Walking With Christ

Webers.Home · Jul 10, 2021

.
• 1Cor 11:5b-6a . . it is just as though her head were shorn. If a woman
does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off;

In other words: if Christian women want to be treated equal to Christian
men, then they should go all out to imitate Christian men by first of all
getting themselves a man's haircut, and leave their hair short all the time
like a masculine lesbian, viz; a dyke.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 11, 2021

.
• 1Cor 11:6b . . If it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved
off, she should cover her head.

Okay: if Christian women would be somewhat embarrassed to show up in
church looking like a man and/or LGBT, then they have only one other
option; and that's to show up in church looking like women. But in order to
retain their femininity whenever they pray and/or prophesy; they are simply
going to have to cover their hair with something or heaven will have no
choice but to assume the worst about them.

NOTE: A number of rules regulating Christian women are often viewed as
subjugation. But those rules are actually for the purpose of subordination
rather than subjugation; i.e. Christianity's gender hierarchy is based upon
primogeniture, i.e. the man was created before the woman; plus she was
created from the man and for the man; and thus owes the very reason for
her existence to a man; and her role is a supporting role rather than a
starring role.

That's true Christian doctrine; it's ironic the number of Christian women
calling themselves Christ's followers that don't like it and resolutely refuse to
abide by it.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 12, 2021

• 1Cor 11:7-10 . . A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image
and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come
from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman,
but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman
ought to have a token of authority on her head.

There's probably as much disagreement about the identity of the angels in
that passage as there is about the sons of God in the 6th chapter of Genesis.
Well; whoever these angels are, or whatever they are, they're apparently
indignant when they see women in church acting as though they're equals
with men.

Christians have simply got to come to grips with the fact that women will
never be equal to men in the divine order of things. No, they will always be
daddy's little girl. Ergo: women aren't from Venus after all; no, they're
actually the daughters of Mars (so to speak).

POSIT: Paul meant that hair coverings are optional when he said: "But if any
man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches
of God" (1Cor 11:16)

RESPONSE: That is yet another example of people refuting Paul by quoting
Paul.

The "custom" he's talking about is women praying and or prophesying bare
headed. Apparently the Jews' synagogues, and all the rest of the Christian
churches in the Roman world required their women to attend with something
on their heads. Since that was so, then why ever would the Corinthian
Christians think that their women were somehow exempt?

"Judge in yourselves: is it proper that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
(1Cor 11:13)

The answer of course is NO; it isn't proper-- it's insolent, inappropriate, and
disrespectful; plus it is conduct unbecoming for women professing to revere
Christ's right to tell his followers how to be Christians.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 13, 2021

• 1Cor 11:27-30 . .Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in
an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of
the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and
drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the
body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many
among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

The Greek word for "unworthy" is anaxios (an-ax-ee'-oce) which means:
irreverently; which Webster's defines as: lacking proper respect or
seriousness. In other words "sacrilege" which is gross irreverence toward a
hallowed person, place, or thing.

"sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" is very similar language to
1Cor 6:18, which states: The immoral man sins against his own body. There,
as here, we're not talking about suicide and/or homicide; were talking about
desecration; which Webster's defines as: to violate the sanctity of, to
profane-- viz: to treat with disrespect, i.e. irreverently and/or outrageously.

People sin during the Lord's supper when they fail to take it seriously that
the elements represent his body-- not his so-called glorified body; but the
one that was crucified; viz; his disfigured, bloodied body.

What do you suppose went on during those three hours of thick darkness
around the cross? (Matt 27:45) Well; the abuse that the Romans inflicted on
Christ was merely a warm up for the main event. When the darkness came;
that's when God stepped into the ring; and the gloves came off. When the
darkness lifted, people saw a Jesus so beaten and bloodied beyond
recognition that they could scarcely tell he was the same man.

"There were many who were appalled at him-- his appearance
was so disfigured beyond that of any man, and his form marred beyond
human likeness." (Isa 52:14)

"Jehovah was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief" (Isa 53:10)

I have to wonder how ever a father could do something like that to his own
son; especially for a world that wouldn't even appreciate that the injuries
God inflicted upon His own son were for their benefit.

"A man ought to examine himself" is an imperative to make double sure that
one's heart is in the right place when consuming the elements (a.k.a.
species). Some people gulp them down as if they were nothing more than a
snack of hot wings and cold beer during a Super Bowl game instead of a
sacred reminder of what God's son endured to ransom their souls from a
second death in the lake of brimstone depicted at Rev 20:11-15.

Those people have to expect that a very indignant father is going to come
down on them for that-- maybe not with sickness, maybe not with death,
and maybe not right away; but eventually with something; and really, who
can blame Him?

NOTE: Observance of the Lord's supper isn't a mandatory requirement; so if
you are a bit nervous about going about it in the wrong way, then don't take
chances; play it safe and refrain.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 14, 2021

.
• 1Cor 11:33-34 . . My brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for
each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you
meet together it may not result in judgment.

The command doesn't frown upon things like church banquets, men's'
breakfasts, ladies' luncheons, and/or potlucks per se. What it's criticizing is a
lack of congregational unity. Here's some comments leading up to that
verse.

"Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come
together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come
together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part
I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are
approved may be recognized among you.

. . .Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat The
Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others;
and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to
eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who
have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not
praise you." (1Cor 11:17-22)

Their lack of courtesy and unity during church functions was nothing short of
hypocrisy seeing as how The Lord's supper speaks of sacrifice rather than
selfishness, elitism, and hoarding. In other words; seeing as how Christians
all share in Christ's blood equally-- and deserve Hell equally --then everyone
should be given equal treatment at church regardless of age, gender, skin
color, intelligence, income level, nationality, what side of the tracks they live
on, or social status.

None of Christ's body parts are untouchable as if Christianity is a caste
system; nor are any expendable. God forbid that there should be some sort
of value system in a gathering of people for whom Christ suffered and died
equally for each one. That just wouldn't be right: it would be an insult to the
principles underlying The Lord's supper.

"Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying: Drink
from it, all of you." (Matt 26:27)

If Christians are all drinking from the same cup, then they should all be, at
the very least, eating the same food and not be overly concerned about
where they sit and/or who they sit next to and/or who they're seen with.
And they should also make double sure that everyone gets enough to eat
and that no one gets left out and nobody gets more than his fair share. And
they should all sit down together at the same time. I just hate it when
people don't wait for each other. Some get back to the table and start in
gulping, slurping, clattering, and clanking while others from their table are
still in line.

And they should also take into consideration the possibility that a number of
their congregation are in assistance programs like TANF and SNAP. In other
words; don't just bring enough food from home for yourself; but, if you're
able, bring enough for those among you who can't bring anything at all. And
for heaven's sake, don't bring a side dish of gourmet food along just for
yourself. Leave your special gourmet stuff at home. There's just no excuse
for flaunting your "sophistication" around church thus giving everyone the
impression that everyone else's tastes are below yours.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 15, 2021

.
• 1Cor 12:24-27 . . God has combined the members of the body and has
given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no
schism in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each
other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored,
every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of
you is a part of it.

In the beginning, Man was made in the image and likeness of God, which is
a kinship with Divinity that makes all of us equals on the human plane. It's
likely because of this equality that the Golden Rule is so appropriate.

In other words: the Golden Rule gives your fellow man the respect and
dignity that the image and likeness of God deserves. I believe the very same
principle applies to fellow members of the body of Christ.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 16, 2021

.
• 1Cor 14:1a . . Pursue charity

The Greek noun for "charity" in that command is agape (ag-ah'-pay) which,
in most cases, is a very easy kind of love to practice.

Though agape may, or may not, include the sentiments of fondness and/or
affection like the Greek word phileo (fil-eh'-o), it always exemplifies
benevolence; defined by Webster's as the disposition to do good, i.e.
kindness, consideration, generosity, courtesy, lenience, tolerance, patience,
sympathy, assistance, civility, friendliness, etc.

Agape love does no harm to its neighbor. (Rom 13:10)

In a nutshell, agape love allows us to be nice to people without particularly
liking them.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 17, 2021

.
• 1Cor 14:1b . . eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

An actual spiritual gift is an ability that comes from God, and there are quite
few of them, e.g.

The word of wisdom (1Cor 12:8)
The word of knowledge (1Cor 12:8)
Faith (1Cor 12:9)
Healing (1Cor 12:9)
Miracles (1Cor 12:10)
Prophecy (1Cor 12:10)
Distinguishing spirits (1Cor 12:10)
Languages (1Cor 12:10)
Interpreting languages (1Cor 12:10)
Helps (1Cor 12:28)
Administration (1Cor 12:28)
Ministering (Rom 12:7)
Teaching (Rom 12:7)
Encouragement (Rom 12:8)
Charity (Rom 12:8)
Leadership (Rom 12:8)
Compassion (Rom 12:8)
Evangelism (Eph 4:11)
Pastoring (Eph 4:11)

The New Testament Greek word for "prophesy" is propheteuo (prof-ate-yoo'
o) which essentially means to speak under inspiration. That definition is very
similar to the Old Testament Hebrew word for "prophet" which is nabiy'
(naw-bee'). That word describes an inspired person of either gender; e.g.
Abel was a prophet (Luke 11:50-51) Abraham was a prophet (Gen 20:7)
Moses was a prophet (Deut 18:18) Miriam was a prophet (Ex 15:20)
Deborah was a prophet (Judg 4:4) and Huldah was a prophet (2Kgs 22:14).

Inspired people need not be highly educated; for example Amos was just a
simple farm boy whom God drafted into service right out of the blue. (Amos
7:14-15)
_

Webers.Home · Jul 18, 2021

.
• 1Cor 14:13 . . anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may
interpret what he says.

If Acts 2:1-12 is the model; then a genuine Spirit-endowed tongue should be
an honest to gosh real-life language instead of incoherent blabber that's
intelligible to no one, not even the speaker.

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation
under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in
bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

. . . Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking
Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native
language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea
and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the
parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to
Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them declaring the wonders of God
in our own tongues!"

Mozart composed some amazing music; but had he not arranged the
components sensibly, it would likely grate on people's nerves instead of
entertaining them; sort of like when an orchestra verifies the pitch of its
instruments just prior to a performance. The discordant din that the
orchestra makes is a cacophony instead of a rhapsody.

"Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or
harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a
distinction in the notes?" (1Cor 14:7)

Modern tonguers typically don't compose anything pleasant to the ear. At
least if they would chirp like birds their speech would be a discernible song
instead of an unintelligible warble.

I was informed by a Charismatic friend that he prayed in a tongue because
he couldn't express his deepest feelings any other way. Mind you this was an
American adult of almost fifty years old; educated in America and spoke,
wrote, and read English-- his native language his entire life. So I asked him
how it is that his command of the English was so poor that he could only
express his thoughts in a language that not even he himself could either
identify or understand?

"If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what
shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will
sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind." (1Cor 14:13-15)

In other words: there are Christians out and about blabbering incoherently
because they choose to, rather than because they have to. With just a
simple act of their own will they could easily switch to something composed
with real words.

Why on earth would a grown-up prefer incoherent blabbering? Isn't that the
way small children communicate? Well, I can excuse small children because
they're uneducated. But shouldn't supposed educated adults be just a bit
more mature with their language and grammar than small children?

The true gift of tongues is very handy for communicating with foreigners.
But in our day and age, Charismatics typically don't communicate with
anybody, either foreign or domestic . As a result, Charismatics are looked
upon with the same disdain as the kooks that hurl themselves on the floor,
faint, scream, writhe, shout, and dance with rattlesnakes.

Well; not too many sensible people care to accommodate kooks, so if you're
serious about influencing people for Christ, I highly recommend sticking to
an intelligible language. Here in my country, English is a good choice
because most people can understand it without requiring the services of a
translator.

And for heaven's sake, please do not allow yourself to be drawn to
participating in a tongues meeting.

"So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues,
and some who do not understand, or some unbelievers come in, will they
not say that you are out of your mind?" (1Cor 14:23)
_

Webers.Home · Jul 19, 2021

.
• 1Cor 14:22a . .Tongues are for a sign

The sign isn't intended for the benefit of believers, but rather, for non
believers.

"Not to them that believe, but to them that believe not." (1Cor 14:22b)

The purpose of any tongue is communication.

"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know
what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air." (1Cor 14:9)

So if a tonguer is speaking a language nobody understands, they've actually
created a barrier to communication; viz: a regression to the tower of Babel;
and you can see for yourself how destructive that was to unity (Gen 11:1-9).
Webster's defines "regression" as: movement backward to a previous, and
especially worse or more primitive state or condition; viz: backwards
thinking.

Since tongues are for the benefit of unbelievers, then it's de facto that a
tongue should be a valid language that the unbeliever himself speaks and
understands (cf. Acts 2:4-11). Somebody who exercises a tongue for any
other reason has missed the point; and they're behaving like a little kid with
a toy.

"Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your
thinking be adults." (1Cor 14:20)
_

Webers.Home · Jul 20, 2021

.
• 1Cor 14:27-28 . . If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two,
or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if
there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him
speak to himself, and to God.

Tonguers are not permitted to speak all at the same time like a mob of
howling political protesters. One of the reasons why I get so annoyed by talk
shows like ABC's The View is because everyone talks all at once like a bunch
of undisciplined dogs barking and yapping in a kennel. And the way they
interrupt each other back and forth before the other can even finish a
sentence is one of the very things we teach children not to do. You'd think
those supposedly mature adults grew up without supervision the way they
conduct themselves in a conversation.

NO! tonguers are to take turns; speaking one at a time, rather than an
entire congregation of tonguers barking and yapping like dogs in a kennel
whenever they "feel the Spirit" moving them. And if there's no one to
interpret, tonguers are not permitted to speak at all. If Christians the world
over followed those rules, it would put the charismatics out of business right
quick.

FYI: These directives regulating the exercise of tongues in a church meeting
were written by the apostle Paul— a duly authorized agent speaking on
behalf of Christianity's Christ.

"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge
that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."
(1Cor 14:37)

Therefore, when Christians proceed to defy the rules regulating the exercise
of tongues, they are in shameful rebellion against the very lord and master
of Christianity; and yet, ironically, many tongue violators still have the
chutzpah to pass themselves off as the Lord's Spirit-filled followers.
However; a follower can be defined as someone who gets in step and/or falls
in line rather than going off-reservation to do their own thing.

"Rebellion is as the sin of divination; and insubordination is as iniquity and
idolatry." (1Sam 15:23)

"If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie,
and do not the truth" (1John 1:6)
_

Webers.Home · Jul 21, 2021

.
• 1Cor 14:29-31 . .Two, or three, prophets should speak, and everyone else
should weigh carefully what is said. If a revelation comes to someone who is
sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn
so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

Though God endows certain Spirit-selected people in church with the gift of
prophecy (1Cor 12:4-11) it is not He who endows them with the impulse to
talk out of turn. Self control is their responsibility; not His.

"The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." (1Cor 14:32)

Actual prophets channel God's thoughts; viz: they speak as the voice of God.
People with opinions don't speak as the voice of God at all; they speak as
themselves. True prophets are revelators; people with opinions are little
more than a nuisance; they muddy the waters and if not kept in check will
quickly derail a Sunday school class and drag it off onto perpetual debating
that never gets to the bottom of anything.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 22, 2021

.
• 1Cor 14:34 . . Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not
allowed to speak; but must be in submission (i.e. subordinate to the men)

It could be argued, with some merit, that this rule applies only to tongues
and prophecy; but Paul goes further with this rule in a letter to his friend
Timothy.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman
to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam
was first formed, then Eve." (1Tim 2:11-13)

It's important to note that this is neither a gender issue nor an issue related
to competence; it's an issue related to primogeniture. For that reason it's an
insubordinate act of contempt for authority when Christian women lead
Christian men in a Christian congregation.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 23, 2021

.
• 1Cor 14:34 . . Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not
allowed to speak; but must be in submission (i.e. subordinate to the men)

FAQ: Doesn't 1Cor 11:3-10 permit women to pray and/or prophecy just so
long as they cover their hair?

A: There is a gender limit to that privilege. In other words: Christian woman
are not allowed to pray and/or prophecy in the hearing of a mixed
congregation; i.e. where Christian men are present.

FAQ: What about women like Anne Graham Lotz. Is she out of order?

A: Though women aren't permitted to speak to a mixed-gender Christian
congregation, that doesn't mean they can't speak to a mixed-gender public
forum, or in the street; or in a coliseum, or in a stadium, or in a convention
center, or on radio and television.

The best place in church for women blessed with the Spirit's gift to teach for
Christ is in a women's group; and if a man should invade a women's group
led by a Spirit-gifted woman; I think he should be asked to leave.

FAQ: What about Deborah in the Old Testament book of judges? Exactly how
was she an exception to this rule, if indeed she was?

A: Things are quite a bit different now with Christ at the helm, i.e. Christ's
association with his church trumps Deborah's association with the Jews. I do
not recommend using her, or any other woman in the Bible, as an excuse to
defy Christ's edicts in matters pertaining to the governance of Christian
congregations.

Paul appealed to "the law" as the basis for 1Cor 14:34. Normally when Paul
speaks of the law he's referring to the covenant that Moses' people agreed
upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Exactly where in the covenant that women are forbidden to preach, or teach,
or usurp authority over men in matters of religion, I don't know. However,
it's quite obvious that the covenant is very sexist, i.e. women are not
permitted in either the priesthood or the Sanhedrin.

NOTE: The law doesn't always speak explicitly about certain things.
Sometimes the law's rules and procedures imply principles that we call "the
spirit of the law". Whereas anybody can parrot the law, not just anyone is
able to discern the spirit of the law. (cf. Neh 8:1-8)
_

Webers.Home · Jul 24, 2021

.
• 1Cor 14:35 . . If women have questions, they should ask their own
husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

What's an inquiring wife to do if her husband is spiritually inept? I'd suggest
that women married to spiritually inept Christian men, and/or women
married to non-Christian men, and/or unmarried women; seek assistance
from one of the ladies in church known to be somewhat of a Bible expert.

But for safety's sake, she shouldn't seek assistance from another woman's
husband; even if he's the pastor, or a deacon, or an elder; it's not only
disobedient, but that's also how rumors (and other things) get started.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 25, 2021

.
• 1Cor 14:37-38 . . If anybody thinks he's a prophet or spiritually gifted, let
him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.

If your Sunday school, or your catechism class, is being chaired by
somebody who disagrees with the Lord's commands regulating women's
subordination, or the use and abuse of tongues, and/or the speaking of
prophecy; then believe me you have a serious problem because it indicates
that your leader is humanistic rather than inspired.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 26, 2021

.
• 1Cor 14:38 . . But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

In other words: if a Bible teacher refuses to accept the apostle Paul as a duly
authorized agent speaking for Christ; then his believing followers are under
orders to ignore that person's opinion of themselves that they're a prophet
and/or spiritually gifted.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 27, 2021

.
• 1Cor 14:39 . .Therefore, brethren, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid
speaking in tongues.

That rule applies only to people who actually have the gifts of tongues
and/or prophesy because according to Rom 12:4-6, 1Cor 12:10, 1Cor
12:29-30, and 1Cor 14:5 not everyone does.

So then; it's okay to speak in a tongue, and it's okay to prophesy, but both
must be done not only according to the rules, but also with intelligence and
grown-up behavior.

"Let all things be done decorously and in proper order." (1Cor 14:40)
_

Webers.Home · Jul 28, 2021

.
• 1Cor 15:34 . . Come to your senses and stop sinning. For to your shame I
say that some of you don't have the knowledge of God.

That directive is in connection with some of the Corinthians' insistence that
dead people stay dead and never recover.

"Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do
some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (1Cor
15:12)

Apparently some of the Corinthians couldn't see that Christ's resurrection is
evidence that it's possible for dead people to recover. A measure of that
blindness exists even today among people who insist that Christ's crucified
dead body didn't recover. They insist he rose from the dead with another
body: a so-called glorified body; and some even insist that Christ returned
from the dead as a spirit being rather than a human being, and others
postulate that his post crucifixion appearances were done as an angel
disguised in a fully functioning human avatar. But if any of that were true,
then Christ's prediction at John 2:19-22 would be easily invalidated.

According to 1Cor 15:51-53 and 1Thes 4:13-17, the natural remains of
Christ's followers will first revive as they were and then be transformed into
something very wonderful during a flight up to meet the Lord in the air.

There is really no sensible reason to not believe that Christ underwent the
very same process, i.e. his crucified remains were first returned to life just
as he predicted; and then forty days later, at some point during the flight up
to heaven as per Acts 1:9, his revived mortal body underwent
transformation into an immortal superhuman body.

According to 1Cor 15:34, people who believe Christ's crucified dead body is
still dead aren't fully conscious; viz: they're like someone in a stupor; i.e.
dazed.
_

Webers.Home · Jul 29, 2021

.
• 1Cor 15:56-58 . .The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is The
Commandments; but thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our
Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing
discourage you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of The Lord,
because you know that your labor in The Lord isn't futile.

Though Mother Teresa put up a very convincing public image during those
five decades of missionary activity in India, her private letters to spiritual
counselors reveal that the poor woman was never really sure that
Christianity's God even exists; and if He did exist, she was plagued with
dread that He didn't particularly like her and might be quite disposed to
condemn her. Though she never said so in public, there were was hardly
ever a time when she didn't truly wonder if God wanted her in India in the
first place.

Had Teresa's personality not been the D-9 Caterpillar tractor that it was, I
think the celebrity nun would have given up in India after only one year. But
as anyone who knew her will vouch, Teresa wasn't a quitter; no, she was a
little bulldog, a survivor; and poverty was her dream venue. However, bull
doggedness is not what Paul is talking about in 1Cor 15:56-58; no, quite the
contrary.

Just imagine if somebody had it in the back of their mind that they might be
giving The Lord unreserved quantities of their time, talent, and resources in
a thankless endeavor only to end up being condemned anyway as per Matt
7:22-23. Well, Paul assured the Corinthians that Christ's work on the cross,
and in the grave, guaranteed that wouldn't happen to them-- their
resurrection to a better life was in the bag; therefore they needn't fear that
in the end their work for The Lord will be judged all for nothing.

Ironically; and at the time of his writing, the Corinthians were not all that
spiritual. (1Cor 3:1-3). However; though their work in The Lord was being
performed by Christians whose spirituality was basically substandard, they
were still useful; which tells me that it isn't necessary to be a super saint
before one can begin serving Christ. Just serve him as best you can and pay
no attention to your location on the curve: keeping in mind that loyalty and
reliability count more than quantity.
_

Walking With Christ

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member