Archive for August, 2009

20:24 Steps not Our Own

Sunday, August 30th, 2009

Bernard Gilpin. A broken leg saved him from death at the stake.

Bernard Gilpin. A broken leg saved him from death at the stake.

A man’s steps are of the Lord; How then can a man understand his own way?

Ken Curtis, founder of Vision Video and Christian History Institute, was once delayed in catching a train to London’s Heathrow Airport. Friends kindly drove him to his destination. This may have saved him from death or injury. The subway he was to have taken was one of those hit by suicide bombers. What seemed to be an inconvenience proved to be a blessing.

How often we read of such events. A woman misses her plane: it is involved in the terrible crash on Tinerife. Augustine of Hippo gets lost traveling to a church he has not visited before; the confusion proves God-directed—Donatists were lying in ambush for him. Bernard Gilpin breaks his leg and is unable to fulfill Queen Mary’s summons; she dies before he is able to move, and so he eludes death at the stake. Viktor Frankl misses his truck, and escapes a last-minute massacre of Jews by Germans. Perhaps we should not rail at inconveniences; sometimes they are God’s way of prolonging our lives.

Jesus knew about that. Both as an infant and as a man, God had to preserve his life from murderers, for “his time had not yet come.”

18:22 The Favor of a Wife

Sunday, August 23rd, 2009

James Gilmour grew lonely, tramping Mongolia for Christ.

James Gilmour grew lonely, tramping Mongolia for Christ.

Whoever finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord.

James Gilmour, Scottish missionary to Mongolia, felt strongly the weight of loneliness and the need of a wife. He related to a friend, “I proposed first to a Scotch girl, but found I was too late; I then put myself and the direction of this affair—I mean the finding of a wife—into God’s hands, asking Him to look me out one, a good one too; and very soon I found myself in a position to propose to Miss Prankard with all reasonable evidence that she was the right sort of girl, and with some hope that she would not disdain the offer.”

Emily Prankard was the sister of missionary friends whose portrait he had seen. Emily accepted.

The match was not foolish. As James explained to his parents, “I wrote her, and she has written me in the most unrestrained way concerning her spiritual hopes and condition, and though we have never seen each other, yet we know more of each other’s inmost life and soul than, I am quite certain, most lovers know of each other even after long personal courtship.”

She travelled to China and they were wed. Emily proved to be an ideal companion. “Without any gammon, I am much more happy than ever even in my day-dreams I ventured to imagine I might be. It is not only me that my wife pleases, but she has gained golden opinions from most of the people who have met her among my friends and acquaintances in Scotland and China…The young lady went to Scotland, and was with [my parents] two weeks, and came away having made such an impression on them that they wrote me from home to say that ‘though I searched the country for a couple years I could not have made a better choice.’”

Emily proved to be more of a soul-winner and a better linguist than James, a real helper in his work. It was a faith-marriage truly made in heaven.

Jesus also has a marriage made in heaven. His Father selected for him a bride—the church—”without spot and wrinkle” and promised “greater things than I have done, you will do.”

16:19 Humble or Haughty

Sunday, August 16th, 2009

Charles Wesley who rejected wealth.

Charles Wesley who rejected wealth.

Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

The young Charles Wesley refused a living of five hundred pounds a year, choosing to remain with those he loved. He also refused another large fortune which a lady would have given him out of spite toward relatives who had quarreled with her. His simple reply was, “It is unjust.” Advised to accept the fortune and give it to the relatives himself, Charles replied, “That is a trick of the devil; but it won’t do. I know what I am now, but I do not know what I should be if I were thus made rich.”

Considering how seldom riches go hand in hand with spiritual depth, and how often the wealthy are proud people, I cannot doubt that Charles Wesley made the right decision.

In embracing poverty for the sake of righteousness, Wesley was like his master. Christ emptied himself of everything pertaining to his Godhead (Philippians 2), and could justly speak of himself as meek and lowly (Matthew 11:28-30). He lived among the humble when his birthright and abilities might have placed him in a palace. But, like Moses, he preferred the privations of his people to the pleasures of their oppressors.

15:27 Greed’s Grim Outcome

Saturday, August 8th, 2009

Sir Francis Bacon.

Sir Francis Bacon.

He who is greedy for gain troubles his own house; but he who hates gifts shall live.

When Francis Bacon was Lord Chancellor of England, he—or at least his servants—accepted bribes from all quarters. Whether these bribes influenced Bacon’s decisions is not clear; after his disgrace he called God to witness he had been the fairest of judges. At any rate, the wealth so easily gained was also quickly dissipated, and Bacon declined into deep debt.

A commission investigated. It returned numerous counts of wrongdoing. Bacon signed a confession and King James I dismissed him in disgrace. He was forbidden ever again to hold public office. His wife having already betrayed him, and the couple being childless, Bacon had no family to suffer with him, although posterity, enamored of his scientific and philosophical writings, has often wished his practice had been more in keeping with his precepts. Bacon died alone in a mansion empty of all but a caretaker.

Christ was once offered a bribe—all the kingdoms of the world—if he would but honor Satan, and he rejected the temptation with a sharp rebuke from God’s word.

Any Christian in a position of authority—be it only authority over a child—should firmly resolve never to consult his or her interest in determining the resolution of a matter but only the justice of the case.