On My Honor as a Student

Many may know that I was a Boy Scout many years ago  I love the part of the Scout Oath that says that I will do my best to do my duty to God and my County. Then, there is the Scout Law that says, among many other things, that a scout is reverent. I hope that Christian college students and young adults can take these ideas from scouting and incorporate them in their own lives.

You see the semester has begun all across the United States, including right here in our community.  Students at the University of Maryland have begun taking classes and doing assignments, buying books, and interacting with each other socially.  The Bowie Church of Christ, where I attend and serve, is sponsoring an unofficial Bible Study on campus where students can come, learn about faith and truth and ask real questions.  The students involved that attend Bowie have their own set of questions.  My prayer is that all the students and young adults that get involved in any ministry activities sponsored or supported by Bowie Church of Christ will grow spiritually, be encouraged to work hard academically, and continue to develop into adults that not just contribute to society, but to do so in overtly but respectful Christian ways.

It is written, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." (Romans 13:1-2)  A natural corollary to this principle is to not only be giving and loving members of society, but to do so in ways that honor God.  I hope that students and young adults can learn to stand firm in Christ, to stand on their faith, and yet do so in ways that bring honor to God.  I will do everything I can to encourage such growth in faith and character development, to the best of my ability.

A Question About Noah

I occasionally comment on videos on YouTube that touch on elements of faith.   As a result, others will comment on my comments and I may get the privilege of having ongoing conversations with both believers and non-believers alike.  On one such occasion, a really kind and respectful gentleman asked about Noah's Ark and Noah's flood.  Of course, there was the recent movie "Noah" staring  Russell Crowe.  I like the way the the Wikipedia entry introduces the movie by saying it is "based loosely on the story of Noah's Ark from the Book of Genesis...".  Thus, I want to make a few general comments on Noah.

My first point is that Noah existed.  Please forget the wall paper, children's stories, and picture books.  Noah, like many people from the ancient world, cannot easily be documented outside of singular ancient narratives. With Noah, it is the Jewish ancient text. But this is true regarding many ancient people from other ancient cultures, not just the Jews.  One of the most famous would be an ancient Mesopotamian king named Gilgamesh. Outside of some very mystical and very ancient collection of stories entitled, "The Epic of Gilgamesh", there is simply no evidence for the existence of this man.  However, it doesn't mean he didn't exists. Thus, my first main point is this:  Noah was a historic person.  He existed in time and space.

Secondly, there was some kind of flood.  In addition, the Epic of Gilgamesh, along with many other very old stories from different cultures around the glob, include a flood narrative.  All of these narratives are mutually exclusive - that is, the stories conflict with one another at many points.  There are not only ancient Mesopotamian stories, but Hindu, Greek, and even Mesoamareican flood stories. If humanity came from the descendants of the survivors of a cataclysmic "natural" disaster such as a regional or even world wide flood, then  - like the telephone game - the story would exist everywhere but be different between people groups, and sometimes radically different.  Yet, the intersections of such stores does imply that something happened.  I choose to accept the biblical narrative for many reasons which I don't have time to discuss here.

Now, two easy questions that I was asked about Noah are:  (1) What did the carnivores eat on Noah’s Ark and (2) how long were they aboard the wooden ship?  These questions are answered by the biblical narrative.  First, Noah was told by God to take 7 pairs not just a single pair, of every clean animal.  As the text says, "Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate" (Genesis 7:2).  So, they ate the clean animals.  Secondly, how long was Noah on the Ark?  A little over a year - 360 or 370 days.  It is written, "Noah entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth..." (Genesis 7:10-11).  He left the ark about a year later.  As it is written, "By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.  (Genesis 8:14-15)

Finally, a question that many of my atheist and non-believing friends have is - was it really a global flood.  To this, I say "maybe".  First, the biblical narrative, both the Hebrew and Christian writings, use language much like we do - there are hyperbolic exaggerations to make a point (eg. "If I speak in the tongues of men and angels but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal...., 1 Cor 13:1) The main message is the universality of the wickedness of mankind at that time, not the universality of the flood. Since mankind's (human beings, not other hominids that may or may not have been in existence and not already extinct) population would have been local, all of mankind could have been destroyed in a relatively local flood event.  Both believing and non-believing geologist agree that canyons, mountains, valleys, etc. formed throughout Earth’s 4.5 billion year history via both catastrophic events (such floods) and more gradual processes - and I agree with science AND truth - honest science that is, science without an agenda aside from understanding what is and what was.

Even so, there is evidence of sea creature fossils on mountain tops.  Geological strata in odd locations do contained marine fossils.  The fact that most of the earth is covered with water also gives credence to the possibility of a global flood.  The flood in Genesis has water coming from the sky and from spings in the ground, so having a water covered planet would be needed to create such a world wide flood.  The fact that many cultures have a flood myth (yes, I did say myth) can also imply a common real event. Thus, I take the narrative as written and strive to fully understand the genre of each type of text.  Genesis is judicial, theological and historical from an ancient worlds perspective.  I strive to read it that way in light of our modern world.

Finally, I must admit that my faith in God and my trust in the biblical narratives do require a certain spiritual framework which actually comes from God.  As it is written, we should think of our selves with sober judgement "in accordance with the faith God has distributed ..." (Romans 12:3).  Thus, faith comes from God and many cannot accept certain spiritual truths because it makes no sense to them.  As it is written, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).  Even though this is true, it does not invalidate the facts of history or honest science.  Any believer who refuses to explore the evidence is just as spiritually blind as the nonbeliever who cannot see it.  But the non-believer is actually in a better position before God!

Theology, Convictions and Evil

This is an in-house entry…. To the “faithful” I write…

Throughout history, there have been plenty of evil done in the name of God by those who supposedly call on the name of Christ.  Why is that?  One answer that jumps out of the pages of the Bible is clear:  human beings are naturally evil.  As one text says, our natural behavior is obvious and includes things like idolatry, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy. There is also a number of sexual behavior that we naturally desire but is not healthy nor good and as Christians we should not practice including sex outside of marriage, using or producing pornography, orgies, and even lustful thoughts (See Galatians 5:19-21).  

One translation calls our tendency to desire and give into such desire for these things our “sinful nature” but the actual biblical writers simply call it our flesh - the Greek word is “sarx” - and it includes (a) the physical body; (b) the body’s natural desires, appetites and cravings that go against God’s design; and (c) the tendency to give into these desires.  There is a word strictly used for the “physical body” and it is not “sarx” but “soma”. This word primarily means the physical body alone.

Why the mini theology lesson?  Because Christians (if they happen to stumble onto my blog) need to be aware that the internal battles and fights we have over supposed theological issues such as the role of women, leadership in the church, what is heretical, eternal condemnation, and the like – when we have deep convictions about such things and our emotions flare up or our heels dig in, it is likely that the flesh is peeking it’s ugly head.  The Bible makes it clear what is of first importance – Christ Jesus and Him Crucified.  This does NOT mean such things (women’s roles, leaderships, heresy, etc) are not important – it just means we should not and must not destroy the church or worse, literally kill people over such things!  In fact, we should not kill people ever and we should never resort to coercive force, violence, hatred, fits of rage, yelling and screaming, and other such things. There is no Christian theological foundation for such behavior NONE – note even against those who reject or are antagonistic against our faith.

As it is written, we preach Christ and Him crucified; and he was raised to life.  This alone is the core of the gospel, the “crux of the matter”.  Get it? “crux”… out of the cross!   We preach Christ and him crucified, a stumbling block for those who consider themselves good religious people and foolishness to those who are nontheistic and/or secular humanist in their view of the world.  Out of this core comes love – love for God and love for others.  The core message implies a view of the universe that is ultimately supernatural – a sinless man rose from the dead!  It implies that we are inherently evil which NOBODY likes to accept.  But this message gives us the ONE way out of these natural desires and tendencies that go against God’s design:  forgiveness through the blood of Christ.  Ugly, illogical from a human perspective, yet this is the message.

If Christians who FIGHT over the role of women or contemporary Christian music verses traditional hymns, or other such things would step back and examine their own selves, they would see that they may NOT be representing the absolute truth of scripture but instead, defending something that may be important, but is not essential.  It may even be the traditions of men verses the will of God (Matt 15:3).  I struggle with the more "weightier matters of the law" in my life, specifically true conviction and faithfulness, resisting sin to the point of death. (Matt 23:23, Heb 12:4) Where is our commitment?  Are we 100% engaged and involved in serving the risen savior by practicing the two fundamental commands Jesus gave us:  love God with everything and love our neighbor?  Do we fully practice the fruit of the spirit to show love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?  And by the way, these things should be practiced Monday through Saturday, not just Sunday in a one or two hour worship service.

I encourage you, if you happened to find this article and you call yourself a Christian, I encourage you to examine what I have written carefully and the implication for Christian unity and solidarity implied by this.  The core message is essential.  The one biblical idea we don’t like – that we ourselves are sinful – is very real, and we know it to be true.  Certain values that spring from the teachings of Christ and the apostles PRIMARILY impact the bulk of our lives – Monday through Saturday, not the 1 or 2 hours on Sunday.  Come on people, what’s the real deal?  Will you stand before Jesus and defend your bold adherence to theological purity about issues that cannot be clearly explained in the biblical text and that only impact ONE HOUR a week? Please hear me.... I am not saying we shouldn’t have standards or define healthy, biblical practices for our churches, but I am saying, let’s keep the main thing the main thing and not let theology we can’t fully and clearly prove and our blind convictions about such theology dictate the practices of our faith or the things that ultimately cause division due to our sinful nature.

Honest Faith

Right now I am in the mountains southern Pennsylvania.  It’s absolutely beautiful.  I’m at a camp run by the Church of the Brethren called “Camp Eder” and the facilities are excellent.  They take very good care of this camp and I am truly impressed with the immaculate care and detail they obviously put into keeping this place up-to-date.

I also get to relax and read – I love to do this.  In reading a book I have stopped and started multiple times, I ran across a thought that triggered another thought, which triggered another thought. (This trait of mine… to drift fluidly between thoughts that seem unconnected drives my wife crazy!).  I recentely learned of a book written by Peter Boghossian entiled, “A Manual for Creating Atheist” or something like that.  I do plan to buy and read it although I am a theist – open minded, yes, but currently convinced that the metaphysical framework I accept as true is indeed true.

I had not known the name Peter Boghossian until I recently ran across this title.  He has a number of Youtube videos (I love the 21^st century where we can instantly learn about people and things).  There was one I viewed entitled something like “The Best of Peter Boghossian, which caused me to somewhat respect what I think to be his message. Of course, I have a long way to go to really get to “know” this man and what he is really all about, but he seems to promote certain principles that I also hold: seeking truth, looking for evidence, respecting others, using your mind, being reasonable, and a few others ideas.  Now, I am certain the semantics we pour into such principals are slightly skewed from each other – me being a theist and he trying to convert me - yet I am also certain that we would agree to the fundamental or primary meanings applied to such concepts.

With that said, even though I enjoyed Boghossian’s video clips, I am strongly opposed to how he defined faith in his “manual”.  He writes that faith is “pretending to know things that you don’t know”.  For the sake of argument, let’s “pretend” (pun intended) there are no religions on the earth.  Let’s pretend that all people on the entire planet are pure naturalist and base everything on empirical data, evidence, and repeatable and verifiable proof.  If this was the way the world was today, would the word “faith” exist in the lexicon of at least our shared language – American English?  If it did exist, how would it be defined?  If I said, in such a world, when verbally making a business deal, “I have faith that you will honor your agreement”, what would I mean?  If I said, in such a world, “I have faith that my wife is faithful and I will remain faithful to her”, I ask, what would I mean?  Language is not that complicated, nor is t dogmatically ridged, nor sterile.  With or without the supernatural, the fundamental meaning of faith still holds – a type of belief mixed with trust.  It has to do with confidence to act on what one anticipates will occur based on another person’s integrity, reputation, or proven track-record.  When applied to religion, the difference is only in the acceptance that a supernatural being (or realm) actually exists and can be trusted based on what another person, an ancient text, or trusted cleric has said.

My his definition of faith, Mr. Boghossian betrays a prejudice. We all have biases and we all have agendas – that I can easily accept.  Yet, to abuse language like this by making up a definition that is illogical, unfounded, and disingenuous is terrible.  I don’t know this man, but from the little I have gathered, he values and promotes honesty and facts.  Minimally, he should replace the ideas implied in his definition, the idea of “pretending”, with something like “accepting as true what you cannot prove empirically.”  Instead, he creates unnecessarily an antagonistic relationship with more than 90% of the human race.  His definition is intentionally provocative.  I must conclude then, based on reason that he is being is disingenuous by devising and using such a definition to convince theist to become non-theist or atheist.  Such rhetoric amongst those who are trying to persuade me or convince me that my theistic world-view is built on mythology, falsehoods, and made-up superstition is not a good place to start.  As I said, I am open minded, but those that approach me must be honest, reasonable, and  - like me – open to change themselves.

I can easily admit that there are many aspects of my view of reality, built on a theistic foundation, can not be proven empirically.  I can confidently embrace that various foundational components of my “faith system” require the somewhat blind acceptance of what I cannot prove.  However, I am not pretending anything.  Mr. Boghossian, just like the rest of us, lives his life without being able to prove many, many things but he is not pretending.  Does he “pretend” to care for his family, even though a child, a relative, or even one’s own spouse could turn on you and even take your life!  This happens all the time, just as Adam Lanza killed his own mother before shooting a bunch of children.  Granted, mental illness was involved, but I’m pretty confident this mother didn’t “pretend” to trust her son.  She may have been unwise and even self-deceived, but she was not pretending.  Mr. Boghossian should be more honest IF he really wants to convince those of us with religious faith to give it up for a greater truth!

Individual Choice, Logic, Reason, and Truth

Pilate asked Jesus, "What is Truth".  Jesus had already stated that everyone on the side of truth listens to him.  Pilate cynically asks this well-known question and then tells the crowd that, although the local authorities have convicted him, Pilate can find no reason to condemn Jesus.  However, since they have "home rule", Pilate doesn't use his position and authority to overrule the local Jewish magistrate. In fact, Pilate, clearly not wanting to be associated with this arrest and condemnation, uses their own law to release one prisoner - a criminal named Barabbas, but was hoping they crowd would release Jesus since he really didn't do anything - from Pilate's perspective - that deserved death. (This scene is in John 18:28-40 for those who want to read it)

The cynicism behind the question is alive today.  Human beings routinely reject logic and sound reason for decisions and behaviors.  Generally, human beings ACT based on feelings, desires, and personal preferences.  Unfortunately, this weak foundation for making decisions is firmly established in ecclesiastical, parochial, and general faith-based arenas, and in particular, feelings and desires are used within the Christian church by many individuals as the foundation for their decisions.

Faith is not without reason, logic and principled guidelines.  Albeit, within the realm of the supernatural, dogmatic, scientific and repeatable proof can not be used as evidence for the metaphysical claims of the biblical narrative.  Nonetheless, one does not have to throw out their brain in order to solidly make decisions within the realm of a Christian and Biblical world view.  Yet, most believers do just like their nonreligious neighbors and make decisions based on feelings and other weak and illogical reasons.

One of the biggest foundations for decisions making is personal perspective on an experience.  For example, if a religious leader helps me personally achieve a personal goal such as getting out of debt or exercising daily to fulfill my New Years Resolution, then we will not only give them credibility within the specific area they helped us, but they get credibility in spiritual matters that have nothing to do with the achieved goal.  At first glance, this may make sense, but it is filled with logical fallacies, starting with the logical fallacy of a "non sequitur" conclusion.  We give theological credibility and may even disregard years of validated spiritual knowledge in order to follow someone or something that helped us overcome in an area we have struggled with for years.  If you help me stop drinking, you now have  full entree into all truth - at least you do for me. The danger here seems obvious, but subtly, over days, weeks, or months, we can switch from a solid foundation based on biblical evidence into a false religious system.

This makes sense in that credibility should be earned and not blindly given.  In fact, in John 9 Jesus heals a man born blind who uses a similar argument. When asked what he thinks of the man Jesus who healed him, the previously blind man says, "He [that is Jesus] is a prophet".  Yet, the healed blind man does eventually make the separation that I am arguing we do not often make by saying, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!". The blind man acknowledges the experience (I was blind but I can now see), but does not make a theological conclusion about the one who healed him (Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know). We need to do likewise.

This separation is very important because when it comes to the spiritual and theological realm, it's hard to separate results from a biblical framework that is principled based, built on a foundation of non-tangible supernatural claims.  As people, it is much easier to grasp a tangible example - for example, someone can help me gain the discipline needed to to succeed in business - than it is to grasp the concepts and principle behind something like the nature of God, what happens at death, or how angels and demons function. Because of this difference, many religious environments may neglect or ignore such areas as salvation, resurrection, eternity, and other areas that break the laws of physics and natural history.   We do a little better with relational ideas such as grace, mercy, justice, and love but we will even throw these out, too if I can get tangible results in loosing weight, making money, or even in an altruistic endeavor such as helping the poor.  Such results SCREAM at us "TRUTH" but unfortunately, if the foundation for concluding TRUTH is feelings, desires, wants, and the like, it is a weak infrastructure and may lead to very bad and dangerous outcomes over time that are unrelated to the initial results that was the framework for trust in the first place.

Recently, I have witnessed this problem with a couple in the church I attend.  The decision to get involved in another ministry - which is not a healthy ministry, but is considered by many, many people to be a dangerous religions group - this decision was based on emotional experience and of course, tangible results in a personal area of struggle, namely, loosing weight.  (I might add, someones assessment that a group or ministry is dangerous does not mean it really is - that has to be investigated and thought threw... which is what I'm talking about in the first place!) The overall process with this couple took about two or three months, but the decision when made was clear and could not be challenged.  The decision did not include a balanced listening to others - although the couple believed they were balanced.  They strictly listened to people who were helping with the results, giving credibility in theological areas that are unrelated to the results, but not asking other people who might differ - such as elders or ministers within their own historical heritage.  On top of a decision being based on feelings, the justification  - in order to not feel too bad or guilty and to help "get" permission from long standing spiritual relationships - was repeatedly, "we still love everyone".

This type of decision making is exceedingly common.  I'm sure I do the same thing. Yet, I pray that I can be corrected and that I will not cynically get to the point where I ask "what is truth".  Biblical Truth is knowable in the major areas of theology and the practice of Biblical Christianity. Logic, study, reason, history, and the reasonable contextual reading of most of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, provides a solid foundation for making spiritual decisions.   There is a great deal that we will never know on this side of eternity, but we have plenty of information to guide us in making decisions on how to live and move and serve others as Christians.

It personally hurts, both because of relationships and because I genuinely want to help others follow God, not just authentically, but solidly based on a firm foundation.  Following God should not be based on personal results in an area of life - especially if that area does not directly carry over into the realm of eternity such as weight, business, or avoiding substance abuse.  Are these areas important - yes, but they do not give the foundation for Biblical, religious and Theological credibility nor do they provide a framework for what is indeed TRUTH.

The Pain of Living

If you've lived long enough to be able to read this, you have learned that life can be painful.  Depending on your upbringing and a thousand other uncontrollable events, you will experience pain.  You can pretend it's not there, try to hide from it, or simply try to ignore it, but life is painful, life really does hurt.

I have watch co-workers, church members, family members, and neighbors go through great amounts of pain.  I have seen illness, poverty, ignorance, selfishness, and greed cause pain.  I have seen the results of accidents, natural disasters and "acts of God", bad decisions, war, and laziness cause great amounts of pain.  The pain of life impacts the innocent and the guilty, the rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak; it does not discriminate.

As a Christian, I have my own theodicy, my own understanding, view, and understanding of how and why there is such pain and suffering in life - why God can still exists and be a loving and fully aware being who has the power to supernaturally intervene and yet does not stop the avalanche and torrent of mishaps and afflictions that cause both minor and major pain.

Pain generally affects us on two levels: the physical or the relational. The physical is obvious, but the relational causes the most damage.  How many marriages have I seen fall apart - and I am confident that no one ever got married wishing for the pain of marital strife, fighting, arguments, and divorce.  How may parents and children have strained and damaged relationships because of value differences, beliefs, rebellion, or non-traditional life-styles chosen by one or the other?  How many friendships - deep friendships, are spoiled by a misunderstanding, a disappointment, an unmet or unachiavable or inappropriate expectation, or a real error, mistake, or betrayal?  What happens when a parents basic responsibility of raising a child in a loving, safe, and nurturing environment is interrupted by death, ignorance, abuse, blatant irresponsibility, neglect, drug use/addiction, alcohol uses/addiction, and the  like?  The psyche of most children raised in such environments are scared such that they are negatively impacted their entire life!  What a deal - ten to fifteen years of a broken and abusive upbringing leads to fifty or sixty additional years of a messed up life!

I have to go, but come back later and I will continue.... I have some thoughts on how to frame the inevitable pain we experience in life, and I am definitely curious about how others cope.  I'm frustrated right now because I'm watching another family go through crisis and pain - I KNOW it is unnecessary but, as life would have it, no one person can really influence another to deal with pain in a healthy way - they must ultimately figure it out in their own minds and hearts, even if they THINK the influence was external, the truth is that an individual must accept and act on a coping mechanism that has become internalized.

Taking Love Seriously

I've been married for 20 years and we have two children.  Of  course, if you know me, then you already know this.  However, as I get older, I learn more and more that I am pretty inadequate when it comes to loving my wife and children the way God wants me to.

Today, I had to leave a project I was working on at the church building because I needed to take my teenage daughter to get her hair done.  Now... I don't have any hair, so I can't relate!  Plus, even though I unconsciously know when a young lady (like my daughter) cares enough about herself to take care of her hair (as well as dress, shoes, etc), I don't really think about it as being that important as long as you shower at least every other day!  This, of course, is a major sin of omission because it is vitally important for many women (my wife and daughter included) that they take care of their hair.

Now, to me, the cost was pretty high (over $50 with tip) but trust me men (if you are a man reading this - especially if you are a white man...), for black hair, this is dirt cheap!  So, I left her in the hair salon for an hour as instructed, and I went to the Starbucks in Target, bought a NORMAL cup of coffee (because I still don't know how to order the stuff), and read my book...  waiting... waiting... and waiting.  I finally got the alarm (literally - I set the timer on my smart phone so I would know when to go and check on her) and went to the salon only to find that I needed to wait another 20 minutes... which turned into 45 minutes.

But I survived this!  Really!  However, my daughter had also wanted me to go with her to buy a pair of shoes. She was irritated with me because my wife apparently had  said she could buy shoes, too as long as they were under $50.... I reacted poorly - you see, I didn't want the trip to start racking up to well over $100.00 PLUS I only own two pair of shoes - one with a hole in the sole and the other being held together with super-glue... trust me, I am not exaggerating! So... I reacted poorly by not taking the request seriously.  Fortunately, the mall was closing because I had already waited... and waited... and waited.  However, we did get the opportunity to ask the price of the shoes she wanted before the retail outlet shut the gate.  The shoes were $170... and so, I reacted poorly again - being somewhat humorous, loudly, hoping to gain the sympathy of another reasonable parent that just so happened to be in ear-shot of this drama.

However, what my poorly timed and terrible attempt to gain sympathy actually did was alienate my daughter who was frustrated because I embarrassed her in public.  I made matters worse by asking if she would forgive me and not accepting her answer of "I don't know" -- which was spoken, not with words but with body language.... so, the car ride home was silent, except for the radio.  I turned to 104.1 FM because I needed to hear someone say they loved me and I was OK and not a failure.  Now, if you listen to 104.1FM in the DC area, you know it is predominately black gospel music which often has messages about how much God loves you and how much you will be blessed if you trust God.... a message I needed at that time.  Why - because I was deeply hurt.  My own child didn't know if she could forgive me!

Anyway, she was over it by the time we got home... just like when she was 2 years old and I could easily distract her from whatever made her cry.  But what does any of this have to do with taking love seriously?  The big lesson is this:  We should love our children and our family, not because they give us warm feelings of acceptance and trust and gratitude and respect. No, instead we love our families because we are supposed to!  Many in our society cringe at the thought that they are supposed to do anything.  However, it is clearly written in God's word as more than a suggestion that "husbands [should] love their wives as Christ loved the church..." and "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger...".  And let's not forget that "If anyone does not take care of his own relatives, especially his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

Love, then requires that I focus, not on getting the respect, honor, submission, praise, gratitude, etc from my children or my wife for that matter... NO... Love requires that I focus on building them up, encouraging them, helping them grow and be better people, godly people, selfless people.  Timing, then is everything but the real challenge, at least for me, is not letting my little feeling get in the way of loving and giving to those that are closest to me.