The Quiet Lessons We All Learn in Our Waiting Rooms
I’ve learned that one part of true faith-filled “waiting” is quietness. “In quietness and trust shall be your strength” (Isaiah 30:15). Quietness is the opposite of striving and panic. It speaks of peaceful rest, a calm while at the storm’s center. As the psalmist put it, when mountains tremble, waters roar, nations rage and kingdoms totter, the trusting weary remain “still,” knowing that God is God (Psalm 46:1–11).
Dear Journal,
I’ve mentioned before that life is a waiting room. I’ve lost count how many big needs my wife Gayline and I have been praying for—and waiting for—for years! A headache healing. Cancer healing. Children that need the Lord. Unconverted family and friends that still don’t believe. Racial healing in our church local and the Church. Fruitfulness in certain gospel endeavors. Spiritual revival in the Church. We’re still sitting in the waiting room for these and so many others.
And I’m sure we’re not alone. All God’s children have needs and grieve losses. We all believe. We all pray. We all weep. We all wait.
If I had one more sermon to preach, it’d be on this text: “Even youths shall faint and be weary, and young men shall fall exhausted; but they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint” (Isa. 40:30–31).
I’ve preached the whole chapter of Isaiah 40 many times, and my most frequent sermon summary of it is this: “God over all, because of Christ, gives strength to the trusting weary, in his time, according to their need, to do the remarkable for his glory.” That’s all in the Isaiah 40 text. And as I say—for a lot of reasons—if God ever gives me strength to preach one more time, that would be the text and summary that I herald.
One point in Isaiah 40 that I notice this morning is the word “wait.” It implies a period of delay in the meeting of our needs or wants, which is why I say: “God gives strength . . . in his time.” There is almost always a time-gap between when we become aware of a need and when God meets it. We have to wait because his clock moves slower than ours, and he’s never in our kind of hurry. So we sit in the waiting room of life.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
The Week after Easter: When Sin and the Resurrection Collide
As believers, we are reminded afresh of the full forgiveness of our sins through the death and resurrection of Christ. The good news of the gospel never gets old to the heart of a redeemed sinner because we never stop needing grace. We know that never-ending grace is ours because of our Savior’s empty tomb.
Sin is not a popular topic to discuss in our world today. Our culture has virtually banished sin out of its vocabulary. Sin has been re-defined, re-labeled, re-directed, and even revered. People who sin are not sinners because nearly everyone is a victim.
The reality, though, is that you can erase sin from a culture, but you can’t erase guilt. There is the sense that all human beings have that we are guilty of doing wrong. We are born into this world having been created in the image of God, and because we live in God’s world as creatures who bear His image, we can never escape the reality of our guilt because of our sin.
What has been so fascinating and so tragic to watch over the past several years is that the more the world has tried to deny the reality of sin, the greater the guilt they feel. We can see the reality of that all around us. Wokeness, social justice, anti-racism, virtue signaling, false religions, vague forms of spirituality, mindfulness, psychology, and more – all attempting to do one thing: erase the guilt we feel over our sins and make us feel like we are good, righteous people. But all of these attempts at self-justification are ultimately futile and useless.
The real tragedy is that they don’t work at the spiritual level. Denying your sins will never erase your sins before a holy and just God. The real problem we have as sinful human beings isn’t that our existential happiness is hindered by sin; it’s that we are destined for an eternity under the wrath of God because of our sin. This is the tragedy of denying your sin; simply wishing it away or pretending your sin is virtue doesn’t deal with the problem of the wrath of God abiding on you. And you know that in your conscience, and you can’t escape it no matter what you do.
It’s into this setting of a world of sinners in need of real forgiveness from God that Mark begins the story of Jesus of Nazareth. Mark tells his readers from the outset that he has good news to share with sinful people about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God. He ensures we understand at the outset of his Gospel that Jesus has come into this world to defeat Satan by bringing forgiveness to sinners. The miracles, the healings, the casting out of demons are external signs of a spiritual truth, that Jesus has the authority to do the most important thing for us that we need: to forgive our sins. That’s the good news of the gospel that Mark is writing about.
As this Gospel progresses, we learn in Mark 10:45 exactly how Jesus is going to provide forgiveness for our sins. He will do it in the most degrading manner possible, by giving His life for sinners on a cross. There’s one detail, though, that Jesus includes in Mark 10:34 that will vindicate Jesus’ claim that His sacrifice was accepted by God and brought forgiveness to sinners: He would rise again three days later.
Here, we come face to face with the most crucial fact of all: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Read MoreRelated Posts:
-
Where is the Good News? An Honest Look at the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Community
Did the Civil Rights Movement fail the black community? Again, that’s a complicated question, but the truth is it was never designed to succeed in such a monumental task. By contrast, the gospel never fails, and should be central to our believing, our living.
Some have questioned if evangelicals—especially white evangelicals—did anything to aid the cause of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Most ardent in this question has been someone like Curtis J. Evans, who has charged, “Although they explicitly condemned racism in many of their public writings, [Evangelicals] did not support the tactics employed by civil rights leaders to end discrimination against black Americans. Evangelicals constantly criticized civil rights marches and legislation.”[1]
By Evans’s estimation, evangelicals did not do anything to help the Black community during the Civil Rights Movement, and as a result, there remains a rift in the American church. Truly, that discussion is worth having, but it stands on an underlying assumption—namely, that the Civil Rights Movement is what gave the Black Church, and by extension the Black community, all they were looking to gain. But is that so? It’s a question worth considering.
In what follows, I want to challenge this assumption and leave an open-ended question about the enduring impact of the Civil Rights Movement.
To Move Forward, We Must Look Back
The journey to equality for blacks in America has a long and treacherous history. Today, some argue that blacks are nowhere near the end of that journey and much more needs to be done. For them, a new wave of promise comes through “social justice,” a justice brought about by the allure of new governmental laws, economic justice, and racial equity. Still, others embrace the progress made, holding the belief that there’s nothing more to be done.
An honest look at the history of the Civil Rights Movement can be helpful in assessing where it has come from and what’s needed to move forward.
In North America, the disconnect between “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence sharply contrasted with the regular practice of slavery. This tension would ultimately culminate in the American Civil War: then the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th Amendment (which ended slavery), the 14th Amendment (which gave citizens rights), and the 15th Amendment (which gave all men the right to vote)—and this was just the beginning.
Still, there were several impediments to equal treatment. Long after the Constitutional Amendments, many southern states subjected their black citizens to segregation and racial discrimination. Southern states passed laws that marginalized black people. This treatment would come in many forms, such as peonage, black codes, and Jim Crow laws. As a result, a new front had to be set up on the road to equality.
The Civil Rights Movement
Along the journey, Rosa Parks, a black seamstress, during an act of civil disobedience, was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama, on December 1, 1955, for violating a draconian Jim Crow law. Ms. Parks sat on the front row of the “colored section” of the bus, which was established to separate black and white commuters. Ms. Park refused to give up her seat to a white passenger when ordered to do so, and the result was the flame that ignited the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955.
This flame was the result of the coordinated effort of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) led by Martin Luther King, Jr. The MIA consisted of black ministers and community leaders committed to bringing national attention to racial segregation in the South.
Seventy percent of the Montgomery Bus System’s patrons were black. During the boycott, blacks refused to get on a bus until the buses were desegregated. The city of Montgomery lost between 30 and 40 thousand bus fares each day during the boycott. Financial records suggest the city lost $3,000 daily (which equates to $31,326 per day in 2022).
Rather than paying fares to the city, consumers paid for a one-of-a-kind mode of transportation within their own community. Black commuters needing to get to work found a lift from someone else in the neighborhood and paid the fare to another black community member. The effect on the black economy was huge because the money spent on transportation was either saved or spent in the community.
The United States Supreme Court decision in Browder v. Gayle would end discrimination on public buses. After a 382-day boycott, black patrons received what they fought for: a desegregated bus. It was a victory in one sense, but ironically it led to the first of many miscarriages of justice caused by a movement committed to seeking justice. Although the movement gained an equal seat on the bus—this “victory” would witness black people abandoning the first-of-its-kind Uber car service and returning to the buses that despised their patronage.
The “success” of the Montgomery Bus Boycott would catapult Martin Luther King, Jr., onto the national stage while simultaneously cementing white superiority—through dependence on a white bus system—in the minds of blacks.
The message sent and received by the civil rights leaders was that equality meant sitting on the same bus, using the same bathroom, and eating at the same lunch counter as whites. More neglected was economic empowerment brought about by being self-sufficient. So, the message of self-sufficiency and entrepreneurship was lacking from the movement. The result of this failure would invite the need for greater political power. Yet again, the voices who spoke most loudly among black leaders also handed over the black community to any political party that would validate them through proximity to whites.
The Civil Rights Movement and its leaders successfully tied the advancement of the black community to the shifting political winds by largely abandoning economic self-sufficiency and embracing political power as the path forward. While this reality may not have been apparent to civil rights leaders initially, certain politicians saw it clearly and used political favors to obtain the power they needed from the black community.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Pastoral Fatherhood: Understanding the Pastor as a Paternal Example
The domains of the church and home overlap uniquely in the pastoral office, such that a pastor functions as a paternal example for the people of God. When the OT themes of fatherly leadership are sustained through Paul’s emphasis on pastoral fatherhood (yet cautioned with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 23), it becomes clear that the pastor is a representative father figure in the church family. As such, he demonstrates for God’s people what parenthood ought to be, both in his home and in the church. Indeed, the magisterial domains of home and church overlap in this one office.
In 1999, evolutionary paleontologist and Harvard University professor Dr. Stephen Jay Gould coined the phrase “non-overlapping magisteria” to describe the relationship between science and religion. He aimed to show that science and religion are miles apart because they deal with different realms or, “domains of magisterial (teaching) authority.” This article will not debate Gould’s thesis, but will use his taxonomy of magisterial domains as an analogy. The home and the church are two primary domains of spiritual teaching authority in the Scriptures. As such, one must ask, “Do these magisteria overlap? And if so, how?” The definitive answer of this essay, of complementarian theology, and of the Bible, is “absolutely.”
This essay will argue that the magisterial domains of the church and home overlap uniquely in the pastoral office, such that a pastor functions as a paternal example for the people of God.[1] To make this argument, key biblical texts will be explored that depict the pastor in paternal terms, with one “problem text” discussed along the way. After surveying the biblical data, a theological sketch will be given to underpin an evangelical understanding of pastoral fatherhood in the church family. Finally, the practical impact of pastoral fatherhood will be discussed, demonstrating both the positive and negative implications.[2]
Biblical Overview
Throughout the Old Testament, various leaders are given for God’s people. Prophets, priests, kings, sages, and community elders all exercise authoritative roles in the history of Israel, and each of these ministries are depicted in fatherly terms.[3] These paternal patterns in the OT then develop into a motif in the New Testament. Jesus Christ comes as the Son from the Father. His apostolic disciples, on whose testimony the church is built, are twelve men. These men plant churches, who appoint male elders to exercise oversight. But, perhaps the most vivid ecclesial representations of this motif are found in Paul’s ministry and teachings.
First, Paul regularly describes himself as father to individuals — to Timothy (1 Cor 4:7, Phil 2:22, 1 Tim 1:2, 2 Tim 1:2), to Titus (Titus 1:4), and to Onesimus (Philem 12).[4] Lest one surmise this is only an individual-to-individual phenomenon, Paul also describes himself as a father figure to entire churches (1 Cor 4:14–17 and 1 Thess 2:7–12 are the most direct references).[5] This last reference is of particular import because, in this instance, we see that it is not only an apostolic ministry of Paul’s; co-writers Silvanus and Timothy are also included in the collective “we” who related to the Thessalonian church as parents to children. Thus, in the apostolic ministry of Paul and the delegated ministry of his followers, parenthood was a regular metaphor for church leadership.
Second, this example from Paul is only deepened with his teachings on pastoral ministry in the Pastoral Epistles, specifically in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. One of the key qualifications for a pastor is that he “manage his household well . . .for [if not] . . . how will he care for God’s church?” (1 Tim 3:4–5). This sentiment is repeated in Titus 1, where the children of overseers are not to be insubordinate (Titus 1:6). The logic of these qualifications is straightforward: If a man cannot parent at home, he cannot “parent” at church. The work is similar in both magisterial domains.[6] By linking the pastor’s qualification for church office to his parenthood in the home, Paul overlaps the magisterial domains of the church and home directly in the office of the pastor.
How does this relate to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 23:9, “Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven?”
Various interpretations of Matthew 23:9 have been suggested. The verse could be taken as a direct and wooden prohibition, wherein Jesus’ disciples should not treat any other man as a father, period. The problem with this interpretation is the Bible’s blessing elsewhere of natural fatherhood. Jesus’ other teachings in texts like Luke 11:11–13, where Jesus recognizes natural father-child relationships, give a common-sense rebuttal to this wooden and literal interpretation. Some commentators argue instead that Matthew 23:9 is hyperbolic.
Read More
Related Posts: