Philip Yancey made a good point one time:  Christians are known more for what they are against rather than what they are for.  He makes a strong case that the reverse should be true.  Things like sex, drugs, rock n' roll, fantasy and the magical have such a strong pull on people everywhere--they are universal in their appeal. Everyone loves these things; everyone, that is, except Christians.  In fact, our surrounding culture most readily identifies us by our condemnation of such things. 

But instead of exerting all our energies tirading against these things, we should be asking ourselves, "What legitimate human need are these things purporting to meet and fufill?" Now there's a constructive direction to take!  That's a line of thought we can really sink our teeth into.

How is it that Jesus could tolerate the revelry and carousing of the low-lifes he spent so much time with?  How was He able to relate so easily to the thoroughly reprobate? Or even more befuddling to me is: How was He able to tolerate the spiritual senselessness of the synagogue for thirty years of His life? I think it's because He knew how to see through those behaviors into the legitimate needs that they were trying to meet.

When the woman at the well tried to distract Jesus' attention from her own inner thirst by asking a theological question, He redirected the conversation right back to her insatiable search for a husband. His main burden was not to show her the evil of her ways (her guilt and condemnation followed her everywhere she went) but to open her eyes to the only real need that she had:  her need for Living Water.  All of her outward behavior was simply a symptom, an outward expression of a deeper malady.  She was in search for a Man who could truly love her, who would not let her down.  The sex was a means to an end.

We should do a lot more thinking along these lines.

ARCHIVES . . .

Week of May 15, 2005

Week of May 8, 2005

Week of May 1, 2005

Week of April 24, 2005