Shakespeare Was an Optimist

"To thine own self be true and it shall follow as the night the day thou canst not be false to any man."  The great bard said something close to that.  (I admit I did not go look it up.)  But, do you notice that the validity of the quote depends entirely upon an assumption about "thine own self."

What if "thine own self" were a person whose fundamental character was based in greed, lust, and deception ?  Then the bard may have needed to conclude that it would follow that "thou wouldst be false to any man or woman in whom you saw a way to take advantage."

Up until the mid to late 1800's when German universities abandoned the notion that the Scriptures are inspired by God, educated western thought was based in the idea that there are some character traits/behaviors that are inherently good and some that are inherently bad.  Thus, belief in God and His goodness was the only accepted social norm.  Atheism was solely the attribute of a fool.  Love, generosity, kindness, protection of the weak, honesty, integrity, faithfulness, were all socially applauded and expected social mores.  To suggest about another man that he lied was in fact an invitation to engage in a fight to the death.  A man would rather risk death than permit anyone to question his integrity.

Today, in a society which has abandoned any belief in an absolute morality, people openly call even our foremost public leaders "Liars." Indeed it has become a presumption that all politicians lie.  In this environment quotes from earlier centuries would often appear to have been far from valid even though when they were written or said they seemed perfectly true.

Many people today find scripture passages completely unbelievable because of a similar dynamic.  For example, in the context of today's common beliefs in America, the statement that "God is Love" seems unbelievable.  Why?  Because in today's society the highest attributes of love are the protection of another's physical life and the actions that make the loved one feel good and comfortable.  In previous centuries there were many values worth dying for and many values worth killing for.  But, today, it is practically impossible to imagine a social leader like Patrick Henry who would seriously claim "regret that (he) had only one life to give."  Rather he would say, "I had to compromise because there is nothing I could do if I allowed them to kill me."  For today's young believers, it is difficult to comprehend that overcoming Satan requires "love not their lives even unto death."

In a similar vein, many of the statements of Jesus about His followers seem to lack reality in today's context.  But, if we restore to them the context in which Jesus spoke them, their reality becomes much more observable. When Jesus was prophesying about the future for his followers, all of His prophesy was based on 2 fundamental assumptions.  1) It was assumed that He was talking to people who would give up their own personal life styles and receive Holy Spirit who empowers them to walk as sons of God.  2) It was assumed that they would in fact walk as sons who would not act out of their own initiatives.  Further, this assumption means that they would only do what they were seeing the Father do and only say what they were hearing the Father say.

So, let's consider an example:  Jesus said I could speak to a mountain and it would be moved.  In all my years in the Kingdom I have only heard of such a thing happening a couple of times.  If I go out in the lawn and look east to see Diamond Head Mountain, then say to it move north 5 miles; what do you think will happen?  Before I bet on the outcome, I want to know a fact or two.  First, did I hear Father God say that before I said it?  Second, did Father God authorize me to say it at the time I said it?  If both answers are affirmative then I know what will happen.  If the first is affirmative and the second is not, then I am unsure what might happen.  If the first is negative, then I know what will not happen.

The same dynamics apply to many of Jesus'prophetic utterances.  Forgiving sin; healing sick; casting out demons; et cetera.  We seem to forget that when Jesus said "in my name," He was not talking about the blasphemous tag line that is tossed about on the end of prayers as "in the Name of Jesus. Amen."  In the name of Jesus was a power of attorney statement. If I authorize my daughter to sell my house, then I have given her a power of attorney.  When she executes the deed for me it is just like I signed the deed myself.  She was authorized to act in my name.  But, a power of attorney for her to sell my car will not authorize her to sell my house.  A power of attorney for her to sell one of my cars does not authorize her to sell all of my cars.  A power of attorney is only valid for the specific actions I have authorized.  Jesus said He was not sent into the world to judge the world.  How can we imagine that we are authorized to judge the world when He Himself was not so authorized?

So, if things are not happening around you, if signs and wonders are not following you, perhaps it is time for you to sit down with Jesus and find out exactly what He has authorized you to do.  

And today is certainly a good day to tune in on your vision of what Father God is doing and on what Father God ia authorizing you to say.

His, thus Yours,

Stuart