Monthly Archives: December 2006

Spiritual Maturity

by Mandi

I’ve been asked to explain what I mean when I use the phrase "spiritual maturity." Ironically, Musicguy was trying to be facetious when he defined it, but in actuality he did a pretty good job when he said, "a Christian who applies the word of God to all aspects of his life and displays the fruitage of the spirit as described in the Bible which he receives because he loves goodness and sincerely wishes to please his creator."

That sums it up fairly well.

Spiritual maturity is not something that is instantaneous. If it were, everyone who accepts Christ would spiritually "arrive." But, just like physical growth, spiritual growth is a gradual process.

Romans 12:1-2 says, "I beseech you therefore brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

It is this process of transformation–becoming more like Christ–that exemplifies spiritual maturity.

From Jim Berg’s Changed Into His Image:

While living on this earth, Jesus Christ exemplified the characteristics of a man controlled by the Holy Spirit and in perfect fellowship with God. [...] The believer is brought, as Paul said, "unto the meausre of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13). When the nature of God is reflected fully through the nature of a man, as it was in Christ, the blend produces a person who is the Father’s humble servant. Spiritually mature humanity is in essence Christlike humility–the humility of a servant.

Please note that this biblical goal of Christlike humility is a far cry from many currently popular, but unworthy, goals of helping someone become well adjusted or develop his "moral consciousness" or acheive personal happiness and success. Our Lord did not come to this planet, live a perfect life, and become a worthy atonement for the sins of the world so that those who become His children can merely be well adjusted, live morally upright lives, and enjoy personal happiness and success. He died to redeem us from the penalty and power of a sinful heart that keeps us from being useful servants of the living God. A truly humble servant of God will be well adjusted, will have a morally sensitive conscience, and will enjoy the blessedness of life with God–but these are byproducts of godliness, not primary goals for the Christian life.

[...]

Preachers through the years have described is as the process whereby the Spirit of God takes the Word of God and changes us to become like the Son of God.

For you ought to put off the old man (according to your way of living before) who is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind. And you should put on the new man, who according to God was created in righteousness and true holiness. (Eph 4:22-24)

Therefore putting aside all filthiness and overflowing of evil, receive in meekness the implanted Word, which is able to save your souls. But become doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if anyone is a hearer of the Word and not a doer, he is like a man studying his natural face in a mirror. For he studied himself and went his way, and immediately he forgot what he was like. But whoever looks into the perfect Law of liberty and continues in it, he is not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work. This one shall be blessed in his doing. If anyone thinks to be religious among you, yet does not bridle his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit orphans and widows in their afflictions, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. (Jam 1:21-27)

Someone who is spiritually mature is someone who is continually striving to become more like Christ. It is someone who realizes that he can’t do it by his own power and allows the Holy Spirit to empower him to become like Christ and become useful to Christ.

Blogs who link here: Pursuing Holiness, Dumb Ox News, Blue Star Chronicles, and Conservative Cat.


Standards

by Mandi

This post will deviate from my normal posts, as I will be delving into the world of my personal life for a bit.

Is it possible to have too high standards for what you’re looking for in a life partner?

I recently broke up with my boyfriend because he didn’t meet all of my standards, and as a result I couldn’t see being with him long term. I was a lot more upset about this than I thought I would be. When I talked to my mom about it, she made a statement that’s been with me ever since. She said that my standards are so high that God himself couldn’t meet them.

I have to wonder if she’s right. Are my standards so high that they will only set up any guy for failure in my eyes? Has my unconscious done this so that I will never have to confront my fears of trust, intimacy, and rejection?


Voting for the 2006 Weblog Awards

by Mandi

Voting is now open! You can vote once a day, so make sure you vote for me each day! (Or someone else if you think they’re more deserving in my category!) No matter what, vote once a day!

You can vote in my category by clicking on the image below or the one in my sidebar.

The 2006 Weblog Awards

You can find the links to all other voting sites here.


The Bible is not a sling shot

by Mandi

It’s funny how on a day when I’m at work sick, I find the time to post more than usual. Oh well. :)

Zach posts some clarifying comments about his sarcastic reply to James Dobson. But I don’t want to focus on all of that. Zach said something in the middle of his defense that really struck a chord with me:

It’s just saddening (sometimes maddening) that the Bible is treated more as a device for casting stones rather than moving us towards mercy, humility and acceptance.

Isn’t it crazy how so many things that I’m reading lately are addressing this topic?

Tags:


America is not a Christian nation

by Mandi

Keith Ellison, America’s first Muslim congressman (Minnesota, D), has come under a lot of fire after letting it be known that he will carry a copy of the Koran to his swearing in ceremony on January 4th. Dennis Prager, conservative pundit, seems to be the most vocal of those opposed. The funny thing is that Prager’s opposition is based on faulty information.

Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.

[...]

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization.

The issue here is that elected officials do not take their oaths of office with their hands on any book.

In Congress, newly elected representatives do not put their left hands on any book. They raise their right hands, and are sworn in together as the speaker of the House administers the oath of office. Some do carry a book, according to House historians, and some choose to photograph a private swearing-in afterward with their hand on the Bible.

The Constitution says: “The senators and representatives … shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Some confusion may come from the long-standing tradition of presidents taking the oath with a hand on the Bible. But this is a choice and matter of custom, as is the phrase, “so help me God.” President John Quincy Adams took the oath on a law book including the Constitution. President Theodore Roosevelt didn’t use a book.

First of all, the United States of America is not a Christian nation. There is no official religion that governs our country (as much as people may try to claim this). Our country is made up of such a diverse population that elected officials should also be diverse if they are really to be representative of the citizens (there’s a reason that every middle schooler in America is taught that we are a “melting pot”). Because of this diversity, and because of our freedoms to be whatever religion we choose, this shouldn’t even be an issue. It’s a definite form of hypocrisy for Prager to say, “In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.”

Am I the only one who sees the inconsistency in this logic? America will fight for your freedoms, but we will take those freedoms away from those who will be fighting for yours.

Prager wrote a follow-up article to respond to the various accusations thrown at him, and all I can say is grow up, man! In his rebuttal, all Prager really does is throw all of the blame on Ellison in an effort to take the heat off of himself. Grown men should not act that way.


Righteous Anger

by Mandi

Brent, from Colossians Three Sixteen has posted a great article on Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church, righteous anger, and how the first two do not possess the latter.

While Westboro calls their pickets “Love Crusades,” most who have come in contact with the church members and their message would call them anything but loving. While I do not know, I presume that Phelps and the others would say something like: “telling the truth is the most loving thing we can do.” Regardless of their stated intentions, the group often comes across as anything but loving which prompts the question, if God hates sinners, should we also hate them?

The obvious answer, of course, is NO!

Rather than hating those who sin, we are called to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-44). Rather than spewing messages of hate, we are called to speak softly (Proverbs 15:1, etc.). Rather than cling to wrong-doing, we are to forgive (Matthew 18:15-35, etc.). While this does not mean that we accept homosexuality, it does mean that we must be sensitive in how we portray our message.

The minute we single out the sin of others, we have opened ourselves to the charge of hypocrisy. Jesus very clearly warns against trying to peer around our log-eyes to poke at someone else’s speck (Matthew 7:3) and we must be clear that God hates all sin and will judge all sinners. But we must first feel this reality in our own hearts and it is with tears that we must call men and women, boys and girls to repentance, knowing that salvation is undeserved, by anyone. Yes, we must call sin what it is and we must call for repentance, but:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

It’s often said that how we say something is as important as what we say. While the Gospel is the most important message anyone could ever hear, it is still true that our presentation affects the reactions of many. Dressing the Gospel in gowns of hatred only shows how little we’ve understood it in the first place.

This all goes back to the saying “Hate the sin; love the sinner.” It seems like such a simple concept, yet people everywhere get tripped up on it. Why? Why is it so hard to see past the sin? Whenever a Christian fails (like the recent Ted Haggard scandal) it seems that the church wastes no time picking them up. But whenever a nonChristian fails, the church seeks to push that person down even further. It shouldn’t be that way.


2006 Weblog Awards Finalist

by Mandi

I can hardly believe it! The finalists were announced last night for the 2006 Weblog Awards, and I’m a finalist in the Best of the Top 2501 – 3500 Blogs. Voting begins tomorrow, and I’ll have the poll site linked to the image below and in my sidebar.

The 2006 Weblog Awards


In war you shoot the enemy, not the hostage

by Mandi

Donny has written another post that everyone should read.

He writes about how something Donald Miller said in Searching for God Knows What really struck him and made him stop to think.

“In war you shoot the enemy, not the hostage”.

Think about that for a second and then apply it to Christianity. It almost made me cry for some reason, but that’s not really too hard to do lately. I’ve been experiencing so much of Jesus’ love lately that, at times, it’s pretty difficult not to become emotional.

Let me share with you the direction that sentence took my mind. Tell me in the comments section where it took yours. Don used that sentence to sum up the idea that Christians too often focus on attacking the person sinning, rather than the source of that sin. Man may be sinful by nature, but covering him with the true love of Jesus can alter his nature. Instead of attacking and “killing” people, let’s focus on the Enemy and not on the hostage. The only way to kill the influence of evil within another person is to cover the hostage with the love Jesus challenged us to show to all people. That love will smother the one who tries to hold each of us hostage.

It seems to me that Satan has really used the church to do his bidding. Much of the world is so turned off by the war Christians have raged against “hostages” that it refuses to listen to the true message it’s meant to hear. That message is love. That message does not focus on sin. That doesn’t mean sin should be ignored, just that it needs to be placed in proper context.

There’s no way I could have said that any better, and I really don’t think I can add anything to it. I wish every Christian could read this. I wish every person who has ever been attacked by a Christian could read this and understand that we aren’t all like that.

Tags: , , , ,


Scrappy Theme by Caroline Moore | Copyright 2012 Simply Mandi Kaye | Powered by WordPress