The Reason for God ~ Chapter 12 ~ The (True) Story of the Cross

Here is the summary from Stefanie's blog:

“The primary symbol of Christianity has always been the cross,” begins Chapter Twelve. (p. 193) Keller goes on to say that what we as Christians see as Good News – the Gospel – our society views as difficult at best and horrific at worst. “In the Christian account, Jesus dies so that God can forgive sins. For many, that seems ludicrous or even sinister,” according to Keller. (p. 194) Society is okay with good news but the idea of a good God causing injury and death to his own son is too far from their normative belief of what constitutes good. Apparently some believe the cross even moves from questionable to evil, “While the Christian doctrine of the cross confuses some people, it alarms others.” (p. 194)

So, Keller asks, “Why did Jesus have to die?” (p. 194)

The First Real Reason: Real Forgiveness Is Costly Suffering

Keller runs through an illustration of how someone who damages your property with a car would either have to pay for the damage caused, or you would. In other words, there is a cost when someone has been wronged. Keller says it, “When we are seriously wronged we have an indelible sense that the perpetrators have incurred a debt that must be dealt with.” (p. 195)
When someone has been wronged and a debt has been incurred, there are only two responses — and both require a payment.

The first option is to have the perpetrator(s) pay. “You can withhold relationship and actively initiate or passively wish for some kind of pain in their lives commensurate to what you have experienced,” per Keller. (p. 195) There are multiple ways to accomplish this but it eventually leads to, “Cycles of reaction and retaliation [which] can go on for years. Evil has been done to you — yes. But when you try to get payment through revenge the evil does not disappear. Instead it spreads, and it spreads most tragically of all into you and your own character.” (p. 195)

The second option is to forgive the perpetrator. Keller brings up an excellent point about the results of this choice; “However, to refrain from lashing out at someone when you want to do so with all your being is agony. It is a form of suffering. You not only suffer the original loss of happiness, reputation, and opportunity, but now you forgo the consolation of inflicting the same on them.” (p. 196) The anger may slowly subside, Keller tells of C.S. Lewis realizing, at the moment, he has forgiven someone it took him 30 years to forgive. The cost is emotional but not evil. The decision to forgive, Keller says, “…must be granted before it can be felt, but it does come eventually. It leads to a new peace, a resurrection. It is the only way to stop the spread of the evil.” (p. 196)

But forgiveness is not non-confrontational. It is not taking on a victim mentality nor is it weakness. In fact, it is the only way to truly love the perpetrator. When children do something wrong, it is best to confront them and teach them boundaries out of love. It is the same when you are wronged. “The best way to love them [perpetrator] and the other potential victims around them is to confront them in the hope that they will repent, change, and make things right,” Keller writes. (p. 197)

Keller uses the inspiring example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, author of the Christian classic The Cost of Discipleship. Bonhoeffer was executed by hanging in a Nazi concentration camp just weeks before the liberation of the camp and then end World War II for his bold resistance to the Nazi dictatorship. Despite his circumstances during the time, he still forgave those he was confronting. “He did not ignore or excuse sin. He resisted it head on, even though it cost him everything… He passed through the agonizing process required to love our enemies, so his resistance to their evildoing was measured and courageous, not venomous and cruel,” Keller says. (p. 198) Of someone who witnessed the execution it was said, “I saw Pastor Bonhoeffer… kneeling on the floor praying fervently to God. I was most deeply moved by the way this lovable man prayed, so devout and so certain that God heard his prayer.” Bonhoeffer lived and died a life that exemplified Christ.

The Forgiveness of God

Keller posits, “Why did Jesus have to die? Couldn’t God just forgive us?” (p. 199) He has already answered the question earlier when he discussed the cost of forgiveness but continues for the sake of teaching, “Forgiveness means bearing the cost instead of making the wrongdoer do it, so you can reach out in love to seek your enemy’s renewal and change… Forgiveness means absorbing the debt of sin yourself.” (p. 199) Jesus is obviously the ultimate example but Stephen also – as he was being stoned – asked God to forgive his killers. In addition, Bonhoeffer did the same. Sin has a cost, and forgiveness means taking on the cost yourself. As Christians we see Jesus as God, and fundamentally believe that He punished Himself for our sin. He understands the cost because, “..this is a God who becomes human and offers his own lifeblood in order to honor moral justice and merciful love so that someday he can destroy all evil without destroying us… Forgiveness is always a form of costly suffering,” writes Keller. (p. 200) For the Christ follower, Jesus paid the ultimate penalty and absorbed the ultimate cost to remove our guilt and alleviate our indebtedness.

“… the death of Christ was necessary to vindicate the righteousness of God in justifying the ungodly by faith. It would be unrighteous to forgive sinners as though their sin were insignificant, when in fact it is an infinite insult against the value of God’s glory. Therefore Jesus bears the curse, which was due to our sin, so that we can be justified and the righteousness of God can be vindicated.” — John Piper

The Second Reason: Real Love Is a Personal Exchange

So, Keller asks, “Why can’t we just concentrate on teaching about how God is a God of love? The answer is that if you take away the Cross you don’t have a God of love.” (p. 201) Agape love, demonstrated by Jesus, requires sacrifice on our part while western society’s overly marketed romantic love does not. Keller states it thus, “All life-changing love toward people with serious needs is a substitutional sacrifice. If you become personally involved with them, in some way, their weaknesses flow toward you as your strengths flow toward them.” (p. 202) This substitution is the very message of the Cross. Keller quotes John Stott, “The essence of sin we human beings substituting ourselves for God, while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for us. We… put ourselves where only God deserves to be: God… puts himself where we deserve to be.” (p. 202)

The Great Reversal

The message of the Cross – that Jesus died as a substitute for our selfishness and sin – means the outcasts of society have hope in the Cross. And the exalted of this world, without the Cross, have hopelessness. “On the Cross, Christ wins through losing, triumphs through defeat, achieves power through weakness and service, comes to wealth via giving all away,” Keller says. (p. 204) Jesus reversed the pattern of the world and created a new paradigm. Keller explains, “Those who are shaped by the great reversal of the Cross no longer need self justification through money, status, career, or pride of race and class. So the Cross creates a counterculture in which sex, money, and power cease to control us and are used in life-giving and community-building rather than destructive ways.” (p. 204)

“On the Cross neither justice nor mercy loses out — both are fulfilled at once… Jesus identified with the oppressed. Yet we should not try to overcome evil with evil.” Keller says. (pp. 204-05)

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. — Romans 12:21

The Story of the Cross

Keller writes the meaning of the Cross can be found in the movies that move us emotionally. We are enamored with the story of the innocent who substitutes themselves, at great cost of life, money, power or position, for the wrongdoer. The story isn’t new — Jesus did this on the Cross. Where the difference lies is that the truth of Jesus on the Cross should propel us to actual change while the resolutions we develop when watching fiction or human non-fiction are easily forgotten; they inspire nothing more than a passing thought as we return to life.

According to Keller, “The Gospel… is not just a moving fictional story about someone else. It is a true story about us. We are actually in it.” (p. 208)
Seeing the story of the Cross from the outside can only tickle our thoughts but once you realize you are a part of the story, you are changed. Keller finishes, “The fact that Jesus had to die for me humbled me out of my pride. The fact that Jesus was glad to die for me assured me out of my fear.” (p. 208)

Question: Before reading this chapter, had you fully grasped the weight of your sin? What Jesus did on the Cross to purchase your forgiveness? If so, has that understanding led to a true change in you? If not, do you think reading this chapter might be the impetus for such a change?

*My Response*
Whenever I am reminded of the depth of my sin, I'm brought to my knees.  The very thought that Jesus would suffer and die for ME is both devastating and awesome to me.  I don't think I will ever fully grasp the weight of my own sin or the true cost that Jesus paid.  This I know: the closer I am to Him, the clearer my vision.  The revelation of my pride and selfishness is blinding!  My only hope is in Christ.  Without Him I am hopeless.  And this realization leads me to see others through His eyes.  Changing my character is a s.l.o.w. process, and it begins with coming face to face with who I am without Christ and who He is in me.  I am left humbled, thankful and in awe.

I do not understand what I do.  For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.  And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.  As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.  I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.  For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.  For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do - this I keep on doing.  Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.  ...but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.  What a wretched man I am!  Who will rescue me from the body of death?  Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!  Romans 7:15-25

Happy Birthday, Khloie Nicole!!!

Guess who turned 3 this month!

We celebrated Khloie's first birthday since coming home...

Look how she's doing following her surgery!

What a precious gift you are, baby girl!

The Reason for God ~ Chapter 11 ~ Religion and the Gospel

Here is the summary from Stefanie's blog:

“Christianity teaches that our main problem is sin,” according to Keller (p. 180) he continues if this is true than why must one select Christianity and Jesus? Keller says only Jesus claimed to be the way to salvation whereas other major religion founders only show the way to salvation.

For the purposes of the discussion in Chapter 11, Keller defines religion as “salvation through moral effort,” and the Gospel as, “salvation through grace.” (p. 181)

Two Forms of Self-Centeredness

Keller uses the illustration of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to demonstrate how pursuing moral effort for salvation is a slippery slope. Dr. Jekyll believes he could do more if his bad nature wasn’t holding back his good nature so he creates a potion to separate them. Most of us know what happens next… the good Dr. Jekyll realizes the evil Mr. Hyde is overtaking him and the lack of his good nature’s ability to prevent the despicable acts of his evil side drive him to stop taking the potion and attempt to do only good deeds. As Jekyll reflects on all the good he is now doing, his comparison of self to others and resultant pride lead to a shocking transformation of himself – without the use of the potion – into Mr. Hyde. Keller explains, “Like so many people, Jekyll knows he is a sinner, so he tries desperately to cover his sin with great piles of good works. Yet his efforts do not actually shrivel his pride and self-centeredness, they only aggravate it. They lead him to superiority, self-righteousness, pride and suddenly…Jekyll becomes Hyde, not in spite of his goodness, but because of his goodness.” (p. 183)

Two forms of sin and evil Keller states are: 1) ignoring all the rules, being defiant and celebrating your badness (fierce independence) or 2) following all the rules and feeling superior because of it (saving yourself). Keller says, “Both religion (in which you build your identity on your moral achievements) and irreligion (in which you build your identity on some other secular pursuit or relationship) are, ultimately, spiritually identical courses to take. Both are “sin.”" (p. 183) in fact, Keller reminds us Jesus railed against the Pharisees. And Satan prefers them because, “They are more unhappy than either mature Christians or irreligious people, and they do a lot more spiritual damage.” (p. 184)

The Damage of Pharisaism

According to Keller, Pharisees “…build their sense of worth on their moral and spiritual performance, as a kind of resume to present before God and the world.” (p. 184). He quotes Richard Lovelace for the cause of the damage of pharasitic religion is, “…Their insecurity shows itself in pride, a fierce, defensive assertion of their own righteousness, and defensive criticism of others. They come naturally to hate other cultural styles and other races in order to bolster their own security and discharge their suppressed anger.” (p. 185) Keller then backs this idea up, “Pharisees and their unattractive lives leave many people confused about the real nature of Christianity.” (p. 186)

The Difference of Grace

Grace is radical because of one supremely significant difference: God accepted us not because of what we do but because of what Jesus did. Keller states it this way, “Religion operates on the principle “I obey–therefore I am accepted by God.” But the operating principle of the gospel is “I am accepted by God through what Christ has done–therefore I obey.”" (p. 186)

“The primary difference [between religion and the gospel] is that of motivation,” Keller writes, “While the moralist is forced into obedience, motivated by fear or rejection, a Christian rushes into obedience, motivated by a desire to please and resemble the one who gave his life for us.” (p. 186)

Identity and self-regard are other differences. Keller says, “…whether your religion is of a more liberal variety (in which case you will feel superior to bigots and narrow-minded people) or of a more conservative variety (in which case you will feel superior to the less moral and devout).” (p. 187) Only the Good News of the Gospel provides the way to escape both these fatally flawed camps. “… the gospel contained the resources to build a unique identity. In Christ I [Keller] could know I was accepted by grace not only despite my flaws, but because I am willing to admit them. The Christian gospel is that I am so flawed that Jesus had to die for me, yet I am so loved and valued and that Jesus was glad to die for me…I do not think more of myself nor less of myself. Instead, I think of myself less,” Keller says. (p. 187)

Another difference is how others are treated. Post-modernists believe that the definition of self is discovered by comparing yourself against others to see what you are not. The Gospel, however, gives someone a different view of self. Keller describes it, “A Christian’s worth and value are not created by excluding anyone, but through the Lord who was excluded for me. His grace both humbles me more deeply than religion can (since I am too flawed to ever save myself through my own effort), yet it also affirms me more powerfully than religion can (since I can be absolutely certain of God’s unconditional acceptance… That means I cannot despise those who do not believe as I do… The gospel makes it possible for a person to escape oversensitivity, defensiveness, and the need to criticize others. The Christian’s identity is not based on the need to be perceived as a good person, but on God’s valuing of you in Christ.” (p. 188)

Finally, another difference is how the two deal with troubles and suffering. Keller states the difference, “Moralistic religion leads its participants to the conviction that if they live an upstanding life, then God (and others) owe them respect and favor… The Gospel, however, makes it possible for someone to escape the spiral of bitterness, self-recrimination, and despair when life goes wrong. They know that the basic premise of religion — that if you live a good life, things will go well for you — is wrong.” (p. 189) Just look to the life of Jesus to see that living a good life does not necessarily lead to peace, harmony, justice, equality or riches.

The Threat of Grace

The initial gut reaction of many to the argument of the supposed ease of grace is, according to Keller, that it is too easy. He continues by stating that they do not understand that grace is actually threatening because – if it is given freely – the One who gives is now owed everything. If you accept grace, you also accept the debt of no longer being your own and having the right of self. Instead now you must give up self and do whatever Jesus asks of me — no matter how big or small in your sight. “This may seem the greatest paradox of all. The most liberating act of free, unconditional grace demands that the recipient give up control of his or her life… It is only grace that frees us from the slavery of self that lurks even in the middle of morality and religion,” Keller writes. (p. 191)

Keller wants the reader to see and understand the radically fundamental difference between religion and the gospel. Christianity’s foundation in Jesus means it differs tremendously from religion. Keller finishes by saying, “Jesus came essentially as a savior rather than a teacher (though he was that as well). Jesus says, “I am the divine come to you, to do what you could not do for yourselves.” The Christian message is that we are saved not by our record, but by Christ’s record. So Christianity is not religion or irreligion. It is something else altogether.” (p. 192)

Question: Have you personally experienced the grace of God? And how does experiencing His grace cause your heart to well up in worship to Him?

*My Response*
This is probably my favorite chapter so far!  It isn't an easy pill to swallow because it leaves me questioning my own pharasitic actions and attitude.  In my head I understand the concept of 'no longer being my own and having the right of self,' but if I check my heart, I see so many areas I still seek control over every.single.day.

I really like Keller's statement, Pharisees and their unattractive lives leave many people confused about the real nature of Christianity.

I wonder how confused I may leave people.  Not that I'm looking for approval, but that I truly want my life to reflect Christ. My reflective question is: am I legalistic, critical, judgmental, self-righteous?  O.u.c.h.

Oh, the difference grace makes!  It is only grace that frees us from the slavery of self that lurks even in the middle of morality and religion, says Keller.

This statement resonates with me because I have experienced radical grace!  For 4 years I did the 'good things' - reading God's Word, praying and serving.  I was deceived.  I was confident - in my works.  And by God's grace, He brought me to my knees with the realization that I didn't have a relationship with Christ.  I was humbled as Jesus became my Lord and Savior.  Not because of anything I did, but because of what He did.

As I have grown in Christ over the last 12 years, I find it easy to obey as a result of my love for Him.  But my struggle is with pride, defensiveness and self-righteousness.  This chapter is up in my face, and I'm having to deal with it.  I've started spending 10 to 15 minutes each day just worshipping and praising God.  I'm not talking about thanking Him for all He's done for me; rather, for Who He is. 

"My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."  2 Cor 12:9b

Khloie Update ~ Praises!

Where do I even begin? 

I have become a terribly lax blogger.  Blame corn harvest; blame the number of doctor's visits...

nah, just blame me for not making the time.  

But this little update is well worth it! 

So much has happened in the last week.

First, Khloie had her sedated MRI 10 days ago.

I was a little nervous taking her by myself since it was her first experience with anesthesia since coming home.  But she did awesome!

Then she had eye surgery 5 days ago. 

She was scheduled for a bi-lateral rectus recession for infantile esotropia (crossed eyes).

The surgery only lasted an hour, and Little Miss recovered well, so we left the hospital within a few hours and with noticeable change!

This picture was taken 2 days after surgery!  She just has this glow about her.  We've even seen improvement in her motor skills since surgery.

Then on Friday we met her neurologist to discuss the MRI results.  We were believing for a miracle.  We serve an awesome God!!!

In Dr. Norman's words: "She is a miracle baby."  Here MRI images are frightening, to say the least.  They confirm extensive brain damage due to 'an event' either pre-birth or soon after.  So much so that such an event would typically render her unable to walk or talk and would certainly affect her vision.  The miracle is that her brain has compensated and re-wired to perform these functions in other areas of the brain that are not damaged.
She still has the diagnosis of CP, and the good news is that it is not progressive!  We should not expect to see diminished physical function!  She might experience learning difficulties and have to work extra hard in school.  But truly, she is a miracle!
Thank you, JESUS!!!

The Reason for God ~ Chapter 10 ~ The Problem of Sin

Here is the summary from Stefanie's blog:

Keller warns us right from the start that this chapter is not for the faint of heart. And he is right. “It is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with the world,” Keller says. (p. 165)

Sin and Human Hope

Keller argues, “Many have the impression that the Christian doctrine of sin is bleak and pessimistic about human nature.” (p. 166) He says it is really the opposite; with the knowledge we are sinners comes hope because we are not “…simply the helpless victim of psychological drives or social systems.” (p. 166) Keller quotes Simone Weil as saying of sin, “All sins are attempts to fill voids.” He also quotes Barbara Brown Taylor’s agreement with Weil, “Because we cannot stand the God-shaped hole inside of us, we try stuffing it full of all sorts of things, but only God may fill [it].” (p. 166). Once we realize pride is the antithesis of hope, we also begin to realize we cannot save ourselves through our own efforts, Andrew Delbanco writes. (p. 167) Only by viewing our life through the prism of sin do we see our shortcomings in perspective, are willing to forgive others, while also “… Humbly seek[ing] and receive[ing] forgiveness from others.” (p. 168)

The Meaning of Sin

Kierkegaard, according to Keller, defined sin and faith like this: “Sin is: in despair not wanting to be oneself with God… Faith is: that the self in being itself and wanting to be itself is grounded transparency in God.” (p. 168) Keller references Kierkegaard’s assertion we are created for four things: to believe in God, to love God, to focus our life on God and to identify with God. “Anything other than this is sin,” per Keller (p. 168) The Bible defines sin as, “…not just the doing of bad things, but the making of good things into ultimate things.” (p. 168)

So, what is the defining force you rely on to give your life meaning? Keller says whatever you base your worth upon will be what you deify; and it will look, when viewed from the outside, as worship, passion and devotion — the essentials of religion. (p. 169) Keller again quotes Kierkegaard: “Every person must find some way to “justify their existence,” and stave off the universal fear that they’re a bum.” (p. 170)

The Personal Consequences of Sin

How can sin be destructive to us? Keller says, “Identity apart from God is inherently unstable. Without God, our sense of worth may seem solid on the surface, but it never is — it can desert you in a moment.”(pp. 170-71) He also says, “If anything threatens your identity you will not just be anxious but paralyzed with fear… Only if your identity is built on God and His love, says Kierkegaard, can you have a self that can venture anything, face anything.” (p. 171)

Keller says, “An identity not based on God also leads inevitably to deep forms of addiction.” (p. 172) He continues, “If we take our meaning in life from our family, our work, a cause, or some achievement other than God, they enslave us. We have to have them… As in all addiction, we are in denial about the degree to which we are controlled by our god-substitutes. And inordinate love creates inordinate, uncontrollable anguish if anything goes wrong with the object of our greatest hopes.” (p. 172)

Keller again quotes Simone Weil while describing what happens when we are struggling with idols. Weil says, “One only has a choice between God and idolatry. If one denies God… one is worshipping some things of this world in the belief that one sees them only as such, but in fact, though unknown to oneself imagining the attributes of Divinity in them.” (p. 17

“A life not centered on God leads to emptiness,” Keller continues, “Building our lives on something besides God not only hurts us if we don’t get the desires of our hearts, but also if we do.” (p. 173)

The Social Consequences of Sin

“… Jonathan Edwards lays out how sin destroys the social fabric. He argues that human society is deeply fragmented when anything but God is our highest love,” Keller says. Edwards also says that only if God is the epitome and center of our lives will we be drawn to others and the world. (p. 175) Worshipping anything other than God “…means we must despise and demonized the opposition,” Keller argues. (p. 175) Since we must necessarily put down and attack as evil the polar opposite of our worship, Keller says, “The real culture war is taking place inside our own disordered hearts, wracked by inordinate desires for things that control us, that lead us to feel superior and exclude those without them, and that fail to satisfy us even when we get them.” (pp. 175-76)

The Cosmic Consequences of Sin

“The Bible even more comprehensively (and more mysteriously) about the effects of sin…,” Keller says. He further argues that the Book of Genesis is unique because it relates a universe created in harmony with multiple life forms and an Earth perfectly suited for maintaining the synergy — shalom. This he contrasts with physical science and other ancient religions which employ the use of violence in creation. What changed the world from conformity, unity and tranquility into the one of violence, disunity and disillusionment we see now? “… as soon as we determined to serve ourselves instead of God–as soon as we abandoned living for and enjoying God as our highest good… the entire warp and woof of the world unraveled. Disease, genetic disorders, famine, natural disasters, aging, and death itself are as much the result of sin as are oppression, war, crime, and violence. We have lost God’s shalom,” Keller postulates. (p. 177)

Who Can Put It Right?

Keller says, “At some point in our lives, we are confronted with the fact that we are not the persons we know we should be.” (p. 177) So what must we do? Keller says we have two choices we can attempt to try harder or, as C.S. Lewis states, “The almost impossibly hard thing is to hand over your whole self to Christ. But it is far easier than what we are all trying to do instead. For what we are trying to do is remain what we call “ourselves” — our personal happiness centered on money or pleasure of ambition — and hoping, despite this, to behave honestly and chastely and humbly. And that is exactly what Christ warned us you cannot do. If I am a grass field — all the cutting will keep the grass less but won’t produce wheat. If I want wheat… I must be plowed up and re-sown.” (p. 178)

Keller asks, “Does that scare you? Does it sound stifling? Remember this — if you don’t live for Jesus you will live for something else.” (p. 179)

He continues, “Whatever you base your life on — you have to live up to that. Jesus is the one Lord you can live for who died for you — who breathed his last breath for you.” (p. 179)

Keller concludes, “Everybody has to live for something. Whatever that something becomes “Lord of your life,” whether you think of it that way or not. Jesus is the only Lord who, if you receive him, will fulfill you completely, and, if you fail him, will forgive you eternally.” (p. 179)

Question: Keller includes the following quote from Simone Weil in this chapter: “One has only the choice between God and idolatry.” Do you agree? Why or why not?

*My Response*
Based on John 1:3, I have to agree ~ Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Because I was made by God and for God, to choose anything but God is idolatry.  
It took nearly a third of my life to come to this realization.  And believe me, it's a daily struggle within my heart, because although I surrendered all to Jesus as my Lord and Savior when I was 36, I still long for many things of the world.  
Some of my deepest sin pitfalls are not even tangible ~ things like pride, selfishness and conformity.
All the trying-to-be-a-better person will come to a dead end until I am confronted and deal with my sin nature.  There was a time when I chose the Jesus Smorgasbord: a little of this; a lot of that; none of that...and then I realized I wanted Jesus... but not all of Him.  I didn't want Him to deal with my sin.  At that moment He changed me from the inside out.   

This statement in the chapter resonates with me: …not just the doing of bad things, but the making of good things into ultimate things.” I can easily turn 'serving' into my god.  Or 'teaching'.  Or 'fighting for a cause.'  Those may all be great things, but they are not the Greatest.  I have to constantly rein in my heart, striving to live only for my heavenly Father, keeping perspective and letting everything else take its rightful place.

Dara Maclean - Wanted

I love these lyrics!

This Week

Things will change forever for Khloie this week.

 Her eye surgery is scheduled for Thursday.
Dr. T is doing a medial rectus recession - bilateral.
Basically that means he will remove the muscles from her eyes and move them backward to allow her eyes to come into a straighter position.

We are so grateful for Dr. T and so excited that Khloie will be able to see without so much effort.

However, our family has come to love  our beautiful baby-of-the-family, and her appearance will be different.

She will still be the one who wears everyone else's shoes around the house, tries to wear everyone else's clothes, and yells, "Mommmaaayyyy," when someone is in her space.

And maybe she will walk with confidence without running into things

No matter what, she will be our beautiful Khloie-bug!

The Reason for God ~ Chapter Nine ~ The Knowledge of God (and a conversation)

Here is the summary from Stefanie's blog:
Followed by my response, which includes a conversation my husband had yesterday.

In his argument against the view many traditionalists and religious speakers have of “relativistic and amoral” youth, Keller says, “The secular, young adults I have known have a very finely honed sense of right and wrong.” (p. 149)

Keller goes on to note, “people still have strong moral convictions, but unlike people in other times and places, they don’t have any visible basis for why they find some things evil and other things good.” (p. 150)

He says there is a radical reason, “I think people in our culture know unavoidably that there is a God, but they are repressing what they know.” (p. 151) No one, Keller says, can maintain a constant moral relativism because, “The answer is that we all have a pervasive, powerful, and unavoidable belief not only in moral values but also in moral obligation.” (p.151)

In defining morals, Keller quotes Sociologist Christian Smith, “‘Moral’…is an orientation toward understandings about what is right or wrong, just and unjust, that are not established by our own actual desires or preferences but instead are believed to exist apart from them, providing standards by which our desires and preferences can themselves be judged.” (p. 152). Keller continues to say that although we are taught moral relativism, “we can’t live like that. In actual practice we inevitably treat some principles as absolute standards by which we judge the behavior of those who don’t share our values.” (p. 152)

So, why do we believe moral standards exist despite our bent toward morals being relative to culture, individuals and communities? Keller says, “We do not only have moral feelings, but we also have an ineradicable belief that moral standards exist, outside of us, by which our internal moral feelings are evaluated.” (pp. 152-153)

Keller presents the argument in which evolutionary psychologists and sociobiologists believe altruism somehow benefited previous societies and so the altruistic gene survived. However, Keller presents three reasons why this simply cannot be. First, if self-sacrificing toward your community group benefits your society, then hostility to all outside groups would be equally just morally; yet we do not see this. Second, altruism brings some sort of “indirect reciprocal benefit to the practitioner from others,” but what about when no one observes the behavior? Finally, some argue altruism somehow benefits entire societies which flies in the face of the same who agree natural selection does not occur across whole populations. (p. 154)

“Evolution, therefore, cannot account for the origin of our moral feelings, let alone for the fact that we all believe there are external moral standards by which moral feelings are evaluated,” Keller postulates. (p. 154)

Keller defines cultural relativism by using the words of Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, “a view that all moral beliefs are culturally created and there is no basis for objectively judging one culture’s morality to be better than another.” (p. 154) If this is the case, then the idea of universal human rights is also true; what right do we have to impose our values on a different culture? (p. 155)

Human rights, Michael J. Perry says, is “the twofold conviction that every human being has inherent dignity and that it is obligatory that we order our lives in accordance with this fact.” (p. 156) From where does this dignity derive itself? Some say from God and some from nature. If God created us in His image then we have inherent value. If from nature, then human nature would have benefited from certain behaviors being right. Nature is inherently violent so the argument for natural dignity argues against from whence it supposedly derived. Others argue it comes about because of majority or plurality. “If there is no God, argues Nietzsche, Sartre, and others, there can be no good reason to be kind, to be loving, or to work for peace,” Keller quotes. (p. 158) On the opposite side, “If there is no God, then there is no way to say any one action is ‘moral’ and another ‘immoral’ but only ‘I like this.’ If that is the case, who gets the right to put their subjective, arbitrary, moral feelings into law?” Keller asks. (p. 159)

Yale law professor, Arthur Leff, according to Keller, says, “The fact is… if there is no God, then all moral valuations are subjective and internal, and there can be no external moral standard by which a person’s feelings and values are judged.” (p. 159) The Atheistic thinker Raimond Gaita admits, “Only someone who is religious can speak of the sacred… [and] Not one of [these statements about human beings] has the power of the religious way of speaking… that we are sacred because God loves us, his children.” (p. 160)

Keller finishes with an argument against the natural basis for moral obligation. He tells the story of Annie Dillard who lived a year next to a stream in Virginia and rediscovered that nature lives by one principle only — violence of the powerful over the weak. “We are moral creatures in an amoral world… Or consider the alternative… it is only human feeling that is freakishly amiss… all right then — it is our emotions that are amiss. We are freaks, the world is fine, and let us all go have lobotomies to restore us to a natural state. We can leave.. .lobotomized, go back tot he creek, and live on it’s banks as untroubled as any muskrat or reed. You first.”

Therefore, Keller says, “There is no basis for moral obligation unless we argue that nature is in some part unnatural. We can’t know that nature is broken in some way [humans' belief it is not ok for the strong to usurp rights and freedoms of weaker groups and individuals] unless there is some supernatural standard of normalcy apart from nature by which we judge right and wrong.” (p. 161)

That standard arises from God, per Keller, and he also argues that to not see it “and yet you continue to pronounce some things right and some things wrong, then I hope you see the deep disharmony between the world your intellect has devised and the real world (and God) that your heart knows exists.” (p. 162)

Finally Keller quotes Quentin from Arthur Miller’s play After the Fall, when he says, “I think now that my disaster really began when I looked up one day… and the [judge's] bench was empty… And all that remained was the endless argument with oneself, this pointless litigation of existence before an empty bench… Which, of course, is another way of saying — despair.” (p. 163) If the bench is indeed empty, then there is no point in human existence and “Whether we are loving or cruel in the end would make no difference,” Keller says. (p. 163) Therefore there are two options: hold onto the belief of an empty bench and still act as though choices matter or “…accept the fact that you live as if beauty and love have meaning in life, as if human beings have inherent dignity — all because you know God exists. It is dishonest to live as if he is there and yet fail to acknowledge the one who has given you all these gifts.” (p. 164)

Question: What stood out to you most in this chapter? Did something Keller say (or referenced) specifically resonate with you?

*My Response*
My response was going in a completely different direction...until my husband shared a conversation he had yesterday.  
He ran into a gentleman he hadn't seen in more than ten years.  It was not a chance encounter.
I will call the gentleman 'Sir' in this conversation.  
Clayton was getting fuel and had several of our younger children with him, and this conversation happened as he was checking out - probably paying for Skittles and Bug Juice :)

Sir:  Hello, Clayton.  Wow, I had no idea you had kids so young.
Clayton:  Actually, I've got one younger than this.
Sir:  Really?  What do you do?  Just keep poppin' them out?
Clayton:  Now, Sir, does it look like I 'pop them out'?  I've got 11 kids, and 8 of them are from China.
Sir:  Why?  
Clayton:  The Bible says to store up our treasures in heaven where moth and rust will not destroy.
Sir:   How do you do that?  You must have a lot of money!
Clayton:  No.
Sir:  So you can do that without money?
Clayton:  Yes.
Sir:  How's that?
Clayton:  The Bible also says that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills.  And I have access to it all!
Sir:  Really?  (as he starts walking out the door)
Clayton:  Sir, did you know that?
Sir:  (Walking out the door) No, but I do now *insert sarcasm*.

Clayton turned to pay for his purchases, and the girl behind the counter said, "That really touched me.  I've never heard it put like that before."
Clayton said, "It's in the Bible."
She said, "I know, but I've just never heard it said like that before."
To Him be glory!

This chapter deals with the question of the foundation of morality.  Keller states that while our culture does know 'right from wrong,' we in large part have no valid reason for why right is right and wrong is wrong.

It resonates with me because I grew up in a 'moral' home where we were expected to show respect, especially to elders, and exercise manners, but it had nothing to do with spirituality.  There was no biblical basis, no reference to God's authority, and certainly no regeneration.

If you would have asked me why I was, for example, 'kind', I would've said, "Because my dad teaches me so."

Today if you ask me why I'm 'kind', I would say, "Because I am a new creation in Christ, and it is only through Him that I can be kind...or do anything else 'good.'"

Please don't hear me say I am now 'perfect!'  Oh.my.heavens.no.!  Far from it.  But I now have the power and Spirit of God, which allows me to determine the 'right thing to do'.  I admit I'm not always a good example, and I pray daily that God would reveal more of Himself and less of the old me.  

Certainly, there are non-believers who are more 'moral' than some Christians; who are more benevolent; who are more pleasant to be around; who are more helpful; who are less critical; who are more optimistic...

And maybe that should be the challenge to those of us professing our Christianity.   As Keller says, "...to recognize that you do know there is a God.  You could accept the fact that you live as if beauty and love have meaning, as if there is meaning in life, as if human beings have inherent dignity - all because you know God exists.  It is dishonest to live as if he is there and yet fail to acknowledge the one who has given you all these gifts."

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come.  

2 Cor 5:17

...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  

1 Peter 3:15b

My DIY ~ Freezing Fresh Corn

I'm reposting this from a few years ago since so many have asked how I freeze corn.  This is what works for me :)

I finally seized had a chance to put up some corn today ~ 2 bags, to be exact! Since I was asked, I will share how I preserve our corn in the freezer.

First, gather supplies:

Quart-size freezer bags

Large boiling pot

Knife or corn scraper

Trays or containers to hold corn

Tongs

Ice

Strainer

Lots of help if you can find it :)

Next, husk the corn and break off dry tip
Then, wash the corn to remove silk (it's nearly impossible to remove all of it!)
Then, I only blanch the corn for 2 minutes because it's so tender. Be prepared to remove from the pot quickly into the strainer.
Place the blanched corn into a sink full of ice water. (I put it into cold water first, then into ice water.) Only leave in the water long enough to cool the corn or it may become tough.
Then, we cut the corn off the cob with a knife. The scraper takes too long and is hard to get around these large ears!
Once we start cutting, we begin bagging...and bagging...
...and bagging. We made 28 quart size bags from two bushels of corn.

***If you like to freeze the ears for corn on the cob, you need gallon size freezer bags. (How I wish I'd had some of those at this point!)
And suddenly, my help disappeared when it was time to clean up the sticky mess!

***Another freezing method we've tried is to leave the corn in the husk and place a meal portion in a brown paper bag, then freeze. If you have the space, it's a quick way to preserve your fresh corn for grilling later! Just remove from the paper bag and place in cold water till it's thawed...and grill away!

Also, because we are long on freezer space and short on time, we put green bags of corn in the freezer.  Seriously, we don't wrap, blanch or anything, just leave the fresh-picked ears in the husk, and in the large green bags, straight into the freezer.  They are good for grilling, even months later!

We Interrupt this Regularly Scheduled Chaos...

...to bring you corn harvest!

Yes, gone are the days of laundry service...

all-you-can-eat fancy buffet meals...

and poolside relaxation!

We are pickin' corn, baby!
This is the Lord's crop, and we are His stewards.
To Him be glory!!!!