Blogotional

AS we continue our look at Jack Kirby's greatest creations, the gods of Asgard, as published by Marvel, and the New Gods, as published by DC - we turn our attention back to Asgard, and one of the very few denizens thereof to garner a self-titled series - His name, Balder - Balder the Brave. Now, it is important to remember these names are derived from the old Norse languages in which the gods were originally conceived, his name does not signify anything to do with his hairline. However, as a very young adolescent, I must confess to sniggering a lot and making wisecracks about wanted to see him without a head dress of some sort. To be young and a comic geek is not a good thing. He is a close friend of Thor, and has joined him on many an adventure.

Balder is second only to the Thunder God himself in bravery and strength amongst Asgardians. He is a close friend of Thor, and has joined him on many an adventure.

He is also prophesied to be the trigger for Ragnarok - the rough Norse equivalent of Armageddon.

The miniseries occurred during the great revival of the Asgardian Tales under the incredible writing and drawing talents of Walt Simonson. Simonson stands with Kirby when it comes to writing and drawing Asgard, and only under those two has the core Thor title sold enough to warrant spin-offs like the Balder miniseries. Would that more Asgardians warranted the kind of development that can only come from standing alone. Of course, bakc in the days of anthology books....



Technorati Tags:comics, comic books, comic art, jack kirby, asgard, balder
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

In media marketing today they no longer go for broad audience, they go for dipping into the same audience multiple times, a deep and committed audience. On BBC or BBC American you will find two Doctor Who spin-offs. Buffy The Vampire Slayer - Movie, TV, continues in comics unabated, merchandising....

Iron Man had one of the most successful opening weekends in history not because it has a huge audience, but because it has a smaller, committed audience from the comics.

There are many, many more examples.

So why are we still doing church by the broad audience model?

Technorati Tags:church, media, question
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Adrian Warnock wrote recently on Mark Driscoll's vision for leadership. This quote stuck out at me like a sore thumb:

There has to be a sense of call or desire—it's not just a matter of being nominated and voted on. There must be a desire to be an elder. God has to clearly call you. Not in an arrogant, proud, or controlling way. If you don't have that sense of call, you will end up quitting the ministry. You must not limit the ways that God can call you. There needs to be a strong desire to care for God's people.

How does one experience a sense of call? Adrian says it is not an arrogant thing, so how does one feel humbly anointed?

May I suggest that one way that happens is when someone else calls you (say a nominating committee) even when you yourself do not feel particularly motivated.

As someone who has done ministry professionally and voluntarily for many decades now, I have found a personal "sense of call" over-rated. When I felt called it has almost universally been my ego, or need for ego gratification talking. The ministry I have gotten involved in out of this "sense of call" have had great initial success because of the amount of energy I poured into them. But they also generally fell by the wayside, failed, almost as rapidly as they got out of the gate, because they lacked the underpinnings to support the energy.

The truly successful ministry I have been involved in is ministry to which I was dragged, often kicking and screaming, service which I rendered out of a sense of obligation, and in response to someone else telling me I had to do it. When I quit fighting the idea and started to do the job in workman like fashion, what happened was not spectacular, but it was lasting and successful.

Which leads me to another statement from Adrian's post:

Driscoll began by claiming that, statistically, the only variable that makes a difference to the life or death of a new church plant is the gifting and qualifications of its leader. [emphasis added]

The word "leader," as a singular, strikes me as problematic - I would use the word "leadership." Even Christ had advisers.

It is too easy as an individual in leadership to confuse our own emotional and spiritual states with those of the church as a whole. Which indicates to me a church built on too fragile a foundation - us, not the Holy Spirit.

Motivation and energy from leadership is vital to any organizational activity - but that is different than a "sense of call" - it is a discipline and a duty. Nominations and votes ARE CALLS. It is up to us to answer those calls and to have the discipline to do the job well.

Technorati Tags:leadership, motivation, call
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

CONCERNING A NEW HOSPITAL POLICY...

The allergists voted to scratch it.
The dermatologists preferred no rash moves.
The gastroenterologists had a gut feeling about it.
The microsurgeons were thinking along the same vein.
The neurologists thought the administration had a lot of nerve.
The obstetricians stated they were laboring under a misconception.
The ophthalmologists considered the idea short-sighted.
The orthopedists issued a joint resolution.
The parasitologists said, "well, if you encyst."
The pathologists yelled, "over my dead body!"
The pediatricians said, "grow up."
The proctologists said, "we are in arrears."
The psychiatrists thought it was madness.
The surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.
The radiologists could see right through it.
The internists thought it was a hard pill to swallow.
The plastic surgeons said, "this puts a whole new face on the matter."
The podiatrists thought it was a big step forward.
The D.O.s thought they were being manipulated.
The urologists felt the scheme wouldn't hold water.
The anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas.
The cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.
And the otologists were deaf to the idea.
The new wing didn't fly!

Technorati Tags:joke, humor, friday humor, hospital
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Russ, over at Eagle and Child, is wondering about the wisdom of viewing the operation of a non-profit as a zero sum game. For the uninitiated, that means the view that there are only so many resources for non-profits out there so they are competing for a slice of a fixed-sized pie. Russ argues, rightfully so I think, that the pie can grow, and contract, to suit circumstances.

Just to illustrate Russ' point, when disaster strikes, my congregation is known to take a special offering for assistance. Usually we raise between five and ten thousand dollars. Given the size of the congregation, that is quite significant. However, after Katrina we got over twenty thousand in a single Sunday.

But that story also illustrates where the zero sum perception comes from. I know in my own life there are two kinds of giving - obligatory and passionate. Of course, we get hit for donations from every direction, and out of a sense of obligation I often throw $20 the way of whoever is asking. In one sense that is zero sum. You call me, you don't tick me off, you're involved in a cause I vaguely agree with, you are going to get $20. But, when the calls come in 6 or 7 a night, there is a fatigue factor that sets in and I shut it off - limiting the size of the pie. In essence, there is a budget for obligatory giving and all those people that call know they are competing with each other.

But then there is passionate giving - those things that I care about and am willing to give to sacrificially. My church, churches staffed by friends, anything for the soldiers overseas, the Lutheran school that educated my father - it's a short list.

To me, the important question is "Are you engaged in passionate giving?" There are any number of non-profits in this nation because just about everybody engages in obligatory giving. For some this strikes them as an easier way to make a living than earning it, so they start a cause for whatever.

But passionate giving is a whole different world. I believe we are called, by God, to give passionately. This is not a legalism thing, it is a question of placing God, and others, before ourselves. See Philippians 2.

And if you are running a non-profit, and you feel like you are competing for resources, that you lack a passionate base, ask yourself why. Why does your cause not move people sufficiently that they give passionately. If you are a church, and you do not have passionate givers, you have a problem, you are not making genuine disciples. In the end, isn't that the point?

Technorati Tags:church, giving, zero sum, passion, non-profit, fundraising
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Technorati Tags:illuminated scripture
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

So, just about everybody knows that the Harry Potter books are the best selling in history, but are they THE best? Well, according to a survey in England, discussed in the London Telegraph, the answer is a resounding, "NO!"

The Harry Potter series has been comprehensively beaten in a poll of the best children's books of all time by a host of traditional classics.

The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Winnie the Pooh and the Famous Five all finished above the only Harry Potter book to make the top 50.

In fact, according to the final list, my personally beloved Narnia tales, at least "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" is number 1! While I am fairly certain the specifics of the list might be different in a US survey, I am betting the trends would hold.

The most specific trend being that the books cited are books that have both adult, as well as childish appeal, books with VERY adult morality, and books that are exceptionally well-written. Note for example, at number 9 - "Alice in Wonderland" - a book that often defies even adult literary analysis.

But that the "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" is number one in a nation generally more secular than our own, truly speaks volumes. You see that book is, essentially, the gospel narrative in fairy tale form. What I think this survey reveals is that the gospel narrative is the most compelling narrative in literature.

Which demands the question - "Why is evangelism so hard?"

Just a thought, but could it be because "the people of the narrative" in their lives rob the narrative of its truth and power?

Technorati Tags:children's literature, the lion the witch and the wardrobe, survery, gospel
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

I don't blog specifically about science much because, frankly, I think most people are bored with it, but the NYTimes story is just too cool to let pass. Some IBM guys, masters of the miniature those IBM researchers, have measured the force it takes to move one single solitary cobalt atom across the surface of platinum and copper.

About one-130-millionth of an ounce of force pushes a cobalt atom across a smooth, flat piece of platinum.

Pushing the same atom along a copper surface is easier, just one-1,600-millionth of an ounce of force.

[...]

In the experiment, Dr. Heinrich and his collaborators at Almaden and the University of Regensburg in Germany used the sharp tip of an atomic force microscope to push a single atom. To measure the force, the tip was attached to a small tuning fork, the same kind that is found in a quartz wristwatch. In fact, in the first prototype, Franz J. Giessibl, a scientist at Regensburg who was a pioneer in the use of atomic force microscopes, bought an inexpensive watch and pulled out the quartz tuning fork for use in the experiment.

The tip vibrates 20,000 times a second until it comes into contact with an atom. As the tip pushes, the tuning fork bends, like a diving board, and the vibration frequency dips.

For the uninitiated, reactions to that probably range from "Huh?" to "cool..." to "Fascinating, Captain" - but I find it down right exciting. The reasons for my excitement range from awe to admiration. To treat a single atom in such a purely corpuscular manner, when it is really something between matter and energy is freaky, but despite the reference to everyday watch tuning forks, this is an extraordinary technological achievement.

But here is the real thing - most people think science is dislocating, replacing, or competing with knowledge of the Almighty. I have precisely the opposite reaction. Most real cutting edge science now happens in the extremes of size. Either the incredibly small like this, or the incredibly large in cosmology. The more zeros go into the numbers, on either side of the decimal point, the more incredibly inconceivable God becomes to me.

Consider this now aging bit of video which takes us from a universal viewpoint to a nuclear one.



Not only do we worship a God that created all that incredible complexity, and order, on all those scales, but He crowned that creation with a being capable of glimpsing and understanding His handiwork. God, I believe, wants us to have at least some understanding of His creations for it creates in us both admiration and it should generate worship.

How dare we confuse the roles of understanding complexity and creating it. Think about this - almost anyone can operate a motor vehicle. Many people have a rudimentary understanding of how it works. Less people still are capable of repairing or improving its function. Fewer people still are capable of building a car from scratch, and no one, I repeat no one, can take the construction process from mining metal and pumping oil through refinement into raw materials which are then transformed into parts which are then assembled into the vehicle - NO ONE!

And yet, a motor vehicle is, compared to the universe a child's push toy carved from wood with simple turning wheels.

The most mind boggling thing in all this is our arrogance.

Technorati Tags:science, creation, perspective, big, small
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Related Tags: cartoons, catblogging, Aggie, Flash

Jollyblogger hit a homer a while back writing about "horizontal worship." He bases his thoughts on an extensive quotation about a worship leader that stepped on others in the ecstasy of his own experience, then David picks up the thoughts:

We often think of worship as purely vertical, a time when we focus exclusively on God to the exclusion of all else and all others.

This is true, that worship is all about God, but to worship God properly (the vertical) we must also pay attention to our fellow worshippers (the horizontal). If worshipping God is analogous to loving God then we need to consider the relationship of loving God and loving others.

[...]

Hence, Labberton gives a wonderful illustration of the fallacy that one can worship God while stepping on the toes of a fellow worshipper. A break in the horizontal causes a break in the vertical.

[...]

But the bottom line is that we need to be very careful about opposing the horizontal to the vertical in worship. In our quest to be God-centered we can't neglect a proper biblical practice of man-centeredness - to love God is to love our brother. To worship God properly we must give proper deference to our fellow worshipers.

Here's my question - if we focus exclusively on the vertical aspects of worship, to the point of stepping on the toes of other worshippers, have we not dipped into self-centeredness? Have we not placed our ecstatic experience at the center of the worship experience?

That is where I have a great deal of trouble with the whole ecstatic worship movement - it seems to concede to human preferences instead of ask "What is best?" It is interesting to me how this whole thing as evolved. "Seeker-sensitive" somehow got translated into "genuine worship."

I don't know about everywhere, but I know what I have seen. Churches know they need to reach out so they start talking about appealing to the outsider. So they transform the entire worship experience to make it "seeker-sensitive" or attractive, or whatever adjective you want to apply. It is not long before they start getting complaints from the people that have been around for decades and understand the traditional worship methods about the lack of depth and "What about my preferences" and so forth.

That's when the "genuine worship" talk starts to take center stage. Gone is the reasonable, if overwrought, justification of reaching out, and replacing it is the claims of better worship which is typically cover for, as David so aptly demonstrated, "Gee I like this better, it's more fun."

And the church sinks into an oblivion of self-involved spiritual infancy.

But the pews are full, and so are the plates...

Technorati Tags:church, worship. self-centeredness, vertical, horizontal
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

John Wesley was born at Epworth rectory in Lincoinshire, England, in 1703. He was educated at Charterhouse school and in 1720 entered Christ Church College, Oxford, where he graduated in 1724. He was noted for his classical taste as well as for his religious fervor, and on being ordained deacon by Bishop Potter, of Oxford, he became his father’s curate in 1727. Being recalled to Oxford to fulfill his duties as fellow of Lincoln he became the head of the Oxford “Methodists,” as they were called. He had the characteristics of a great general, being systematic in his work and a lover of discipline, and established Methodism in London by his sermons at the Foundery. His speaking style suggested power in repose. His voice was clear and resonant, his countenance kindly, and his tone extremely moderate. His sermons were carefully written, although not read in the pulpit. They moved others because he was himself moved. At an advanced age he preached several times a day, and traveled many miles on horseback. At seventy years of age he had published thirty octavo volumes. He composed hymns on horseback, and studied French and mathematics in spare hours, and was never a moment idle until his death, in 1791.


Not as the transgression, so is the free gift. - Romans 5:15.

How exceedingly common, and bow bitter is the outcry against our first parent, for the mischief which he not only brought upon himself, but entailed upon his latest posterity! It was by his willful rebellion against God “that sin entered into the world.” “By one man’s disobedience,” as the apostle observes, the many, as many as were then in the loins of their forefathers, were made, or constituted sinners: not only deprived of the favor of God, but also of His image; of all virtue, righteousness, and true holiness, and sunk partly into the image of the devil, in pride, malice, and all other diabolical tempers; partly into the image of the brute, being fallen under the dominion of brutal passions and groveling appetites. Hence also death entered into the world, with all his forerunners and attendants; pain, sickness, and a whole train of uneasy as well as unholy passions and tempers.

“For all this we may thank Adam,” has been echoed down from generation to generation. The self-same charge has been repeated in every age and every nation where the oracles of God are known, in which alone this grand and important event has been discovered to the children of men. Has not your heart, and probably your lips too, joined in the general charge? How few are there of those who believe the Scriptural relation of the Fall of Man, and have not entertained the same thought concerning our first parent? severely condemning him, that, through willful disobedience to the sole command of his Creator,

Brought death into the world and all our woe.

Nay, it were well if the charge rested here: but it is certain it does not. It can not be denied that it frequently glances from Adam to his Creator. Have not thousands, even of those that are called Christians, taken the liberty to call His mercy, if not His justice also, into question, on this very account? Some indeed have done this a little more modestly, in all oblique and indirect manner: but others have thrown aside the mask, and asked, “Did not God foresee that Adam would abuse his liberty? And did He not know the baneful consequences which this must naturally have on all his posterity? And why then did He permit that disobedience? Was it not easy for the Almighty to have prevented it?” He certainly did foresee the whole. This can not be denied. “For known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world.” And it was undoubtedly in His Power to prevent it; for He bath all power both in heaven and earth. But it was known to Him at the same time, that it was best upon the whole not to prevent it. He knew that, “not as the transgression, so is the free gift”; that the evil resulting from the former was not as the good resulting from the latter, not worthy to be compared with it. He saw that to permit the fall of the first man was far best for mankind in general; that abundantly more good than evil would accrue to the posterity of Adam by his fall; that if “sin abounded” thereby over all the earth, yet grace “would much more abound”; yea, and that to every individual of the human race, unless it was his own choice.

It is exceedingly strange that hardly anything has been written, or at least published, on this subject: nay, that it has been so little weighed or understood by the generality of Christians: especially considering that it is not a matter of mere curiosity, but a truth of the deepest importance; it being impossible, on any other principle,

To assert a gracious Providence,
And justify the ways of God with men:

and considering withal, how plain this important truth is, to all sensible and candid inquirers. May the Lover of men open the eyes of our understanding, to perceive clearly that by the fall of Adam mankind in general have gained a capacity,

First, of being more holy and happy on earth, and,

Secondly, of being more happy in heaven than otherwise they could have been.

And, first, mankind in general have gained by the fall of Adam a capacity of attaining more holiness and happiness on earth than it would have been possible for them to attain if Adam had not fallen. For if Adam had not fallen, Christ had not died. Nothing can be more clear than this: nothing more undeniable: the more thoroughly we consider the point, the more deeply shall we be convinced of it. Unless all the partakers of human nature had received that deadly wound in Adam it would not have been needful for the Son of God to take our nature upon Him. Do you not see that this was the very ground of His coming into the world? “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin. And thus death passed upon all” through him, “in whom all men sinned.” (Rom. 5:12.) Was it not to remedy this very thing that “the Word was made flesh”? that “as in Adam all died, so in Christ all might be made alive”? Unless, then, many had been made sinners by the disobedience of one, by. The obedience of one many would not have been made righteous (ver. 18); so there would have been no room for that amazing display of the Son of God’s love to mankind. There would have been no occasion for His “being obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” It would not then have been said, to the astonishment of all the hosts of heaven, “God so loved the world,” yea, the ungodly world, which had no thought or desire of returning to Him, “that be gave his Son” out of His bosom, His only begotten Son, to the end that “whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Neither could we then have said, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”; or that He “made him to be sin,” that is, a sin-offering “for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God through him.” There would have been no such occasion for such “an advocate with the Father” as “Jesus Christ the Righteous”; neither for His appearing “at the right hand of God, to make intercession for us.”

What is the necessary consequence of this? It is this: there could then have been no such thing as faith in God, thus loving the world, giving His only Son for us men, and for our salvation. There could have been no such thing as faith in the Son of God, as loving us and giving Himself for us. There could have been no faith in the Spirit of God, as renewing the image of God in our hearts, as raising us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness. Indeed, the whole privilege of justification by faith could have no existence; there could have been no redemption in the blood of Christ: neither could Christ have been “made of God unto us,” “wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, or redemption.”

And the same grand blank which was in our faith, must likewise have been in our love. We might have loved the Author of our being, the Father of angels and men, as our Creator and Preserver: we might have said, “0 Lord our Governor, how excellent is Thy name in all the earth!” But we could not have loved Him under the nearest and dearest relation, as delivering up His Son for us all. We might have loved the Son of God, as being the “brightness of his Father’s glory,” the express image of His person (although this ground seems. to belong rather to the inhabitants of heaven than earth). But we could not have loved Him as “bearing our sins in his own body on the tree,” and “by that one oblation of himself once offered, making a full oblation, sacrifice, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.” We would not have been “made conformable to his death,” nor have known “the power of his resurrection.” We could not have loved the Holy Ghost as revealing to us the Father and the Son, as opening the eyes of our understanding, bringing us out of darkness into His marvelous light, renewing the image of God in our soul, and sealing us unto the day of redemption. So that, in truth, what is now “in the sight of God, even the Father,” not of fallible men “pure religion and undefiled,” would then have had no being: inasmuch as it wholly depends on those grand principles, “By grace ye are saved through faith”; and “Jesus Christ is of God made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.”

We see then what unspeakable advantage we derive from the fall of our first parent, with regard to faith: faith both in God the Father, who spared not His own Son, His only Son, but wounded Him for our transgressions and bruised Him for our iniquities; and in God the Son, who poured out his soul for us transgressors, and washed us in His own blood. We see what advantage we derive therefrom with regard to the love of God, both of God the Father and God the Son. The chief ground of this love, as long as we remain in the body, is plainly declared by the apostle, “We love him, because he first loved us.” But the greatest instance of His love had never been given if Adam had not fallen.

And as our faith, both in God the Father and the Son, receives an unspeakable increase, if not its very being, from this grand event, as does also our love both of the Father and the Son: so does the love of our neighbor also, our benevolence to all mankind: which can not but increase in the same proportion with our faith and love of God. For who does not apprehend the force of that inference drawn by the loving apostle, “Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.” If God so loved us - observe, the stress of the argument lies on this very point:
so loved us! as to deliver up His only Son to die a curst death for our salvation. “Beloved, what manner of love is this,” wherewith God bath loved us? So as to give His only Son! In glory equal with the Father: in majesty coeternal! What manner of love is this wherewith the only begotten Son of God bath loved us, as to empty Himself, as far as possible, of His eternal Godhead; as to divest Himself of that glory, .which He had with the Father before the world began; as to take upon Him “the form of a servant, being found in fashion as a man”! And then to humble Himself still further, “being obedient. unto death, even the death of the cross”! If God so loved us, bow ought we to love one another? But this motive to brotherly love had been totally wanting if Adam had not fallen. Consequently we could not then have loved one another in so high a degree as we may now. Nor could there have been that height and depth in the command of our blest Lord. “As I have loved you, so love one another.”

Such gainers may we be by Adam’s fall, with regard both to the love of God and of our neighbor. But there is another grand point, which, though little adverted to, deserves our deepest consideration. By that one act of our first parent, not only “sin entered into the world,” but pain also, and was alike entailed on his whole posterity. And herein appeared, not only the justice, but the unspeakable goodness of God. For how much good does He continually bring out of this evil! How much holiness and happiness out of pain!

How innumerable are the benefits which God conveys to the children of men through the channel of sufferings! so that it might well be said, “What are termed afflictions in the language of men, are in the language of God styled blessings.” Indeed, had there been no suffering in the world, a considerable part of religion, yea, and in some respects, the most excellent part, could have no place therein: since the very existence of it depends on our suffering: so that had there been no pain it could have had no being. Upon this foundation, even our suffering, it is evi¬dent all our passive graces are built; yea, the noblest of all Christian graces, love enduring all things. Here is the ground for resignation to God, enabling us to say from the heart, and in every trying hour, “It is the Lord: let him do what seemeth him good.” “Shall we receive good at the hand of the Lord, and shall we not receive evil?” And what a glorious spectacle is this? Did it not constrain even a heathen to cry out, “Ecce spectaculum Deo dignum! See a sight worthy of God: a good man struggling with adversity, and superior to it.” Here is the ground for confidence in God, both with regard to what we feel, and with regard to what we should fear, were it not that our soul is calmly stayed on him. What room could there be for trust in God if there was no such thing as pain or danger? Who might not say then, “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” It is by. sufferings that our faith is tried, and, therefore, made more acceptable to God. It is in the day of trouble that we have occasion to say, “Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” And this is well pleasing to God, that we should own Him in the face of danger; in defiance of sorrow, sickness, pain, or death.

Again: Had there been neither natural nor moral evil in the world, what must have become of patience, meekness, gentleness, long-suffering? It is manifest they could have had no being: seeing all these have evil for their object. If, therefore, evil had never entered into the world, neither could these have had any place in it. For who could have returned good for evil, had there been no evil-doer in the universe? How had it been possible, on that supposition, to overcome evil with good? Will you say, “But all these graces might have been divinely infused into the hearts of men?” Undoubtedly they might: but if they had, there would have been no use or exercise for them. Whereas in the present state of things we can never long want occasion to exercise them. And the more they are exercised, the more all our graces are strengthened and increased. And in the same proportion as our resignation, our confidence in God, our patience and fortitude, our meekness, gentleness, and long-suffering, together with our faith and love of God and man increase, must our happiness increase, even in the present world.

Yet again: As God’s permission of Adam’s fall gave all his posterity a thousand oppor¬tunities of suffering, and thereby of exercising all those passive graces which increase both their holiness and happiness, so it gives them opportunities of doing good in numberless instances, of exercising themselves in various good works, which otherwise could have had no being. And what exertions of benevolence, of compassion, of godlike mercy, had then been totally prevented! Who could then have said to the lover of men,

Thy mind throughout my life be shown,
While listening to the wretches’ cry,
The widow‘s or the orphan‘s groan;
On mercy‘s wings I swiftly fly
The poor and needy to relieve;
myself, my all, for them to give I

It is the just observation of a benevolent man,

—All worldly joys are less,
Than that one joy of doing kindnesses.

Surely in keeping this commandment, if no other, there is great reward. “As we have time, let us do good unto all men;” good of every kind and in every degree. Accordingly the more good we do (other circumstances being equal), the happier we shall be. The more we deal our bread to the hungry, and cover the naked with garments; the more we relieve the stranger, and visit them that are sick or in prison; the more kind offices we do to those that groan under the various evils of human life; the more comfort we receive even in the present world; the greater the recompense we have in our own bosom.

To sum up what has been said under this head: As the more holy we are upon earth, the more happy we must be (seeing there is an inseparable connection between holiness and happiness) ; as the more good we do to others, the more of present reward rebounds into our own bosom: even as our sufferings for God lead us to rejoice in Him “with joy unspeakable and full of glory”; therefore, the fall of Adam, first, by giving us an opportunity of being far more holy; secondly, by giving us the occasions of doing innumerable good works, which otherwise could not have been done; and, thirdly, by putting it into our power to suffer for God, whereby “the spirit of glory and of God rests upon us”: may be of such advantage to the children of men, even in the present life, as they will not thoroughly comprehend till they attain life everlasting.

It is then we shall be enabled fully to comprehend not only the advantages which accrue at the present time to the sons of men by the fall of their first parent, but the infinitely greater advantages which they may reap from it in eternity. In order to form some conception of this, we may remember the observation of the apostle, “As one star differeth from another star in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead.” The most glorious stars will undoubtedly be those who are the most holy; who bear most of that image of God wherein they were created. The next in glory to these will be those who have been most abundant in good works: and next to them, those that have suffered most, according to the will of God. But what advantages in every one of these respects will the children of God receive in heaven, by God’s permitting the introduction of pain upon earth, in consequence of sin? By occasion of this they attained many holy tempers, which otherwise could have had no being: resignation to God, confidence in him in times of trouble and danger, patience, meekness, gentleness, long-suffering, and the whole train of passive virtues. And on account of this superior holiness they will then enjoy superior happiness. Again: every one will then “receive his own reward, according to his own labor.” Every individual will be “rewarded according to his work.” But the Fall gave rise to innumerable good works, which could otherwise never have existed, such as ministering to the necessities of the saints, yea, relieving the distrest in every kind. And hereby innumerable stars will be added to their eternal crown. Yet again: there will be an abundant reward in heaven, for suffering as well as for doing, the will of God: “these light afflictions, which are but for a moment, work out for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” Therefore that event, which occasioned the entrance of suffering into the world, has thereby occasioned to all the children of God, an increase of glory to all eternity. For although the sufferings themselves will be at an end: although

The pain of life shall then be o‘er,
The anguish and distracting care;
The sighing grief shall weep no more;
And sin shall never enter there:—

yet the joys occasioned thereby shall never end, but flow at God’s right hand for evermore.

There is one advantage more that we reap from Adam‘s fall, which is not unworthy our attention. Unless in Adam all had died, being in the loins of their first parent, every descendant of Adam, every child of man, must have personally answered for himself to God: it seems to be a necessary consequence of this, that if he had once fallen, once violated any command of God, there would have been no possibility of his rising again; there was no help, but he must have perished without remedy. For that covenant knew not to show mercy: the word was, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Now who would not rather be on the footing he is now; under a covenant of mercy? Who would wish to hazard a whole eternity upon one stake? Is it not infinitely more desirable, to be in a state wherein, though encompassed with infirmities, yet we do not run such a desperate risk, but if we fall, we may rise again? Wherein we may say,

My trespass is grown up to heaven!
But, far above the skies,
In Christ abundantly forgiven,
I see Thy mercies rise!

In Christ! Let me entreat every serious person, once more to fix his attention here. All that has been said, all that can be said, on these subjects, centers in this point. The fall of Adam produced the death of Christ! Hear, 0 heavens, and give ear, 0 earth! Yea,

Let earth and heaven agree,
Angels and men be joined,
To celebrate with me
The Saviour of mankind;
To adore the all-atoning Lamb,
And bless the sound of Jesus’ name!

If God had prevented the fall of man, the Word had never been made flesh: nor had we ever “seen his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” Those mysteries had never been displayed, “which the very angels desire to look into.” Methinks this consideration swallows up all the rest, and should never be out of our thoughts. Unless “by one man, judgment had come upon all men to condemnation,” neither angels nor men could ever have known “the unsearchable riches of Christ.”

See then, upon the whole, bow little reason we have to repine at the fall of our first parent, since herefrom we may derive such unspeakable advantages, both in time and eternity. See how small pretense there is for questioning the mercy of God in permitting that event to take place, since therein, mercy, by infinite degrees, rejoices over judgment! Where, then, is the man that presumes to blame God for not preventing Adam’s sin? Should we not rather bless Him from the ground of the heart, for therein laying the grand scheme of man’s redemption, and making way for that glorious manifestation of His wisdom, holiness, justice, and mercy too. If indeed God bad decreed before the foundation of the world that millions of men should dwell in everlasting burnings, because Adam sinned, hundreds or thousands of years before they had a being, I know not who could thank him for this, unless the devil and his angels: seeing, on this supposition, all those millions of unhappy spirits would be plunged into hell by Adam’s sin, without any possible advantage from it. But, blest be God, this is not the case. Such a decree never existed. On the contrary, every one born of a woman may be an unspeakable gainer thereby; and none ever was or can be a loser, but by his own choice.

We see here a full answer to that plausible account “of the origin of evil,” published to the world some years since, and supposed to be unanswerable: that it “necessarily resulted from the nature of matter, which God was not able to alter.” It is very kind in this sweet-tongued orator to make an excuse for God! But there is really no occasion for it: God bath answered for Himself. He made man in His own image, a spirit endued with understanding and liberty. Man abusing that liberty, produced evil, brought sin and pain into the world. This God permitted, in order to a fuller manifestation of His wisdom, justice, and mercy, by bestowing on all who would receive it an infinitely greater happi¬ness than they could possibly have attained if Adam had not fallen.

“Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” Although a thousand particulars of His judgments, and of His ways are unsearchable to us, and past our finding out, yet we may discern the general scheme running through time into eternity. “According to the council of his own will,” the plan He had laid before the foundation of the world, He created the parent of all mankind in His own image. And He permitted all men to be made sinners by the disobedience of this one man, that, by the obedience of One, all who receive the free gift may be infinitely holier and happier to all eternity!

Technorati Tags:sermon, lesson. john wesley
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator