluralism maintains that everyone describing the elephant must be blind, and they alone can clearly see the entire elephant. What nonsense.

Even though pluralism is shrouded in humility (“We are all brothers,” etc.), what is really being said is that all religions are equally wrong. But if I stumble into the bathroom at 3:00 a.m. with a splitting headache and swallow what I think is aspirin but it is actually rat-killer, I will die. It will not matter how sincerely I believed that the substance was aspirin. The chemical reaction in my body will still destroy me. In this regard John Locke is correct when he says, “Belief is a persuasion that falls short of knowledge.” Locke mistakenly applies that to all religion, but it is true that belief will not change reality. Knowledge is an acceptance of reality, and that reality includes God Himself. In our little analogy of the pill bottle in the night, a pluralist would conclude that there is nothing potent in the bottle at all and one could take as much as desired, since it doesn’t really matter. That belief is deadly.

Jesus, speaking of Himself, said, “No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God” (John 6:46). He claimed to be the only one who could see the whole elephant, the only one who could see the whole mountain and where all the paths lead. He later said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). All roads do not lead to God; only one does. Do not except the airy nothingness of pluralism. Find THE truth.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.

by Bill Fortenberry

“It may seem obvious to you that government without the consent (permission and agreement) of the governed should not exist. Such a notion, however, was still very new and revolutionary in the 1600’s.” -English philosopher, John Locke, in West’s American Government

How many times have you heard something like this? I know that I hear it all the time. Just about every time that I discuss the history of our nation, someone else will pipe up with the claim that our nation was founded as the implementation of a bunch of new and radical ideas about government which were developed during the Enlightenment. Unfortunately, this is the primary view of our nation’s founding that is taught in grade school through graduate school. And it is absolutely 100% fictional.

The idea that America was founded on new and radical philosophies developed during the Enlightenment is a fairy tale from the progressive left that has been force fed to our children for several generations. If we take a moment to look at the actual writings of Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke, we will see a very different tale begin to emerge.

Progressives like to claim that the world’s leading philosophy of government prior to the enlightenment was a philosophy known as the divine right of kings. This is often presented as the Christian doctrine that the king derives his authority directly from God and that his subjects must submit to him in all things regardless of any written laws to the contrary. According to the progressives, this religious notion of the divine right of kings ruled the world for millennia until their champion, John Locke, was finally able to break free of the chains of religion and begin teaching the new and radical philosophy of government by the consent of the governed. But what did John Locke have to say about the new and radical philosophy of his day?

“In this last age a generation of men has sprung up amongst us, that would flatter princes with an opinion, that they have a divine right to absolute power.” (source)

Wait… what did he just say?

“In this last age a generation of men has sprung up amongst us, that would flatter princes with an opinion, that they have a divine right to absolute power.”

Yes, you did read that correctly. John Locke claimed that it was the philosophy of the divine right of kings that was the new and radical philosophy of the Enlightenment. And that’s not all. Locke’s entire Two Treatises of Government is a refutation of the leading defender of the divine right of kings philosophy, a man named Robert Filmer. Locke wrote of Filmer that, “Sir Robert Filmer seems to condemn the novelty of the contrary opinion, yet I believe it will be hard for him to find any other age, or country of the world, but this, which has asserted monarchy to be divine law.”

And a little further on Locke adds, “Sir Robert Filmer’s great position is, that men are not naturally free. This is the foundation on which his absolute monarchy stands ... But if this foundation fails, all his fabric falls with it, and governments must be left again to the old way of being made by contrivance, and the consent of men making use of their reason to unite together into society.”

So here we have John Locke, the supposed champion of the progressives, renouncing the very foundation of progressivism. Instead of claiming that he was throwing off the chains of religion and presenting new and radical philosophies for an enlightened mankind, Locke accused his opponents of introducing new philosophies and presented himself as a conservative seeking to defend the wisdom of the past.

Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, defined the conservative view of government when he wrote, “We know that we have made no discoveries, and we think that no discoveries are to be made, in morality; nor many in the great principles of government, nor in the ideas of liberty which were understood, long before we were born, altogether as well as they will be after the grave has heaped its mould upon our presumption.”

This idea that the great principles of government, morality, and liberty are ancient principles which will never be changed or refuted is the primary claim of conservatism. All the great philosophers of the Enlightenment (Locke, Blackstone, Montesquieu, Harrington, Sydney, etc.) all agreed with this idea. And the American founders established our nation on this same idea, as John Adams explained when he wrote, “I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial researches, the longest liver of you all will find no principles, institutions, or systems of education more fit, in general, to be transmitted to your posterity than those you have received from your ancestors.”

So what was this ancient wisdom which was defended by the philosophers of the Enlightenment and implemented by the founders of our nation? That is the question that I will begin to answer in my next two blog posts as we retrace the footsteps of our founders.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.

by Katie Erickson

“Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: ‘If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.’
Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.” (Judges 11:29-33)

After a few weeks writing on different topics around Christmas, we’re coming back to the story of Jephthah in the book of Judges. I’d encourage you to go back and review the context here. In short, Jephthah has been trying to reason with the king of Ammon in order to avoid war, but the king has essentially ignored him.

Fortunately, Jephthah has God’s Spirit with him as they go into battle. Jephthah did what he could to try and avoid a bloody battle, but now it has become unavoidable. So Jephthah begins gathering troops from his fellow Israelite tribes of Gad and Manasseh.

Jephthah really wants victory, even though he knows God’s Spirit is with them, so he makes a vow to the Lord. It says in verses 30-31, “And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” The intention of this vow was to show Jephthah’s honor to God, but instead it could be indicating his lack of belief. Did Jephthah have a lack of faith? Or was this his way of saying that he totally trusted God?

In the vow, this NIV translation says, “whatever comes out the door…” That could also be translated as “whoever,” as the language isn’t clear on that. Was this intended to be a human sacrifice, or an animal one? The text isn’t clear on that. An animal sacrifice would not be an unusual thing, since those happened all the time. A human sacrifice, however, would be very unique as even back then, that was considered to be murder. Sacrificing humans was clearly forbidden in the Law of Moses (see Exodus 20:13, Leviticus 18:21, and Deuteronomy 12:31). Killing another person, for whatever reason, would not have been ok with God. Many pagan nations surrounding Israel at the time would sacrifice their children for religious purposes in worshiping their pagan gods, so that may have been an influence on this. We really don’t have enough detail to say for sure. What’s clear is that victory in this battle was SO important to Jephthah that he was willing to kill for it.

As it turns out, Israel was given victory in this battle (verse 32). Many Ammonites died in the battle, but the land belonged to Israel again and they had gotten rid of the threat. What happened with Jephthah’s vow? Tune in next week to find out.

While this is an interesting story from Israel’s history, what does it have to do with us today? One thing that is clear is that we should not make vows like this one. We have passages in the New Testament that discourage this sort of thing. Matthew 5:34 says, “But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne.” James 5:12 says, “Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ Otherwise you will be condemned.” We should simply keep our word, then people will be able to count on us; oaths or vows are not typically necessary.

Jephthah making this vow is like he’s trying to make a deal with God. He says something rash without necessarily thinking it all the way through. Have you ever done that in your life? Maybe you’ve committed to something that sounded great, but then once it comes down to it, you really don’t want to follow through. Or maybe you’ve pleaded with God: “God, if you get me out of this situation (usually one that I’ve gotten myself into), I’ll read my Bible every day and go to church every Sunday!” While these may be heartfelt in the moment, often they’re just rash statements that we either break later, or regret making in the first place.

With the new year just starting, maybe you made a new year’s resolution that you’re already regretting making. Be careful about what you commit to; make sure that you can keep your word in all situations, and part of that is by not being hasty in our statements.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.

by Ami Samuels

The Christmas decorations are packed away for another year and the outdoor lights are down. Christmas 2016 is behind us. Reflecting on Christmas as we have celebrated the gift of Jesus’ birth, we have spent countless hours searching for, purchasing and wrapping gifts for our family and friends. There certainly has been a great deal of focus on gifts the past few months.

As I was looking ahead to 2017, I started to think about sharing the gift of Jesus’ love in the New Year. What gift will you share with others this year? We all have unique talents and gifts. Maybe you are an accomplished baker, teacher, singer, seamstress, mechanic, handyman, craftsman, or encourager. How will you use your abilities to serve others in this New Year? Romans 12:6-8 says, “We have different gifts, according to the grace given to us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, then do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.”

My mom was an encourager. Her gift was sending cards. Whenever we went shopping with mom we knew she would spend most of her time in the store buying cards for others. She sent people birthday cards, sympathy cards, wedding and anniversary cards, and cards that simply said, “Thinking of you.”

When my family moved away from Robinson, Illinois, in 2001, my mom wanted to stay connected with my boys so she started sending them a card every week. She would include a hand-written note, a piece of gum, a dollar each, and littlie inspirational clippings out of magazines. She would adorn the outside of the cards with stickers pertaining to the season of the year or sports they were playing at the time. She made the cards special because she wanted the boys to know she was always thinking of them and missing them. She wanted them to feel special and to know that they were loved.

Mother Teresa said, “Do small things with great love.” I believe it will take all of us using all our talents and gifts to minister to a hurting world for Jesus. Your talents and gifts may minister to someone that others may not have the opportunity to reach. It could be someone you work with, a neighbor, or a family member. We encounter people every day who are hurting, lonely, and may not know Jesus. How can we use our abilities to reach a hurting world in 2017? How can we share Jesus’ love with them?

In 2017, unwrap your talents and gifts to bless and minister to others by looking for opportunities to serve those around us.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.