I have used the following definition for GRACE for years.

Unmerited favor.

I use it often in sermons, when I write, when I teach. I use it all the time. I recently received the constructive criticism that this definition is inaccessible to the average hearer, and certainly to an unchurched person. At first I disagreed. The more I look at it, that may be true.

What do you think?

What would suggest as a good non-scholarly-sounding, easy-to-understand, brief definition of the Biblical concept of grace?

I really want to know. Tell me under comments.

I don't have many original thoughts, so I thought I'd post this one that I stole from Jared's Facebook status:

The silversmiths and idol-makers rioted in Ephesus over lost business not because Christians picketed and protested their industry but because the spread of the Christian faith meant that people had tasted and seen that the Lord is good and therefore just lost their taste for idols.

I'm neither a culture warrior or a culture war pacifist. I'm not sure what the right balance is.

But I think the quote above is an excellent observation, and something to ponder . . . deeply.

This is a view of the matter that I'm not sure I've contemplated before (from the same source referenced in my earlier post):

Always teaching about sin makes no sense without the broader context of the Gospel. A pastor who replaced all his messages about gays with messages about divorcees would still be doing a great disservice if the Gospel takes a back seat. Jesus had some harsh words when it came to sin, and often, they weren't qualified by an explicit message about the love and all-surpassing mercy of God. Some Christians (incidentally, almost all of them young men) use this as an excuse to be ungracious and hawkish when it comes to calling out sin. What they seem to forget is that the same Jesus who turned over tables also died for the moneychangers and Pharisees. Tough, "edgy" messages about sin are fine, but they're worthless without the message of Grace, because letting Jesus be Jesus means unleashing both the firey, street-wise revolutionary and also the gentle, meek lamb, being led to slaughter.

[Emphasis mine]

Just when this previous post makes me look like a prude or a legalist...I write the following that may make me look like the opposite. :)

I wondered "aloud" in the last post if we should utter anything at all when angry or hurt. I think to a point, some of that's OK. After all what else is many of the Psalms but expressing pain through words? If we look at Job, he cursed the day he was born, yet didn't sin. So maybe there are times when it's OK, not to use foul language, but to use exclamations to express pain. (Like "ouch" when you stub your toe.) (But I'm not really sure what to do with Jesus cursing a fig tree that didn't bear fruit. Does that mean we get to curse the chair we stubbed our toe on? I doubt it ;-)

Of course the Bible also says,

3But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. (Ephesians 5:3-4)

So it's obvious that foul language is right out. But wait, there's more...

Listen to this guy. (And hey, though he uses the "s" word to illustrate his point, this is from "Desiring God" ministries (John Piper) so it has to be good, right? :)



Perhaps Paul's use of the word "dung" in Philippians 3:8 illustrates his point? "Nothing is as wonderful as knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. I have given up everything else and count it all as dung/refuse/rubbish/garbage. All I want is Christ" (Literally the Greek word is referring to dung. Most translations avoid that reference. Only Eugene Peterson lets us know that the word is scatological. Apparently, Daniel Wallace, Greek Scholar extraordinaire, says that the Greek word Paul uses here falls somewhere between "crap" and "s**t".) That verse really gains some power to me when I realize that Paul is saying that all his prior righteousness is crap compared to Jesus!

Can coarse language ever be God-honoring? There are times when God uses strong language. (Watch this one hour sermon by Mark Driscoll at "Desiring God" 08 for not just some examples, but every example! )

I, myself, admit to using (ahem) salty language at times in a pastoral counseling situations as a way to get someone's attention about the seriousness of sin. (I do this very rarely, both for the sake of my own heart and it's effectiveness. It wouldn't work if I did this often.)

I used the point of what Dr. Tripp said about words with my kids earlier this week.(Without the "s" word) First, my 7 year old complained that the 6 year old had called him "dumb". The 6 year old claimed that he hadn't actually called his brother "dumb" just something else. I told him to watch his words, because people could think that he was calling them "dumb". I just told him not to use the word at all.

Two minutes later they were both back. The 7 year old now said that the 6 year old was saying "burrito, burrito, burrito" over and over.

I had a quick teaching moment with them. I said,

"OK, listen guys. It's not about the words. It's about the heart. Any word can be bad if you mean it that way. Even "chair" can be a bad word, if you are being mean in your heart towards your brother. That's what matters. Pay attention to your heart today, and then your words will be fine."

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Ephesians 4:29)

We can't just limit "unwholesome talk" to swear words. "Unwholesome talk" is any words that tear people down. We have to watch our mouths AND our hearts.

May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. (Psalm 19:14)

Personally, I find curse words pretty offensive. They jar me every time I hear them. (This is the main reason, that I don't watch rated "R" movies. I just can't handle 80 occurrences of the "F" word. I don't even like one.)

But here's my question for you: What about words that aren't technically bad? You know the ones I mean. The ones we "wholesome Christians" use as substitutes. Words like:

Shoot
Snap
Shucks
Gee-Whiz
Gosh
Darnit
Dangit
Butt
"fouled up"
screw
fudge
Jeez
Jimminy Christmas
"For Pete's Sake"
Crap
Sucks
Frack (from Battlestar Galactica)

And on and on. I'm sure there are more. When it comes to "cursing without cursing" people are endlessly creative.

Here's what I'm wondering. For the Christian, is this OK? Should we be using any exclamation words at all?

Why is that we feel like we have to say something when we stub our toe, or spill something, or something goes wrong? Why, when we are mad, do we have to add some kind of adjective like "stinking" or "stupid" or "darned"?

Even if we come up with a word that sounds nothing like one of the official big four-letter words, so that it's not an obvious substitute. Like "Cheerio! I just stubbed my toe!"

Is this OK? Is this Christ-honoring? Or am I making a big deal out of nothing? Is it within Christian liberty to use exclamations, and extra words out of anger, as long as it's not one of "those words"?

And what about those substitute words?

Let me give you an example, to help you hear my concern and then tell me if I'm nuts:

The word "screw" really bothers me. I wish Christians wouldn't use it. I hear strong Christians say it, and even ministers use it from the pulpit. It bothers me, I think, because I "know" it's just a substitute for the big "F" word. That's how it's used. Think about it. When the word screw is used for any other purpose other than to describe the piece of hardware that holds furniture together, it is a substitute for some of the uses of the "F" word: I "screwed" up. "Screw" you. She "screwed" him.

So when I hear that word, it still offends me, because I think I know what's behind it.

On the other hand, I know that not everyone who uses it is thinking of the "f" word or intentionally using a nicer "curse" word. For many "screwed up" has just become a part of the vernacular, like "darnit" or "gosh".

What do you all think?

A woman is counseled toward terminating her pregnancy online, here, here and here.

Painful read. I titled this post the way I did because the woman seeking counsel, who ultimately had an abortion, calls her unborn child her "baby" throughout.

Hat Tip: K-Lo at the Corner:
It Takes an Online Village to Have an Abortion.

Follow up responses on the Corner: This one from a woman who had an abortion twenty eight years ago.

And an email from a person who was adopted.

I've read both 1984 and Brave New World. I've long thought that the brutal world of 1984 would not have been sustainable. In many ways, I think history has already shown this.

Huxley's world seems far more probable, in my opinion.

Here's an interesting comparison, in illustrated form.

[H/T Jonah]

My wife and I are now the proud owners of two mini-vans. (OK, go back and strike the word "proud.") We traded in my Mazda 626, and bought a second minivan.

OK, now to my point. The Mazda I traded in... was a standard transmission. Yep. You read that right. A stick shift. Every primary car I've ever driven was a stick shift. I learned to drive on a stick shift. I freaked out in driver's ed when I put the car in "drive" and it started moving on it's own because I had never driven an automatic before.(My left foot kept kicking the floor looking for a clutch.)

Anyway, when I traded in this car last week, the salesman told me that 99% of all cars made now are automatics. Whoa. That means I would have a hard time getting a standard if I tried. Nobody drives standard anymore.

It made me kind of sad. Nostalgic maybe. I was thinking, "Wow. I am now the possessor of a dying skill." My kids won't be able to learn standard because there won't be any. I was thinking how sad that was, but hey maybe it's OK, because they'll never need it.

I prefer driving standard. I prefer doing something as a part of driving. I prefer feeling like I'm driving. I like the power and control of deciding when to shift, and how many RPM's I want. I like riding the clutch. I like coasting in, with the clutch pushed in. I like the challenge of having to start going from a stop when I'm on an incline without rolling into the car behind me. I like the fact that I CAN!!!! (And I'm quite good at it by the way.)

And now, it's a skill not valued anymore. So I began to wonder. Maybe this was what it was like when drivers didn't have to get out and crank the handle on the front of model T's anymore. Maybe this is what it was like when women stopped having to teach their daughters how to wash laundry in the tub. Did those people mourn too? Did those people think that society was going to pot because their kids didn't need to learn or even care to learn the skills they had to have to survive?

Is it such a loss when technology changes? I mean, that's just progress right? So maybe I should just get over the fact that I will never drive a standard again, and that with few rare exceptions, no one will.

OK, maybe automatics aren't as fuel efficient as standards. And they break down more than standards, but aren't I forgetting the main thing? Progress! Technology! Ease of use. Driving an automatic is easy.

Maybe I'm just mad that I had to work so hard to learn how to drive. (It is hard learning to get going without stalling.) And now, no one else has to. Maybe I feel like if I had to do it, everybody should. But that's not fair, is it? That's like saying that just because I had to learn to type on an actual manual typewriter that everybody should. Or that just because my grandfather had to build houses without power tools that everybody should.

I guess we should just put standard transmissions in the scrap heap with manual typewriters, human-powered lawnmowers and rotary dial telephones.

What other "skills" are dying out? Tell me under comments.

Still makes me sad though. Farewell, standard transmission. We had some good times together. You will be missed.

I truly believe that the first step toward surrender to God is repentance. John the Baptist preached it. JESUS proclaimed it. Peter said to do it before you're baptized. Paul hammered on it. And, finally, the Lord again reiterated it multiple times in the book of Revelation.

I recently listened to a debate between a Trinitarian and a proponent of Oneness theology. The Oneness guy (a Pentecostal preacher), I believe, lost the debate, but he made a valid point at the end of the exchange. He said he thought there should be a heavier emphasis on repentance among evangelicals in general. He explained that repentance isn't merely saying you're sorry for your sin, but a deep, gut-wrenching understanding that you are despicable, an offense to God's holiness, and deserving of eternal separation from His presence. It's a rock bottom realization that you and your sin are filthy rags, and that you are in need -- dire need -- of a Savior.

I don't think a need for repentance can be overemphasized. We must repent of our selfishness, our materialism, our sensuality, our vanity, our idolatry, our avarice, our apathy, our gluttony ... everything. Repentance isn't just for the unconverted; it's for believers too.

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent . . .
-- Acts 17:30 (ESV)

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which JESUS had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.

And JESUS came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ..."

Matthew 28:16-18

It's easy to pile on to the disciples; I've heard preachers do it countless times. While I'm not a big "let's slam the disciples" guy, I don't understand why the 12 (or 11 in this case) at times seem so, well, obtuse. It boggles my mind that they have seen the risen Lord, but still, some of them doubted. I think it speaks to the frailty of the human heart, and it gives me hope that even the ones closest to the risen JESUS can doubt, yet still be elect.

From the invaluable Brant Hansen, on his work as a Christian radio host:

I've been corrected many times by Christians -- after reading something Jesus actually said. They don't like it. I'm serious. "You know, all the commandments can be summed up with love the Lord your God with all your heart, and mind, and soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said that, and..."

Ringing phones. "Hello?"

"You forgot one: Evangelize."

Jesus stands corrected.

Ring.

"Well, it's not quite that simple, you see, because..."

No, no. It can't be that simple. Not here.

Bam!

That kills me. It convicts me. I wonder how many times I've been the one saying "Yes, but . . ."

A brilliant and sad post. Please go read it.

I think their are two paths we can take in response: the first and easiest one is separation: separating between us and them, "Christians" versus "Christ-followers", those who believe they "get" Jesus and those who don't (though all of us Christians think we do). Some have decided to chunk the church and be Christians all on their own. That's tempting, because there are plenty of churches that don't teach the Gospel, that are disobediently pursuing a success that is contrary to success as God defines it, and who avoid talk of Jesus because he offends people.

The other path is the far better one, and far more difficult. It's what I believe Brant's saying here, and it's being said by many others these days, and I'm so thankful for that. The other path is the path of reformation: to preach Jesus, to speak of Jesus, to speak of and live the Gospel 24x7. To face up to Jesus' words, his glorious, terrifying words, and become people who live that Word out every day.

If 9/11 had really changed us, there’d be a 150-story building on the site of the World Trade Center today. It would have a classical memorial in the plaza with allegorical figures representing Sorrow and Resolve, and a fountain watched over by stern stone eagles. Instead there’s a pit, and arguments over the usual muted dolorous abstraction approved by the National Association of Grief Counselors. The Empire State Building took 18 months to build. During the Depression. We could do that again, but we don’t. And we don’t seem interested in asking why.

- James Lileks (via Mark Steyn)

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom . . ." - Proverbs 9:10

In his excellent daily devotional, The One Year Walk With God, Chris Tiegreen writes the following:

We're uncomfortable with the idea of fearing God. We defend Him as One whose love is so great He needs not be feared. As 1 John 4:18 says: "Perfect love drives out fear." So we redefine fear as "awe" and "reverence." Yet the Scriptures use the term "fear of God" frequently enough to give us the impression that something more than awe is appropriate. It is the kind of fear that terrified the disciples when they heard God's voice at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:6); that overwhelmed Isaiah when he cried out: "Woe to me! . . . I am ruined!" in God's presence (Isaiah 6:5); and that drove John facedown at the sight of the glorified Son (Revelation 1:17).

. . . when we approach the Holy One with casual familiarity, we are not living in reality.

I think he has a point. The more I learn about God and the longer I know him, the less comfortable I am with the "fear" = "awe" formula. I'm reminded of this frequently when dealing with students. For background, I am no longer working with teenagers at church (we now teach the young singles) but I was a long-time student worker, and I've got a very bad feeling about this. I'll tell you what it is: I think we've failed our students. I certainly failed them. In how many Student programs is the concept of fearing God really taught, in the midst of all of our damnable relevance? To make this more personal, how well have I taught that, both in my public teaching and in my dealings with my own children?

To many Christians God has become so familiar that he can be joked about, his name can be said in vain without fear (for how could that possibly upset our cool, relevant pal-God?). Irreverence has become a celebrated trait in our popular culture - a trait to be aped - and that irreverence permeates even into the church. The throne room has become a place to "hang out". We might even feel comfortable with "getting in God's face" if he has displeased us. In the coarsening of culture and language, the way God is spoken about, and spoken to, by we who bear his name makes me tremble. American church leaders decided to spend the last two decades experimenting with building up a God who meets felt needs and stirs emotions, and the result is what my own kids are experiencing among their friends: churched young people leaving the faith in droves. Because there comes a point where this small, familiar, man-shaped god has outlived his usefulness, and it's time to move on to bigger and better things.

I think it's time, in my own life, to move beyond awe and reverence. I'm wondering if maybe I shouldn't be terrified.

"When we approach the Holy One with casual familiarity, we are not living in reality."

Yes, it's a rant. But it's a good rant.

There's a song I've been listening to a lot the past few of days. . .

(Before I go on, if you know me well you know that the sentence I just wrote does not cross my lips or my mind very often. There's not a whole lot of music that does much for me these days. I don't have 5,000 songs on my ipod. I don't have an ipod. I don't have mixes, shuffles, I don't play the "five random songs" game, don't post often on "the five songs rocking my world this week", and most of the music coming out today I could do without. In fact, I think if everyone spent as much time in silence as they did listening to music this world would be a better place. But I digress. :-)

As I was saying, there's a song I've been listening to a lot these past few days. It's the song "Instead of a Show" by Jon Foreman (frontman for Switchfoot) off his Spring & Summer project. The song is based off of Amos 5 and Isaiah 1. This song speaks to me, to things I've been dealing with in my own relationship with God and the practice of my faith. Have you heard it? The lyrics are below:

I hate all your show and pretense
The hypocrisy of your praise
The hypocrisy of your festivals
I hate all your show

Away with your noisy worship
Away with your noisy hymns
I stop up my ears when you're singing 'em
I hate all your show

Instead let there be a flood of justice
An endless procession of righteous living, living
Instead let there be a flood of justice
Instead of a show

Your eyes are closed when you're praying
You sing right along with the band
You shine up your shoes for services
There's blood on your hands

You turned your back on the homeless
And the ones that don't fit in your plan
Quit playing religion games
There's blood on your hands

Instead let there be a flood of justice
An endless procession of righteous living, living
Instead let there be a flood of justice
Instead of a show
I hate all your show

Let’s argue this out
If your sins are blood red
Let’s argue this out
You'll be white as the clouds
Let’s argue this out
Quit fooling around
Give love to the ones who can’t love at all
Give hope to the ones who got no hope at all
Stand up for the ones who can’t stand at all, all
I hate all your show
I hate all your show
I hate all your show
I hate all your show

Instead let there be a flood of justice
An endless procession of righteous living, living
Instead let there be a flood of justice
Instead of a show
I hate all your show

Note: I'm not sure how to say this diplomatically, but if this post generates any discussion, can we please keep out of the whole "CCM stinks" debate? Yes, I'd love this song to get play on our local Christian radio station. No, I don't expect it to. No, I don't want to argue, debate, reflect, or discuss why or why not. OK? BTDT.

Also, sorry for sounding like such a Curmudgeon in this post. Five years of blogging will do that to a guy.



Update: Our good buddy dbd hipped me to a YouTube of Foreman playing this song. I think this was right after he wrote it, or while he was writing it. It's not a particularly good recording, and contains a decent amount of fiddling with guitar at the beginning (am I the only one for whom that's a pet peeve? :-) and forgotten lyrics midway through. But it's still really good and lets you actually hear the song.

I don't know.

That's such a hard thing to admit. Early in church history the orthodox catholic church confirmed the divinity and humanity of Christ as revealed in scripture, but debate continued for years as to how one person can be fully human and fully divine. The ultimate solution, while providing safeguards against heresy, was basically a big "I don't know."

The great, although misleadingly named, Athanasian Creed confesses the mystery of the Trinity, proclaiming, "The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal," and that "they are not three eternals but one eternal." The mystery of the Trinity is protected by the creed, and, ultimately, when someone asks how a confessing Christian can believe in one God who exists in three distinct person, the answer isn't an outright appeal to systematic theology, but the confession of a perplexity. The truth is, no one knows.

So how is Christ both human and divine, and how is God three in one? I don't know.

It's freeing to realize I don't have to have the answers to everything. I'm not advocating blind faith, but I am advocating a Christian walk that exists by faith.

The ultimate joy in admitting you don't know something comes, I think, when you resolve in your heart, mind, and soul to search for the answer, even if the ultimate solution can tend to be shrouded in seeming contradiction and mystery.

One day a man fell into a pit. He was unable to get out of it as hard as he tried. Finally someone came along. It was Confucius. He observed the situation and said, “Poor fellow, if only he’d listened to me he never would have fallen in there.” Later Buddha walked by. He saw the man in the pit and said, “Poor fellow, if he’ll come up here, I’ll help him.” Then finally Jesus Christ came along. He said, “Poor fellow!” and jumped in the pit and lifted him out. (From A Foreign Devil in China by John Pollock, p. 54). That story illustrates the meaning of Christmas. The story of Christmas is the story of the incarnation.

“Incarnate” means “in the flesh.” “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (Colossians 1:19). Christians believe that Jesus is fully God. There have been various folks who claimed that Jesus only appeared to be God or only had a spark of the divine. But according to Paul, Jesus did not have just part of the Divine nature, but all of it.

Christmas is the celebration of God’s coming into the world as a human being. But why did he do that? God put on human flesh because it pleased him to reconcile all things to himself through Jesus. (Colossians 1:20). Now there would be no reason for reconciliation unless there was a broken relationship. Indeed the Bible teaches that sin makes us God’s enemies.

But God coming in the flesh is only the beginning of our reconciliation to God. Paul tells us that Jesus made peace between us and God “through his blood shed on the cross.” The Bible teaches that Jesus paid the penalty that we owe for our sins. God’s forgiveness is not empty or arbitrary. Sin was paid for by God himself. In Jesus, God both punished sin and was punished for sin. This is how our forgiveness was achieved.

And here’s the really cool part, Jesus came not only to reconcile us back to God, but to reclaim that which was his in the first place.

“We look at this Son and see the God who cannot be seen. For everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him. He was there before any of it came into existence and holds it all together right up to this moment. He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end” (Colossians 1:15-18, The Message).

The NIV translates it this way: “all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy!.”

Ponder this for a while: Jesus isn’t just the reason for the season; he’s the reason for everything!

Everything!

Jesus is the reason everything exists in the first place.

Jesus is the reason anything exists at all.

Jesus is the reason anything still exists.

All of creation, that includes you and me, is for Jesus.

And he became one of us, so that he might reclaim that which was his by right anyway...only because of the incarnation, death and resurrection, everything becomes his in fact.

My question for you:

How should this truth affect how I think, act, feel and live?


Afterword:
And so, (warning: I'm about to sound John Piper-ish, but I didn't get this from him, I got it from this passage.)

I wonder if this passage teaches us that Jesus' primary reason for coming wasn't us. He came for himself. Wow.

The cost for the recipient of God’s grace is nothing—and no price could be higher for arrogant people to pay.

- Dan Allender

As seen on The Spyglass

This post got me thinking. . .

This will date me quite a bit, but I remember being in a Radio Shack™ as a teenager (circa 1980) and looking at the venerable old TRS-80 personal computer. It had no mouse, no GUI, no windows, no colors. Just a green on black text-based monitor.

The TRS-80 had a response that it always gave if you typed a command in it that it didn't understand. It would respond with:

>What?

I remember looking at that TRS-80 and seeing the following text on its monitor:

>Request information on house plants

>What?

>Tell me about house plants

>What?

Someone who knew very little about computer capabilities at that time had decided to ask what they considered a very straightforward question to the computer. The TRS-80, of course, didn't understand the "command".

Fast forward. We now live in a world where you can open up an internet browser, type in "Request information on house plants", and get no fewer than 373,000 pages of information back in 0.19 seconds (I just tried).

This is magical. I'm not ancient yet (I'm 44), but there are so many things we consider completely commonplace that would have seemed like technological wizardry when I was in high school. Frankly, most of these things are things we would never have conceived of. Here are some examples. You don't have to be rich, by Western standards, to enjoy all of these:

• Most of us have access to a magical portal of information called the internet that will tell us about almost anything we might be interested in. In sub-second time
• A letter you've written to someone doesn't take three days to get there anymore. More like three seconds
• If you want to listen to almost any song recorded in the last forty or fifty years, you can hear 30 seconds of it or so for free. You can then, if you want to, buy that song for about a dollar and have it in your hot little hands within a few seconds
• You can place that song on a little device that is just a few inches square that can hold thousands of other songs
• And TV shows too. No, really.
• Now, follow me here: I've said you "place that song" on a device. But you never actually touch the song. It's not on a tape or record or anything. It's not really anything you can see or feel. You can just hear it. I mean, it's something, but not exactly. That probably doesn't make sense. I wish I could explain it better
• By the way, you probably have several hundred channels on your TV now
• And you also can rewind or pause TV shows without even having to commit them to a VCR tape first. Nice if you need to go to the bathroom or take a phone call or get a snack
• You can also just give your TV a schedule of shows to record for you, and watch them at your leisure. No VCR tapes required!
• Regarding taking phone calls, if you're like most people you probably carry a little miniature (would have looked miniature to us in 1981, at least) telephone that works almost everywhere. No cords. The closest example of what your phone probably looks like is a pocket-calculator. Only smaller
• It's likely your phone doesn't ring. I mean, it rings, but not with a ring, per se. It's likely your phone plays you a song when someone calls you. You can actually make it play a different song depending on who the caller is. Or, get this, if you want to be less obtrusive, you can just make it vibrate.
• Did I mention your phone is a camera too? I know that sounds like a very weird combination, but it's true.
• As a camera, it can hold a whole boatload of pictures. You don't have to get them developed, or even do the whole Polaroid strip off the emulsion thing. They just *are*.
• Because of this instant-feedback from your camera, you might possibly take a decent number of pictures of yourself
• And, since the pictures are essentially free, unlimited (remember the 24-rolls and 36-rolls of film? Forget 'em), and lightweight, you take a lot more pictures than ever before. Because taking and developing a picture is essentially free, you goof off a lot in pictures now. It's getting to the point where almost every picture you take is what we used to call the "crazy" picture. You and your friends have gotten very good at mugging for the camera
• And your phone might even play music for you, although it probably doesn't hold thousands of songs. Maybe just a hundred
• Quite possibly your phone also lets you look at that magic portal of information I mentioned in the first item, above
• Your phone also can send messages instantaneously to anyone else who's phone number you remember
• Except you don't really have to remember or write down phone numbers anymore
• In a Presidential campaign in 2008, a Presidential candidate actually sent messages out to hundreds of thousands (millions?) of phones to announce who his Vice Presidential candidate was. The messages were all "delivered" instantly. They probably played a little song too when they got to your phone. And, of course, everyone gets to pick their own song
• You might have just recently bought a phone with no buttons on it at all. You just touch its screen (yes, phone's have "screens" now, to show all those pictures, messages, and magic-portal pages we've talked about - the screen is in color, by the way) and it does stuff. Seriously, just touch it. You can actually drag little pictures around on it and make it do things.
• Your phone only weighs a few ounces. For real
• Finally . . . remember that diary you used to write in every day and keep locked up? Now you just write your deepest thoughts in the magic information portal I mentioned in the first item. And you're pretty much OK with anyone in the world reading what you wrote.

That list took me about a minute to think through, and I only touched on a couple specific areas of technology. There are probably a thousand other changes in the past 25 years or so that would have blown the younger, early 80's versions of ourselves right out of our sleeveless Ocean-Pacific T-shirts and parachute pants.

Feel free to add to the list in the comments.

I read a literary blog recently where the topic of conversation was whether or not one was truly called (presumably by God) to be a writer, or whether or not the supposed calling was simply a delusion of grandeur.

The conversation got me thinking about what exactly is the nature of a calling, and why we never hear anything about people being "called" to be garbage collectors, ditch diggers, or used car salesmen.

As everyone around here knows, a job is something that eats up a lot of your time, and if you work a typical 8 to 5 type job then the very best hours of your day are consumed by your profession. Surely, as believers, God has a calling for the average worker, whether that worker is the President of the free world or an immigrant working for peanuts. God has a calling, even if that calling is to merely live a peaceful and quiet life (1 Timothy 2:2).

Make no mistake, God uses people with incredible gifts to glorify His name, but He also uses people with gifts that are perhaps not recognized by the world at large: maids, waitresses, street sweepers, manual laborers, stay-at-home parents.

I remember hearing a missionary say that he was painting a house one day, praying to God and asking Him what mission field He wanted him to labor in next. "I'll go anywhere, and do anything for You," he told God. He said he felt like God responded: "Would you paint houses for me for the rest of your life?"

JESUS was a carpenter, but you never hear anyone claiming they are "called to be a carpenter." Maybe that should change.

And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ.
-- Colossians 3:23 & 24