Faith isn’t for preserving what we have but for extending what we’ve been given.

Reblogged from River Groups Blog:

“Are you playing?” “No, I’m Zachary.” “Are you cold?” “No, I’m Zachary.” “Are you 3?” “No, I’m Zachary.” We’ve gotten plenty of amusement over the past few months as our 3 year old son learns the nuances of the English language. He always thinks you’re getting his name wrong when you ask “Are you…” and the next word isn’t “Zachary.” In fact, substitute any word after Are you and he’ll most likely answer the exact same way every time.   But one thing is for sure–Zach knows eactly who he is and he …

Forgive me, but I couldn’t leave this discussion of need from the RiverGroups post without touching on how our own needs are met. Even though we do have a mission to fulfill, each and every one of us still have needs that must be met. How do we balance a sense of mission with our own very real needs?

In what is arguably the most well known model used to describe human need, psychologist Abraham Maslow developed his “Hierarchy of Needs.” It’s shaped like a pyramid and made up of layer upon layer of different need types. You can see it below. The thought is that after meeting the most fundamental need on the bottom, we can then move up to meet the next need. This step process continues until the top of the pyramid is finally reached, representing the highest fulfillment of human need.

This model says we must meet our own needs first, then move up the pyramid until we “self-actualize” and be useful to others. For example, if someone with the capacity to be a medical genius has no food to eat (the 1^st level), it becomes very difficult for them to develop a cure for cancer (the 5^th level). All their effort must be tied up in taking care of their first level needs, mainly food. There is no energy or time left to devote to finding a cure for cancer.

It takes a lot of energy, time, resources, and talent to reach the top of this pyramid. In doing so, Maslow’s model fits nicely with the American Dream as discussed from the RiverGroups post-expend all your time and effort into building yourself up but leaving little left for anyone else. Even though the world’s intent is to become something more than it is, in practice it becomes useless to everyone.

Which brings us to the problem with this traditional view of meeting our needs—it’s completely backwards. For the Christian, the model isn’t based on material need but rather on a relationship with God. You see, when a person becomes a Christian they begin at the top of the pyramid. They’ve attained the highest level of human achievement by entering into a relationship with God. It’s what we were created for.

So what about all the needs below the top level? That’s the best part about being a Christian—God has already taken care of them all. Take another look at the levels in the pyramid and consider:

- Our esteem and status lie in being the children of God. (Romans 8:14-17)

- We love each other as the family of God. (I John 4:19-21)

- Our security rests in him. (Psalms 125:1-2)

- God is the provider of all our resources, even food and water. (Matthew 6:31-34)

The way our needs are met is completely opposite of the way the world’s needs are met. This fits the same reverse logic we find all through Jesus’ teachings.

Matthew 20:16
So the last will be first, and the first will be last.

Matthew 20:26-28
Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Matthew 16:24-26
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?
 

Unfortunately, we can not follow the world’s model of trying to meet our own needs without it impacting our mission as a Christian. Once we realize we’ve reached the top of our need pyramid by accepting Christ as our savior, we can fulfill our mission by helping others reach the top of theirs.

Live The Mission,

Greg

But it’s not all bad news. The reason for this slowdown of SunBurn is that I will soon be blogging for my church’s small group blog simply called the River Group’s Blog. I intend to update it every day Monday-Friday (mostly) so you can catch me more often on there than here on SonBurn. If you’d like to check it out, you can find it at http://rivergroups.com/. Even though it’s more work, I’m really looking forward to it. I’d be honored if you subscribed to it.

Hope to see you there!

But one little girl piped up “He could write letters!” We were blown away by the knowledge this girl confidently wielded about Paul’s letters from prison. We were just as impressed she understood this well enough to relate it to the lesson — or so we thought. 

A few moments after chiming in with “He could write letters!” she went on to explain her answer. “That’s what my Daddy does.” With our mouths wide open, her painful reality now stared at us in the face. Her answer wasn’t rooted in bibliographic knowledge of the New Testament. Sadly, it was a natural response to the current circumstances she found herself in. 

Her Dad had made some mistakes and was now living the consequences of those mistakes. But he loved his little girl so much he wrote her letters from jail so he could still be a part of her life. I imagined he must have realized the void his absence left in her life. Perhaps he was trying to fill it the best he knew how. Maybe he was hoping the lessons of his misguided example could be overcome through the love expressed in his letters. Maybe he was even hoping someone like a Sunday School teacher would help him do this in some small way.

It was here my role instantly reverted from teacher to student. This girl’s father loved her very much. I’m sure he wanted nothing but good things for his daughter. At that moment, teaching her was the best thing we could do for her. God brought to my mind that by doing this, not only were we ministering to her but we were also ministering to her father even though he wasn’t there. By showing love to someone he loved, we were also loving him.

The honest answer of a little girl to a simple question had just re-framed for me one of Jesus’ most famous parables. It’s found in Matthew 25:35-40:

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?”

The King will reply, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”

I used to read this parable as Jesus’ blueprint for how I should treat the needy and those whom society doesn’t want. But for the first time, as this little girl’s words rang in my ears, I saw this scripture in a totally different light. I saw it as a relationship between a father and his children.

Contrary to what I used to think, Jesus wasn’t asking me to throw a bone to those less fortunate than me. He wasn’t extending himself in proxy to societal outcasts so I would be nice and polite to them. He wasn’t trying to coax me to donate my time, energy, and resources to those in need. No, the point of his parable wasn’t so much about teaching me anything. Rather it was much more about demonstrating God’s love for them, his children in need. He wasn’t concerned with trying to coax my action. He was concerned about providing for their well-being.

Just like this girl’s father, God loves his children very much. If I minister to their need, then I’m ministering to him as their concerned father. When I love on someone he loves, I love on him. Seeing his children through his eyes makes me want to give a drink to the thirsty, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, and visit the lonely. My reaction to this need will be a natural response springing from agape love rather than a token response drawn from a sense of duty.

In hindsight, it seems I have always read this parable rather arrogantly. I’ve only seen the actions I should take rather than the love I should extend. I now believe the intent of Jesus’ parable was to encourage us to glimpse the needy through the eyes of his loving father. In this way, we can love them the way he loves them.

I’m coming to discover more and more that my Christian experience really isn’t about me much at all. It’s about moving me out of the way so God’s agape love can reach through me to those who need it most.

Truly a child shall lead them…..

© Gregory M. Watson, 2010 (see Copyright Page for details) 

Unfortunately, I am intellectually ill-suited to discuss Heisenberg’s accomplishments in great detail or understanding. I will leave these discussions to the theoretical physicists of our day. Even so, there is one principle crafted by the mind of Heisenberg that I want to explore for a moment. Believe it or not, it’s a principle that has cast a great deal of light upon my own Christian experience. I only hope Mr. Heisenberg can posthumously forgive me for greatly oversimplifying a portion of his important work.

I have no doubt some of you reading this have a healthily skepticism of the notion that science and Christianity have much in common with each other. It is true both of these worlds have experienced much tension and conflict with each other in years past. After all, the Pope had Galileo placed under house arrest until his dying day for theorizing the Earth revolves around the sun. Not to mention, many modern scientists are of the firm opinion that science has replaced God. Regardless of past or present disagreements, I think both camps have much more in common than most people realize.

Take for instance Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Published In 1927, Heisenberg’s theory served as a foundation for interpreting quantum mechanics. Without going into technical detail, his principle stated that the absolute position of an atom could never really be determined conclusively. This principle has nothing to do with the limits of technology but rather has everything to do with the characteristics of an atom. Please bear with me and you will soon see where I am going with all of this.

Before we go farther I must address two concepts. The first concept we all know — in order to “see” an object, light must be reflected off the object and then back to your eye. The second, which you may not realize, is that light is actually made up of tiny particles even smaller than atoms. These particles are called photons.

By stating we can never know an atom’s true position, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle gave rise to what is called the “observer effect”. This says if you were to use light in an attempt to “see” an atom, the photons in the light would strike the atom and move it out of its original position — thus the uncertainty of the atom’s position.

Closing in on my point, what this means is that no one can ever truly see an atom. Let’s think about this for moment. The atom is the foundation and basis for all studies of science. It is the atom that is the heartbeat of chemistry, material science, physics, and biology. The movement of its electrons produces electricity in thunderstorms and induces magnetism in metals. Group certain atoms together and you get a material that will undergo photosynthesis to provide food for plants. Combine other atoms together and a material is formed that can either provide massive amounts of energy for homes and businesses or destroy whole cities in a single instant. Mix other atoms together and medicines potent enough to cure cancer or benign enough to ward off headaches can be created.

Yet even though the atom is the central figure of all things science, no scientist will ever lay eyes on one. According to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and the related observer effect, no atom will ever, can ever, be seen. Sure scientists can measure its mass, determine its effects upon other objects, predict its behavior, and understand its characteristics. But not one scientist will ever behold an atom. So in order for scientists of any field to truly believe in their atom they must have one thing — faith. They must have faith their calculations, experiments, and models are correct. They must have faith to transform the empirical data they possess in their minds into a belief they hold in their hearts. They must have faith the atom actually exists at all.

Do you notice any parallels with Christianity? Certainly God is the central figure of our Christianity. And to be sure, none of us will ever see God in our lifetime. This is cause enough for many to say we should give up our belief in him. But to do this would fly in the face of everything we know to be true. Perhaps we can’t see him. But we can measure the effect his love has had upon our lives. We can observe the change he produces in others. We can understand more and more of his character the closer we grow to him. Through this ever-increasing understanding of him and the study of his word, we can predict his actions and reactions. Best of all, we can always feel him by our side when we need him most. Everything we know and understand about God is a result of our observation and study of his ways. Not unlike scientists with their atoms, this knowledge of God in our minds fuels the belief residing in our hearts. This is our faith.

Perhaps science and Christianity have more in common than those on either side notice at first glance. My personal belief is that God created science just as he created us. The laws of physics and chemistry are laws he authored. Maybe science and Christianity aren’t identical twins. But I do believe we have the same father and at some point their two paths must cross. We just have to find where that juncture is located. 

While accepting an award in front of the Catholic Academy of Bavaria in 1973, Heisenberg gave a speech entitled “Scientific and Religious Truth.” Through his speech, I will allow Werner Heisenberg to close this post in his own words.

 ”In what follows, then, we shall first of all deal with the unassailability and value of scientific truth, and then with the much wider field of religion, of which…this will be the hardest part to formulate–we shall speak of the relationship of the two truths.” ¹

 ¹Chapter 16 “Scientific and Religious Truth” in Across the Frontiers, 1974, Harper & Row, p.213-229

© Gregory M. Watson, 2010 (see Copyright Page for details)

Brice’s message: “I recently wrote a song about the Prodigal Son. This is my testimony of God’s amazing grace in my life. If you have a sec here it is. Thanks for listening.”

This one verse has always given me fits over the years. Mainly because I just could not fully understand what it meant. If you’re unfamiliar with its context, it’s worth going back and reviewing the chapter where it is found. For what it’s worth, here’s my quick rundown of the story:

Through Samuel, God tells Saul to go and completely destroy the Amalekites – every man, woman, child, horse, cow, sheep, goat, and so on. Nothing is to be left alive. So Saul kills everyone but their king and the best of their livestock. He then brings the king and livestock back to Israel. Samuel is not happy. Saul whines to Samuel that he only brought back the best of the animals for sacrifice (whether he really meant to or not). Next is the verse that perplexes me so. Saul then loses God’s anointing to be king.

In Samuel’s chastisement of Saul, he asks Saul a question about which is more important —the sacrifice of the finest animals or his obedience to the instruction God had given him. But in the very next breath, Samuel completely generalizes both obedience and sacrifice. It becomes clear he is no longer speaking of just this one incident with Saul. Rather, Samuel steps out of the moment and makes a universal, all-encompassing statement that to obey is better than to sacrifice – period.

I can’t tell you how incredibly natural it is for me to reverse Samuel’s statement. When speaking about this verse or even just thinking about it, I often accidentally flip the verse around so it says “to sacrifice is better than to obey.” All my life I have grown up with the concept that sacrifice is a fundamental part of the Christian experience. Some of the sacrifices of Christian life are easy. Some are incredibly difficult. But either way, I’ve always had the impression that God recognized my sacrifices and kept a tally of them so he could give me a great big “Aatta-boy!” some day. But in light of the proper order in which this verse was spoken, I must admit that I cringe at the thought that my sacrifices may not mean as much to God as they do to me. And there is the source of my fits.

But now, I think I understand this verse a little better than I once did. Only recently has it occurred to me the way sacrificing and obeying are different and how the one I think means more to God really doesn’t. A clue to their difference, strangely enough, lies in their similarity. Obedience and sacrifice are two sides of the same coin. The name of this coin is “ownership.” 

It’s easier to see through a few examples. I sacrifice by taking time out of my busy schedule to show up for church every time the doors are open. But I obey by living Christ’s example 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I sacrifice by taking a portion of what I earn and give it to God as a tithe or offering. But I obey by telling God “Everything in my possession came from you. What do you want me to do with it?” I sacrifice by volunteering where and when I am needed. But I obey by recognizing the Christ of Matthew 25 in everyone I meet who are in the form of the hungry, naked, poor, and imprisoned.

You see, in order to sacrifice something, I have to own it first. It means telling God “This is mine and I value it. I am going to give you part of it to use as you will.” But obedience involves a different concept of ownership. It says to God “Everything I have is a tool you have given me to build your kingdom. Teach me to use these tools wisely.” When we sacrifice, we tell God we are going to help him out. When we obey we allow him to use us to help others out.

Now I see the difference! It’s really a difference of the heart. Not that sacrifice is wrong. It’s just that obedience is on a whole different level than sacrifice.

We can see this theme in Jesus’ observation of the widow who gave her all:

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”        Luke 21:1-4 (NIV)

Just like the verse from I Samuel, I usually think of this verse backwards. It is normal for me to see the widow as “sacrificing” all she has for God while the rich have only “obeyed” through their tithe. But look at this verse through the concept of ownership. Who obeyed God by saying “All I have is yours,” and who sacrificed by giving God only part of what they owned? When Jesus said the widow had placed more in the treasury than the rich people, what he was saying was that God could use the obedience of the widow infinitely more than the sacrifice of the rich.

It’s easy for me as an American Christian to believe everything I have came from my own hard work. I sometimes struggle to think of everything in my life as being given to me by God. But if this is true, then everything he gave me came with purpose. That purpose probably had nothing to do with living a comfortable life of selfish complacency. Rather, it has everything to do with fulfilling my mission as a Christian.

Now I know why Samuel’s words have challenged me so. It’s because I have yet to fully learn the principle of ownership from a poor widow woman who had nothing.

© Gregory M. Watson, 2010 (see Copyright Page for details)

 “Bravery is the capacity to perform properly even when scared half to death.” This is one of my all-time favorite quotes. It comes from General Omar Bradley — a man who knew what he was talking about. During World War II he commanded several American Army corps that invaded Normandy on D-Day. The task of storming Omaha Beach, site of the fiercest fighting of the D-Day invasion, fell to one of his corps. With heavy casualties mounting on their every side, his men must have felt the pangs of fear grow with every step they took toward their goal. Even with fear ruling the day, his men refused to allow fear to rule their actions. They took the beach.

 Had these men surrendered to their fear and acted only to secure their own survival regardless of their commanders’ directions, the day would have surely been lost. But instead, these men surrendered control of the situation to someone above them. When they trusted in their commander’s battle plan they found the bravery within themselves to carry the day over their enemy.

In our lives, we will always have fear. Our response to these fears is a direct indicator of who is control of our lives. If we focus on the fear; if we don’t trust God; if we try to control our own lives; if we act according to our own understanding; then we will always be swept off the beach we have been tasked to take. But, if we trust God; if we have faith in the plans he has for us; if we believe he will be with us through every situation, even death; then we respond with something else — courage. It is this courage to surrender control that provides us victory in the face of our fear.

We will encounter many beaches that seem impossible to storm. Each one will bring new fears to face. Our only hope of victory is to surrender control of the battle to the one who knows how to win.

Are you brave enough to surrender?

© Gregory M. Watson, 2010

 But not all who have gazed into the chasm’s gape have shared this sentiment. In fact, the leader of an army detachment sent in 1857 to scout the American Southwest was not as impressed as I was when he first sighted the canyon. Quoting from his expedition notes, he stated:

 “The region is of course, altogether valueless. It can be approached only from the South, and after entering it there is nothing to do but leave. Ours has been the first, and will doubtless be the last, party of whites to visit this profitless locality. It seems intended by nature that the Colorado river, along with the greater portion of its lonely and majestic way, shall be forever unvisited and undisturbed.”

Lt. Joseph Christmas Ives, 1857 US War Dept. expedition

 I wonder if Lt. Ives were around today, would he like the opportunity to rephrase his assessment? This same area that he judged worthless is now among the greatest natural treasures in the United States park system. It attracts around five million visitors each year making it one of the most profitable tourist destinations in the world. Not to mention that the Colorado River, by way of Hoover Dam, provides electricity and water to tens of millions who live in the Southwest. With that said, which is truly “valueless” — the canyon and its river, or Lt. Ives’ assessment of them?

 Yet even with all the Grand Canyon’s splendor, there is another creation God prizes even more — you. You are the apex of his creation. And when anyone, including you, questions your worth, God laughs just as hard as we do at Lt. Ives’ journal entry. He knows the worth of his creation. When looking at you, God sees the potential in your life even when others do not. So don’t let the Ives’ of this world convince you that you have no value. The only one who can truly assign value gave you a “priceless” appraisal when he sacrificed his son to add you to his family. So when you look in the mirror, see past the paper-thin veil of a worthless report and be awe-struck by the potential of God’s most wonderful creation.

 © Gregory M. Watson, 2010 (see Copyright Page for details)