Unfortunately, my weekly theology class posts got a bit behind. So today I am jumping to the tenth week of class. I started Systematic Theology II today, and will begin summarizing lessons from that class next Monday.

Written by Steven Barto, B.S. Psych.

We are presented with a critical theological question: Have we inherited Adam’s sin nature and his guilt?

MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS we are all held accountable for our own sins and called to work out our own salvation daily (Phil. 2:12). Paul says we are to do whatever God puts before us without complaining or questioning, adding, “for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (2:13-14, RSV). Ezekiel covers this issue succinctly in chapter eighteen. He writes about a “word from God” in which the LORD said Israel was to no longer refer to the proverb that “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Ezekiel 18:2).God clarifies in 18:4 that it is the soul who sins that shall die. This passage of Scripture clearly indicates that a father must “model” good and righteous behavior for his son.

Through what psychology calls social learning theory (to borrow from my undergraduate studies), children tend to mimic the behavior of their primary care givers or role models. This dovetails nicely with Proverbs 22:6: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” If an upright father begets a son prone to evil and violence, that son shall lose his life. In fact, “his blood shall be upon himself” (18:13). Moreover, if a father who has done evil begets a son who chooses a righteous path rather than repeating the sins of the father, “he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live” (18:17, italics mine). God said, “The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (18:20).

I would be remiss, however, if I did not address Exodus 20:5b, which says, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.” I’ve heard this passage explained from a sociological (albeit Judeo-Christian) perspective. The Zondervan Bible Commentary indicates that “the third and fourth generation reflects the greatest probable extent of the range of members of any one family actually living together in one household.” In other words, God wanted the Israelites to see the “lasting” impact their choices would likely have because of the nature of extended families at that time. This seems to indicate the “social learning theory” of children and grandchildren observing and imitating sinful or disobedient behavior. Isaiah 14:1-23 suggests it is Israel’s cause that will be pleaded in the quarrel with Babylon prophesied in Revelation 18.

There is much symbolism afoot regarding the oracles on God’s word to the nations (Isa. 13:1-23:18). I see this as a corporate issue rather than one of individual “guilt” or condemnation. Paul addresses the concept of guilt under the New Covenant. He says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned—sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come…if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:12-14, 17).

If we look at the question of inherited guilt versus inherited sin from a position of covenant, we can better understand that there was no remedy for our sin nature under the Old Covenant. Consider the Abrahamic (or Land) Covenant. God promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations and of many descendants, and that He would give the entire Land of Canaan to Abraham’s heirs. Unfortunately, many Jews had begun to mumble and complain, and to doubt God. They were fearful of the “giants” occupying the land promised to them by God. Because of disobedience and fear (indeed, the lack of faith, which is sinfu), the Israelites living at the time of the Land Covenant were barred from entering. God was angered, but His response was very specific: “Not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good land which I swore to give to your fathers, except Caleb the son of Jephun’neh; he shall see it, and to him and to his children I will give the land upon which he has trodden, because he has wholly followed the LORD” (Deut. 1:36, italics mine).

Wayne Grudem, in Systematic Theology, is adamant that we inherited Adam’s guilt. The biblical authority for his position is Romans 5:12: “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” He also cites Romans 5:18, “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.” In context, however, the apostle Paul seems to be talking about justification and reconciliation, juxtaposing it with condemnation and trespass. Paul writes, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (5:19). There is a comparison here of law, sin, and offense to grace and righteousness. The Revised Standard Version does not use the word “guilt” in any of these passages. Neither does the KJV, NASB, or the NIV. Instead, there are numerous references to sin and trespass. The word trespass in Greek and Hebrew indicates an action or offense. It seems to point to an “event” wherein man chose to defy God and commit a forbidden act. For me, we inherit Adam’s nature to sin and disobey, but we are not held accountable for his personal act of disobedience. If this were so, would the Word of God not explicitly state that we are condemned because of Adam’s disobedience; that we must be sentenced to eternal damnation to excuse Adam’s offense?

In addition to the above exegetical reasons, I do not think God expects us to carry our own guilt, let alone the guilt of previous generations. Paul wrote these words, which I believe will clarify how we are viewed by God, and how we should see ourselves, under the New Covenant: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 7:24-8:2). Grudem says, “The most persuasive answer to the objection [that we inherited Adam’s guilt] is to point out that if we think it is unfair for us to be represented by Adam, then we should also think it is unfair for us to be represented by Christ and to have his righteousness imputed to us by God” (p. 495). I agree with Grudem in part, but I don’t see it as indicating we are “guilty” of someone else’s sin or offense. Paul says sin came into the world by one man (Rom. 5:12), and, accordingly, the judgment following man’s original offense brought condemnation (Rom. 5:16). Agreed. Man is condemned to sin because we inherited Adam’s sin nature. Paul does not say, however, that we are being held accountable (adjudicated as guilty) for Adam’s original offense.

In fact, looking into Romans 5 using the Interlinear NIV Parallel New Testament, I see reference to sin entering the world through one man, which verse fourteen calls “transgression” and “offense.” Because of this original offense, “many died.” Analysis of verse seventeen indicates death reigned because of original sin, but it has been countered by grace through the “second” man, that is Christ. According to the Zondervan Bible Commentary, Romans 5 serves to contrast the hopelessness of man (through Adam) with the gift of righteousness (through faith in Christ). Adam is said to be “a pattern, foreshadowing his future Counterpart: both are heads and inclusive representatives of the human creation, Adam of the old and Christ of the new.” This makes perfect exegetical sense to me. This “foreshadowing” includes all of  mankind, as Adam’s disobedience carried with it the consequence of both physical and spiritual death. Because of Adam, man was forcibly removed from the Garden; this served to cut him off from “direct access” to the tree of life and communion with God.

A “veil” as it were was put between man and God. The Zondervan Bible Commentary includes a quote from F. J. Leenhardt: “Since the entry of sin each man who is born into the world… finds a compromised situation confronting him…each generation and each individual act in such a way that the inner strength of rising individuals and generations is enfeebled, deflected and at times destroyed.” It seems clear to me that we are not held accountable for Adam’s original sin, therefore we are not guilty of that offense. However, we are under the control of sin because of Adam’s initial transgression. All have sinned since the time that our first parents disobeyed God. Our inherent sin nature takes away our freedom to choose righteousness and goodness. But through the obedience of the “second” man, there is therefore no condemnation. We are not held accountable for our own sins after accepting Christ. How could we be held to answer for what Adam did?

My thoughts on this matter are rooted in Augustine and Arminius. It was Augustine’s opinion that because man is a totally depraved sinner, lacking the ability to choose righteousness or good, it was necessary for God to initiate the process of salvation. Augustine believed that all individuals existed in Adam’s nature, so Adam’s sin was actually our sin. He said we inherited the guilt of Adam’s sin and its ultimate penalty: death. Of course, man was banished from the Garden, and, therefore, access to the Tree of Life (archetypal Jesus?). It seems the Reformed belief is that Adam was our “corporate” representative, and that when he sinned it was counted as sin for everyone. God’s grace is required in order to preordain man to choose properly, and it must precede any response to salvation. Augustine held that this so-called prevenient grace was given only to the elect.

This is quite similar to what Calvinists call special or electing grace. Arminius believed that man is depraved in every area of his being and, therefore, devoid of any righteousness or goodness. He did not believe we suffer any penalty for Adam’s original sin. In fact, Arminius said, ” It may admit of discussion, whether God could be angry on account of original sin which was born with us, since it seemed to be inflicted on us by God as a punishment of the actual sin which had been committed by Adam and by us in Him…. I did not deny that it was sin, but it was not actual sin…. We must distinguish between actual sin, and that which was the cause of other sins, and which, on this very account might be denominated “sin” (emphasis mine).

Wesley is well-known for believing nothing is sin, strictly speaking, except one’s individual transgression of a known Law of God. Based on Romans 5:15-19, Wesley believed that the death of Christ completely absolved Adam’s posterity of the eternal guilt of his original sin. In any event, I believe two things regarding God’s preordained plan for redemption: (1) that it was intended to provide the ultimate blood sacrifice for all of man’s sins, regardless of who committed them or how intentional or “accidental” those offenses were; and (2) that the death of Christ severed the “chain” of sin at the time Adam sinned (as God and all His intentions are not subject to time restrictions), and continues to this day to have interrupted the chain of guilt. We still have to consider Scripture, some of which you quoted in your reply to my initial post. Psalm 51:5 says, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (RSV). Ephesians 2:3 tells us we are “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”

Matthew Henry indicates that Ephesians 2:1-10 addresses the nature of sin, man’s tendency toward sin, man’s state of “being naturally children of disobedience” and “children of wrath.” He adds, “Being born of God: he lives, being delivered from the guilt of sin, by pardoning and justifying grace.” ³ According to Dake, Ephesians 2:3 is specific to our being sinners by nature, born into sin. Romans 5:12 says, ” Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam” (emphasis mine). What does this mean to you? If we are held accountable for sins “not like” those of Adam, does Paul indicate here we are not adjudicated “guilty” for Adam’s individual sin, but are burdened with our own transgressions after the nature of disobedience exemplified by Adam? Please understand that I believe we inherited our sin nature from Adam; I am not convinced we are considered “guilty” in God’s eyes for Adam’s personal offense, i.e., his disobedience.

Universalism would say all babies go to Heaven because they believe everyone (eventually) will be saved. Universalism is not based on biblical doctrine. Because the Bible reveals that we are born tainted by original sin, we cannot claim that infants are born in a state of innocence. This question requires careful and faithful biblical exegesis and theological reflection. From a sentimental vantage, many will assure the parents of those whose child died very young that their child is in Heaven, but we must never base doctrine on what we hope may be true. We must determine what the Bible reveals to be true. It is also important to note that merely basing our answer on election actually avoids answering the question. Let’s remember that God is absolutely sovereign in salvation. He provides salvation to us despite the fact that we do not deserve it and can do nothing to earn it. It is all of grace. Accordingly, I believe Jesus graciously and freely receives those who die in infancy, but this is not based on their innocence or worthiness. It is based solely on His grace, and made possible by atonement He purchased on the cross. Any response beyond this would require an exegetical study.

References

Bruce, F.F., editor, Zondervan Bible Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 2008.

Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 1994.

Henry, Matthew, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.), 1997.

Marshall, A., editor. The Interlinear NIV Parallel New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 1958.

Summary of the first week of class in pursuit of my Master’s in Theology at Colorado Christian University.

Written by Steven Barto, B.S. Psych.

AS I NOTED PREVIOUSLY, theology is an attempt by faith to understand itself, its object, and its place in today’s world. Trevor Hart (1995) calls this exercise faith thinking. Although theology is typically undertaken as part of a higher education endeavor, the activity known as “Christian Theology” should be an inevitable consequence of life as a thinking Christian. Systematic Theology is defined as “an integrating discipline that studies how the church may bear enduring, timely, and truthful witness to God as revealed in Jesus Christ.”

Theology today specifically denotes the contemporary effort to speak about God in an orderly way. In order to understand how this can be accomplished, we must first look at the major approaches to knowing. Hart presents the quest for knowing through three distinct approaches: objectivism, relativism, and critical realism. He brings these three systems of thought to bear on theology. Hart sees theology as fidelis quaerens intellectum, which he identifies as “a believer seeking understanding,” adding, theology is best understood as “the attempt by faith to understand itself, its object, and its place in today’s world” (p. 1).

Objectivism

 Hart believes theology is an inevitable activity of faith. He points out that good theology “is the disciplined and critical reflection of the community of faith upon the gospel entrusted to it” (p. 11). He says Christian theology is properly an inevitable consequence of life as a thinking Christian in the real world. He points out, however, that modern thought allows man to see only “the facts” of a particular matter, “…[striving] to clear away the accumulated detritus of interpretations, personal judgments and perspectives” (p. 45) which would do away with all untestable beliefs and assumptions. This is accomplished by testing all things before making a judgment. Hart calls this objectivism. By this, he means nothing—interpretations, assumptions, biases—should get in the way of determining truth. Skepticism states that nothing exists beyond which is perceived by the senses. Hart believes where religious faith is concerned, there is a disposition of passionate commitment to truth on an ontological basis—not a skeptical perspective.

When considering the subject of goodness or morality, an objectivist believes, according to Scott B. Rae (2009), that moral precepts existed prior to being espoused in God’s special revelation (Scripture). This is an ontological belief that there is a universal morality or truth independent of man’s interpretation. Rae states, “Objective goodness has always existed since it is rooted in God’s character [and] is revealed through natural law prior to God giving human beings the Bible” (p. 49). Hart (1995) says during the Enlightenment man attempted to provide “a clear set of standards and methods for determining what, in a given situation, might merit rational or moral justification” (p. 49). This mirrors the “reasonable man” standard we’ve seen in American jurisprudence. Such a viewpoint would amount to an a priori belief in truth or morality as an absolute. The difficulty is how this approach remains impartial and plays out against relativism.

Relativism

It has often been stated that in the absence of absolute truth or morality, it would neither be right nor wrong for Adolf Hitler to decide the supremacy of one race over another, or whether cannibalism is right or wrong given it is acceptable among tribes in the Amazon but not in the Western world. Relativism is considered skeptical as it doubts any universal claim of knowledge or certainty. Hart says because “what we ‘see’ is determined in large measure by the mental categories which we bring to bear on the sensory data” (p. 55) we are to a large extent a slave to our worldview. Phillips, Brown and Stonestreet (2008) describe worldview as “a pair of glasses through which we see the world” (p. 4). This is the very mechanism through which relativism operates. Because worldviews are not the same as a formal philosophy, we’re plagued with navigating between “the Scylla of objectivism and the Charybdis of pluralism” noted by Hart (1995, p. 48).

Critical Realism

Critical realism attempts to define a postmodern view by claiming there is no unified truth, dogma, or set of beliefs. As it is not necessarily a unified theory, it takes a skeptical view of reality. Hart presents MacIntyre’s belief that traditions are justified merely by their “appropriateness as accounts of reality” (p. 68). The difference between relativism and realism is ontological, regarding how facts and objects are interpreted. But it is also concerned with whether truth or “reality” is knowable at all, and, if so, should it be evaluated subjectively or objectively? As Hart explains, the realist gives “an account in which the universe and most of what goes on in it are completely independent of our thoughts” (p. 64-65). This requires transcendence of our subjectivity, which is a tricky proposition. Realism wishes to divorce private thought from public thought—separation of church and state. Hart notes Polanyi’s belief that we cannot remove ourselves from subjectivity through assuming a mere spectator’s role; instead, we must commit ourselves to one standpoint “as the best and most reliable route” (p. 65) to reality. It involves having a universal intent.

Concluding Remarks

For a system of thought to be compatible with “faith thinking,” it cannot be subjective, for this would place God in a “box” contingent upon individual belief. The Bible states, “[God] has made everything beautiful in its time; also, he has put eternity into man’s mind, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end… I know that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it; God has made it so, in order that men should fear before him” (Ecclesiastes 3:11, 14, RSV) [italics added]. Christian theology requires the believer to accept God objectively as an ontological reality. Man is to be governed by God’s special revelation (Scripture) regardless of what appears to be true in His general revelation (Creation or the “real” world). Christians can’t pick and choose which Scriptures they want to follow or believe to be true. Accordingly, true systematic Christian theology establishes the inerrancy of God’s Word as one of its universal doctrines.

Perhaps one of the most relevant examples of man choosing which Scripture to believe and which to ignore regarding lifestyle involves the matter of sexual orientation. There have been many schisms within denominations, sometimes leading to the establishment of an entirely different sect, because of the unwillingness of homosexual believers to see Leviticus 20:13—”If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them”—for the truth it represents. Systematic theology can only benefit the church when it is undertaken from an objective viewpoint with a complete belief in the ontological truth of Scripture.

Class is on a one-week break for Labor Day from September 2 through September 8. Accordingly, my next weekly Let’s Go To Theology Class! post will be Monday, September 16, 2019. Please feel free to rejoin the conversation at that time.

Bibliography
Hart, Trevor, Faith Thinking: The Dynamics of Christian Theology. Eugene, OR: Wipf &        Stock Publishers, 1995.

Phillips, W. Gary, Brown, William E., and Stonestreet, J. Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview. Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Co., 2008.

Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Press, 2009.

Beginning September 2, 2019, I will start a weekly blog post, providing a summary of lessons assigned in pursuit of my Master’s in Theology at Colorado Christian University.

Written by Steven Barto, B.S. Psych.

THEOLOGY IS AN ATTEMPT by faith to understand itself, its object, and its place in today’s world. Trevor Hart (1995) calls this exercise faith thinking. Although theology is typically undertaken as part of a higher education endeavor, the activity known as “Christian Theology” should be an inevitable consequence of life as a thinking Christian. Systematic Theology is defined as “an integrating discipline that studies how the church may bear enduring, timely, and truthful witness to God as revealed in Jesus Christ.” Theology today specifically denotes the contemporary effort to speak about God in an orderly way.

Theology is not a formal discipline in Scripture—the topic most related is wisdom. Biblical knowledge of God is (at its very core) relational, involving whole persons within God’s covenant community, and contextual, inviting freedom for discerning obedience. This dovetails nicely with the renewing of our minds through Christ. Responding to divine inspiration, as believers we are to pursue the understanding of God and His will for us (see Romans 12:1-3). The practice of systematic thinking—avoiding obvious contradictions and aspiring to orderly reflection—seems theologically essential given the Gospel’s claim of one God, and the doctrine of salvation through faith alone in Christ Jesus alone.

Systematic Theology affirms the approach of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) as final arbiter of truth. This is the approach Martin Luther used as he prepared the 95 Theses he presented to the Catholic church at the outset of the Reformation. The Bible, not priests or the pope, have ultimate authority over every aspect of Christianity. Given the tendency of man to muddy the waters—adding his own instruction regarding the Christian life—it must be held that Scripture alone provides the information needed to walk in the faith. Indeed, Scripture is God’s special revelation—i.e., particular divine self-disclosure by Word and Spirit  (see Hebrews 1:1-4).

Trevor Hart believes that regardless of our intellectual resources, we are called upon to bear faithful witness to the source of our life and hope. Naturally, not all of us are called to be evangelists or apologists in an official capacity. He says, however, “But just as surely as there is a ‘priesthood of all believers’ in God’s church, so too there is a theological prerogative belonging not only to an elite academic priesthood, guardians of the sanctuaries of learning, but to all God’s people” (p. 2). Faith must seek to understand itself. Faith—when it is truly faith rather than a mere intellectual assent to a proposition—will always seek to enter into a fuller and deeper knowledge of that which matters to it most. Such study must have an interrogative rather than doctrinaire attitude.

First Peter 3:15 says, ” Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (RSV). Matthew Henry (1997) says in his commentary on this verse that we are called to sanctify God before others through word and deed. In addition, we are to be able to defend our faith with meekness, thereby explaining the ground and reason for what we believe. This is the very basis of apologetics—discourse that shows and tells why the Gospel deserves respect and, ultimately, allegiance. Because Christianity is the way to life, not just an intellectual system, apologetics deals with goodness and beauty, affections and practices, as well as truth. Indeed, Christianity is more relationship than systematic religion. Aapologetics is anything we can say or do that helps people take Christianity more seriously than they did before.

Granted, apologetics is not theology per se; it is, however, the manner by which we apply systematic theology to the spreading of the Gospel. It is is the mechanism by which we are commanded to “defend” or explain why we believe what we believe. For me, apologetics is God’s call on my life. I intend to study systematic theology and apply what I learn to defending the Gospel, whether in written form or in point/counterpoint exercises with today’s New Atheists. It’s interesting to note that I thoroughly enjoyed performance in forensic competition as a high school senior, especially as a member of the debate team!

The Format

In presenting these synopses, I will adhere to the following basic format.

• An applicable Bible verse. Bible verse that sets forth what Scripture states regarding the subject.
• Statement of the Topic. Clear statement of the subject (or thesis) will be provided.
• Statement of My Response to the Assignment. An abridged version of my answer to the assignment.
• Application to Daily Walk. Detailed description of how the weekly lesson can be applied to our daily Christian witness.
• Concluding Remarks. Summary of the lesson in a manner that will clearly state what was learned and the implications of the lesson on today’s church.
• “See Also.” List of recommended reading or further study will be provided in order that you might be able to expound on the subject and, therefore, apply it to your daily witness.

I look forward to sharing with you what I learn in pursuit of my Master’s in Theology. Hopefully, this will help us all to be better equipped to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, and to do so with all confidence, meekness, and fear.

References

Hart, T. (1997). Faith Thinking: The Dynamics of Christian Theology. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

“I said sit, damn you, sit.”
I’ve been fidgeting, practically dancing
in my seat.
I have a short attention span.
I’m hyper.
I can’t help it.
So here I am, cowering again;
Looking for a way out; to run and
hide in my secret fort. An old
metal dumpster turned on
its side, between two
abandoned buildings.
It smells like piss from the
bums who seem to keep
mistaking it for a porta-potty,
and yet it smells better than
ice-cold Harvard beets
shoved in my face:
“I said eat ’em. Now! Or it’s straight to bed!”
Promise? Sounds good to me.
I just sat there until everyone
got tired of busting my balls
and I went to my room.
I did not eat the beets.

Much happened in my life after the
Harvard beets “incident.”
(Not that it was the sole cause.)
Booze and drugs followed;
and women; lots of women.
Antisocial behavior
and prison walls.
Big, thick, made of rocks
too big for any man to carry.
This was a job for machines.
I learned that God doesn’t
talk to me
when I’m high, or when I’m
pawning stolen jewelry
to by crack cocaine.
And He’s not fond of
fox hole prayers.
He wanted me to get beyond
all the garbage in my life.
He had a plan.
He always did. All He could do
was wait for me to want it too.

His plan certainly didn’t
involve me selling weed
and smoking all the profit;
painting houses for drugs and
calling it self-employment.
He didn’t want me growing up
wasted
day after day
on one drug or another,
eating welfare food, and getting
thrown into the county
jail,
then the state
penitentiary.
He wanted me to be who He
made me to be.
He wanted me to use the talents
and gifts he gave me – not let them
lay in the “attic”
I like to call my
mind, doing nothing more
than collecting dust.

Here’s the inverse:
To hell with all this
negative talk about how I’m
nothing
and I’ll always be
nothing.
God made me in His own image.
Do you realize what that means?
Either God’s a low-life
drug dealing petty thief, in and out of jail,
(which He ain’t!), or
this phony life I’ve been chasing
is for nought.
I started to realize I was
wasting my time; I was
squandering what God gave me.
I remembered:
God has not given us the spirit of fear;
but of power, and of love, and of a
sound mind.

I know what you’re
thinking:
So then where does all
this crap, this violence, this hatred,
this disrespect, this fear, this indifference,
this intolerance, this racism come from?
Wait,
my friend.
I don’t know the why of all that,
but I do know I was made
for something good.
You
were made for something good.
Everyone was.

God’s will for me is to
grow into who I am, and reach out in love
to those who are suffering,
placing their needs above mine.
That’s part one.
Moreover, He has given me certain gifts
and talents to use in ministering
to my fellow man.
That’s part two.
That is the person I
am meant to be.
It has always been so.

So, how do I become myself?
Be the me God intended me to be?
This includes you too, my friend.
Ain’t no “white” thing or “straight” thing
or “Christian” thing, because it
doesn’t exclude anyone.
Not
even
you.
Oh, you have done some things too?
But in God’s eyes, you aren’t what you’ve done before,
and you aren’t to be limited by the color
of your skin,
or your family of origin,
or whether you understand
the science of Albert Einstein.

God made you in His image.
He made me.
He made us all.
There is one body,
but many parts.
If I want to know the real me, all I
have to do is stand still, silent, listening.
And that’s what I did.
I listened for God, and I
heard Him in my heart.
I found the real me.
I finally became myself.
I ain’t belong to nobody else!
Not anymore!
I don’t even belong to the booze and drugs.
Not anymore at all.
It starts with listening for God’s voice
and being willing to believe what he says
you can be.
You, too, can become what God wants you to be.
Just listen and decide.

© Steven Barto 2017