Nichols Blog

But It’s A Peaceful Religion

Mike, Natasha, Chaya, and Joshua — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:26:24 GMT

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125748027248433099.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

Does this mean Islam is just a manifestation of a stress disorder?

It’s Not Working

Mike, Natasha, Chaya, and Joshua — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 05:50:45 GMT

I am sitting here at a church waiting for our kids to finish up Awana. Just across from me is a three year-old tyrant who is being followed around by the leader of the Awana program. Screaming at ear-splitting levels, kicking, even hitting her, she patiently waits for this demonstration of modern Christianity’s tragic failure to love our children subside. Little “Billy” is just doing what he always does…training adults. Placed in uncommon surroundings, he moves to quickly establish his authority among the teachers.

Since we are in the land of the free, the teacher is powerless to do anything – their lawyers won’t let her. Since we have developed a greater insight into the emotional needs and challenges of little children, she must let this child further develop the acute sense of manipulation and lack of self-control that will give him greater self-esteem and be more loving (toward himself first, and then others when beneficial for him). This is the offspring of the love affair between behavioral science and the local church; our seminaries churning out teachers and pastors steeped in heaps of media based on godless premises. Naive parents mindlessly employ the ad hoc philosophy being sentimentally spoken to them on Family Life Radio, the pulpit, conferences and the silence of older saints to help the younger know better. The resulting spiritual venereal disease our children are afflicted with as a result of this unholy union bears these boils of tantrums and manipulation tactics, making our children completely unprepared for a cold,harsh world where they will quickly find that they are having to share the pursuit for godhood with everyone else.

Ah, the father just arrived to “rescue” this child and holds him and consoles him with kisses and sweet-talk.

The child has succeeded in his training and his father has prepared him for hell. Just another day in Miserable.

The embarrassed looks on the faces of everyone that witnesses these kinds of outbursts should be evidence enough that this is not normal. They resemble the glares onlookers have at an automobile accident. But at the end of the day, mom and dad will explain away the situation with improvised opinions usually based on their own childhood and never deal with the problem, effectively leaving their child in the burning car while people look on in horror. Thankfully for them there are a million dances provided by Christian counselors and doctors devised to step around the simplicity of the rod and training approaches rooted in the Biblical teaching on the nature of the child and plenty of mom support groups around to affirm the redefinition of this failure using terms like “phases” or “personality” or “preferences”. I have actually had a woman tell me that their child had a “love language” where he likes everything to be done his way.

These observations are not just an assertion of the failure to yield the rod in tense times with children. The rod must be used - the Bible considers the withholding of the rod a demonstration of hatred toward your child; but that is only the equipment. When someone wants to improve their tennis game, they don’t just think about the racket they are using. They think primarily about strategy, fitness, attitude, concentration, etc. The same should be true in our discussions about how to train our children.

When we are asked about our approach with our children, most folks are primarily concerned with the application of the rod. This necessarily reduces the conversation on training to that of a reactionary model; ie., Billy does this, so Mama does that. Parents shouldn’t allow themselves to be continually back on their heels trying to respond to a child’s rebellion on a situational basis. We have found ourselves in this position and have learned that we instinctively go into “survival” mode and lose sight of what we are trying to accomplish with our children. In place of vision for winning their heart, we are dealing with each crime as a grave personal offense. In place of joy and enjoyment of the child’s company, we are cops trying to “keep the peace”. This is the work of the flesh and the overall atmosphere of the family home is tense and conditional.

The solution to this is to go on the offensive and that requires an abrupt change in the heart of Mama and Papa. The responsible parent is supernaturally attuned to his child’s heart and recognizing various characters issues which, if given time to take root, will be very difficult to bend them away from later. It should be made clear that what we are trying to accomplish is the development of self-control in the child so that she is not so drunk on her own lusts that she is unable to hear God’s call or recognize their depravity when they become accountable for it. When you see a parent bending over backwards to explain why their little cutey-pie can’t have any more ice cream, you are seeing the parental equivalent of the bartender giving one more shot of whiskey to the man who can barely stand up. This is not love.

If you do not enjoy your child, something is wrong and needs to be fixed
If you consider disobedience and disregard for your authority normal, you are wrong and need to be fixed
If you are unwilling to literally employ the Bible’s solution to rebellion (ie, the rod), you consider your emotions more important than the destiny of your child. Please consider better contraceptives.
If you expect that your child is incapable of being responsible, respectful, kind, gentle, fun, or resilient because of modern pagan teachings about personality you are not entitled to have a child who is responsible, respectful, kind, gentle, fun, or resilient. Have fun.
If you think having several minutes, or hours, of dramatic battles of wills is better for a child than to quickly purge the poison of disobedience from their behavior then you are cruel and should be reported to the authorities.
If you think training a child has to do with behavior or social graces you are a man-pleaser and need to repent before your damage your child with religiosity

Hi, my name is Mike Nichols, and I am a…

Mike, Natasha, Chaya, and Joshua — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:23:19 GMT

High-thinker.

There, I said it. Now the psychologists and Christian counselors can say I am on my path to recovery.

High-thinkin’ not in general or about important things, but rather about myself.

For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. (Rom 12:3)

Oops. Looks like I got through Romans 12:1,2 and somehow didn’t see this lurching in the shadows of those two towers. See, it is easy to wax poetic about mindsets, thoughts, and so on but this verse here invades the external life and now I have to deal with other people, as Romans 12:4,5 is about to show me.

This is one of those fascinating instances where a good corporate arrangement enables bad personal disposition. A democratic society governed by men who ignore or refute the wickedness of the human heart encourages the opposite of Paul’s exhortation since the doctrine of freedom being dispensed by politicians, media, and the local church is anchored by the esteem of Self. Neighborliness is acted upon within the context of personal satisfaction or demonstration of political equality, not as a command from God. And why not? The pursuit of personal happiness turns other men into stepping stones on that path if we are convinced that comfort and prosperity are the two pillars of that happiness. Of course, the irony is that God prevents any man from being truly happy when he is sincerely living out this insane model.

And “insanity” is what Paul calls it.

“Think soberly” in the verse above is the same as saying “think sanely” (about one’s self). Paul is essentially asserting that the opposite of sanity is high-thinking of one’s self. Have you seen a guy cut in line? He’s insane. Have you seen people arguing in the air-conditioned comfort of their comfortable home? They are insane. Have you allowed yourself to lament over how under-appreciated you are? You are insane.

The force at work in this high-thinkin’ is, of course, called pride AKA ‘sin’. This is why it is so pervasive and repulsive. It is also why we feel like God is working against us during these moments of insanity - He is (God opposes the proud (James 4:6)). What makes it worse is the encouragement toward the inflated sense of entitlement and merit being preached to us from the pulpit and the television. Since the typical Christian listens to these preachers far more than feeding on the truth in the Bible, he is doomed to think he is entitled to be the recipient of all that is comfortable, all that is easy, all that is convenient, all that is entertaining.

This entire exhortation is launched from Paul’s expectation that the Christian has proved God’s will and has seated himself within the context of that will. High-thinking of one’s self and attributes is just evidence of a failure to live that out. When I am angry at the car that kept me from getting to the shopping center 2.367 minutes sooner I am just demonstrating that my pursuit of God’s will (and righteousness) is not happening and my elevated sense of importance is driving my character, unless I AM so important that I should get things done sooner than every one else <g>. The Bible says God’s will is “acceptable” (Rom 12:2), so the onus on me is to do the accepting and see others as worthy of thinking higher than my own interests (Philippians 2:3) so I can be a fruitful part of God’s will in their lives.

Pagosa

Mike, Natasha, Chaya, and Joshua — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:58:20 GMT

We took two weeks holiday in Pagosa Springs, Colorado. We rented a cabin on 70 acres of land backing up to the San Juan National Forest about 20 miles south of Pagosa on Highway 84 (just off Coyote Park Road, 359).

Things we did:

Treasure Falls : a waterfall on Treasure Mountain on the way to Wolf Creek Pass. Easy hike worth doing, though busy.
Lobo overlook : a radio tower at Wolf Creek Pass on the Continental Divide with extraordinary views.
Fishing in Williams Reservoir and Echo Reservoirs: Don’t bother with Williams unless you have a boat.
Durango-Silverton Narrow gauge railroad: Highly recommended and beautiful. Silverton is really cool.
Pagosa Springs town : Not much here. Cute and not overrun with deadbeat hippy artists so that is refreshing. Feels like a small town…not even a Wal Mart here (yay!)
Opal Lake / Fish Creek : Amazing drive on Blanco Basin road thru dense Aspen forest. Opal lake is on the way to the V-Rock trail and is incredible with mountain streams, lush meadows, and few people. We didn’t do Fish Creek but that looks incredible with lots of water.
Ole Miner restaurant : A delight…great steak and trout.

It was nice being in a QUIET place for a while where the only noise was the crackling fire or crickets outside.

Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise

Mike, Natasha, Chaya, and Joshua — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:40:59 GMT

Joshua and I were headed to Wal-Mart to get a new magazine for my rifle and before we did I told him I wanted to pray.

So we prayed for Mama and Uncle Gary and Mister Phil. Afterwards I turned to him locked safely in his car set in the back of the top-off, door-off Jeep and said, "Brother, you know we have a God we can speak to any time, any where if you are in Christ."

To which he responded,

"Jesus Loves Us, Papa".

How does a two and a half year old deduce this from the liberty to speak to our Heavenly Father? He wasn't just being a parrot, this was a conclusion of Joshua's. And his conclusion warms my heart.

Poor Widow Economics

Mike, Natasha, Chaya, and Joshua — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:40:33 GMT

And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.
(Luk 21:1-4)

I wonder how alarmed this woman would be if she were able to perform an audit on individuals' finances in the Church today. I don't wonder because we don't give enough, but rather because we give other people's money and call it giving, or 'tithing'. The issue of "giving" has come up a lot lately and I am convinced the seeds of prosperity gospel teaching have become well-germinated in the Church in many subtle ways. I am further convinced that the error is because we fail to see that God views man in terms of finances as one of a steward, not as a resource; or, stated more succinctly, He doesn't need your money - He uses money to train us (Luke 16,Matt 25).

While most would agree with this philosophically (after all, He is God, right?), most organizations and even local churches today mix in what they consider to be a "pragmatic" approach to giving. That is, while it is true that God doesn't need your money, WE do so you should give it to us to get God's "blessings". My post here will not dig into the false teaching of "tithing" so many leaders continue to hurl at Christian ears since that deserves its own posting. Here I am more concerned with this view that the act of giving somehow supercedes God's commandments about how we handle our money or that He even "blesses" people with money who have acted irresponsibly with their finances.

Would you give money to someone who buys their food at 17.25% interest on their third credit card and considers getting a big screen television because it is on sale while their home electricity is being threatened with disconnection by the utility company? If this doesn't sound ludicrous to you then you wouldn't understand this blog post. If it does sound ludicrous, can you help me understand why would we teach people that God intends His children to live according to this madness and tell them He actually will provide for it by giving them more?

Debt and its indication of disobedience and bondage is not my focus here. The fact is, most people in this country carry some form of consumer debt whether it is credit card debt, student loans, car loans, or any other debt on a liability - they are losing money every day. If you owe money and are unable to pay it, the money you have is simply not your own - it is the lender's (Prov 22:7). Every cent spent apart from paying off that debt only lengthens the debt and compounds the interest accrued on it. Failure to heed this and continuing to deepen the debt without lifestyle adjustment is a sickness, similar to the man with emphysema pulling off his oxygen mask to have a smoke. The sickness in the Bible is called by various terms: "covetousness", "idolatry", etc.

When finances are dealt with in most church teaching, "faith" is introduced as some kind of Get Out Of Jail Free card. Rather than teaching that our willingness to postpone some purchase because of a lack of resources is an evidence of our faith, we teach that God will give us some money back if we give it to <insert Christian organization here>. Rather than teaching that faith eats Ramen noodles and drinks water while riding bicycles, we teach that faith is believing God will sustain our obesity and SUV's because we throw a five-spot at some charity. Rather than teaching that the "cheerful heart" God wants us to give from is only accessible from a life of freedom, we exhort people to imitate cheerful giving while they sink in the pit of bondage evidenced by debt. In short, "faith" in the common application toward mammon is seen as an acceptable usurper of moral responsibility. This is indeed a "faith" but the faith of palm readers and psychics, not the God of Israel who is conforming His children to the image of His Son.

Clearly stated, a Christian simply should not be "giving" until he (not his bank) has something to give. No Christian is unable to give that has acted responsibly with his or her finances. And even if he or she couldn't give the verse above teaches us Christ is far more interested in the desire of the heart (to give). A Christian giving money who refuses to allow God to govern his finances is just no different than the mafia guy praying for forgiveness for killing a guy but has no intention of changing his ways. It's the same rotten religiosity no matter which way I look at it.

The typical response to the proposition that a Christian should hold off on "giving" until they have paid off debts which are holding them in bondage typically invokes the response you'd expect: "Yeah, but then a lot of ministries would cease to exist". Apart from the humanistic confidence this conclusion exudes, I hope you see the underlying (flawed) premise in this conclusion: God sees man as a vital financial resource generator, not as a steward. Also, we are potentially stating that God finds slavery of His children suitable for the advancement of His "ministry" objectives. How? Debt is always revealed as slavery in the Bible. People don't go into debt because they give too much, they go into debt because they overspend, plain and simple. God is far more interested in changing the mind that tolerates slavery to things like cars, degrees, televisions, etc. than He is with the measly $100 being tossed in the coffers.

Finally, consider this - if God really intends Christians to continue their giving while being enslaved to consumer debt why not exhort the congregation to give much more than they can handle? Why not be asking for the entire limit on their credit card? This might sound overstated, but after thinking about this for a long time I can see no difference. You might as well give lots if you are holding to the belief that you can give with money that is not your own. If you are thinking "well, that is extreme. I want to get out debt someday but can't for a while; I can stop giving until then." Why not? Wouldn't it be wiser to pursue ridding yourself of the slavery and set aside all the money you saved on the interest so you can give more later on? It makes both spiritual and mathematical cents <grin>.

So how does all this play out in the "real world"?

First, debt happens. You are not "evil" or "unclean" because you have some debt you cannot pay, but you are enslaved. But you are enslaved with the God of the Universe interested in your liberation ! Rather than trusting Him to give you a bit to keep giving, trust Him to get you out of the slavery and free up your resources. He will do this first by causing you to agree with Him about the pitfalls of living beyond your means (if that is the situation that got you there) and also providing a way to free you from it. He has done this in my life and He will in yours.

Second, if there is some financial situation that is simply binding you from being able to give anything away be very wary of compulsion which is anything other than the Holy Spirit's unction. If the Lord would have you give "all the living that you have" as the widow above did, then do it. If you are giving just because of some social pressure or habitual sense of duty then STOP - that stuff is self righteous and repugnant. Consider that the reason you have little is because God is seeing how you as a steward will do and He is more interested in your character and mind set toward money than He is in your money. The mantra "faithful in little, faithful in much" is an inescapable truth.

Third, if you feel you must teach about giving be sure to first teach about God's view of how men should handle their money to begin with. The lust that gets people into trouble financially is sin. We do people a disservice when we allow them to steep in that sinful mind set. This is especially true if we are actually suggesting they have liberty to demonstrate godly behavior while continuing in their sinful ways. We are essentially causing them to sidestep their sin and I really wonder how interested we are in the spiritual well-being of our listeners if we can entertain that.

Notes From Deuteronomy, Part IV : Land Of The Giants

Mike, Natasha, Chaya, and Joshua — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 05:01:09 GMT

No, not the TV Show .

There is a horrible irony that can be missed in Deuteronomy if you aren't carefully following along with Moses' recollection of the Great Wilderness Adventure. It is an irony I believe God has stuck in there to teach us about our own capriciousness and failure to embrace Him as the God of all.

Do you recall why the Israelites were sentenced to wander until their death (sans children) in the forsaken wasteland outside Canaan? If you answered, "they saw giants" you would be wrong. Not because the scouts in Numbers 13 didn't think they saw giants, but because they couldn't have seen giants. I have been told this story again and again being told that the reason the Israelites were scared of entering Canaan was because of giants that lived therein, but this is flat out wrong. Otherwise, this verse would be false:

For only Og king of Bashan [map] remained of the remnant of giants; ...
(Deu 3:11a)

If you look up the location of Bashan (today's Golan Heights) you'd see Bashan it outside Canaan. Bashan has significance in the Bible as being often a representation of that which is big, mighty, strong. The 'bulls of Bashan' were known for their size. The mountains are large. Deuteronomy 3:13 explicitly tells us it was known as 'the land of giants'. They represent the largeness man attributes to other men who have might, or power. This Og was no different. Besides being a giant he commanded a numerous army over some 60 cities (Deut 3:4).

Deuteronomy 3:3 tells us Israel defeated this Og and his armies. Actually, it says "the Lord our God delivered into [their] hands Og". We once again see God using geography for spiritual significance. The Israelites blamed their lack of faith to go in and take Canaan on their belief that giants dwelt there thanks to false, but sincere, testimony. Yet here we see them defeating the only giant that did exist and they did so outside the land in which they were intended to be conquerors. This must have been a bitter pill for them to swallow, as surely some of them realized that they were able to conquer giants and their destiny could have been much different. The next forty years of their life would have the haunting "What if?" stalking them when they ate yet another piece of manna or packed up yet another tent.

God makes it clear to us here that men are capable of perceiving giants where there are none. He also makes it clear to us that whether there are giants or not doesn't matter in His economy since He is the single entity we need to fear. It is one thing to trust God for battle, but it is even more profound when we trust God for correcting our perspective.

I feel extremely awkward in social gatherings, especially at work where I am late on a project that has been very expensive. I was invited to join the top dogs in the company for a fun time at a hockey game in the suite they have reserved. Though I am certain I think too much about matters and am convinced one of the benefits of salvation is freedom from man-pleasing (Rom 2:29), nonetheless I sense heat in the glares from some other folks in the company. I wish I had meditated on this "giant" teaching before I went in there. The Spirit of God was faithful to bolster confidence in me and put things in proper perspective and I ended up really enjoying talking with everyone there, but later I reflected on how quickly the sensory scouts in me want to run back to camp and yell "There Be Giants There!" and retreat.

Notes From Deuteronomy, Part III: Veneer

Mike, Natasha, Chaya, and Joshua — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 04:56:14 GMT

Falsifying conviction is meaningless, void.

The manifestation of this rotten motive is infinitely creative. We see movie stars traveling the world adopting babies, speeches made to the poor by government leaders on the campaign trail, coins dropped in the beggar's cup by the guy out on a date with the Christian girl. We keep a mental list of recent morally outstanding acts we have recently committed to assuage both the devil our adversary and the preacher our referee. To make matters worse, every week there is a new book released by some guy who does nothing but read the Bible and write books all day convincing us that we aren't doing enough and convinces us our burdens should be the same as his burdens. An accompanying DVD set is of course available for a recommended "love offering" (tr. "price") of $49.95 to help you "catch the fire".

Two incidents occur in Deuteronomy which speak loudly about God's opinion on this disposition. The first occurs in Deuteronomy 1:41 just after the great Sentence rendered upon Israel for her unbelief - life in the Wilderness. It is interesting to note how Israel responds to God after He just issued this sentence of life in the Wilderness and a direct command to go by the Red Sea:

Then ye answered and said unto me, We have sinned against the LORD, we will go up and fight, according to all that the LORD our God commanded us. And when ye had girded on every man his weapons of war, ye were ready to go up into the hill.
(Deu 1:41)

Just a few moments ago they were cowering because they'd fight big scary giants in the Promised Land (Num 13:33), yet now all of a sudden here they are at Moses' patio with their war gear ready to go fight. God informs them through Moses that He will not be among them and cautions them to stand down, but of course they set out to war anyway and are consequently run out like a pacifist at an NRA conference by the Amorites, crying like snot-nosed babies when they return. The error here was their imitation of conviction - they thought because God had just chastised them for their unwillingness to fight in Canaan, they could put on a demonstration of battle in hopes God would notice and change His mind about the Wilderness sentence. They didn't want to do what God commanded, but rather wanted to appear busy doing similar activity.

Later on, we see God's perspective on man's propensity toward theatrical spirituality. Just after the big Wizard Of Oz demonstration at Sinai all the people of Israel were shaken to their core and implored Moses to go have a word with God:

Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it. And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.
(Deu 5:27-28)

If we stop here, we might be led to believe God was impressed with Israel's words. But continuing, we see God more grieved because they are only able to express solidarity with Him in words:

O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
(Deu 5:29)

We see here God's profound revelation of the way men really function - they will not be the right kind of obedient until they are corrected in their heart. Their lips are meaningless.

How might this understanding impact our equipment of today Christians? I believe every exhortation to a character quality which is commanded by God must be very carefully delivered. "The heart", it is said "is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?" Given man's insatiable desire to justify himself in the eyes of himself and others, we must be very careful to withhold exhortations toward things like giving, acts of service, discipleship, etc. until we have firmly established that such things are indicators of a healthy heart, not steps toward reforming a crooked one. Failure to abide by this will simply be producing more Wilderness-dwellers with the veneer of spirituality and reduces Christianity to mere moralist ideology. Sure, they eat manna from heaven and have really long-lasting shoes but from God's perspective they are utterly useless and He will oppose them and their exploits to the end.

Notes From Deuteronomy, Part II : The Difference

Mike, Natasha, Chaya, and Joshua — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 04:49:37 GMT

Last time, we looked at what we can learn from Moses in his dealing with situations and how he interprets events that are taking place. What is important to note in the chastisements to the people he was leading is his constant reminder of their encounter with Pharaoh and their witness to the Red Sea miracle. Even more striking is that this bit of history serves for chastisement for future prophets as well. Over and over we read in the Old Testament God's reminder to Israel how he delivered them from Egypt. Moses also draws on the water coming from the rock and the manna from heaven for affirming God's faithfulness and making the Israelites murmurings unreasonable in his mind.

History is important to God. It is so important to Him, He journals His relationship with man spanning thousands of years in every imaginable culture in a single book. He also treats history as having a direction, a purpose. One of the key attributes of men in the Bible we consider "great" is their ability to draw on history with God, both personally and in a larger scope of the human experience. This manifests itself as a dividing line between Moses and the people he was called to lead. They consistently fail to remember their history with God, while Moses continually recalls God's faithful dealing with him and his people. This necessarily leads them to two different places in terms of disposition and responses to life's upheavals.

It also makes Moses very lonely.

The maturity to set aside the current emotional tide we are engulfed in to recall God's faithfulness and displays of power in our life is only cultivated in the soil of saving faith. The Israelites concluded God hates them in Deut 1:27. How do people that walked across the dry land of the Red Sea conclude something like this? When I read this I realize how little I recollect my history with God and the various witnesses in my own life that testify to God's power and faithfulness. Life becomes something of a knee-jerk reaction when history doesn't penetrate into my interpretation of surrounding events.

We read in Deuteronomy 4:9 an explicit warning against forgetting our experiences. Here, it is called taking heed to one's self and keeping one's soul diligently.

Notes From Deuteronomy, Part I : Watching Moses Carefully

Mike, Natasha, Chaya, and Joshua — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 04:37:56 GMT

Deuteronomy is somewhat of a spiritual autobiography for Moses. We read how he is grieved and challenged and what his thoughts were during the trials of the Unintended Wilderness Adventure. Why is this important? Because of the endorsement Moses receives at the end of the book:

And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,
(Deu 34:10)

Also consider that the Old Covenant which we call "the Law" is called "the Law of Moses" in the Bible - his name is usually attached to the fact of the law in Israel. The Law and Moses are so inextricably bound, Moses comes to represent the Law - this will be significant later as we investigate why Moses was not permitted in the Promised Land. Most striking, though, is how his fame persisted untarnished even through Christ's day. He appeared with Christ on the Mount during the transfiguration. Later, the writer of Hebrews mentions Moses' glory as an comparator for Jesus' glory.

When we come across someone with these kinds of treatments in the Bible it is important to look into the assumptions they make in their statements beyond merely what they say . This is useful for discovering the unspoken theology of folks like Paul and so on who have formed our understanding of God. Remember that we study the Bible not for content but rather giving God time to form our theology. We have to go slow and deep for this kind of treatment.

An early example of this is in Deuteronomy 1:19-32 where we read Moses' personal account of the spies' report and its undoing of Israel. What is interesting here is seeing the elements of the spies' data Moses considered important, or authoritative. Compare the account here to the one in Numbers 13-14, and we see the spies' reporting gloom and doom, which is what the rest of Israel chose to listen to and ultimately led to their exclusion from the Promised Land. Note that Moses' recollection in Deuteronomy, though, shows him having only heard the part about the fruit of the land being good and the land being good. Deuteronomy 1:25-26 shows Moses' incredulity that Israel would not go into Canaan and "forgets" to mention the big scary people and cities the spies also reported. He heard what the naysayers were saying, he just chose to throw out their observations since it ran counter to what he believed God was capable of.

I see in this difference of perspective something I have observed in other mature, great men of God - they simply do not acknowledge all the data which is a valuation from the perspective of human strength, might, intellect, or other resources. Everyone else around them is crying about how miserable a situation is while they draw on what they know about God and put that situation in that context. Uncertainty is subject to their understanding of God and the conclusions they draw are not based on their own perception.