A Lesson in Obedience from a Rock and a Stick

Today in the children's ministry the passage we covered was in Numbers 20:1-13.  The children of Israel complained against Moses and Aaron for bringing them out to the wilderness to die because they had no water.  Moses and Aaron went before the Lord and He told them to gather the people in one place and speak to a rock and the rock would bring forth water for all the people.  Moses was so frustrated with the people that after venting at them, he struck the rock twice with his rod.  Because of this, Moses was not allowed to lead the people into the Promised Land.  I was thinking about this and felt like God was really harsh with Moses.  He changed one little thing and was not allowed to go into the land that he had spent most of his life trying to go too.  But in thinking about the passage, some things came to the surface.

1.      God is serious about obedience, even in areas we might think are small.

2.      My frustration is not an excuse for disobedience or modifications to what God has told me to do.

3.      Moses' disobedience was a public act, not one that was private.  Public acts of disobedience have harsher consequences, because of the increased responsibility of the disobedient individual, due to the visibility of the act.

Why was it so important to speak to the rock instead of hitting it?  Primarily, because God said to.  By hitting the rock, it lessened the miracle of water coming out of it.  There had to be a huge amount of noise around the rock, with thousands of people grumbling and Moses speaking to them so that they could hear, and yet no water came out.  If the rock had been under a tremendous amount of pressure, hitting it, as Moses did, could have weakened it to where it would have burst.  There was more possibility of a natural occurrence by hitting the rock.  God wants the glory for what He does (as He deserves).  By speaking to the rock, the fact that water would come out could only be attributed as a true miracle from God.  This is a rather simplistic thought as to one possibility, but the point remains: obedience is important, and carries more weight in public matters.

The Democratic Position on Oil

From http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoon.asp

Responsibility

One of the areas that I struggle with is misplaced responsibility and is an area I have been growing in with the help of my therapist.  In December of last year, he pointed out that there is a lot of shifting responsibility in my family, with me taking on more responsibility and others taking on less.  In doing so, I was carrying a large weight on my shoulders that was unnecessary.  One of the more freeing things recently has been to decrease what I take responsibility for.  Combined with my previous comments about acceptance, these two have been life-changing for me.

Sometimes we take responsibility for things we are responsible for, other times we take on responsibility for things we are not responsible for, and still other times we fail to be responsible for things we are responsible for.  The challenge is to distinguish between these.  One easy way of determining this is to ask myself: can I control it?  Let me give an example.

One of my concerns in having contact with my dad was what would transpire between us if the topics of conversation went to areas that we would strongly disagree on.  My therapist pointed out that in my thought processes, I was taking responsibility for how my dad might respond, when in reality, I can't control how he would respond, nor am I expected to do so!  The only thing I am responsible for is my side of the conversation, and I can freely choose to engage or not, depending on my free choice to talk about certain subjects. 

I used to think that I was supposed to "fix" things in my family, or make sure that things went well.  If person X is mean to person Y, then it is up to me to make sure Y is ok and that X won't be mean again.  If my brother was with a woman who treats him poorly, I would feel a burden for him and would try to think of ways that I could help.  If I saw a psychological need, attempted to assist, and if the person was resistant or flat out non-responsive, I would be agitated because I was taking on responsibility for their issue!  In all of these and more, what I found was that it's not my responsibility!

If person X is mean to person Y, it is up to person Y to stand up for him/herself.  My brother is an adult and has the maturity to make decisions on who he chooses to date.  The individual who needs psychological assistance can be given the card of a qualified psychologist.  If I am talking to my dad and he tries to bring up stuff about my brother, I can (and will) remind my dad that I am not interested in how he and my brother relate, but only how he and I relate.

On the surface, this sounds really harsh!  I used to think that real love was the romantic feelings and doing all these wonderful things for everyone and being the great person who is so nice and helpful.  In my reading and studying, what I've realized is that love is the acceptance of another person as wholly other and free.  To put it another way, another person is separate, distinct, and unique from me and how I relate to him or her is in every way possible one that encourages and promotes freedom.  Therefore, anything that I do that takes responsibility away from them ultimately is an unloving thing to do.  It is like trying to help the butterfly out of the cocoon, when it is through the struggle of getting out that strength is built and the butterfly can actually live and fly.  It means living with greater thought and purpose in how I relate to others.

The Wand and it's Master

This was an interesting parallel I observed while reading Harry Potter, although I doubt it was intentional by its author.

 

In the last Harry Potter book, Deathly Hallows, Harry faces Voldemort twice and both times Voldemort casts the killing curse on Harry.  What Voldemort does not realize is that his wand's master is actually Harry, and the wand will never betray its master.  So the first time the killing curse is cast on Harry, the wand kills the only thing in Harry that is not Harry – the part of Voldemort that was inside of Harry.  The second time, the curse backfires and kills Voldemort.

When Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world, He took the "keys of death and Hades" from Satan.  Christ's redemption of us gives us a new master.  When Satan casts curses our way, the curses can only kill or harm that which is dead, the "sin nature".  But because of redemption, because of the work of Christ, the new man or woman, the recreated individual that Christ has made a person to be, is protected.  Satan can threaten and make promises to lock us up or kill us, but the threats are empty.  Yes, he can kill us, physically, and even painfully.  But "do not fear him who can kill the body, but rather He who can kill the body and soul."  Christ is the authority over spiritual death, and this curse of spiritual death is now hollow when cast by Satan against a child of Christ.  The wand will never betray its master.

Pay Attention!

Much of what is being said in the political arena is either a blantant lie or a carefully spun story that makes a candidate look better.  It is critical to actually measure what is being said with what is common sense and what is actual reality.  A great example of this is the ridiculous proposals for making cars more energy efficient.

 

I have seen statements that amount to something like: "Requiring that all cars have fuel efficiency increased by 50% by the year 2020."  Let's measure this statement with a little bit of common sense.  Consider:

• 2020 is 12 years away.
• 12 years ago the price of gas was $1.27, a 239% increase
• Inflation, if we accept the traditional view (which I do not), runs at about 3-5% annually, which at 12 years, compounded at 4%, equals 60%.

Does anyone see the aburdity in the statement?  If I increase my car efficiency by 50%, but the price of gas has increased by a greater percent, and inflation has made my purchasing power weaker, I've still lost.  The statement has no value for those living in 2020 and is stated so as to sound "good" in the present.

 

Nevermind the disaster of allowing the government to regulate something else, which prevents a (formerly) "free" market to dictate the design and efficiency of cars.  If we want to drive big-ass cars, we must pay the price to drive them.  If we wish for a cheaper gas bill, we can get a more fuel-efficient car.  Actions and choices have consequences.

 

This does not even get into the falling value of the dollar and why gas prices are really rising.  But I write this to illustrate that we need to be cautious and exercise some careful investigation of what is being stated by all parties, everywhere.  Just because it sounds good and feels right doesn't make it true, practical, or a sound long-term solution.