Starting From Square One

continuing from yesterday's post....

It became very clear to me that most of what I thought I knew about the gospels was very different from what most scholars thought they knew about the gospels.

I had encountered scholarly ideas about the Historical Jesus before, but only in passing. My immediate reaction to these ideas was to reject them as corruptions of the faith. When I first heard of the Jesus Seminar and its quest to figure out what Jesus really said, I scoffed at what seemed like a foolish and heretical undertaking. How could one use the gospels as a source to discredit large parts of the gospels? How could a group of people imagine that they could scan through Jesus' words and pick out what they liked, or approved of, and reject the rest?

It didn't make sense to me. It couldn't make sense to me. I didn't know enough of the whys and hows that drove such an enterprise.

The tables have turned for me. I do understand, now, why scholars would even attempt such a thing. I don't necessarily endorse all of the conclusions, but I have learned enough to realize that the issue of pinning down the gospels is much more complex than I had previously thought.

When I, a simple, amateur, 21st century person with no ability to read Greek/Aramaic, can piece together that the gospel writers are tinkering with things in order to encourage the early Christian community, then we have a serious issue that needs to be addressed. At least, it needs to be addressed if you are coming from an evangelical, inerrancy-based faith, because all of a sudden the texts are not foolproof and the basis for your faith has disappeared from right under your feet.

Because we are taught to trust the texts implicitly, discovering that the texts contradict themselves, not in insignificant ways, but in ways that change the spiritual message of the text, is quite disorienting. The fundamental difference between earthly rewards in the present age versus future rewards in a completely new age is vast. The general theme is the same; sacrificial acts for God will bring future rewards. However, the mode of operation and expectation for a particular believer is extremely different.

It isn't hard to see the dilemma. A believer reads the passage in Mark and places their faith in seeing a tangible reward from God in this current life. We have prosperity teachers, or even faith healers, who have no difficulty finding passages to back them up. Conservative Christians are quick to label them heretics and point out how wrong a theology of wealth and prosperity, or procuring healing by simply believing for it is, but all prosperity teachers are doing is taking real passages from the actual texts that we have and trying to work up a path that gets them through life.

That grates against an evangelical sense of certainty and the concept that we can figure out God, Life and the Meaning of the Universe if we just study the texts a little harder. The feeling is that it's all in there if we just look hard enough.

Back to the Gospel of John and my love for it.

I realize, now, why I have always liked it so much. It addresses all the things that the other gospels don't deal with, or leave hanging. It brings together all of the theological developments and thrusts of the early Christians and formulates them into a grand story line with theological explanations of key issues for the early church. It fleshes out the nature of Christ's human and divine natures, the Eucharist, and salvation by faith. It is a polished narrative instead of a collection of miscellaneous teachings and parables.

However, I've been left with a thorn in my side. How to take the Gospel of John? Because most of it is original material unto itself, it presents a problem. Because it is attempting to address theological questions that have arisen after Jesus is no longer around, how much of it is historical?

Coincidentally, NT Scholar Larry Hurtado has just posted an essay that explains the Gospel of John in terms of "remembrance and revelation" . He writes:

I propose that the author consciously used what he regarded as the greater insight into Jesus’ significance that he ascribed to the Holy Spirit (or in GJohn’s terms “Paraclete”) after Jesus’ death/departure. I also propose that the author tells readers that he’s doing this, that he expected his readers to see it and appreciate it.

For simple historical-Jesus inquiry (a sort of, “just the facts, Jack” assumption), this will be judged anachronism, of course. If we were to explain to the author of GJohn modern historical-Jesus interests, he’d probably be puzzled or maybe amused, and might quickly agree that this isn’t his agenda. Instead, he wants to say that the historical figure was all along the embodiment of divine glory, but it wasn’t really till after Jesus’ death and resurrection that this became fully apparent.

John knows he's not writing "history" in the sense that we think of it. He, instead, is writing what he feels the Holy Spirit has revealed to Christians after the resurrection, mainly through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

In other words, Jesus didn't say X, Y, Z in a literal sense, but once he was resurrected and believers practiced their faith through the Holy Spirit, things fell into place. Teachings took on new meanings, meanings that John believes were always there but were not cognitively accessible and understandable to the disciples at the immediate moment they were taught.

I'll continue more of what I think this means for me, personally, later on.

Rewards and Faith, Part 2

I have always loved the Gospel of John. For some reason, whenever I read it and compared it to the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it simply outshone them. I understood the Jesus in John's gospel in a way that I often didn't understand the the Jesus of the synoptics.

Form the very first chapter, I was hooked. Who couldn't be? I mean, read it:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The story doesn't start with a relationship intrigue, or a census, or a long, boring genealogy . It starts at the beginning of the cosmos. The poetry of In him was life, and that life was the light of men....it simply speaks to me in a way that the synoptics don't.

While reading and learning about the formation of the New Testament, I learned something that began to bother me, The Gospel of John was written much later than the synoptics. In and of itself, being written decades later doesn't mean that a work is untrustworthy, but when the unique nature of the Gospel of John is compared to the synoptics, it becomes apparent that most of the material in John is nowhere to be found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Added to this new-to-me realization, was another idea, one that explained the synoptics in terms of their relation to each other, with Mark being written first and Matthew and Luke primarily consisting of appropriations of Mark, sometimes word for word. Matthew and Luke both used Mark and also added more to it, sometimes sharing material, and at other times containing material unique to themselves. That is the hypothesis shared by most biblical scholars at this point.

A handy chart:

None of this is groundbreaking information. I simply had never examined it before, or thought about what it meant. Although I had read all of the gospels more times than I could count, I had always done it through the lens of biblical inerrancy and the supposition that the gospels were all independently developed, eyewitness accounts of Jesus. When there were conflicts or contradictions, I assumed it was because they were written by different people, from different perspectives, which would naturally lead to slightly different perspectives.

One thing that never occurred to me is that early Christians would purposely tailor, or alter, the gospels to slant them in a particular way, or give support to developing theology. These were supposed to be historic, accurate documents inspired by God, so if something seemed unclear, or didn't quite fit, it was because the things Jesus said weren't applicable to that time but were somehow broader and meant for a future age.

I'd like to clarify at this point that I don't think that the gospels are pure fiction, or that the gospel writers intentionally attempted to mislead as much as they were trying to encourage the community of which they were a part, and shore up the faith of believers.

For numerous reasons I abandoned the idea of biblical inerrancy and that started a domino effect for me and for my faith, because I could no longer come to a position on anything by declaring a certain idea "biblical". Neither could I settle any questions I had with "because The Bible says so."

Once I started thinking of the process used to write the gospels and how each came to be , and what sort of audience they might have been written to, I began to see these differences everywhere, and every time I did....I would feel a deep pang in my heart.

I came across another one of those examples when I was looking for that passage about rewards in the here and now that I mentioned in my last post.

All three synoptic gospels contain the story of the rich young man who asks Jesus what he must do to obtain eternal life. After some conversation between the two of them, with the young man declaring how perfectly he has followed Mosaic Law, Jesus tells him to sell everything he has and give it to the poor. The rich young man goes away saddened at the prospect. After listening to the exchange between the rich young man and Jesus, Peter points out that the disciples have left everything behind to follow Jesus. Here's the passage in Mark:

Mark 10:28-31

28Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!"

29"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

This passage has always troubled me because it doesn't seem hard to falsify. Did all of the disciples receive a hundred times as much in this present age? The rewards listed are tangible things, not merely abstract blessings such as peace, or joy. Jesus is promising that they are going to be repaid for their faithfulness to him now and in the age to come.

We don't really know what happened to all of the apostles, but most of the legends about their deaths end badly. They all wind up murdered/martyred by one group or another. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of physical reward in the here and now for them.

Tradition holds that Mark was written by Peter's interpreter, so maybe when this particular teaching was recorded, Peter's life--one which was filled with persecution--served as a caution that persecution was part of the deal.

When we get to this exchange in Luke we find the rewards are not specifically listed, though there is still the assurance that there will be rewards in the current age for those who have sacrificed relationships for the sake of the Kingdom. Material things seemed to have dropped out of the story.

Perhaps as time passed there was a need to revisit the passage and de-emphasize the idea of financial or material rewards:

Luke 18:28-30
28Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"

29"I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."

When we get to Matthew, the passage takes a sharp turn. Earthly rewards have completely disappeared. Instead, rewards have become subject to a condition, that of the renewal of all things, when Jesus sits on his glorious throne:

Matthew 19:27-30

27Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"

28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

The "current age" aspect has been supplanted and replaced with a future age in which all will be rewarded. This makes even more sense in Matthew when we consider that most scholars consider that Matthew was written between 70-100 AD. By then the temple had been destroyed and the Jewish Revolt had been put down. It isn't unlikely to think that the author of Matthew was having to re-examine what Jesus might have meant by this saying, because everything going on in the material world certainly didn't seem very promising.

I'll stop here, and continue later.....

Lord or Legend?--an interesting read

I just finished reading Lord Or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma, by Gregory Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy.

So...my thoughts?

Overall, I really enjoyed the book. It is aimed at the relatively recent theory that Jesus never existed as an historic person, but instead is a compilation of 1st century myths. I first encountered this idea in the past year after reading The Jesus Puzzle ,by Earl Doherty, and responded with a couple of posts about it before abandoning my attempt in the face of daily life; something that happens frequently to me.

Right before Christmas I got into a conversation with Lifewish that meandered its way through about a million different ideas, some of which came to bear on the general reliability of the Gospels and the Bible as a whole. I had asked for this book by that time and was happy to receive it and reexamine some of the things that I had suspended because of a busy schedule.

I enjoyed the book and thought it did a fairly good job in addressing some of the more pertinent issues about the legendary Jesus theory. Very frequently, I wanted more detail than what was offered. There are copious amounts of end notes, which are great if you want to research some of the book's claims yourself. I might be interested in tracking down the more academic version of the book later. Boyd and Eddy had a more general purpose for this version. To quote from the book's intro:

...we have written this book for the interested layperson and have thus attempted to keep it as brief and as readable as possible without overly compromising the quality of the scholarship. If some readers desire to explore certain issues raised here in a more thorough manner, we encourage them to consult our more academic (and much longer!) co-authored book, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition.

I'll have to check the library, or Amazon for that.

Some of the arguments Boyd and Eddy make are more convincing than others, and some would be flatly rejected by true skeptics, but the overall scope of the book would definitely be an encouragement to believers who are questioning the basic historicity of the Gospels. It does require some familiarity with New Testament issues and scholars, so it might not be the perfect read for someone who is just dipping their toe in the waters of scholarly criticism. It would be a 201 level course, instead of a more introductory 101 level.

I hope to write about a few of the more interesting points the authors make over the next few weeks.....she says knowing she may never be able to get to it!

Inerrancy

Check out Internetmonk for a great article that captures the essence of the inerrancy argument and many others.

For starters..read the wiki article on inerrancy and the Chicago statement of inerrancy about it.

I have slowly moved away from a strict belief in the inerrancy of The Bible. It almost pains me to say that because it feels like betrayal to my faith of the not so distant past. It shouldn't, but it does.

To say that I don't believe in inerrancy is not to say that I don't believe the Bible. It doesn't mean I think the biblical stories are legends. It doesn't mean I think that everything in the Bible is figurative, outdated, or irrelevant.

It does mean that I won't go to gymnastic lengths to justify every word I read against every other word I read in my Bible. It means that I recognize that God spoke to people then as He speaks to people now. He uses their personalities, their talents, and their situations to express His truth.

So, when I read the Council in Jerusalem tell the Gentiles to whom Paul was ministering "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols..."Acts 15:29..and then later read Paul write: "So then about eating food sacrificed to idols: we know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one", in 1 Corinthians 8:4,--where he goes on to say that eating food sacrificed to an idol is not really sin, but should be avoided for other people's sakes--I don't have to try and come up with some obtuse explanation about how both are in Scripture and simultaneously inerrant truth. I can say that the Council was made up of Jews who were already revolutionizing their worldviews, and had made sweeping changes for the Gentiles in the first place. Their stance was still a bit of a hold-over from their previous commitment to the Law, but a vast improvement over requiring Gentiles to be circumcised and keep all the Mosaic statutes.

It is not earth-shattering to my faith. It doesn't require a constant use of the word paradox, yet I can still affirm that Scripture is truthful.

Of course, coming to this view is a little frightening because of the greater faith that it requires. Declaring inerrancy is not really proclaiming faith. Instead, the concept exists solely to create a safety net of false certainty in a believer. And..it works! Most of the time, that is. Minor problems can be swept away by a quick recitation of the mantra. However, it can actually keep people from deepening a true reliance and faith on Jesus. Instead of actively listening to Him, we can just open our handy-dandy "Instruction Book" or "Love Letter" or "Guide Book" and figure it all out for ourselves.

Maybe that's a little strong for how I feel. Scripture most definitely expresses love and instruction and guidance, but when we try and make it something that it was never meant to be, we do more harm than good.

If we can't say that the Bible is inerrant, then we say God is a liar...or so say some people. It is a false dilemma. God never describes Scripture as inerrant in the sense that most people refer to it. The words God-breathed and Inspired are used, but those terms are vastly different than a strict view that everything in the Canon is perfectly recorded.

Here's the thing: do people believe in Jesus because they have accepted the inerrancy of the Bible? Obviously, if they believe in inerrancy it might make it easier, but if someone is unchurched and has no basis to even know about Jesus, how do they come to faith? Through revelation from God. We can parse all of our verbs, but really it is the transformative truth of Jesus that brings an individual to faith. That truth can come through Scripture, from a discussion with a believer, from a vision a la Saul on the Road to Damascus.

enough for now.

Lent Update

I've done pretty well with my Lenten commitments.

Not reading and commenting on blogs has left me feeling a little more isolated, which is something with which I already struggle; but, it has also helped me to be more focused. Not watching quite so much TV hasn't been very difficult. There are always more things to do around the house and with the kids than I have time for anyway; so, I simply get more done.

Quieting the extraneous voices of the media has been helpful to me spiritually. I find it easier to be more mindful of the reality before me and the path which I traverse through life. Distractions are fewer. Intentions are greater. Interactions are more meaningful.

**********

We have "re-begun" reading through Genesis with the kids. We haven't been so great with consistent family devotional times. We pray before meals and before bed each evening; but, often, those prayers are canned, hurried prayers that are short in length and genuineness. We're trying to be more mindful about incorporating our faith in deeper ways.

We had read through the early parts of Genesis before-the story of creation and The Fall. Those are easy readings for the kids; they're fascinating, intriguing stories that lend themselves to visualization. Every child can comprehend the magical powers of creation and the suspense of Adam and Eve as they face the Serpent.

Now, we are reading about Abram which requires much more explanation. There are all sorts of subtleties that are difficult for young children to grasp. For instance, why did Abram lie about Sarai being his wife? Why did Abram and Lot have to separate? What does the word offspring mean? However, the next couple of days we'll be reading chapters 15 and 16 of Genesis which read more as relational stories and less as political and geographical updates.

So far, they have really enjoyed reading each night and always want to continue to the next chapter. I am wondering how long their enthusiasm will last. Who knows, maybe my kids are destined to be the only kids that crave family devotional time. That wouldn't be such a horrible thing.

Good, Evil, And The Garden Of Eden...Part 2

The tipping point in Eve's battle boils down to what she came to believe about God.
Eve gave into her desire to eat the fruit because she had begun to consider that God might not really be so good. The Serpent implied that God was a liar, who was also selfish, being sure to hoard all the power to Himself. To take that step toward oblivion, Eve had to cast all of her past experiences with Him in a slanted light. All His motives and actions must have been scrutinized through lenses of suspicion. Why else would she not call Him and ask Him in person about the claims of this strange serpent?

Well, if you believe someone is a liar, trying to keep something from you; you certainly don't want to ask them and alert them to what you're planning to do. Surely, they would simply lie to you again and then remove the opportunity that is currently before you. Perhaps, that is why we don't see Adam and Eve finding God and asking Him outright.

Genesis 3:8-13

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" He answered, "I heard you in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" The man said,"The woman you put here with me-she gave me some of the fruit from the tree, and I ate it." Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

We know that God was an active force in the garden. He walked among the garden. Adam and Eve were able to communicate with Him in a very personal, face to face way. It should have been easy for them to find Him. And yet, the fact that they make no effort to seek Him out speaks volumes.

It is no different than having a gossip tell you that a close friend has betrayed you and secretly mocks and despises you. We are so prone to believe evil of others. We avoid that friend, store up bitterness against them, and begin to actively dislike them. Later, we tragically discover that everything we were told was a lie. Now imagine being the friend; not only were you slandered and reviled, but one of your closest friends actually thought you were capable of such things. How might that friendship work out in the future? Not too well, I'm guessing.

Many people have a vague notion that there might be a God somewhere out in the vast Universe. Believing that there is some kind of God might be a first baby step in being open to faith. But, what's more important than believing that there is a God is what you believe about Him. Are we quick to cast aspersions upon Him in the face of difficulty? Do we believe that He loves us, or that He secretly is a selfish God, trying to interfere and keep us from a great time? Eve had to choose, and so do we.

I still have a few more tangential thoughts, but it's late.

Part 3 is coming soon....

Good, Evil, And The Garden Of Eden..Part 1

Genesis 2:15-17

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man,"You are free to eat from the any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Genesis 3:1-7

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden?' " The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat from fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."

There's a lot going on here. First, we have the serpent who begins the conversation by baiting Eve into a discussion about the forbidden tree. He knows what God said, but first he must get Eve to become mentally engaged in the debate. So, he purposely misstates God's rule. Eve eagerly corrects him and then goes further by adding.." and you must not touch it, or you will die."

We don't know why Eve added that last part. Had she come to believe that merely touching it would kill her? Had she misunderstood what Adam had told her about the tree? We'll never know, but it probably became an important issue as she moved further towards the fall. The mishandling of God's word and the addition of a little superstition and legend can be very destructive.

Imagine Eve as she approaches the tree. She is intrigued, fearful, probably shaking from the adrenaline that is coursing through her veins as she takes one step closer to a tree which is so deadly, merely touching it would kill her. She gazes at it for a few minutes, contemplating the risk, the words of the serpent ringing through her ears. She reaches out, head turned away, eyes closed, and quickly pokes the tree with her finger, pulling it back rapidly, expecting pain, fire, a shout from heaven and is met with only silence. Nothing happened. She looks herself over, examines the immediate area, listens for disaster and hears only the birds chirping overhead. Nothing. She thinks, "Maybe this serpent was right. I touched it and nothing happened." Suddenly doubt grows and the serpent looks a little wiser than he did a few minutes ago.

Once the fruit is eaten their eyes are opened and they are filled with shame. I have often pondered why their first response is to clothe themselves. God made them naked. Being naked is not sinful. It was just the two of them in the garden. Perhaps, it is human nature to try and fix a spiritual problem with a physical solution. They felt naked because they had something to hide. They had learned what doing wrong was. They had learned what it feels like to be on the other side of a wide gulf. Covering their reproductive areas might have made them feel secure, regardless of how ridiculous that sounds. It is like the two-year-old learning to play hide and seek who thinks that if he stays in plain view, but covers his eyes with his hands, then he is invisible to everyone else in the room, because he can't see himself.

I also wonder if they covered themselves because sin is a very intimate act. We do it in secret and it usually involves very strong emotions. Often the bible uses the word "know" to convey sexual relations between men and women. After all, if you've seen someone naked, you really do know them better than someone who hasn't.(unfortunately that's not always the case in our current society) I should check and see if the word "knowledge" is coming from that same root. Pleasing, desirable, these are words of seduction. Eve was being seduced.

Anyone who has been a christian, for any length of time, can find these moments in their lives. Hopefully they are few. But, even low in number, they forever alter us. Moments when we have stood at the edge of a cliff, pondering how long it would take to fall and whether climbing back up would really be that big of a deal, leave an indelible impression. We peer over the edge, look back at the uninteresting place we currently occupy, and slowly inch closer to the precipice. Sometimes we jump enthusiastically into the gulf. At other times, we just fall off out of the impetus of our lives heading in the wrong direction. We know there's going to be a big crash at the end, but feel unable to fight the gravity of our circumstances pulling us down.

If you have had one of those moments where you have betrayed God, yourself, or someone close to you. If you have done something of which you never considered yourself capable, then you know what I am talking about. Even if it only happened once, you are left with an unmistakable, lingering taintedness in your soul. You can recover, find your way back, but once you've seen the dark places of your soul, you can never forget it. The mind only acquires knowledge; it never releases it.

The act of choosing to eat the fruit was probably the real source of The Fall. I guess it is possible that God could have supernatural fruit with incredible properties, but I think the key lay in the actions of Adam and Eve. When you have acted on an impulse, you can't travel back in time and take it back. They very act of disobedience was, in itself, the lesson. How disappointed and filled with shame were Adam and Eve after eating the fruit and realizing that they had listened to some idiot serpent? Their eyes were opened, not because of the magical properties of the fruit, but because they realized that they had sold out their fidelity to God for a morsel of food. They had believed that God was being stingy and deceitful with them and so had rebelled, only to discover that is wasn't true. They had learned to believe evil over good. They had learned to trust themselves and not God. They now knew what evil was, because they had just engaged in it.

more tomorrow......

Matthew 7:9-11 "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask Him!"

This verse has sustained me so many times in the last few years. The sacrifices that we have made as a family, in order for me to be home with our children, have sometimes been uncomfortable. There have been times when we weren't sure how we were going to make it. There have been times when we doubted the path we were on. I would cling to this verse and remind myself that God has good intentions for us and is willing to provide for all that His children need.

As a parent, I know what my children need and strive to bless them as best as I can. My intentions are always for their good, even if they don't understand that. I do not take joy in their sufferings. I do not treat them with contempt or spite. I make sure they have food to eat, a roof over their heads, and love enough to grow.

If I can manage to do this, I have to believe that God can do it so much better than me. He has blessed us in a huge way this week. He has heard our constant prayers and answered us. He has provided in an unexpected and surprising way. I am grateful beyond words.

Thanks Dad!