Germany Part 3 (The Evil End)

This is the final chapter. Last time, Germany had fallen in World War 1. This picks the story up from there and brings us to the evil end. 

After World War 1, the victors decided that Poland was allowed to exist. Before this, Poland had been split up between Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Germany. Austria-Hungary was split up. It became like we know today, 2 separate small nations. In fact, World War 1 was the war that for the most part created the current map of Europe. Germany's economy sunk after the war. The reparations they were asked to pay were brutal, and the leadership seemed to think that cranking up the ol' money printer was the best way out of it. So, can you say...inflation! The poor German people were made to choke on it. America stepped in with loans to Germany so they could pay Britain and France and then Britain and France paid America. Well, Germany rode that lifeline up up up, and then boom! Great depression, America pulled back sharply to deal with its own problems, and Germany was cut adrift.  Almost overnight, things reverted back to suck-Ville. Meanwhile, Russia had had a revolution, and become the Soviet Union. 

Along came a certain mustached man. What the German people saw was a man who would save them, and make Germany great again! In some ways, he did. Yet, he was also gripped by a demonically evil ideology. (I don't understand all those details of what he believed and how he got there for I never read Mein Kampf) Adolf Hitler got elected and set about restoring the economy. Then the ideology came up. All Jews were bad, in fact, anyone who wasn't a fair-skinned Anglo-Saxon was bad. Especially Jews though, they had concentration camps for them. (This is especially sad because Bismarck's Germany was a refuge for Jews fleeing antisemitism.) Then there was the revenge part. There was a desire to do World War 1 again but this time, win! Japan and Italy had both felt they got raw deals from World War 1 as well, so they were the allies this go around. 

Hitler started out by annexing part of Czechoslovakia, and Austria. (Austria's leadership essentially handed him the keys to their country!) He also signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. Germany has always been working hard on their military, equipment, logistics, and tactics. They developed a military advance strategy called Blitzkrieg. When they unveiled Blitzkrieg in Poland, it was a beatdown. They took back "their" part of Poland and let the Soviet Union have "theirs" back as well because they invaded from the other side. Ultimately, in Europe, this was a straightforward war. Germany had such power and speed, that what they wanted they took. The countries that were ultimately conquered by them were many. So I will focus on a few "lowlights" and the ultimate demise. 

A constant theme throughout this series has been Germany's continual advance and France's continual stagnation. Germany had come up with a lot of new tactics under the realm of "blitzkrieg". France was still in World War 1 mode. They and Britain sought to defend the border. They didn't bother putting much effort into defending the Ardenne Forest region though, because no one could get through the Ardennes. Germany blitzed through it anyway. They punched a wedge of soldiers into the defensive line and separated the British and French. The British escaped back to their island, and France fell. For the second time in 80 years, Germany took Paris. 

I don't understand Blitzkrieg, but, it involved a very coordinated attack of infantry, backed by the latest and greatest tanks, and air support. It was designed to avoid trench warfare. Germany needed quick victories, not wars of attrition. Attrition and time in a war favored the British who were able to move soldiers and resources in from their holdings and friends like America. This blitzkrieg method worked in France. So Britain stood alone. Defiant, unbeaten but hard against it because the Soviet Union and Germany were still allies. Germany had to squash Britain somehow. They threw their air force against it, but to no avail, Britain survived. Another hat tip to the British. Once again, they held the line. In the First World War, they held the French trench, in the second, they held their island. This would be very important later.

Hitler made the decision that cost him everything. He attacked the Soviets. The blitz went deep into Russian territory but finally ground to a halt just before Moscow. Winter came and the soviets began to regroup with their huge reserves of manpower. Remember how Britain held their Island? America decided that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and opted to help the soviets. They began to ship the Soviets materials to fight with and then mass soldiers on the British Island. When the time was right they stormed into France and Italy. Germany, the world's most powerful nation (militarily wise) was overstretched. They fell back on 3 fronts. In the south, the British led an American/British invasion of  Italy. (Germany had been holding Italy when the regime fell. ) In the west, America led an American/British invasion of German-held France. In the east, the Soviets began to push back. All in all now is a good chance to drop in another quote from Bismarck, he said back in his day, 

"The Americans are truly a lucky people. They are bordered to the north and south by weak neighbors and to the east and west by fish."

Ultimately, Germany fell. The west was given to the western powers. The east was given to the Soviet Union. Berlin was divided into 2 zones. Germany ceased to exist for over 40 years.  Germany had strong neighbors, and this hurt it. This is something America didn't have to face after 1850. Still, Germany ended up being the victim of her own war in the end. 

Otto Von Bismarck had led the unification and creation of a powerful nation, but in 2 generations, through incompetence and evil, the men who came after managed to destroy it entirely. Otto had a clear vision. He wanted a united German nation. The greed, incompetence, and racism that came after ultimately destroyed it completely. Germany was built on the foundation of war and conquest. This was also how it died.

-Loren

Germany Part 2 (Germany's Downfall)

Last time we discussed the rise of Germany. A lot of details were left out, but I'm not sure how else to keep it concise. We left the story around 1900 or so. If you haven't read part 1. Click on this first before continuing with Part 2.  As we go along, I would like the reader to know that I don't want to portray Germany as being "the good guy." I really don't believe any nation should be so militaristic and cruel as Germany was here. Yet, it's hard to say that they were much if any worse than most of the other nations who were actively attacking in this war. 

Bismarck was fired by the new young king. Before he left, he had a complex system of alliances. This protected Germany from the type of situations you will soon read about. The new young king never learned this, and whoever he surrounded himself with didn't either. There was unrest throughout Europe. In 1914 a prince from Austria-Hungary was assassinated by a Serbian. There was lots of bad feeling between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. They were apt to go at it at any moment, and this was merely the tipping point. Perhaps in the future, I will write a series on World War 1, but for now, I'm going to keep it tight, because this is about Germany. 

2 things that were particularly alarming about Europe now that pertain to this situation. 1. It seemed like everyone in Europe was greedy and spoiling for a fight. 2. The alliances were alarming if things escalated. Let's try to work through this. Serbia and Russia were allies. Russia and France were allies. Britain had guaranteed Belgium that it would protect Belgium's neutrality. Germany and Austria-Hungary were allies as well. So let's blow it up, here's how it became the great European war. Serbia assassinated Austria-Hungary's prince. Germany agreed to back Austria-Hungary up if they sought to get "justice". Russia agreed to protect Serbia from Austria-Hungary. This immediately puts us in a situation where Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Serbia are at war. 

Germany's war strategy was thought out with the knowledge that they were in a desperate predicament, being stuck between Russia and France. Both were planning to attack them because France was going to help Russia. Germany decided to invade France and quickly knock them out before Russia had time to get going, and then turn and face Russia. France had great border defenses along the border they shared with Germany. Germany bypassed this border and invaded Belgium, and then into France from Belgium. The problem was, Belgium didn't cooperate. They saw it as an invasion and fought it. This brought Britain into the war on the side of France and Belgium. Germany advanced to about 20 miles from Paris and both sides tried to outflank each other, they dug trenches running from the English Channel to Switzerland and sat in a state of trench warfare for the rest of the war on that front. Hat tip to the British. The situation got so dire in France that their army mutinied and looked like they would lose to Germany again, but the Brits held the line for them. Germany also was unaware that France had mutinied and so didn't press their advantage. 

Russia mobilized and Germany's worst fear was realized. They had to hold their ground in France while beating back the Russians. They actually beat Russia. Partly by being way better militarily and because they helped Lenin get into Russia. Lenin started the revolution that created the Soviet Union. Germany also tried to attack various points of the British Empire in Africa and possibly a few other places to draw Britain away from France. Austria-Hungary really struggled, not only did they have Serbia, Italy attacked them, and so did Russia. Germany had to bail them out at various points. Germany talked the Ottoman Empire into coming in on their side, but the Ottomans were weak and not much help. Ultimately, Germany had a real chance of winning the war when they knocked Russia out, but, America came in.

America bankrolled Britain's war efforts. America got rich by continually building goods and sending them to British Canada for distribution and loaning money. This protected Britain from the financial ruin Germany was facing.  Germany got desperate and used their submarines to sink merchant ships. One time they sunk a passenger ship called the Lusitania, and many civilians, including Americans, died. American sentiment was turned against the Germans. They kept bankrolling Britain, but Woodrow Wilson the president kept saying that all parties should sit down and work out an equitable deal for everyone. When Germany tried to talk Mexico into attacking America to distract them from the British support, their telegram was intercepted and given to the Americans. So it was that about the time that Germany had knocked Russia out and was prepared to mass her troops to deliver the knockout blow to France, fresh well equipped Americans arrived in France and held the line. 

Germany remembered Wilson's talk of a fair deal and asked America for a truce. America entered talks with Britain and France. America listened to their sob story and believed it. In short, Germany was told to not only give up a lot of territories, but to disarm, she and her allies were to take responsibility for the whole war, and Germany was to pay an outrageous sum to the others for the damages incurred. Germany protested vehemently. They were told to sign or expect to be attacked. Since America now tipped the scale against them, Germany signed. Germany was awful in this war, but so was everyone else. Germany was never conquered in this war. She had fallen and even been beaten, but not vanquished. The people were angry. The stage was set for a radical to sway the populace, and for a dark menace to take hold. Germany would recover, Germany would rebuild, and then all these people would rue the day! All the German soldiers went home that day, and many were bitter and angry. For now, though they had lives to rebuild. One young Austrian-born German was especially angry, he survived the war, but he was obscure. One day everyone would know his name. It was Adolf Hitler.

Ferdinand Foch, the leader of French, British, and American troops saw the penalties on Germany as being too lenient. He feared that if Germany were not completely vanquished then there would be a problem in the future, he said, “This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years!” He was right. The deal was harsh enough to anger Germany, but not harsh enough to break them. I see now with how long this has gotten that there will need to be a part 3, let's call it "The Evil End."

-Loren 

Germany Part 1 (Germany's Rise)

 Ah, Germany... What a fascinating country. It burst onto the world stage in the 1870s as the world's most powerful nation, and then was deemed too dangerous to exist and wiped out again in the 1940s. It was rebirthed again in 1990 and is once again one of the most powerful countries in Europe.  From my American point of view, I knew very little of Germany's history. I knew that the Hessians in the American Revolution were somehow German. I knew that Martin Luther was German. I knew they were very naughty in World war 2 but that was about it. So, I did some digging. What follows is what I learned. If you enjoy history, you might enjoy this blog. If you don't and were looking for another spiritual-minded one, now's your chance to exit. 

Ok, now let's get into it. In the 900s, an empire of sorts was formed. It was called the Holy Roman Empire. It occupied the areas that we know as Germany today. It was a loose collection of little nations who spoke German and agreed on a few things. Martin Luther would have been born in one of those little countries. The Hessians who were in the American Revolution? Britain hired mercenaries from one of these little nations, and those mercenaries were the Hessians. So, we had Germans, but no Germany. This is how things stood until about 1808 when Napoleon saw this empire as neither Holy, Roman, nor much of an Empire. He conquered it and made the whole area his puppet until enough people ganged up on him to beat him. After Napoleon was gone, the little countries remained in a sort of loose alliance situation similar to how they were before him. They called themselves the German Confederation. This brings us to the 1815-1860 range time-wise. Speaking very broadly, because there were many differences, there is one notable difference of interest between the little German states before and after Napoleon. That difference is Prussia. Prussia was now a member of the confederation, it was an independent power before. 

Prussia was a big deal. True, they had also been conquered by Napoleon, but, Prussia was possibly the 3rd most powerful nation in Europe after France and Britain. In the 7 Years' War (1756-1763) they held their own against the combined forces of Austria and Russia. So, now to get back on track. We are in 1815. There is no Germany, but, there is a collection of little nations that speak German and agree to work together. 2 of those little nations are vying to be the 3rd most powerful nation in Europe. They are Austria and Prussia. These 2 might not really count as "little". Gradually, the concept of a united German nation begins to become more and more popular. In 1862 a couple of very important things happened. Otto Von Bismarck was appointed minister-president and then foreign minister of Prussia. Ultimately he was both president and overseer of foreign affairs. He answered to the Kaiser, or King as we are used to saying in English. Bismarck was a brash and bold sort but with diplomatic genius, he set about creating a plan that would unite the German-speaking peoples. What happens next is a tad complicated, and I'm not sure I understand it all, but somehow, this all called for war, 3 of them.

There were 2 small German states, held by Denmark. Bismarck convinced Austria to help Prussia get them. They split the 2 states, one went to Prussia, and the other to Austria. Both of these states were in the north. Remember this for what happens next. This all happened in 1864. Bismarck had managed to defeat Denmark very quickly, get exactly what he wanted, but then restrain himself from vanquishing the entire country. He also managed to keep anyone from aiding Denmark through diplomacy. 

2 years go by, and during this time tension builds between Austria and Prussia. A desire exists to be the leader amongst the small German states. There can only be one. It's 1866, and Prussia goes to war against Austria. Once again, Bismark pulled a masterstroke and talked others like France into sitting this out, he diplomatically isolated Austria and cut a deal with Italy. They invaded from the south, and he invaded from the north. Prussia had done lots of hard work on their equipment, their strategy, and their logistics. It was a one-sided beatdown again. In fact, this was so short, barely over a month, that it was called the seven weeks war by some. In the aftermath, Austria was made to sign that basically, they wouldn't interfere with Prussia's doings and that the little state Prussia gave to them from Denmark would now be given back to Prussia. Also, Prussia took a couple of other states from Austria.

With these spoils, and with the little states allied to them, Prussia assembled a country, called the North German Confederation. This was now a big German nation, it looked a lot like Germany, but not quite yet. Now, again, Bismarck left Austria intact, he stood against the King of Prussia, who had wanted to march on, and conquer. Bismarck convinced him not to do so. The King of Prussia is now the king of the new German Confederation that Bismarck has just formed. Bismarck sought a quick resolution, a peace that would allow for friendly terms with Austria again. If Austria can be persuaded to be friendly with Prussia, then they probably will not attack Prussia when it is facing off with a giant. Bismarck knew, that eventually, his brand new nation, which he had worked so hard for and even gotten shot for (There was an attempted assassination, but amazingly the bullets seemed to just bounce off his ribs, a miracle? Perhaps.) would have to face off against this giant to fully solidify its status as the great German Empire of Europe. There were still small German states who had not seen the need to join this endeavor, they were bordered by the giant. This giant was France. Everyone was afraid of France. That is, everyone except Bismark. 

So, there are small German states that live next to France and south of the North German Confederation. These small German states should join, but there is reason to believe they don't want to. Should he conquer them? No, that would lead to bad feelings, and then his new nation might have a civil war. Bismarck doesn't want a civil war in his new country. No, these little nations need to be incentivized. If they were convinced that France was out to get them, who would they run to for salvation? Why, I'm glad you asked, the North German Confederation of course! France was already deeply troubled by the rise of this new country. They had bad feelings about this and were starting to saber rattle. Things needed to transpire in such a way that France acted aggressively, and the small nations asked Bismarck for help. Not in such a way that Bismarck would be aggressive and cause the small nations to ask France for help. Bismarck waited for his opportunity. It came when the King of the German Confederation had a meeting with the French ambassador and told Bismarck what France was demanding. Bismarck released a statement to the public that somehow managed to make German peoples feel that their king was disrespected and made the French turn absolutely red-hot mad. I'm not sure what the statement was, but now, France was planning to march straight into Germany and march into Berlin to shut them down. (Berlin was Prussia's capital this entire time.) Their army was led by the emperor Napoleon III and was stuck in the past. (We are in the 1870s now.) Prussia has continually improved its artillery, troop deployments, logistics, etc. 

The neutral German states come calling for help as Bismarck thought they would. He mixes their soldiers with the Prussians so that they are marching as a united German mass. As things turn out, France put up a better fight than Austria, but not as good a fight as predicted. German forces captured  Napoleon III and his entire army, then put Paris under siege. The population was in disbelief and kept trying to deploy reserves, new recruits, and even hot air balloons. (The hot air balloons were to attempt to reach Britain and plead for help.) When they were eating the elephant from the zoo and trying to decide what else from the zoo could be eaten, they finally surrendered. Germany marched into Paris. They drew up some papers. All parties signed, and when the dust settled, all the little German-speaking nations who were in the Holy Roman Empire (except Austria & Switzerland) were part of a brand new nation called the German Empire. Each one had given up their independence, and individual identity to be part of something huge. The year is 1871, and Prussia has voluntarily ceased to exist as a nation, they are now a state inside Germany, and they have replaced themselves with this powerful new empire. France was in shambles. Germany had taken the german speaking nations that they had held control over away. The neutrals had come along because they wanted to. France was required to make payments to Germany. Germany did send food to Paris, and they did give France their country back. France was humiliated and vowed that someday, somehow, and some way, they. would. get. their. revenge! Meanwhile, Germany was at its peak! America was still recovering from her self-destruction attempt known as the American Civil War, and Russia was hopelessly behind the times and low-tech. Britain had a big empire and navy, but not much of an army. So Germany stood tall as the most powerful nation in the world. The king of Prussia is now the king of Germany. 

I don't wish to leave you with the impression that Bismarck was a man of great and upstanding character. I don't think he was. However, he was very gifted in diplomacy and achieved a great thing by simply locking into a goal, and was never distracted from it. He was involved in 3 wars, yet he was never drawn into a war that hindered the goal. Otto Von Bismarck spent the next 19 years working towards protecting his new country. He was more interested in strategic alliances and protecting what he had than he was in conquering. After all, Denmark, Austria, and France were still allowed to exist. The old king had given Bismarck free reign to do his job, but the day came when a new young king replaced the old one and with an eye for expansion, and a desire to make Germany bigger, decided he knew better than Bismarck and fired him. Otto had built something amazing, but the young king didn't appreciate it. How long would Germany be the world's most powerful nation? What if France and Russia attacked Germany at the same time? Bismarck had carefully thought through those things and established agreements to protect against such things. Now, what would happen? Would Germany stay the course? No, no she wouldn't. This was Germany's Rise. The next part will be Germany's Downfall. 

I will close this off with a quote from Bismarck. “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” This was stated in 1888, and in 1898, he died. In 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in the Balkans. This lit a match and all of Europe then eventually the world went off in the powder keg known as World War 1. 

World War 1

World War 2

-Loren

A Letter From a Brother (Chapter 4: Who Decides Who "James" Is?)

He had a quiet life growing up on the family farm in Yorkshire. Then there was leaving home at age 16 and working in a grocery. In his spare time, he studied geometry and math. After 18 months, he had enough of selling groceries. He decided to apprentice with a merchant navy company. His rise was swift, he showed a talent for the sailor's life. It was time for him to become a captain. Instead, he switched to the Royal Navy and started over from the bottom. Very quickly, his merchant ship skills got him up the ranks in the military shipping side. After displaying great surveying and sailing skill in the 7 Years' War (French and Indian war if your history knowledge is primarily American) he was selected for a scientific voyage...

This brings us to 1768. A 39-year-old James Cook, devoted and loyal to his wife, and a man of upstanding character says goodbye to his family and friends and sails around the world. This is a ship, made of wood, and powered by wind. Only traveling 4-5 mph. This trip takes him over 3 years to complete. He lands in Tahiti and sets up an observatory for the British Empire. He scouts out areas around Australia and New Zealand. On this voyage his character is notable. He has respect for the natives he meets and treats them as human beings and urges his crew to do the same. He cares deeply about his crew and puts them first in his decision-making process. He also follows orders faithfully and takes care of the ship and all the other equipment entrusted to him. This gives him a reputation as a man to trust to explore the world. He is probably a little put off by the way the pacific islanders worship him, they think he's a god. However, he lets them do so. 

He is hired for a second voyage. This time he is tasked with discovering whether Antarctica has a useful landmass. He finds there isn't one. What's notable about this trip is that he sails further south than any man has sailed before. His personal desire for glory is beginning to influence his decision process. On the first voyage, he had a job to do and did it masterfully, but on this voyage, he strains his crew and there are whisperings of a mutiny. He is no longer perturbed by the worship and adoration he gets from the natives at various stops. Now, he begins to see the pacific region of the world as his kingdom. Of all the islands, New Zealand is his favorite. He returns home and retires from sailing. It's time for a job that lets him stay with the family. 

James is now pushing 50. He hears that there is a search planned for a northwestern passage. He leans on his political connections and gets himself installed as the captain. A big difference this time though, he doesn't spend time at the shipyard making sure the ship is ready. This is a glory tour for him. He desires to erase certain other explorers from the history books. There is a personal need for glory for himself. On this trip, he discovers Hawaii. He doesn't stay too long though, he sails on north probing around for a passage along the Alaska coast region. The American Revolution is raging, but he's oblivious to it, still looking for the passage. Finally, when cold weather comes, he returns to Hawaii for the winter. He intends to return to Alaska next spring. Unknown to him, he will never see Alaska, England, or his family again. You see, on this trip, he seemed to actually believe he was a god. he sorely abused his men, did unspeakably cruel things to various natives he met on this trip, and was in general, the polar opposite of who he was on the first voyage. He overstayed his welcome at different points, and in Hawaii in particular, the natives began to realize that he was very much a man and an ill-tempered one at that. So, when a native from Hawaii stole something from him, he kidnapped one of the chiefs. He marched him to the beach, intending to take him on a ship as a hostage. However, others came to rescue their chief, they had knives, James shot, then turned to bark an order to his crew, but with his back to the natives temporarily, that's when the stabbing started. 

The "god of the Pacific" died in the sand that day just like any other man. He started out as a "nobody" from a Yorkshire farm, but he rose through the classes and became an esteemed member of the British upper class. When he took his expensive English toys to the Pacific, the natives thought he was a god and worshipped him. He read his press and what the natives thought of him and began to believe it. He got himself killed and hacked to pieces by people he thought of as his inferiors. The natives kept most of his body but returned a few parts to the ship so that they could give him an English funeral. 

Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted: But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away. For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways. James 1:9-11

There are 2 realities. 1 reality is what God says. The other reality is what you experience. Never let your experience define your idea of who you are. Only let what God says define who you are. Before God, we are all sons or daughters. We are all His if we believe. Also, God's reality is where eternity is found, so no death in that reality. 

Let's look at this through the lens of James Cook, if he were a believer, understanding his identity from God, it would have been like this: Paragraph 1: James Cook, a son of God. 2: James Cook, a son of God. 3: James Cook, a son of God. 4: James Cook, a son of God. 5: James Cook, a son of God.

Now, let's see what his perceived identity looks like through the lens of his circumstances. Paragraph 1: A nobody from the lower classes, good sailor though. 2: The world's best captain. 3: The world's greatest explorer. 4: The god of the Pacific. 5: A nobody again, but now, a dead and mutilated nobody as well.  

In this life, the rich die. The poor die. Both came with and leave with nothing, so, in that sense they are equal. Yet, during life, we tend to think they are different in value. In God's sight, they aren't. It's time to agree with God. He's right. 

Source Material: Farther Than Any Man -Martin Dugard

-Loren

A Letter From a Brother (Chapter 3: A Rant About Wisdom and Some Other Things)

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. -James 1:5-8 

Now, I'm sure there are many clever theologians out there who can take those verses and unpack them in some wonderful flowery way that will make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside...but, unfortunately, I don't have guest writers, so you'll just have to stop reading or put up with what I got out of it, and I misplaced my warm fuzzy unpacker, I do have a hammer though... 😁

Wisdom...do you lack it? What is it? Well, the word used in this text has 2 kinds of wisdom in its definition. 1. The intelligence and knowledge that is known to humans. 2. The supreme intelligence that God has. What if wisdom involves knowing what you are about? For example, there was an old man. The old man was timid, but God got a hold of him. He had no military experience, yet he led a revolution. Well kind of, there wasn't really a war involved like you'd think of normally. An oppressed people group in Egypt was set free. Not because of any cunning military strategy or sophisticated negotiation by the old man. The people group was freed because the old man knew what he was about. He was about the business of hearing God, speaking what he heard and waving his rod.  So there came a time when Moses stood before the sea with a pursuing Egyptian army behind, and rock walls on both sides, but no boats in sight....now what? Well, he could choose between 2 kinds of wisdom. Human wisdom would be to develop the knowledge and intelligence needed to navigate this sea. Which might work if Moses had the time. Yet, there was another kind. The kind of supreme intelligence that only God has. So, how to tap into that? By simply asking God, speaking what he heard, and moving his rod accordingly. 

What does it mean to know what you are about? Well, the way I'm using it and thinking of it is. To understand who God created you to be, and then to simply be willing to be that person. This is not to say that you should never seek to learn and grow. Rather, simply pursuing wisdom without asking God for it like James said to do is skipping the most important step. So, slow down, if you don't have time to talk to God, to understand from Him why you are here and what you should be going after, you're too busy. Once God shows you what you are about. Defined as, understanding why you are where you are and who you are called to be in that space. Then, and only then, should you be seeking out the self-improvement needed to be that person. Are you called into business? Then learn about all the things about running a business the way God would run it. The church? Learn about why God created the church, and how to serve her the way He would serve her if He were you. Or to put a finer point on it, in both cases, let God live through you. 

When you ask God for wisdom, believe that it will happen. It's that simple. Vacillating back and forth, casting about, and staying busy with mindless activities to fill that emptiness is such a waste of energy, it's like rolling back and forth with the wind, like a mindless wave. It's like the college student who starts half a dozen things but never gets a degree in anything. That emptiness is probably just the place that the "purpose piece" plugs into. God holds that, and He will install it. Please don't waste God's resources both physical things like money and non-physical things like time trying to buy purpose. It will never happen that way. There is absolutely nothing on this earth that a born-again believer can possibly do to increase his value in God's eyes. There is absolutely nothing on this earth that a born-again believer can possibly do to decrease his value in God's eyes. The things of this earth will all pass, they are temporary means to an end whether good or evil is up to you. Seek purpose from the Lord, then the thing He has entrusted you with will be turned towards a Godly end. 

In summary: 

We are too busy knowing everything to have time for God's wisdom. It's really quite pitiful. 

Don't trust the world's idea of worth. The world thinks your worth is the temporary tools at your disposal. That's dumb. Your worth is your identity. Who you are in Christ. That's eternal. If you are born again, then you are eternally a son or a daughter of God. You can literally live in eternity! You are not an animal or a machine. YOu have a divine stamp or likeness to the One who created all the good things. 

Don't trust the world's idea of good or evil. It's based on man's conscience of right and wrong, moral outrage, and political correctness which can agree with God on some level but is often desperately flawed. Especially the last one, there shouldn't be a political element to correctness for crying out loud. Good and evil are actually very very simple. Any act that obeys God is good. Any act that disobeys God is evil. 

Seeking the wisdom from God like James talked about to me is like this: Ask God for your purpose, ie, your reason for being here and who He created you to be while here, then you will know what you are about. After that, be obedient to what you are about. That will be obedience to God, therefore wise, and good. 

Did I mention that we are too busy to have any time for God's wisdom? Both in our worldly pursuits and in doing God's things our way. 

Whenever in this rambling article that hopefully wasn't too much of a diatribe I wrote the word "you," I was talking to myself. Thanks for following along. If you want to ask me clarifying questions, you may, but, I might not understand what I wrote either, perhaps we can figure it out together. 😊

This has been a rather public address to a trained expert in various forms of foolishness by the same trained expert in various forms of foolishness.

-Loren

A Letter From a Brother (Chapter 2: Problems, Bad...or Not?)

 The young war correspondent was covering the Boer war in 1899. He was riding an armored train with British soldiers. Suddenly, the train was attacked and derailed by the Boers! The correspondent had great leadership qualities, he seized the moment and began escorting soldiers to a path of escape. Unfortunately, not all escaped, and the young correspondent was also captured.  He hated being a POW. So, one dark night, with no knowledge of the language, no map, and only "four slabs of melting chocolate and a crumbling biscuit" he made a run for it, climbed the fence and disappeared into the South-African bush. By day, he hid, by night, he traveled, and stole food. Finally, the hunger was too much, so, he knocked on a random door. He didn't know whether the man was a friend or foe, but his situation looked hopeless, and he had nothing to lose. It was a friend. A fellow brit who hid him and helped him get back to a safe zone. 

 It's 1915, our war correspondent is now the British Lord of the Admiralty, and World War 1 is raging. The naval officer has a bold plan. It was to send enough ships to the far east, seize Constantinople and bring more pressure to bear on the Central powers in a new front. This would take some pressure off the French front, in theory. In reality, it was a total disaster! 45'000 allied troops died! The officer took the brunt of the blame and was practically forced to resign. Now, his political career looked hopeless. 

 It's 1940, and our naval officer is now the prime minister! Unfortunately, it's also World War 2. The Nazi machine seems unstoppable. France has ceased to exist. The British troops had to beat a hasty retreat out of Dunkirk. What of the Soviets? Why, right now, they are friendly with this menace! The Americans? They are sitting on their hands, and you can't depend on them. No, this is 1940. France is no more. Poland is no more. Norway is no more. Austria is no more. Britain stands alone, facing a monster just across the channel. The situation does look hopeless. Yet, this man has seen and lived in hopeless situations before. It's time for another speech to the parliament. With all this as his backdrop, what can he say? Well, he said quite a bit, but here are the closing remarks, "...Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour." -Winston Churchill. 

So, are bad things bad? Well, what did James say? 

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. -James 1:1-4 

When you encounter a problem. No matter what that problem is, embrace it! Don't do the normal human thing of running from it, of becoming depressed, despondent, etc. Instead, give the problem to God, then hang onto God, and ride this out. "Divers temptations" pretty much literally means all sorts of trouble. Now then, while the problem runs its course, your faith will be tested. Will God be God for me or not? Do I believe in God? Do my circumstances define who God is? Yes, Yes, and No. God is God, present circumstances are real but not more so than eternal reality. Believe in that unseen reality. God has the problem solved out there somewhere in the future. In that future, God is solving that problem. You meanwhile are in the present. Believe in that future, even if you might not like the how of the solution. 

As your faith is tested, and the tests are passed. A strange thing happens, it's called patience, what is patience? I think patience is that supernatural ability to relax while being shipwrecked emotionally or physically. In this context, what James wrote means something like, an enduring/constant steadfastness. For example, you might be sitting on an island surrounded by salt water and sand. Feeling quite alone, and seeing no land of any substance anywhere. Yet, you relax and enjoy the sun, because somewhere out there in a future that is just as real as your present circumstance, there is God, and He is working on your solution. That ability to relax and wait for the future to come, that is patience.

 When I say God is solving ALL problems I am not espousing a word of faith teaching. Word of faith teaching claims that future solutions will all be brought into our circumstances in this life. In reality, some of the solutions are, and yet, at other times, the solutions are in another realm waiting for us to enter that realm. That last one is hard to accept at times I know, yet, it is still a solution. 

One more powerful concept from James. Faith tested, patience has come, and now what? Let patience finish working its way through you. It's a gift from God, as patience completes her work in your heart, you become complete as well. Let's think about the shipwrecked person. May I ask you, all things being equal, who will make better decisions about how to find food, water, and a boat, the patient one who is relaxed, at peace, and calm? Or the one who is losing his mind with anxiety and panic?  Oftentimes, God will use the gifts he's given us along with the newfound patience he's given us as how He gives us the solution. In doing this, He gives us yet another gift, the sense that we were part of it. The sense that we were literally able to partner with God in overcoming an obstacle. I personally am experiencing this right now with some health niggles. Once that's complete, perhaps I will write a blog entitled, "How God and I Fixed my Health." 

Yet, even if God decides to employ a miracle to solve your problem and you have nothing to do with it, this newfound peace and calm will bring you closer to being that complete disciple who acts like Christ when he's surprised. To me, that's what it would mean to be perfect and entire, a person who naturally is made in such a way that he or she conducts him or herself the way Christ would in his or her situation without having to think about it. 

Money and The Kingdom: To Save for the Day of Redemption

Disclaimer: The financial teaching below is what I believe to be true and accurate, biblically speaking. It should not be read like a "how to be a millionaire". It's also not whatcha call prosperity gospel, that stuff isn't really gospel to my way of thinking. The real reason for this disclaimer is, as of 2022, 1. I am not a millionaire, and 2. I am not able to give as much to the Kingdom as I want to. So, what follows is not so much a way I am teaching you to live as it is a way that I intend to live. I will lay this out fairly methodically and thoughtfully for my benefit and will do so publicly for your benefit. (Hopefully! :D) Check back in 2042 and we shall see how this went. :)

Here we are, to finally account for the last 40% of God's money from His money maker for you. (Say that 3 times fast.) What is it for? Simply to spend on all those things that do not fit within the monthly. These "things" fit into 3 categories. Here they are:

1. Reserves. There is a benefit to having cash on hand. You never know when the air conditioner might go catawampus. Also, unfortunately, a large percentage of the population drives GM products, if that's you, start a fund for a new: engine, transmission, wiring harness, and maybe even a Ford logo. (I kid, I kid.) Well, you get the point, reserves serve as a big beautiful border wall between you and Mexi....er debt. That's right, reserves can protect you from debt. When there is an emergency, it's hard to shop for a good interest rate. With reserves, you don't have to think about such things, just fix the AC! 

2. Investments. There are places to spend money that will generally increase in value. Property, precious metals, stocks, business ventures, etc. All these things carry their own level of risk when it goes wrong and rewards when it goes right. 

3. Living Costs. These are things that really don't increase in value. For example, new vehicles, big boy toys, and ultimately, anything that doesn't fit in the monthly 40%

So, all that is pretty straightforward, I doubt I said anything you didn't already know. I want to make this point. If it is actually God's money, then I would say that every time a decision is made on which of the 3 directions to go, there should be a long and earnest conversation with God and if applicable, your spouse. I don't want to tell you how to divvy this out. I just want to impress on you that it's God's and He should have first dibs on the decision.

So wrapping this up then.  20% is given away. 40% is spent every month. 40% is saved in our scenario. This equals 100% of the resources God has blessed you with. However, this is not the point. The point is this: 

1. Identify that the funds we earn are actually given by God to meet our needs. 

2. See that our work is ultimately a for-profit ministry. No less important than a non-profit ministry. 

3. Take this ministry very seriously, and intentionally acknowledge the 3 basic ways to make money "go away." 

4. Ask God to inform or guide you on how much goes towards each of the 3 directions and plan your financial roadmap accordingly. For you that might be 10 90 10. Or 50 20 30. You get the idea. I don't expect this to be the same for everyone. 

Recommended Reading (Also available on audible.)

A Letter From a Brother (Chapter 1: Reunion Through Martyrdom)

 For nearly 30 years his older brother was just an older brother to him. He was always kind, a good example, and a good person to work with. A good Jew. However, other than the fact that he was always kind and never did anything wrong, he was simply an older brother. 

 When his older brother turned 30, the world changed. His older brother went to see John the Baptist and got baptized. Then, he disappeared, for over a month. He came home, dirty, worn out, and starving. That's not all, something changed, and he stopped being the normal safe person. He began to preach, and caused trouble, he collected a motley crew of rough men and called them his disciples. He insulted the religious leaders. Eventually, this caught up with him, and he was crucified. So went the perspective of Jesus' little brother, James, a devout and holy Jew. 

 Until one day...after Jesus had been crucified, he appeared to James. (1 Corinthians 15:7) Then James understood. This wasn't just the older brother him, this was The Him, Messiah, Lord. The older brother of anyone who believes. James understood on that day and James believed.   

 James went on to become James the Just. A devoted Jew who also believed in the Messiah. He became a strong leader in the church in Jerusalem. Why "the Just"? Probably because he was noted for his own personal holiness and fairness in his dealings with others. He remained Jewish and kept most if not all of those Jewish customs that did not interfere with a belief in Christ as the ultimate Saviour for all sin. 

James followed the customs and held the hearts of the Jewish people in Jerusalem. As a result, he was able to lead many to Christ. James was a tremendous prayer warrior and spent hours on his knees, talking to his Brother.

 There was a controversy. Apostles were teaching gentiles about Jesus. So, the question was, how Jewish should the gentiles be? Well...there were the apostles who believed in the saving power of Christ that transcends the law, the most outspoken of them would have been Paul, Barnabas, and Peter. Yet, there were also all the good pious Jews of Jerusalem. Many of them said, no, circumcision and the law of Moses must be followed. The most pious Jew of all sat there and listened as the talks went on and on and on. Finally, after everyone who wished to had a chance to speak. James stood, and all eyes turned toward him. What would he say? He said, "We should not make it difficult for the gentiles who are turning to God." We should just write them to avoid eating meat offered to idols, avoid sexual immorality, avoid meat from strangled animals, and avoid drinking blood." This was settled on, all agreed and it seemed good to the Holy Spirit as well. (Acts 15:1-35) 

 Eventually, like it has done for nearly all mankind, death found James. Here is how it happened: The Pharisees were really wishing to shut the "Jesus thing" down in Jerusalem. So, who was a respected Jewish leader that had the hearts of a vast multitude of Jews? Why James of course. So, they led him to the pinnacle of the temple and asked him to persuade the multitude to not be led astray by Jesus. (The multitudes were there for Passover.) James responded, "Why do you ask me about Jesus the son of man? Why right now he is sitting at the right hand of God Almighty, and He is about to come down out of the clouds again!" The people went wild, James had their attention, and they began chanting, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" Unfortunately, the Pharisees were unhappy, and yelled, "Oh no, the just man is also in error!" They charged up the pinnacle and threw James down! The fall didn't finish him, so, he simply began to pray, "Lord, I entreat you to forgive them for they don't know what they are doing..." That's when the rocks and clubbing started, and that was the end, but only in this life. Throughout his life, he had prayed so much in a posture of kneeling that his knees were the same hardness and texture as a camel's! It seems so fitting that it was in that posture that he finally got to be reunited with his Brother again. (Source material from Hegesippus)

 So, what can be learned from James? I think he grasped a concept that so many of us are still groping for. There is a tendency among us to believe in either legalism (I will do the right things in obedience to God and pressure you to do the same.) or, libertinism. (We are saved by grace, there is no need to do anything, all our works are filthy rags.) Yet James believed in personal holiness without unhealthy concern for how others lived their life. The concern he felt would have been based on love. So, we sit at the start of my next blogging project. I want to study and unpack the epistle of James, and you can watch over my shoulder if you want... 

James 1:1-4

James 1:5-8

James 1:9-11

Religious Paradigms

This is the final chapter of Surrender to Who. We are not done in the Sermon on the Mount, and if we really strived to dig into everything Jesus said and all possible ramifications for our life on this earth, we would run out of time in this life. So, the time has come to end, but as a parting word, I want to leave you with something I believe I learned about my paradigm through this whole process. Now, when I use the word paradigm, I am defining it like this: 

Paradigm: The worldview I look through. Or, the lens through which I view the world, events, and other people. 

You see, I believe that there truly is a Godly paradigm. A paradigm that is supported by scripture, as well as by the Holy Spirit, both in the ways the Holy Spirit leads you to do the right things and the ways the Holy Spirit treats you when you don't do the right things.

To discuss a biblical paradigm, terms are needed. This presents a conundrum for me. Option 1: To wait until the right, pure, and fresh terms come along, or Option 2: To forge ahead with terms that the political world is actively desecrating on and hope that we can capture and use them in the meanings we want without getting distracted or bogged down by this world's messy politics. For better or worse, I chose Option 2, but remain willing to edit this with the right words later. I will use these terms but will try to define them in a way that makes sense in the light of God, and His words as pertains to a believer in God. So, let's unpack the terms then shall we?

We have 2 sets of opposites for a total of 4 terms. 

The first set of opposites: 

Authoritarian: This is a believer who strives to force others to live Godly lives as defined by him. After all, God's ways are the best, so it's for your own good to be forced into it if you are not willing to do it voluntarily. 

Libertarian: This is a believer who believes in a way of living a Godly life but has no interest in making you do the same. Of course, he will advocate for God's ways, but the choice is yours. He believes God's ways should only be followed voluntarily. 

The second set of opposites:

Liberal: This is a believer who is accepting of new information especially if it's a "Holy Spirit Revelation" that might contradict what God said in the Bible. He is willing to compromise on convictions and beliefs to present a more appealing gospel and win more people to Christ. God is loving and kind. 

Conservative: This is a believer who has no use for new information that contradicts what God said in the Bible. He is only open to how he might have misunderstood what God said. God is right. If you disagree, you're wrong. If you have a "Holy Spirit Revelation" that disagrees, you "heard wrong." God is right. 

Now, we have our 4 religious paradigms to choose from. 

The Conservative-Authoritarian: This person's paradigm is best represented by the Pharisees in scripture. They nit-picked Christ and others constantly, both with legitimate things from the old law and things that they added. Yet, they were unable to follow them. This person claims God as the author of truth like a conservative. Yet, his need to control others leads to him adding rules and attempting to force them onto people who he has no jurisdiction over. In our modern churches, this is the classic example of what many refer to as a person carrying the "spirit-of -of religion." This is a person who holds a high ideal of holiness which may or may not be accurate, yet with a focus on forcing others to live this way, he inevitably ends up looking like a desperate hypocrite.  

The Liberal-Authoritarian: This is a person who is best represented by Job's miserable comforters in scripture. They had a view of God that they believed in that was not true to who God was. With this view, they abused poor Job, a holy man for a sin they supposed he had. This is a person who carries a very broad-minded view of Christ and the truth. Often he will worship Christ as he imagines him to be, not as he is. Yet, this person also carries the authoritarian streak. He attempts to cajole others into worshiping Christ as he understands Him. If conservatives don't comply, he will discipline or isolate them and minimize their influence by tarnishing their reputation as unsafe religious people. I would call out the word-faith and prosperity-gospel people here. If you do not get healed in response to prayer, your faith is lacking according to them. If God doesn't hit your pocketbook with 1000 fold blessing, again, something is lacking in your life. These people talk against toxic religion more than anyone else, yet they are very toxic and very religious.

The Liberal-Libertarian: This is a person who is following a faith and a God he believes in, his grasp of truth is dodgy, but he probably means well and he doesn't hurt other people much simply because he is not overly religious and isn't all that concerned about whether or not you agree with or live like him. This kind of person doesn't hold up well in times of persecution. In the fires of persecution, he has to either get serious about his faith and relationship with God or recant to save his skin. In times of great freedom and prosperity, this person is everywhere, he is your typical casual Christian.

The Conservative-Libertarian: This is a person who holds Christ and His teachings in the highest regard. While the idea of being conservative lends to the idea of someone who hates change, this person is most interested in conserving the Gospel in its totality. He is also interested in conserving his relationship with Christ, and in conserving the ordinances Christ taught. Others may mistake this person for being religious after the Pharisee tradition, but they miss the mark. This person is after religion as taught by James (James 1:26-27). Pure undefiled holiness that serves others, and can only come from Christ. This person is a libertarian as well. Why? Because, he is too busy surrendering, learning, growing, repenting, and following the Lord to worry about forcing you to do something. If he talks with you about an error in your life, he does so because he loves you, at the end of the day, he knows the choice is yours. He works with all the things God entrusted to Him and strives to become more like him by surrendering himself to him. This keeps him too busy to meddle. This is a true disciple and this is the paradigm that I invite you to walk in. It's a paradigm of humility and complete surrender to God without focusing on others and what they are doing wrong. In fact, the way you look at others is also surrendered to God. Too idealistic for this life? Probably, but, it's not hard, just surrender. If it's something from within you, a desire to adjust away from the truth for comfort, repent by surrendering that. If it's a desire to focus on what others are up to, surrender that by repenting from it. 

A word about Religion: 

The bad kind: There is an attitude or a spirit of religion that leads to us needing to control people in ways outside of how God would have us to. The Lord entrusts his people with children to raise in His ways yes, but not so much with dictating whether or not your 43-year-old neighbor watches porn or not. This is religion from the Pharisees. It's cultish, extra-biblical, and should be repented of. 

The good kind: Yet, there is another religion as mentioned in James, it is, personal holiness, and spiritual discipline, it has to do with keeping communion, keeping time in prayer, regular community with God, other disciples, fasting, etc. This is a good thing to be doing, from a place of love for God personally and not because someone is forcing you to. 

I would caution against focusing on the paradigms. It's interesting to have a conversation about what they look like, and hopefully, there is some value to it. Yet, if, you focus on Christ and keep surrendering to Him, your paradigm will be shaped by Him and you will see more and more like Him. That's what we all want.

The end. 

This has been the 18th and final chapter of Surrender!? To Who?

Anger vs Hatred

Matthew 5:21-24

Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Ancient Israel is in chaos! King David has fled the palace, and his son has taken the throne. In this chaos, a traitor emerges, his name is Ahithophel, and he was David's advisor, but switches sides and begins advising Absalom. His advice is astonishing. 

Let's recap.

1. Ahithophel tells Absalom that he should go and erhm David's concubines. This way Israel can see that David has been insulted beyond reconciliation. This would then cause them to back Absalom. Absalom did that, and he did it with a tent on the roof so that all might see that tent and know what was going down. (2 Samuel 16:15-23)

2. Ahithophel tells Absalom that he should let him take 12'000 men and run David down that night while he's tired and discouraged. He says he would only kill the king, and return the people like a bride returns to her husband. Like a bride returning to her husband eh? Hold that thought.  (2 Samuel 17:1-4)

3. Ahithophel's advice was not followed the second time... Hmm, well, so it goes, a king has a mind of his own, nothing persona.....wait a sec...Ahithophel when realizing that he didn't get to kill David hung himself. What the...? Why? (2 Samuel 17:23) 

Well, remember David's very bad no good situation with Bathsheba? That was a big sin, and the ramifications went further than just David, Bathsheba, and her poor husband. Imagine this. You raise a son, you pour into him, and raise him the ways of God as you understand them. For over 15 years you raised him, and you strive for a great prosperous family line. A  line of blessing. Your son grows up, and he finds himself the love of his life. They start a life together, and they have a beautiful girl. Now you're a grandpa. Your granddaughter is the most beautiful girl in the Kingdom. You watch her grow into a beautiful woman. You watch your granddaughter meet the love of her life, and start a life together, yes, the generations of family blessing are going well, but then, the king notices your granddaughter Bathsheba... Yes, you read that right. Ahithophel was Bathsheba's grandpa! (2 Samuel 11:3 and 2 Samuel 23:34) What would you do to such a king?  

There are 2 types of things at play in the text above as spoken by Jesus, there are physical things and inward things. let's break them down.

The physical. 

1. Human life is sacred. Don't murder people. 

2. Insults. Don't call someone an "air-headed idiot." I admit that is tempting sometimes...

We understand those physical acts as being wrong. It's ingrained in any of us who have the slightest interest in God's ways. Now, what about that inward thing in between those 2 things? That inward thing has to do with anger, being provoked by a fellow person in your life which I believe is what "brother" means here. Yet, it's not just any anger, it's an anger that has no good reason for existing. It's anger "without cause". So, this is how I see it. In the case of Ahithophel, the cause was David's sin. There was righteous anger to be had/felt over David's sin, and at David for agreeing with this sin. Then, that cause was dealt with. Yet, Ahithophel's anger at David remained. Now, it was personal. He hated David the person. It was this personal anger at another person that was at the root of the matter. Given time to fester, it boiled over with the loss of life. This anger got Absalom killed. Can you imagine the power of Ahithophel's counsel had he given a cautionary word to Absalom and advised against revolting against David? Perhaps Absalom would have listened. Perhaps not, but, history doesn't show us that, because, Ahithophel's personal cause-less anger remained, long after the anger with cause's time had passed. This anger eventually and ultimately destroyed the carrier of it. 

No matter how grievously I have been wronged by any one person, there is never a good/healthy reason to carry a kind of anger towards that person that involves that person directly. This kind of anger is self-destructive. It doesn't work. A just/righteous anger handled in obedience to the will of God is a whole different matter. That would be anger with cause. Other words might be, "moral outrage" "righteous indignation" etc. When the anger crosses from a focus on appropriately dealing with the cause and focus on hatred for a person made by God, that's where a line has been crossed. Or, to put it simply, there is such a thing as anger at an act, and there is such a thing as hatred. Really, anger without cause is hatred. Anger at an act can co-exist with love for the "actor." Hatred cannot co-exist with love for the person who is hated. 

Let's say you have a gift, and you want to give it to the Lord as a sacrifice. As a Jew, it was some fine animal. As a New-Covenant disciple, it's probably some spiritual gift, maybe a song, a sermon, writing, or any act of service. If in doing this good work, God shows you that not all is right between you and another, then it is the Lord's desire for there to be peace. That peace may mean that you die inside. It might mean that you eat a thing known as "humble pie." It might mean that you choose to love a person whose deeds you desperately hate. It might mean that while your flesh calls out for some dire consequence to fall on him, you choose to do nothing instead. I don't know what it means for you. I don't even know what it means for me yet. All I know is, surrender it, and with that, this has been...

Chapter 17 of Surrender!? To Who?

Differential Technologies

This will attempt to demystify differentials and traction systems for those who are not mechanically inclined. 

What is a differential? A differential in this context is essentially a small gearbox that receives power from the transmission in the vehicle and then sends that power in 2 directions out to each of the wheels on either side of it, but it also allows the 2 wheels to turn at different speeds when needed. The key upside to a differential is when you make a turn, the tire that is on the outside of the turn, say, if you turn left, the right tire, must travel further than the left tire, on the inside of the turn in this scenario. A differential allows both tires to roll at the speed needed without one tire scooting or spinning. The downside is this when you encounter a situation where one tire, for example, the left is on ice, and the right is on dry pavement, it is hard for the vehicle to move because the differential sends equal torque to both wheels, but the amount of torque sent is the amount required to spin the tire with the least amount of traction. Torque is twisting force, and it's important to get enough torque to the rear tires. Enough torque means the rear tires can spin/twist and the vehicle can move forward. Now, back to the ice patch scenario. If the torque required for the left tire to spin on ice is not enough torque to make the vehicle move forward, you are stuck. Because, the right-side tire is only getting the same amount of torque as the left-side tire, no more. This is the scenario that all the traction aids have been created to deal with. Let's look at them now.

Locking differential: To understand a locker, it helps to understand a spool. A spool does the same thing as a differential in that it takes power from the transmission and sends it out to both rear tires. However, it mechanically locks the rear tires together. The downside is, when you turn, 1 tire will either spin or scoot. The upside is, that it sends equal torque to both wheels as well, but it sends the amount required to spin the tire with the most traction. Back to the ice patch scenario. The right side tire on the pavement gets enough torque to turn on the pavement. The left side tire on the ice is mechanically locked to the right side and turns at the same speed, with no excess wheel spin. Now, a locking differential is essentially a differential that can switch from being a differential to being a spool. Manual lockers are ones where the operator of the vehicle decides when the switch happens. Automatic lockers are ones where it goes into spool mode whenever it thinks it needs to, based on circumstances, or vice versa. Auto lockers can be pretty rough and unpredictable, so I prefer manual lockers. 

Limited-Slip differential: A limited-slip differential will have a clutch pack or 2 inside the case that pulls together on the 2 sides of the differential to gradually connect the 2 rear wheels. It will vary this connection somewhere in between a differential and a spool. If the clutching is strong enough, it can function like a spool but is prone to overheat if this is done too long. This style differential is nicer than an automatic locker in many cases because it has the same convenience benefits, but is usually smoother, and some can manually lock on request as well. 

Torsen differential: These are often called Torsen, named after the company who invented them, but they are a type of limited-slip that uses gears to multiply torque. In the ice patch scenario again, if it required 10 lbs of torque to spin the left tire on ice, a Torsen would within the blink of an eye send about 25 lbs (varies based on design) to the other tire on pavement. If 25lbs is enough, away you go. If not, you are still stuck unless you know a trick. That trick is to push on the brake pedal and the gas pedal at the same time. Now with the brakes applied, it might take 1'000 lbs of torque to turn the tire on ice, and so the Torsen sends 2'500 lbs to the tire on pavement, and since that's probably going to be enough, away you go. Having to drive with 2 feet on occasion is the only real downside to a Torsen that I can see. 

Traction Control: Traction control is an electronic aid that is not in the differential like the other types are. Traction control does 2 things. 1. Brake the wheel on the ice patch. In a standard differential, equal torque is sent to both wheels, and it's the amount equal to the wheel with the least traction like we see in the ice patch scenario. This braking action by traction control forces more torque onto the wheel on the pavement. 2. Cut engine power to drastically reduce wheelspin. 

Brake Limited Slip: This is a feature inside the logic of traction control. Most car makers can do it but only a few have truly mastered it in my opinion. When brake limited-slip is activated, it measures the speeds on the tires on both sides of the differential. If one is faster, it brakes that one. It does not reduce engine power. So, the tires can spin as fast as they want as long as both tires are spinning at the same speed. In the ice patch scenario. Brake limited slip would brake the tire on the ice and force torque to go to the tire on pavement. The vehicle would carry on with only a quick interruption or pause. The reason this is called brake limited-slip is that it does almost the same thing as a conventional limited-slip differential but does so with the wheel brakes. Downsides to this? Well, it could be hard on your brake pads, also, since it isn't actually mechanically in the differential, you'd hope your specific brand with this feature is one of the few that knows how to program it properly. 

Concluding thoughts: 

For performance vehicles, it is hard to argue with Torsen or limited-slip differentials for overall track cornering ability. You have the easy turning of a differential when entering a corner, and then equalized power across the car when trying to power out of the corner again. 

For normal road driving when nothing is going wrong in your word, traction control is a nice safety net against sliding on wet or snowy roads, but if you actually are stuck, its abilities are very limited. 

For off-roading, it's really hard to argue against a spool when it comes to traction. Manual lockers give you the ability to have a spool off-road and a differential on-road or when making turns, so, ultimately, that's pretty sweet for something like a Bronco or a Wrangler to have. 

For vehicles that are all-rounders, like pickup trucks and utility SUVs, the 3 different kinds of limited-slip differentials have their place. 

Brake Limited Slip is amazing when it's programmed correctly. It can outperform mechanical limited-slip on rock crawling situations if it's programmed correctly. 

So, You Want Unity?

In Ephesians 4, Paul states that we should walk worthy, keep the unity of the Spirit, and then later adds that eventually we are to all come into a unity of the faith, and knowledge, of the son of God. If you wish, please look up and read all of Ephesians 4 for yourself to get the complete context so that I don't give you the wrong impression. Unity in our church is good, a division in our church is bad, we seem to all agree, but, who is being divisive here? To parse that out, let's examine the history of the church a little, shall we? 

Church Period 1: 

Jesus has ascended. The disciples receive the Holy Spirit and morph into hardcore radical apostles, spreading the gospel of the Kingdom in its totality throughout the empire. This teaching involves the concept of 2-Kingdoms. God's Kingdom is a spiritual reality with the church being a physical representation of it. The world's Kingdom is ordained by God to keep the peace in a world where most people don't act like they belong to God's Kingdom. The church has huge problems these days, but, there is 1 church, a church that believes they are separated unto God. A church that believes all of the apostles' teachings, and Jesus' teachings are to be taken seriously. 

Church Period 2:

This one church loses something, perhaps from being persecution weary, or something else, and probably a combination of things, but it becomes susceptible. Constantine offers the church religious freedom and professes to be a Christian himself. The church loses its 2 Kingdom message, and morphs into partnership with the world, the crusades happen, abuses, and corruptions begin to abound. Doctrinally speaking, the church gradually morphs into what we recognize today as the catholic church. Towards the end of this time, a young German priest is struggling with the assurance of salvation. He had an abusive father growing up, a man who whipped him till he bled. He thought God was like this, a harsh being, who would whip him till he bled if he didn't repent. Yet, he couldn't control his sin, and couldn't even remember all the sins he needed to repent of. In his prayers and studies, he found that he was justified by the grace of God. (Romans 3:24) He felt tremendous relief at this and began to teach this to those around him, but he didn't have a quarrel with the church...yet. Martin Luther was his name and he was ok with just teaching this thing of grace to those around him and doing his duties as a priest... For now. 

Church Period 3: 

Now we enter the period of denominations, in which we still live in my opinion. Martin Luther has had it up to his snout with the church's ****, ****, ****, and so on. He was rather uncouth at times you see. He wasn't the only one. There was also Zwingli, the Anabaptists, like George Blaurock, and his friends. Later on, names like Calvin, Simons, Fox, and others emerged. For simplicity's sake, we can separate the church into 3 different categories now with several denominations each. 

1. The "original" church, which we call Catholic, left many of the teachings of the early church and has adopted practices like having a pope, praying to Mary, penance, etc. I don't know much about it, for I'm not catholic. 

2. The saved by faith through grace group, led by men like Luther, Zwingli, and so on. Taught us the notion that we are only saved by faith, works don't matter for we cannot stop sinning or do enough good to be saved. 

3. The radicals, led by men like Blaurock, Fox, and Simons, agreed with being saved by faith but also believe in a lifestyle that is separate from the world. An indwelling presence, the Spirit of God, that changes you and makes you a different person. 

Faults can be found in all 3 streams of thought. I believe the 1st group is wrong. The 2nd group is not teaching a complete gospel, and the 3rd group has created a religion they practice instead of simply following the gospel. I have drastically oversimplified this, but, how long do you want this blog to actually be? The hairs keep getting split finer, finer, and still finer, for now, we have Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, and 7th-day Adventists yet. I confess I don't know where to place them, but I think you get the idea. There are lots and lots of heresy to choose from today. From word faith to religious cults and any flavor in between. 

Ok, now for the point. When there is a schism in the church. A call for unity comes forth. 

Dale says, "Let's focus on Jesus, on His love for all of us. Let's focus on our agreements and not our differences. We shouldn't discuss the separation of the sheep from the goats, for since we all love Jesus, we are all sheep, and no concern needs to be given to fruit. Come as you are"  

Mark says, "There is more out there, there is a Kingdom, we should look at ALL of scripture, not just what we like. So no Dale, I can't merely go along with your favorite new theology you picked up from fill-in-the-blank heretic. I'm not looking to be religious, I merely want to believe all of scripture."  

Dale wants unity and peace in his church. He wants Mark to get along, plug in, and be happy within the bounds of whatever of the many million denominations and types of the gospel he finds himself in. Dale says he is against all the splits and denominations and wants all believers to get along like one big happy family, but interestingly Dale does not follow his own teaching to its logical conclusion, he does not return to the original denomination. Dale is not catholic. Dale believes in a unity that involves his specific situation, comfort, and place in history. If you are not agreed with him, you are probably a controlling legalist. Dale does not really believe in convictions that have to do with lifestyle. Dale believes in salvation. 

Mark wants unity and peace in his church. He wants to return to the gospel of the first period. That original gospel was taught by Jesus and His disciples. That's what Mark wants. Mark weeps for, longs for such a church, that will simply be disciples, and live the Kingdom lifestyle. It feels lonely to push for it alone. He loves Dale and wants Dale to take the journey with him, but Dale gets mad and calls him a legalist. Mark isn't sure what to do anymore...stay in the church as she is or go alone?  Mark believes in a unity that involves actually embracing, believing, and claiming the totality of Christ, His salvation, His Kingdom, and His Spirit. Mark has convictions, based on Jesus' teachings that he is not prepared to lay down. Lines exist, that Mark simply cannot cross. Mark struggles with his attitude, he finds himself getting bitter, stressed, and unhappy, and he is not really living the very life he believes in anymore. He has to repent again. By the power of the Holy Spirit, Mark resets and lives the lifestyle of the Kingdom again. 

So now, here is the question. Who is on the correct path to unity? Dale? or Mark? I could easily have portrayed Dale as a legalist instead of a hyper-grace type person, but the legalists aren't the ones pushing for unity as much. They seem quite happy to have their own little religious cliques. Dale and Mark are fictional characters, they are exaggerated to show texture, and make a point, please don't take them personally. Is unity found in the art of getting along on the things we can and ignoring the rest? Or is unity found in the simple return to the original gospel taught in the first period? I am willing to stick my neck out and admit that I agree with Mark. I believe that anyone who simply agrees and condones one of the many modern incomplete gospels, whether it be a works-based religion, or grace-based lawlessness is merely adding to the division. I believe that those who embrace the totality of the Gospel, are striving to return to unity. I repent for all the times I have caused division by just getting along and condoning. The good news is, that the original gospel is all within the New Testament, we all have it. We just don't seem to want to live it or even believe it. 

God help us...

Why Church?

Why church? Well, I think as people we have to admit we are social creatures. We love other people, even when we can't stand other people. In God's Kingdom, we have the church. It is such a beautiful, and precious gift for His disciples. Oh, how I love the church! Yet, she is pretty wobbly and dysfunctional at times. I don't know what to do about it, but I want to keep swinging at the problem where I can. So, if you'll humor me a bit, here is another opinion piece regarding the church. 

I want to examine the reasons motivating our church activities. I think if we are truly honest, we will have to conclude that most of our churching has been for the first 2 reasons. Yet I believe there is a better way; a 3rd way. 

1. My Kingdom. 

There is an attraction to the idea of having a church that is something. It's your club, your way. You get the feeling of being part of something special, something bigger than yourself. I feel it. I get it. There is also an attraction to being important, needed, and powerful within this system. I believe that this motivates us more than we realize with all the different styles, types, denominations, etc of churches we have started and participated in. It also leads to this only right church doctrine that you see in some circles. It forms a club, it's your kingdom inside God's Kingdom. 

2. What about me? 

What if you have been rubbed wrong or sorely mistreated by someone else's kingdom that they call a church? There is a big desire to just fellowship in a way that you like. You eschew the accountability, authority, etc, and just live life on your own, fellowshipping with others on a "what do we feel like doing now?" basis.  So, this kind of churching has its advantages over the 1st kind in my view. Depending on how cruel or abusive the first kind is, this is an upgrade. Yet, you would have to be pretty dishonest or uninformed to claim that this is the complete enchilada of church experience as lived in the New Testament or by the early church. 

3. Making God's Kingdom visible. 

Here's a novel concept: What about we try to make God's church, Christ's bride about Him? Let's take the notion of God's Kingdom. If one is to take the teachings of Jesus seriously, one would have to conclude that Jesus spent most of His teaching energy on preaching a gospel of the Kingdom with a capital K. It's an invisible Kingdom that asks for our loyalties over the demands of this world. With that in mind, the whole paradigm of church changes now doesn't it? The first 2 were ultimately, at the end of the day, selfish. This take is about God. So, we start with God's Kingdom. This is our foundation. This is what Jesus taught as recorded by the 4 gospels. Then we turn the page to Acts, and his disciples, now apostles filled with the Holy Spirit made disciples and churches started. So, the Kingdom of God became visible in the form of the church. How does this look if we do it again now? I don't know. I think it depends on the area. With the first 2 types of churches, the question is easily answered with a follow-up question, "What do you want?" However, if it is in fact about God, which this 3rd option is now we must ask, "God, what do YOU want?" I am asking that for west TN because that's the part of the world I live in. 

A note about copying the apostles' church planting efforts: Marc Carrier went to Africa and planted wonderful churches that very much resembled what we can understand the early church to be, I commend him for that, and will be interested in seeing what he does here. Others have done this as well I'm sure. Yet, one key thing that seems to be common here, they found unsaved people and led them from an unsaved state straight into discipleship with Christ.  I believe that there is much to learn from the apostles when one seeks to be a missionary to the lost. I believe that is the New Testament way, but, here I sit in the Bible belt, we have more churches than I can count all full of Christians who profess Christ. How in the world do we do this here without just starting another denomination of Christians and ending up back where we started again? 

Here is a diagnosis on west TN based on what I know so far as of 06/2022, but this is subject to change based on further understanding/wisdom which I always need more of. We don't need more churches. We need the people in the churches we have already, myself included making these trades. 

1. Trade in our complex theologies that explain away hard-hitting verses from Jesus' teachings for the bare unvarnished power of the Kingdom message. Did you know that just war is not something the early apostles knew anything about? When there was a war that needed fighting, they thought that was a dispute between world Kingdoms and had nothing to do with them. Are we absolutely sure that the government-sanctioned killing of bad people is ok for members of God's Kingdom? If so, can it be supported with a simple reading of the New Testament or does it call for a cobbling together of Old and New Testament concepts, personal theories, and cherry-picked verses into a complex theology for it to work? In short, we at times tend to embrace the art of theology so that we don't have to look at a principle we don't like. This should be repented of. 

2. Trade in the things we deem most important like good music, and entertaining lectures for the things that Jesus deemed important like authentic worship in the presence of God, communion, and bold, honest teaching of truth. Nothing is wrong with good music and entertaining speakers. However, the emphasis should be on authentic worship, fellowship with God, and teaching of the truth. If the music is good, and the speaker is entertaining after the authentic worship and truth have been discovered, that is awesome! 

3. Trade in our religious traditions and do's and don't lists for the Kingdom Lifestyle. Some of our churches have do's and don't that we don't understand. Those should be scrutinized against the New Testament, and we should pursue a Kingdom Lifestyle. The kind that comes from abiding in Christ and producing His fruits for Him with the power of the Spirit He put there. There very well could be do's and don't that a body should agree to on some level, but they should be intentional, Spirit-led, Kingdom motivated. In short, we at times tend to take certain of Jesus' teachings extremely literally and ignore others to fashion a religion of our own making, which should be repented of. Embracing the gospel of the Kingdom and all its principles is good enough, and far better than any religion. 

4. Trade in our religious rituals for spiritual disciplines. While it is a little hard to explain, there is a difference between regularly going to church, praying, and reading your Bible because you "have to" as opposed to doing it because it's something you desire to do, to improve your relationship with God. To learn more from Him. To receive more of His Spirit etc. This is what spiritual discipline is about, it is exercising ourselves spiritually to become the kind of person who naturally acts like God would act if He were living our life in our body. Religious rituals are all about superficially doing boring things to check off the "good Christian" box. I hope the difference is being conveyed here...it is a  little hard to explain for me. 

5. Trade in our shame-based culture of looking right and making sure others do too for genuine loving co-submission to one another as brothers and sisters. Man sees the outside, but God sees the heart. (See Samuel 16:7) Shame-based culture teaches us to hide the problems and look good on the outside. We wear a smile to church when we are dying inside. Shame culture accepts those who look right and rebukes those who don't. Co-submission culture isn't as interested in the "look" of a person, or even the fruit as much as the direction of the journey. It accepts those who repent and rebukes those who don't. Study carefully the steps laid out by Christ in Matthew 18:15-18. Do you see how the person who is rebuked by the church has been given 4 opportunities to repent? 1. At the Holy Spirit's convicting. 2. At the time of confrontation by the person who was wronged. 3. At the time of confrontation by several. 4. At the time of public rebuke in the church. If a person still does not wish to repent, then, they are marked as a heathen, or this is my opinion but to put a finer point on it, someone who cannot be trusted due to a lack of repentance. Heathens, (non-believers) don't repent either you see. Now, in written text, it's easy to make such a thing sound brutal and procedural, but that's not my intent, it must be done out of a heart of love for Christ and our siblings in His family. 

6. Personally and corporately, trade-in our constant need for noise and activity for times of nothingness, silence, solitude, waiting on the presence of God, for revelation. Left to our own devices, we seem to want to solve our own problems, talk, or be talked to. We keep looking for soul food, things to do with our will, things to study with our mind, and experiences to feel with our emotions. Yet, we so often give up on the simple things, turning off the noises, being quiet, and seeing what God might want to say for different problems we face. What if, instead of having meetings and debates, followed by meetings about our meetings; we would come together corporately in quiet meditation and prayer before God? What if the reason many of us think God is silent is simply that He is a gentleman who lets us do all the talking when we pray?  So, when we pray and decide not to do all the talking, we might find that God does still communicate, through the power of the Holy Spirit. 

Back to the top, we really should be interested in church on God's terms, the 3rd reason for church. If we aren't willing to church for the right reason, I am prepared to admit that I personally don't think we should really bother with churching anymore. If we are interested in doing things God's way, then, the next 6 points probably do matter to some extent. I know and believe that there is much more to Kingdom living than those 6 points, but, if those of us who both go to church and care about it would seek after God with these 6 things corporately, I can't help but think it would help. At least, it would be a start.