Comfortable Christianity
Dec 29th, 2008 by Nathan White
Quoted in Christless Christianity:
“C.S. Lewis once observed, “I haven’t always been a Christian. I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.”
This quote struck me, not only because it is true, but because the American church is preaching something entirely different. Sure, sin is, in a sense, empty, destructive, and ultimately unfulfilling, but in the temporal sense, it provides great excitement, comfort, and pleasure.
The popular ‘gospel’ today, however, will not actually come out and say that the Christian life is anything less than fun, exciting, comfortable, therapeutic, and the key to happiness. No longer is it palatable and popular to say that sin is actually fun and Christianity can actually be boring and troublesome in comparison; instead, the message has shifted entirely in arguing that Christianity is actually the key to satisfaction and adventure, and that sin is kind of ‘less dignified’ living, in a way, by comparison.
But Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, provides no such temporal luxuries as is often promised now days. Oftentimes temporal conveniences and blessings do come to Christian, but the real promises and benefits are in the next life. And temporally speaking, scripture repeatedly sets forth suffering in this life, rather than prosperity, as the norm for the Christian life.
Consider another quote from Christless Christianity:
“It’s…what Luther called the “theology of glory”: How can I climb the latter and attain the glory here and now that God has actually promised for us after a life of suffering?”
In light of all the competing gospel messages in our day, have we forgotten that we Christians have been chosen for salvation apart from our own will, justified and sanctified based upon Another’s righteousness (and that alone), and appointed for suffering in this life in hope of attaining the resurrection of the dead?
And I...
At the same time, one doesn’t realize how much unhappiness and sorrow that much wickedness ultimately causes in life until one is freed from it. We are told to “take up our crosses”, and crosses are never “fun” in themselves, but even in this life, we can see a small glimpse of Heaven when we are willing to offer up the sinful areas of our lives and souls to Him.
It doesn’t happen overnight, but there is a deeper and more profound happiness that can be had in the Christian life, even one marked by sacrifice and difficulties.
I was never depressed, or unfulfilled, or bored or disappointed as a pagan. Now, I’ve got all those things in spades…and I wouldn’t trade them for anything. Because, aside from those, I have a living Christ.
Jim, you make a very valid point. But to flesh this out a little further, I’m not sure I follow you in this quote:
What exactly do you mean when you say ‘freed from it’? I think I know, but I want to be sure.
Ah, Gordan, you bring tears to my eyes
Man, the more and more I live and learn, the more and more I see that Christ is indeed ALL that we have in this life, but praise be to God, He is the most precious gift of all.
I was thinking this last night and comparing my life before Christ with Paul’s. It often strikes me as quite a mystery. If life before Christ is all a wreck, it would makes sense that afterward things becoming better would stand in stark contrast. But, with Paul that is not the case.
My life before Christ was a heap of refuse and I could easily count it as dung. But with Paul, how so? How then does our Gospel reach someone like Paul? I was an easy target and by comparison, my life now is gold plated bathroom fixtures and Mink seats relative to the splintered stumps and stagnant waters I knew before. By any stretch, my life now though, is still the restroom in the woods if held up next to others that I know who are believers, both in terms of comforts and conformity to the image of Christ.
I think Jesus makes it clear to us what is to be expected. To the rich young ruler, or to his disciples, what was to be left behind was not this life we live but the enslavement to it. For Paul, like the Lawyers that contested Christ’s description of them, based upon their religious life and lives of ease, they had no idea that they were enslaved and miserable. It is much easier for those of lesser station in life to understand, yet also easier to tipple and forget it.
The disciples asked what they would receive, and the Lord gave them certain promises that with the increase of wealth comes sorrows, echoing the Preacher. Receiving manifold houses, lands and family is balanced against persecutions. So Christ does not offer relief from sufferings, and indeed means to say, that if the Father should give the things he knows his children need, what more have they than the sparrow who falls, or how much less than the king? Life, the Preacher says, is the same for the rich man and the poor, so it is not the conditions we find ourselves in and if the pursuit of a change of circumstance was the thing offered, Paul would not have issued the same teaching that we are to be content with the state in which the Lord found us.
Then it is as Christ told the Lawyers also, that it is the riches of having our eyes opened to who Christ is; that Christ is not to be appreciated in the flesh. And, further, we are to see that this life we live is bondage from which we have been freed. Neither riches that we should forget the Lord our God, nor poverty that we should become bitter towards him, instead he gives us life and a life whose abundance is without comparison. We are not then to judge either another’s servant, nor even ourselves according to the flesh, according to the base principles of this system, but we are to move on toward maturity knowing that in this life we will have tribulation regardless of the comforts we experience or don’t, regardless of the change we see, or don’t.
Christ has promised that he will never leave us nor forsake us, that in our joy or sorrow we suffer with him or rejoice with him as one body.
One thing that Paul and I share, we were blind and now we see that Christ is not how we might have our best life now. Rather, we see that He alone is our life.
It’s not a question of whether life is better as a Christian or a non-Christian. It’s the question of whether our eyes are being opened to what is truth. Christianity is pretty much like the movie, The Matrix. Will you take the red pill and see the truth for what it is, or stick with the blue pill and continue believing the lie? The reason that the red pill proves to be the trying path is, because part of the truth is that we are by nature objects of wrath. And even after repenting and believing what Christ did on the cross, though we may stand righteous before God, we continue to battle with our body of death. And being now on the side of God, we are then counted as enemies of Satan and the world of whom we continue to battle with. Either way, we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. But in all of our struggles and fighting from within for those that are called, it is God’s will for it is the road of sanctification that is being wrought out in us. Rather than looking upon this with dread, James commands us to count it all JOY:
What also strikes me is the example Christ laid out for us:
It’s baffling to think that the Son of God would need to learn obedience and yet he learned obedience from His sufferings.
The suffering that is destined for all Christians should come as no surprise to any one who knows Scriptures, for it is clear that the path we walk is the narrow path and very few find it. Even Christ has said, “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” The Lord promises us nothing in this world but the peace that surpasses all understanding. J. C. Ryle once wrote:
Jade–
Good thoughts. I agree with the gist of what you said. However, I must say that being a Christian is a whole lot more stressful and troubling than being free-for-all in sin. I didn’t have a care in the world when I was lost; now I have misery and heartbreak over sin and over unbelievers who are close to me. Not to mention how unpopular the message is, to which we’re often accounted fools for proclaiming.
Nevertheless, thanks for the good comment.
I whole heartily agree with you Nathan that it certainly is more stressful to be a Christian … and that’s what I have tried to say in my earlier post. It’s no stress to give into our temptations since it is within our natural inclinations, but as Christians we are called to fight against the flesh. As Owen once wrote, “I do not understand how a man can be a true believer unto whom sin is not the greatest burden, sorrow and trouble.” The struggles that we find ourselves here in this world makes us look forward to heaven so much more … but the Lord has a purpose for us to go through this painful process … to perfect our faith!
I have been enjoying this web site and this blog article and the responses, but I would say just one thing relative to the point under discussion here. It was unfortunate that the writer should use the term “comfort” as a thing not brought by the gospel, since it is in fact a great product of that gospel, as biblically taught. “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people.” The problem is that moderns have an unbiblical view of biblical comfort (from the latin cum forte “with strength”). The Puritans cited on the web page certainly taught the comfort of the gospel as being perfectly consistent with the disciplined Christian life.
Richard-
Thank you for your comment and input here. Let my offer a clarifying response:
Neither myself nor Lewis am saying that the gospel provides no comfort, for certainly, as you said, it does. However, this ‘comfort’ is wrought by the Spirit, and it concerns spiritual realities accomplished in the gospel. It does not comfort our flesh –especially any desire for ‘comfort’ that an enslaved sinner longs for. So, proclaiming the gospel to a man dead in sins, and using comfort as a goad, is most misinformed. This is, in a way, appealing to man’s fallen desires in an attempt to make the gospel more palatable.
Grace and peace…
I disagree. Man is uncomfortable because of sin. It is perfectly legitimate, Bunyan, Edwards, and Owen are with me on this, to call men to Christ for comfort from their sin-wrought ills by calling them to Him who cures the symptoms by curing the disease. This line of reasoning sounds Reformed, but it leaves somethig to be desired.
Richard–
I think you may still misunderstand me.And if you think that Bunyan, Edwards, and Owen argue contrary to my thesis, then by all means show it. For I likewise could appeal to them to support my argument.
But again, I am not saying that man isn’t uncomfortable. Of course he is. But A) he doesn’t know this, and B) he has no idea what true comfort is. The comfort he desires, being unregenerate, is akin to money, sex, and power, not to mention personal happiness and fulfillment in life. The gospel promises none of these things.
Sadly, the gospel now days has become all about getting what you want out of life rather than denying yourself and submit to the slavery of Christ, which is the same as trusting in Him alone for righteousness rather than relying on yourself.
One source comes quickly to mind: Edwards’ sermon, “Safety, Fulness, and sweet Refreshment, to be found in Christ.” Owen says, “But,” someone will say, “he calls on them only who are ‘thirsty.’” “True, but it is a thirst of indigency and total want, not a thirst of spiritual desires; for in whomsoever that is, they have already tasted of this wine and milk, and are blessed, Matt 5.” And Bunyan, in describing the efforts of the gardener over the barren fig tree, writes that he will dig around it, with the word and providence in order to bring it to fruition. This is what comes off the top of my head and I don’t have time to dig for more just now. It has been
some time (over 20 years) since I did an exhaustive analysis of all the works of Bunyan and of Owen to see what they had to say about Reformed Evangelism (and I have done so) but I can honestly report that they support the positive elements of your thesis, but not the negative ones. To say that unregenerate man doesn’t know that he is uncomfortable is simply not true, what he doesn’t know is the extent of his problem and danger, the true
cause of his discomfort or the true nature of the comfort he seeks.
Example: the woman at the well. Her thirst is manifested in her desire for happiness from the creature. Christ does not tell her to submit to slavery to him, but to ask of him and he would give her satisfaction. Read, if you will, Lloyd-Jones on “The Mirage Shall Become a Pool,” or Psalm 107 or any number of Lloyd-Jones’ evangelistic sermons. It is one thing to read a treatise on faulty evangelism but read the sermons of Reformed evangelists and you may find that it is very common for them to appeal, as do the
prophets and Christ, to the very hurts that people are feeling in order to bring them to the true source of satisfaction and comfort. It is not Reformed to separate the natural ills of man from his spiritual condition as you are doing, if inadvertently. Man’s response to much money and the lack thereof, his addiction to drugs, sex or amusement, –it is all indicative and symptomatic of his lack of peace with his creator, and the appeal to the benefits of Christ, yes, the felt benefits of Christ, is a biblical and consequently Reformed practice to get them to seek salvation in Christ. In
an well intended effort to prevent the faulty, you sound as if you are throwing out the baby with the bath water. In endeavoring to refute error on the left, you sound as if you are falling into error on the right. You must go between Scylla and Charybdis. The Gospel does promise personal happiness and fulfillment in life, it is the only thing that can make good on that promise and it promises it frequently. Again, I heartily concur with your intention and your positive statements, but a little more care is warranted.
Richard—
Thank you for providing those sources! I will certainly look into them. However, I cannot say that I disagree with them, and I don’t think they disagree with what I’m saying here (though I will have to read further).
Again, I feel as if we are misunderstanding each other. Let me try and clarify by responding to your words:
You said:
“To say that unregenerate man doesn’t know that he is uncomfortable is simply not true, what he doesn’t know is the extent of his problem and danger, the true cause of his discomfort or the true nature of the comfort he seeks.”
I agree with this. And I think that how we define ‘comfort’ might reveal where we seemingly disagree. When I say that the gospel isn’t ‘comforting’, I have in mind circumstances, ease in life, happiness, and excitement. In other words, the gospel of today’s popular church is a decidedly therapeutic message, rather than a call to look outside of one’s self. And in contrast, we have Paul declaring that ‘if in this life only we have trusted in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.’
Thus, Christianity is not ‘comfortable’ in that it heals circumstances in this life or causes ease. But of course, as you have argued, Christianity does provide ‘comfort’ and ‘ease’ in the spiritual realm.
You said:
“Christ does not tell her to submit to slavery to him, but to ask of him and he would give her satisfaction.”
You’ve misunderstood me if you think that ‘submission to slavery to Christ’ is the proper message. But again, what is the nature of this ‘satisfaction’? Is it a promise to heal her marital problems? Is it a promise that the rest of her life will be relatively free of trouble? Of course not; this ‘satisfaction’ is spiritual in nature.
You said:
“It is one thing to read a treatise on faulty evangelism but read the sermons of Reformed evangelists and you may find that it is very common for them to appeal, as do the prophets and Christ, to the very hurts that people are feeling in order to bring them to the true source of satisfaction and comfort.”
I would firmly argue that the ‘appeal to hurts that people are feeling’ have nothing to do with circumstances, comfort in life, happiness, etc., but center entirely on hurts regarding the damning nature of sin and its consequences. Again, they are spiritual hurts and spiritual remedies that are found in the gospel. And the unregenerate, or better yet, the non-elect, will not fully understand or feel these hurts. This doesn’t mean that we don’t proclaim them, however, because those whom the Word quickens will rightly hear and understand.
You said:
“It is not Reformed to separate the natural ills of man from his spiritual condition as you are doing, if inadvertently.”
Again, you misunderstand me. We proclaim the ‘natural ills’ and remedies that scripture proclaims, and happiness, fulfillment in life, excitement, etc., are not part of them. If you want those things, you’ll probably want to stick with the drugs, sex, and quest for power. The gospel, on the other hand, brings a life-long struggle with sin (see Romans 7), persecution (see the Apostle Paul), not to mention a complete re-direction in one’s life from me-centered to God-centered.
You said:
“Man’s response to much money and the lack thereof, his addiction to drugs, sex or amusement, –it is all indicative and symptomatic of his lack of peace with his creator, and the appeal to the benefits of Christ, yes, the felt benefits of Christ, is a biblical and consequently Reformed practice to get them to seek salvation in Christ.”
I don’t disagree with this, but this is not the message I am attacking in this post.
You said:
“The Gospel does promise personal happiness and fulfillment in life, it is the only thing that can make good on that promise and it promises it frequently.”
This I disagree with. If the gospel has anything to do with this life, Paul says that ‘we are of all men most to be pitied.’ And it is incorrect to say that Paul’s struggle with sin in Romans 7 is better than the lost man who experiences no such internal conflict. Not to mention the persecution which the lost man knows nothing of.
I appreciate your thoughts, and you make some valid observations, but I feel that you have misunderstood me. Maybe this is my fault for not explaining myself better. But thank you for sharing your thoughts. I certainly value your observations, and will re-consider how I word things.
Also, it may help to see a previous post on this subject, posted here in April, 2007, entitled “The Gospel for THIS life only…”. I don’t have think link on me now, but I’d encourage you to read my thoughts there as well.
Well, the let us see what the prophets say. For Moses, the prophet who was faithful:
For the people who entered the land:
Of David the prophet:
And not only is that true of his entire life this is how he died:
And one might think more deeply of prophets like David (the sword shall never depart from your house) Solomon (whose rich wisdom became a snare and a trap), Samuel (who missery came in pairs), Samson (who blessed life blinded and enslaved), Elijah (chased by misery) Hosea (whose joy consisted in the whoredoms of a spouse), Isaiah (a naked wanderer, striped of the blessing of the Lord found in a wife), Jeremiah (whose warnings not to dispare despite the pit and not to forget it, is despised by those who believe that the Lord promises a good life), Jonah (bitter little man that he was) and on and on we can go. Even to the point that we have the prophet spoken of in Isaiah 53. Of the prophets it is written:
Such is the message of the prophets. The same one Jesus promised:
To which he added for those who find the comforts of the blessing in this life:
Any reasonable reading would warn us against the folly of seeking or even expecting the blessings, for who in their right mind desires a hundredfold in persecutions?
Didn’t the prophets promise the good life? Yes. But what misery it was for them. To miss the fact, to sideline the truth by suggesting that by being in Christ, following precepts of Scripture, joy and happiness in this life is a promise gauranteed, is simply false. It is a bitter pill to swallow when a man is blessed by such. For it did not matter, whether these men were clean of life like Samuel or whether they were the kind that we would kick out of our assemblies, Solomon, David, Samson… they were men of God, born again, saved to the promise, yet it is written even of Abraham the father of the faithful:
It is myopic at best to assert that comforts rather than the comfort of the Lord is promised. We do not see the misery and pain that our fellows in the faith suffer, usually, so we think that joy and comfort are the Christian life. But Scripture instructs us:
Write that down,
While the promise is there, it is a promise that requires that one dies. It is a promise of a life to come in the resurrection, not before it. To postition it as our best life now in a sensual, physical way, in this life, is in reality a false Gospel. The comfort that is promised is peace with God in tribulation. As with Abraham, the promise was in the seed, not Abraham’s life, but the life to come. The point: it is not in this life that the promises are made perfect. No, David knew, after a life long war against the depression he lived in from his youth up, dying, cold and unable to becomforted even in the end, that the comfort of Christ lay in the resurrection from the dead, a peace that passes the rational natural man’s understanding.
The ills of this life are indeed part of the prophecy, but relief from them, as Jesus argued, as the reason for which people should seek him was motivated by the wrong spirit. It would then seem that to offer such as motivation to come to Jesus is not His Gospel. He further explained that what they needed was faith. And that that faith was the work of God. In it, and not satisfied needs in this life, was the real satisfaction found. Ills then point to sin, and convict of the need for a savior. Little wonder then that as it was with the children of Israel, so it is with Christless Christianity; that it is not Christ they seek, but the manna of the wilderness which rots. Though it satisfies for a day, it does not sustain. As long as the belly is full, there is contentment with God, and he is soon forgotten. Little wonder then that Paul spoke of being contented with the state in which one was found by Christ. Those who seek riches, he warns Timothy, over throw the faith. Even the poorest, illest man, is too rich. So the disciples said:
It really matters little what some have said concering blessings promised by the prophets. What really matters is what is revealed by the whole prophecy they lived.
One more thought. What does this mean, personal happiness, fulfillment in life. This is where the wires get crossed. For if we mean by happiness, that which is common to man, then what I have written above clearly demonstrates that is not true. If fulfillment means accomplishment in kind as those things which the world seeks, then again, Jesus rebuked his disciples thinking this way about the faith:
After listing the fulfillments and satisfactions of the self-seeking, he points toward the only satisfaction that is true. Where the treasures are laid up is where they will enjoy them. No man eats his seed. But plants it, tends it, and by sweat and toil, gathers it into his storehouse. Only at last, when at rest, does eat the Supper. As long as we do this now in remembering, we eat of his sufferings. But, then, when gathered into his house will we eat of the true substance of it.
This all goes to what Nathan is saying. We should not point toward satisfactions of earthly joys and those things which sin seeks. The fact is, that anyone who has been made one with Christ experiences the peace of God and such joy as is given by the Spirit. But to offer them as the motivation and not Christ, misses the mark as surely as crops gathered into earthbound barns, eating and drinking, without concern for his righteous nor his kingdom.
For the most part, Mr. Twitchell, your argument with me is pointless, our agreements far exceed our disagreement. I quite enjoy your blog, by the way. To be honest, as much as I value your contributions as a publisher of sound theological opinion, I was disappointed with your own original contribution. The hermeneutic of two posts ago is not up to what I would have expected from you, your scripture quotes in no way support the point you wish to make, except to say that believers have inward and outward difficulties, which I do not deny. You more than suggest that because I speak of comfort, fulfillment, and happiness that I am speaking of these things from a worldly point of view and not from a biblical point of view when my very point, specifically made, was to show that the gospel offers these things in their true nature and that this has always been part and parcel to biblical reformed preaching since the Old Testament times. One problem is symantics, perhaps generational. I am using “comfort” and “happiness” and “fulfillment” not as the world uses them, but as they have been used and used often in generations past by the most sound of reformed preachers. Furthermore, whether you agree with it or not, the same preachers have addressed men in their state, demonstrated that their sufferings are due to their estrangement from God, and called them to faith in Christ with promises of satisfaction in Him. It is no more an error to point to address men in misery and tell them that the sufferings they now experience are a foretast of hell, in an effort to get them to stop and consider the reason for that fact, their offense against their creator, than it is to tell them that there is life, abundant life, joy, peace, comfort, safety, fullness and sweet refreshment, in Christ to be had as a result of coming to Christ. Sure, in John 6 the Lord corrects those who are ONLY seeking him for the bread that perishes, but this comes after he has demonstrated his compassion for them in their physical state, and he does not rebuke them for wanting to satisfy their natural needs, but rather uses their hunger as an occassion to direct them to labor after the bread that endures to eternal life, himself. In other words, in an effort to be so right and cut out abuse, you are failing to see, and presuming to correct me for seeing, what many other men (men devoted to the scriptures only, and recognizing the reformed faith as the most accurate interpretation of the scriptures) have seen. Looking at the situation in a mirror, the same criticism you make against showing that true satisfaction is to be found in Christ, can be made against preaching sermons about hell. People wise in their own conceits will say that “You must not preach about hell because that makes self-preservation, ‘fire-insurance,’ a motive for seeking salvation and besides that you cannot scare anyone into the kingdom of God. You cannot make escape from hell a goad for the gospel.” That is one of their common criticisms of Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Edwards is not out to scare men into the kingdom, but to be instrumental in awakening them, getting them to stop and consider, to “flee the wrath to come” and seek the Lord, all the while knowing that when they are truly regenerate they will behold Him with new eyes, and esteem Him altogether lovely and Christ will be all joy and comfort and satisfaction to them. You do well in exposing false airy-fairy notions of the Christian life, but I think in the way you have done so, you are understating (I cannot say underestimating because I don’t know what you think) the benefits of the Christian life in the present. I have spoken according to scripture, the history of biblical and reformed preaching, and my experience. I’m sure, if you try hard enough, you will be able to select portions of scripture that tell another side, but all I am arguing for is that you present all scriptural sides. That’s all I was trying to say. You may come back with a reply in an attempt to correct me, and if you do, I hope the readers will understand that I just don’t have time for this any longer. Let them go on line and listen to Lloyd-Jones, or read Ryle’s Practical Religion sermon on Happiness, or the Edwards sermon I quoted previously and judge for themselves. On the other hand, you may see that at bottom we are not that far apart and accept what I said as a friendly encouragement to recognize that other perspectives, another angle, may be different but may be, in fact, viewing and loving the same truth as you.
I think we would appreciate the same bent toward what the benefits of Christ are. What I am seriously considering it what the offer of the Gospel is. That there is a “promise” that he will give life to our mortal bodies as being an “in this life experience.” Is that The Promise?” Or, is satisfaction in Christ at a wholly different level?
My survey of Scriptural figures was meant to examine the “this lilfe” claims over against the claims of those writers of a satisfaction found in Christ in this life which has little, and sometimes nothing to do with fulfillment in any earthly sense.
A primary question may be, “Can we promise miraculous change?” And what does that look like?
I began my Christian experience as a schizophenic paranioac, addicted to drugs and alcohol. Over three decades plus the Lord has brought great changes, so I can testify to the miraculous. At the same time what is not converted is of far greater distress. Along with all the benefits of Christ I have in the flesh, I also have experienced the greatest tragedies of my life since I came to know Him.
What I know of the people that I am aquainted is that when they look at the contentments and satisfactions they are accustomed to, it is generally, that their lives have never known the depths of depraved existence of those others that I know have , and that many continue in deep contention with real life. I find that those who are fond of displaying the “this life” blessing of Christ have never really known the hard life. Even in hard cases, when one looks at the circumstances that God has placed them in after conversion, I am more inclined to see the sovereignty of God and not some supposed blessings that all can achieve. Some are born again only to die on the cross, others to live in prince’s mansions becoming benefactors of others.
Sure, I transferred some Scripture out of their natural context for application because they express principles of reality. In David’s case it cannot be said that he was fulfilled in any earthly sense and his testimony is to the contrary. Paul also, in voicing his discontent with this life said it is better to be absent from the body and home with the Lord. David’s life is a cocophony of sin and contradiction, even dying still an adulterer, yet he is memorialized by the NT writers as the example of satisfaction with God.
A follow-up question then, if one finds satisfaction in life and fulfillment and another doesn’t, which is most blessed? Or, does Ephesians inform us that we have all been blessed with every spiritual blessing? No one falls short. Then where is contentment found? Our joys, our accomplishments? Is it brought low by failures and sorrows?
If I did not have Christ, I would have nothing, for my joys in life on a human scale are the weight of a feather, yet, they are most joyful to me because Christ is the reason for anything that I have, even dispares of life. Should I be lead then by seeking those things which are possible or those things which are promised as perfected already?
My choice is the second, because the pursuit of the possible if left unfulfilled breeds bitterness. I find my sufficiency in Christ for when he found me I could not even go out of my house without fear. I could not stand in a crowd without hearing voices. I was under great condemnation to the point of hallucinations, visible, auditory and tactile. The demonic was not just a theoretical possibility, it was a knowable reality that had been part of my life long before my psychotic break-down.
Jesus did this, in a vision, spoke a challenge to me. Because, like Edwards discription, I had been suspended over the fires of Hell and at that time in my life, actually saw my livingroom floor become a firy lake. Now, some would discount this, especially in review of my know condition at the time. My brother had a similar experience and ended up in the Way Ministry, trapped in their occult anti-Trinitarian system, denying the deity of Christ. I on the other hand, was given life and progressively over three decades regained some semblence of rationality.
One might think that I would be so content with life, so satisfied, so fulfilled. I accomplished a college degree with excellent grades when I was forty. Fifteen years, it took, for me to become able to stand and testify to the truth among my liberals anti-Christian college peers. And, I did so without fear. One would think that I might say that I have arrived, that life is fulfilled, that I am satisfied. To the contrary, there is a mountain yet to climb and in the fifteen years since I graduated, instead of things improving, in someways, things have gotten exceedingly hard to bear.
I have pursued ministry since becoming a believer and every step has been twarted. Satisfied? With only one thing, that no matter the failures, the collapses, Jesus is still my Lord, still leading me though I do not know where.
Thanks for your kind words. I will heed your advice for I know that there is some truth there. I am evidence of it, I have attained certain satisfactions but by no means of my own. However, it doesn’t always look like what some might say it should, nor feel the way that others say it feels. It may be that at the end of my life I will lay cold and unable to be comforted, perhaps I will look around and see the horrible life that I have created for others, perphaps I will mourn because the son of my choice will pervert even further the kingdom given me. One thing will remain, it is far better to be home with the Lord, no matter the greatness of the life I may find here.