Archive for May, 2007

No Exit.

There is simply no proper or honorable way to leave. Period. To leave is to fail, to die, to be defeated by evil. To leave is to invite divine retribution.
A corollary to the “No Exit” rule is the demonization of those who leave:
They are angry or in a season of anger.
They are evil, weak, selfish, and foolish.
They are lost.
They are wandering in darkness, unable to see.
They are deserters throwing away what God has given them.
They are Enemies of the Cross.
They have chosen Evil over Goodness.
They are the mouthpiece of the Enemy attacking the righteous.
They are listening to the Enemy accuse the brethren.
They are only 30-fold and don’t know any better.
They weren’t really trying.
They didn’t follow the procedures correctly.
They were unable to resist the temptation to sin.
They hid and didn’t follow council.
They couldn’t sever their unholy alliances and have been misled.
They couldn’t be honest.
They could never fully fellowship with the brethren.
We are much better off without their bad influences.
They changed.
Most of the above is Copyright © 2007, A. Orange.
I will supply the link if asked.

Read Full Post »

“Note, also, It is a heinous evil, and severely to be censured, for Christians to treat their fellow-christians with contempt and insolence, but especially at the Lord’s table.”
This is part of his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:17-22. We’d all do well to remember it.

Read Full Post »

Genius =

Basement playroom with bathroom.

Read Full Post »

Gorgeous Friday

Walking up the street to the top rated pizza parlor in Pittsburgh.
Because we can.

Read Full Post »

Gutless Anonymous

The following is a comment on my friend Jonathan’s Blog.
This person is criticizing Jonathan for declaring his newfound position in life, a position free of guilt, manipulation, narcissistic controllers, and so much more. He is in a good, blessed stage in his life; yet, instead of celebrating with him, there are people – such as the following anonymous commenter – who would criticize how he revels under his unaccustomed light load.
“I know this will not be popular with the “freedom takers”…..
But if you are truly free………then live free! Stop looking back and go on with your new lives. A truly free man does not have to sit back and keep recounting the things he believes he was in captive of.
Freedom does not have to rally others to justify what he has done.
Freedom simply walks on, head held high and goes forth.
You aren’t truly free if you keep wearing the chains.
Talking about the wrong that has been done to you isn’t going to change it.
Pointing out the mistakes of others will not make it better or go away.
You keep your own self captive by remaining in that same mental state.
Move on.
It should be of no consequence of the “freedom takers” what goes on in their “former land”. It is no longer their land. You don’t have to ponder it, you don’t have to live it, and you don’t even have to acknowledge it.
You are not going to change it.
Leave it in the hands of God
Because, that truly is where it belongs. He is the author and finisher.
What should be of consequence to the “freedom takers” now is their new life.
Doing what is right, putting on their new life, enjoying your blessings, don’t taint it all by not living this:
A healthy life demands the healthy practice of forgiveness. True forgiveness has a deeply profound effect upon the forgiver. The forgiver goes from an atmosphere of discontent and resentment to one of peace and joy. Such a transition cannot be underestimated as to its value.
That is how you become true “Freedom Takers”
May 1, 2007 1:36 PM”

This commenter’s purpose was simply to shut Jonathan’s mouth. Right now, Jonathan is saying, “Thank you, Lord, for leading me where I am. Thank you for the blessings. Thank you for the comfort of freedom that I didn’t have in my old home.” The commenter is effectively saying in response, “Shut up, sit down, and quit talking about it already,” to stifle him from praising and thanking God for the change in his life, the moving from lameness to walking, blindness to sight.
Anyone can see that the commenter’s post is littered with assumptions and presumptions. This person is assuming and expecting that all of Jonathan’s conversations and thoughts are spent dwelling on the old life. This person is presuming that his old life and all that was in it was interesting enough to warrant all of his reflection and energy and blog space now. That’s a lot of guessing to do about someone else’s life.
I can remember the men that Jesus healed of leprosy. He healed 10 men, and only one returned to thank him. What does that mean? One man was willing to travel backward over the diseased ground he had just walked. He was willing to look backward and remember, “I was as good as dead until this man came and healed me. Look at me now!” He had to reconcile where he came from with where he ended up in order to validate his healing. For the men who didn’t return to thank Jesus, I think they forgot from what they had been delivered. It’s as if their healing or saving had never happened. It became obsolete the minute they stopped remembering their past.
The problem with highly emotional and reactionary comments like this one is that there are partial truths spread thin throughout that create an overall sense of authenticity. There is a lot of “should be” and “you don’t have to” language that suggests this commenter knows what’s good or right for Jonathan’s life – or anyone else’s who presents as free. I find that contradictory because, this commenter wasn’t brave (or convinced of the argument) enough to supply his or her name, yet he or she expects that Jonathan “should” find credibility in what was said. I don’t know about Jonathan, but I find no credibilty.
There is also an excess of imperative language (commanding or directing) suggesting this person feels he or she is uniquely situated to give orders. Why? I’d like for the commenter to please explain how he or she is so qualified to sit around pontificating about what is freedom and how someone should or shouldn’t behave when living in it. I can read between the lines and it seems to me, this person is delusional about his or her own state of freedom. Often people can describe something only in terms of what it’s not or what it should be, and I think that’s the case here. This person is talking about what freedom should be because it’s what that person wants in his or her own life and refuses to walk away from what is encumbering.
Related is something that my dad reminded me of yesterday: Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it. That is why I disagree with this anonymous comment. It tells me and anyone else reading that freedom only comes in forgetting – forgetting what led to the need of freedom in the first place, that is, whatever it was that caused the entrapment – and in silencing the voice that would remind and remember and be wary and cautious of being duped once again.
That is why I don’t forget. That is why I talk about the so-called “old land” as it occurs in conversation and remember the good and the bad and thank God for where I am today. Because I don’t ever want to forget where He led me from yesterday.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts

%d bloggers like this: