seek what first?

To see the full text of today's MUFHH devotion, click here. But here's today's Scripture and a short quote from the devotion:

"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well" (Matthew 6:33).

"Immediately we look at these words of Jesus, we find them the most revolutionary statement human ears ever listened to. 'Seek ye first the kingdom of God'" (Oswald Chambers, MUFHH, May 21st).

I grew up in church. One of the songs we sang--in something called "Junior Church" (if you grew up in the church, did your church have one of these?)--was Seek Ye First. Basically, the song was Matthew 6:33 put to a melody (which is, by the way, a great way to memorize Scripture. A guest speaker at the Campus House recently mentioned that there was a fuzzy line between reading aloud and singing the Bible in the early church.).

I mention this song, and Junior Church, because you can sing something and get into the music and forget about what you're actually singing sometimes. That is, if you're like me, you can forget about the lyrics. I'm glad that this is not true for everyone. I've asked people, informally studying this, and I get mixed responses. Some people are lyrics people and some people are music people and others are both. But myself, being a music person, sang "Seek ye-ee first/the-uh ki-ingdom of God..." at a tenderly young age without bothering to think too much about what I was singing.

But, when Chambers calls this phrase revolutionary, it immediately gets my attention. I can recognize that he's right and I repent for singing this so many years without wrestling with Jesus' words.

Chambers says that, upon hearing Jesus' words to seek first His kingdom, even the most spiritually-minded of us argue: "But I must live; I must make so much money; I must..." fill in the blank.

What am I "seeking first"?

hmmm...

Okay, in one of my first posts concerning MUFHH I mentioned being consistently inspired through reading it.

However, I should also mention that many times I find myself disagreeing with what Chambers says, or at least questioning his writing. Take a passage from today's devotion and I'll show you what I mean:

"There are certain things we must not pray about--moods for instance. Moods never go by praying, moods go by kicking. A mood nearly always has its seat in the physical condition, not in the moral."

Hold it right there! Pause. Time out.

Of course, I may not be understanding this right, but (if he's saying what I think he's saying) I think he's saying two things that I disagree with...

1. that we should not pray for God to change a mood. Should it be conquered by...our own will power?...strength? I like the thought, "...moods go by kicking." That sounds pretty sweet, but I'm not sure I agree with Chambers on this one. However, I would agree that if we pray for God to change a certain mood (let's say anxious or worried), we need to be willing to respond to the Spirit's work in us to change this mood. When I was young I would pout from time to time. Usually pouting includes acting a certain way--say, angry or sad--for much longer than you really are. It never failed, usually my mom would try to get me to break a smile (tickling was usually effective when I was tempted to pout). So, I'm saying that's similar to praying about a feeling: God has the power to move us from one mood to another. But are we resistant to His prompting? And if we are, then I think that's where it requires the strength that can only come from God to kick that mood.
2. that only moral conditions should be prayed about (implied from the end of the quote?). I don't have anything more to say on this one. Suffice it to say, again, that I disagree.

***

The Scripture for today is from Luke 21:19. I'm pretty sure this is the Scripture quoted by the bass player in the movie, That Thing You Do: "In your patience possess ye your souls." (Or, reading it from the NIV: "By standing firm you will gain life." This passage deserves further study.

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"

The title of this post is Romans 8:35. This is also the Scripture text of the day in My Utmost for His Highest (a.k.a. MUFHH after today's entry): "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"

Chambers begins by commenting, "God does not keep a man [or woman] immune from trouble; He says--"I will be with him in trouble."

Whatever we are facing, nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Paul is convinced of this (see Romans 8:28-39 for context). Why? There are at least two foundational reasons that strike me this morning.

1. "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?" (Romans 8:32) And so God's love for us is not affected by what we have to offer or our current emotional state or anything else, because it depends on what He has already accomplished through Jesus.
2. His continual presence with us.

journaling through "My Utmost for His Highest"

for now, this blog is going to be more of an online journal. my rationale:

1. i've been reading through Oswald--that's a great name isn't it?--Chambers' now classic work, My Utmost for His Highest. i don't know how long i've known about this book. probably ever since i was, proverbially speaking, "knee high to a grasshopper." but, for some reason, i resisted reading it until this past january. i am consistently inspired by it, and so i wanted to write down some thoughts as inspiration comes. i want to be able to remember what i've read from day to day. i find that writing about something (and this experience might be true of yourself as well?) is a great way to come to a deeper understanding of it.
2. my hope is that, if anyone reads these posts, they might be directed to Chambers' book or--even better--to the biblical texts from which his devotions arise.