Thought of the Day 07.01.09

How is it possible that Jesus could suffer separation from God the Father for only three hours, and that would be enough to compensate for all the suffering we would all endure in hell for all of eternity? After all, He knew it was the Father’s plan, and He knew He’d be getting the Father back soon enough, right?

When I was first dating my wife, I was obsessed with being in her presence. When I was with her, I was enthralled. And when I was apart from her, I was virtually useless for anything because I was thinking about her. Well, both of us being in college, we obviously had to separate at times just to attend class. But even though I knew I would see her again in a few hours, it was agony just to be apart.

See, although we use the word “love” to describe both my zeal for my wife’s companionship and the Son’s zeal for the Father’s, I worry that doing so hinders us from comprehending the magnitude of the latter devotion, if only because it sounds a bit like saying that a candle and the sun both emit light.

Thought of the Day 06.30.09

Surely the most bewildering aspect of the Christian faith is it’s central tenet: that in suffering on the Cross, Jesus paid off all the sins of humanity. Although substitutionary atonement itself can be baffling, even harder is comprehending how just three hours of Christ’s pain could pay off this massive debt.

But what if we take that seemingly absurd idea seriously and start from the premise that Jesus did, in fact, pay enough? Well, then the only solution must be that His love for the Father was so majestically vivid that a mere three hour interruption of it was adequate to match all the suffering of billions of people in hell for eternity.

And the amazing thing, which can only barely be comprehended, is that we will have eternity to share in and experience this same sort of bliss. A bliss whose sweetness must make even the greatest agonies of this life seem like mere nicks and scrapes by comparison.

Thought of the Day 06.29.09

Have you ever noticed that you think differently about purchasing things when you don’t have as much money as you would like?

I mean, let’s say you go to the grocery store with a credit card and a $5,000 limit. Even at your splurgiest, you likely wouldn’t spend more than a few hundred bucks, but you’d pretty much buy anything that seemed appealing, right? And if you’re like me, a lot of that stuff would sit in your pantry or refrigerator unused because it turns out not to be stuff you really wanted that badly after all.

But let’s say you went to the store with three twenty dollar bills and nothing else. You might complain about having to be more selective, but your cart would contain only the stuff you really wanted. And it would all be the most economical brand of that stuff, right?

Oh, sure, it’s nice to be able to buy anything we want, but the reality is that we all shop smarter when we have limits that distinguish the merely good from the best in what we want.

I wonder if this concept has ever occurred to anyone in our Congress.

Thought of the Day 06.26.09

I have Legos. Lots and lots of Legos. I’ve accumulated them over the course of my life, some from gifts, some from garage sales, some just bought. And the reason I kept them all these years was because I liked messing around with them and because I knew that one day I would have my own children to enjoy them with. And now at age five, Spencer really likes building things with me.

Well, the other day he made some remark about what he wanted to do with “his” Legos when he grew up. I immediately corrected him by explaining that the Legos are mine, other than the ones that have been specifically given to him, and I intend to keep them when the kids leave home. After all, how would I divide them among several children, and why wouldn’t I want to be the grandpa with the cool Legos to play with? But I reassured him that he was welcome to play with them all he likes until he grows up and leaves my house.

Precisely because they seem so identical on a day-by-day basis, my son had made the very common error of mistaking stewardship for ownership.

Thought of the Day 06.25.09

A friend of mine recently moved away and gave me all the food in his kitchen, since he couldn’t keep it, including a case of bottled water. I’ve had a strange relationship with these bottles. Obviously, I’ve been drinking them, but I’ve also had the opportunity to give them away.

Although I would never withhold something as trivial as a bottle of water, I still have to admit that part of me hesitates momentarily before remembering that I didn’t pay for them. The fact that they were given to me has made it easier to give them away to others. Now I know that it’s ridiculous of me to have such a stingy impulse, and I know that bottled water is a truly trivial example. But that’s sort of the point.

I can’t help but hope that a time is coming in my life when I will finally and fully realize that everything I have, from my measly bottled waters to my savings account and my cars and my house, was all given to me just as freely by an extremely generous God. And until I’m willing to give it all away as easily as a bottle of water, that day hasn’t arrived yet.