Against Ignorance
In only a few more days, our youth will make their annual pilgrimage for their first day of school or will break out their new textbooks in their home school. Little ones will be tearfully separated from their parents, and older ones will be sent off by joyfully tearful parents!
In only a few more days, our youth will make their annual pilgrimage for their first day of school or will break out their new textbooks in their home school. Little ones will be tearfully separated from their parents, and older ones will be sent off by joyfully tearful parents!
Why do we send our children to school or teach them at home? We are in a battle against ignorance. We want them to learn and to think and to act with knowledge. We recognize that formal education does not provide all of learning, but it provides essential components of things needed to be learned.
Isn't it sad that professing Christians in America place so much emphasis upon grade school and college education and so little emphasis upon biblical and doctrinal learning? Christians see the need to learn "secular" knowledge (though we recognize that all truth is God's truth), yet they often fail to recognize the even greater need to achieve a thorough-going knowledge of the Bible and its doctrine.
Many Christians are ignorant of what the Bible teaches and consider their ignorance a mark of humility. They act as though those who read and think and write about the faith are proud scholars. Christians content with ignorance are not humble, however; they are the ones filled with pride. They do not need to put forth the effort and discipline required to learn truth. They are wise in their own ignorance.
Michael Horton has addressed this proud ignorance, writing, "In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Anti-Intellectualism in the American Life, Richard Hofstadter points out that the Reformed Faith built America's only indigenous intellectual tradition, and as Puritanism degenerated into revivalism, the nation lost its intellectual balance. While the Reformed evangelists of the Great Awakening were also presidents of Princeton and Yale, evangelists ever since Charles Finney have actually boasted in their lack of education. Evangelicalism has a legacy of anti-intellectualism that has not only crippled its witness to the watching world, but has opened the church itself up to the most remarkable reaches of stupidity and incredulity.
"But anti-intellectualism is not humble. It is humble to say, 'I don't know, but I'll have to look into that.' But it's pride that leads us to say, 'I don't know and that's OK.' It's arrogant, first, because it makes oneself the center of the universe. Reading a particularly obscure piece of philosophy, a friend pronounced, 'What a stupid debate!' It was a 'stupid debate' because Bob does not understand it, much like the child in the math class might conclude of a complicated problem. Imagine one saying of the highly sophisticated formulas that were used to put a man on the moon, 'What a stupid set of formulas!', even after the success is captured on television. To conclude that things which are beyond my reach of knowledge, insight or experience are not worth knowing is the height of arrogance. It makes oneself the measure of all values, all truths, and all meaning in the universe" (Michael Horton, "Sloth," The Horse's Mouth, [Anaheim, CA: Christians United for Reformation, Spring 1996], 2).
Horton is right. A Christian may not know the Bible well, but an humble Christian will say, "I will not remain ignorant. I will study the Word and think about its implications. I will not be absent when the Word is taught and preached in my church. I will work to understand Bible doctrine and will diligently seek to apply what I learn to my own life, and I will be diligent to see that my children are taught these truths as well."
An attitude less than this is not a mark of humility. It is indeed a mark of pride. And we know what follows pride (Proverbs 16:18).
Bill Moore
Love!
February—the month of love. You see reminders everywhere, especially when you enter those favorite stores of high-cultured connoisseurs such as I — Target and Wal-Mart. Red and hearts are everywhere, from candies to cards to a host of other items. The advertisements in the newspapers and on television will remind us that now is the time to buy that special gift for that special someone in our lives. Aren't you glad that the merchandizers have your best interests in mind?
There is, though, something special about being in love with that special someone. I was recently reminded of the life-long love affair which the colonial minster and theologian Jonathan Edwards (1703-58) had for his wife Sarah. I can almost hear someone gasping, "Jonathan Edwards!?! What could he possibly know about love? I don't find much love in that sermon of his—'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.' After all, he was a . . . a . . . a . . . Calvinist!"
Edwards, though, was a man deeply in love, first with God and a close second with Sarah. When he first saw thirteen-year-old Sarah (thirteen-year-olds were a lot older in those days!), the twenty-year-old Jonathan extolled: "They say there is a young lady from New Haven who is beloved of that almighty Being, who made and rules the world, and that there are certain seasons in which the great Being, in some way or other invisible, comes to her and fills her mind with exceeding sweet delight, and that she hardly cares for anything—that she expects after a while to be received up where he is, to be raised out of the world and caught up into heaven; being assured that he loves her too well to let her remain at a distance from him always. There she is to dwell with him, and to be ravished with his love, favor and delight, forever."
Notice that Sarah's love for God attracted Jonathan to her. There were, of course, additional, though similar, characteristics which Jonathan found attractive. He noted Sarah's "strange sweetness in her mind, and sweetness of temper, uncommon purity in her affections." This "sweetness of temper" gave her a "calmness and universal benevolence of mind; especially after those times in which this great God has manifested himself to her mind."
Jonathan loved Sarah because Sarah loved God, and the love which Sarah had for God gave her a "sweetness in her mind," a "sweetness of temper," and an "uncommon purit in her affections [emotions]." While Edwards must have found Sarah physically attractive and enjoyed the intellectual companionship of the daughter of one of the founders of Yale College, it was this supreme love for God which moved him to ecstasy.
Jonathan and Sarah Edwards provide a much needed example for Christian couples today, as well as a helpful antidote to the superficial and selfish motivations for "falling in love." Because their love for each other flowed out of their love for God, their love was not easily dampened because one or the other displayed their imperfections or because an attractive imposter sought to malign their relationship. A couple deeply in love with God will have a marriage able to sustain whatever difficulties or temptations they face.
Jonathan and Sarah's marriage provides the type of picture the apostle Paul used in Ephesians 5: 22-33 to illustrate the relationship between Christ and His church. By God's grace, may our marriages do likewise.
Bill Moore
Elders and Baptist History
What a great day at Cornerstone! On the evening of January 29, 2006, we set apart to the office of elder three of our men: Drew Trammell, Tommy Adkins, and Dale Taylor. We have now complete the transition from a deacon-led congregational government to, what we understand to be, the more biblical elder-led congregational government.
While we have investigated the biblical teaching concerning a plurality of elders leading the local church, we have also indicated that Baptist history supports this understanding. For instance, the Second London Confession reveals that, at least by the 1670's, English Baptists had become convinced that Scripture supported only two offices in the church and that both elders and deacons were more than one person in each office: "A particular Church gathered, and compleatly Organized, according to the mind of Christ, consists of Officers, and Members; And the Officers . . . are Bishops or Elders and Deacons." Notice that "a particular Church [singular] . . . consists of . . . Bishops or Elders [plural] and Deacons.
As did most Baptists, Benjamin Keach indicated the desirability of a plurality of elders in each church: "A Church thus constituted ought forthwith to choose them a pastor, elder or elders, and deacons." Keach distinguishes the gospel minister from the other elders, but he insists on there being more than the one pastor serving as the lone elder. Nehemiah Cox explicitly called for a plurality of elders: "The particular Charge given to Titus is, To ordain Elders in every City: This is to be explained by conference with Act. 14.23. where the practice of the Apostles themselves is recorded, And having ordained them Elders in every Church, &c." Cox explained that "the Converts in every City were not then so numerous but they might conveniently come together in one place for the Worship of God; and so to ordain them Elders in every City, was to do it in every Church."
While this pattern would continue through the 18th century and into the 19th century in both Great Britain and the U.S., by the mid-1800's Baptist churches having a plurality of elders were becoming a thing of the past. W. B. Johnson, a South Carolina pastor who served as the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention, pointed his brethren back to the apostolic example: "It is worthy of particular attention, that each church had a plurality of elders, and that although there was a difference in their respective departments of service, there was a perfect equality of rank among them." Applying the apostolic example to the nineteenth century, Johnson explained that each elder would have a particular area of ministry within the church: "The particular department of service which each shall occupy, will be determined by the talent which he has for one or the other line of duty. For example, one of the bishops may have a particular talent for presiding over the body, for regulating its affairs by advice, admonition, rebuke. Let such an one be the presiding bishop. Another may have a particular capacity for teaching the flock by exposition of scripture and exhortation, and in visits to the members. . . . A third may be endowed with the talent for superintending a Sabbath school, directing the course of studies, gathering up children for the school, and alluring them to the reading of the scriptures and religious works. To this service, then, let him be devoted. And a fourth may be endowed with the gift of laboring in the word and doctrine, that is, of preaching the gospel of Christ. . . . I mean not by the above view, to determine the number of bishops for each church at four, but simply to exhibit what services the bishops might respectively render to a church."
That most Baptists apparently acknowledged the New Testament model of a plurality of elders did not mean that they knew how to return to that practice. Responding to an article pointing to the practice of the early churches' having a plurality of elders, the editor of The Christian Index, the Georgia Baptist paper, responded in 1890, "The New Testament gives us not an instance of a church with 'one man' as its bishop, or pastor. In every case, where the facts on this point are brought out, we find the churches 'which first trusted in Christ' churches with a plurality of pastors: and we need to return to the 'pattern shown us in the Mount' of Holy Scripture. When will this be done? How can it be done? We cannot answer either the one question or the other. But we believe that the time is coming when God will show the answer to his people, and they will do it."
I believe that God is showing the answer to His people and we are doing it along with many other Baptist churches dotting the U.S. While this old idea is new to folks born after 1900, nevertheless it is both biblical and supported by Baptist history. It is wonderful to be a part of a church in which recent tradition fails to trump the Scriptures and our Baptist heritage.
Bill Moore
Creeds
Is it proper for a church to have a confession of faith in order to be able, in a summary fashion, to articulate the beliefs held by that body of believers? In our day of "anything goes," many claim that having such a statement, especially one which carefully spells out the doctrines held, is akin to imposing a creed upon members and taking away their individual liberties.
A common assertion heard among Southern Baptists in our day is that Baptists have always been opposed to creeds. In other words, there is no set of beliefs or doctrines which one must affirm in order to be a member in good standing in a local Baptist church or an employee of the state convention or the Southern Baptist Convention. The argument is often used by those opposed to any restrictions upon the beliefs of pastors, missionaries, and college and seminary professors, or other denominational staff. According to this line of reasoning, if a Southern Baptist missionary believes that the Bible contains errors and contradictions or if he believes that the pastorate should be open to women, then the International Mission Board is wrong to terminate that missionary's employment. Because Baptists have always been opposed to creeds, so goes the argument, what one believes is between him and God. No one else dare interfere.
Historical evidence to the contrary, however, abounds. For instance, the July 15, 1856, issue of the Texas Baptist carried this timeless article by W. W. Gardner of Mayslick, Kentucky. Gardner noted that "the term creed is derived from the Latin word credo, I believe, and expresses the belief of an individual or society of individuals respecting the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel. Every believer, therefore, has a creed, whether written or unwritten, and the same is true of every Christian church." Creeds for Baptists, though, were neither substitutes for the Bible nor carried any authority in themselves. The only authority is the Bible. "The independence and sovereignty of our churches place a denominational creed, as a bond of union and communion, wholly out of the question." While creeds provided helpful summaries, the ultimate authority for Christians is the Bible.
Gardner pointed out, however, that creeds are helpful, providing four functions as used by Baptists. First, he noted that "creeds . . . impart information and promote harmony of views and feelings among ourselves, as churches and as a denomination." Only churches which hold similar doctrinal views are able to enjoy fellowship among themselves. The more similar their views, the more wholesome is their fellowship. Conversely, churches which actually believe their doctrines to be important will find it difficult to fellowship with churches who hold to dissimilar beliefs.
Second, Gardner observed that "creeds . . . enable applicants for membership to examine our doctrinal views and determine whether or not they can be happy among us." Notice the importance nineteenth-century Southern Baptists placed upon doctrine for membership. A church's statement of its beliefs communicated to potential members that certain doctrines defined this fellowship. Those who wished to be a part of this fellowship needed to hold these doctrines.
Third, Gardner maintained that "creeds . . . enable other Christians to examine our faith and practice, and determine whether or not they can conscientiously bid us God speed." While we may have always heard that "it doesn't matter what others think," it does matter what certain people think. It matters what other Christians who believe in the inerrency, infallibility, and authority of the Scriptures think. It matters what other Christians who hold to those major doctrines which have been believed throughout church history think. It matters what godly believers who believe there is no salvation outside of the Lord Jesus Christ think.
Fourth, Gardner pointed out that "creeds . . . serve to correct misrepresentation and slander, and thus stop mouths of gainsayers." There will always be the critics. As long as a body of believers is attempting to be faithful to the Scriptures, there will always be the malcontents who spread malicious rumors and gossip. Having a carefully worded statement of a church's beliefs—a confession, a creed—at least shows that the church holds to orthodox beliefs.
Gardner made two concluding statements: "1. That creeds, as used by the Baptists, are both necessary and useful in the present state of affairs" and "2. That no valid objection can be offered against creeds, as used by the Baptists." If the "present state of affairs" of the mid-nineteenth century required carefully worded statements of faith, how much more does the confusing state of affairs of the early twenty-first century in which everyone believes what he or she wants to believe?
Bill Moore
Is Christianity Merely an Emotional Crutch?
With his sights focused upon Christianity, noted 19th-century revolutionary Karl Marx famously (or rather, infamously) railed that "religion is the opiate for the masses." Psychologist Sigmund Freud contemptuously opined, "Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities." To Marx and Freud, Christianity is only wishful thinking. It merely serves to get people through life, helping them cope with their inability to overcome perplexities and problems too large for them to grasp.
Are Marx, Freud, and like-minded critics of Christianity right? I think they are, at least in the case of many professing Christians. Before you have an apoplectic reaction, please carefully consider the following. For too many, Christianity is simply wishful thinking, with its adherents living life as they choose while having their religion to support them in times of crisis or distress. In other words, their "Christianity" really has little to do with their daily living.
Consequently, they pay little attention to biblical commands which they find unpalatable. If they cannot get along with their spouse, they see divorce as the solution. After all, God wants them to be happy, doesn't He? If the political candidate of their party favors abortion on demand, that's not a problem. After all, he promises to take care of the poor and the middle class, and God wants them to be financially secure, doesn't He? If a fellow church member is living in open sin, we must simply love that person and pray for her. After all, if we confront her about her sin, she will leave the church and we will never reach her. Surely God doesn't want that, does He? The Bible commands believers to worship together on the Lord's Day, but it won't hurt to miss on days when our son has a soccer game scheduled. After all, we need to teach our son the importance of being committed to his team, don't we?
Twentieth-century literary scholar C. S. Lewis observed, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." Unfortunately, for too many professing Christians, their religion is only moderately important in their lives. While they may go to church on Sundays and proclaim their love for God, their faith plays little role in their work, their recreation, their home life, and their politics. While claiming with their lips the infinite importance of Christianity, they proclaim with their lives that it is of no real importance.
What H.Richard Neibuhr wrote about Protestant liberalism could be applied to most of twenty-first-century evangelicalism: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross." Theological liberalism reshapes the God of the Bible into an idol of their own imagination. If we justify our failure to obey biblical commands and principles, we do the same.
How important is the faith to you? Jesus could not have been more emphatic as He addressed a great multitude of followers: "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. . . . So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26-27, 33 [NKJV]). While we will never be all we should be for God, let's not be a part of those whose Christianity is little more than a crutch to get them through the distresses of life.
Bill Moore
Whachyourunnin?
Why do we do what we do in our church? Is the determining factor for a decision how it will affect attendance or whether it is in accord with the Word of God? Matt Schmucker is a friend who is the director of 9Marks Ministries and an elder and administrator at Capitol Hill Baptist Church. In an article which can be found at http://www.9marks.org, "Things I've Seen and Heard -- On Numbers," Matt has poignantly addressed this issue of focusing upon numbers.
"For ten years now, I have visited and participated in some of the largest Protestant evangelical churches in America. Such experiences have been new for me. I grew up Roman Catholic and was saved in a small, non-denominational church where I spent the first seven years of my Christian life being discipled. Needless to say, when it came to large evangelical churches and denominations, I was a relative newcomer.
"When I first started going to denominational conventions I quickly learned the lingo of ‘Conventioneers’ and the relative importance they place on numbers. The routine goes something like this: ‘Good to meet you, Matt. Where's home for you? What church do you attend? Whachyourunnin?’ And I would say, ‘I'm sorry?’ And they would repeat, ‘Whachyourunnin?’ I would turn to my pastor with a blank look on my face and he would say, ‘The man wants to know your attendance in Sunday School, you know, What are you running in Sunday School?’ I could only guess ‘what we were running’ given that we never counted and never thought it was particularly important to do so.
"Since those earlier days, I've come to understand why churches give careful attention to ‘their numbers’ but am no closer to being convinced of the importance of such a practice. I was in a church recently that posted their numbers on a board in the Sunday School auditorium on a weekly basis. They had a sanctuary that could seat at least 500, boasted 1,200 members, but only had 50 in attendance. I counted! All over America, every Sunday morning, churches repeat this scenario. What has happened to our understanding of evangelism, conversion, church discipline, and discipleship that allows people to remain on the roles of a Christian church, but not attend and sit under the preaching of the Word of God and fellowship with the people of God?
"In Galatians, we see a situation where false teachers called Judaizers were teaching Gentile Christians that they were not really saved unless they obeyed the Mosaic Law. Paul writes of their motivation: ‘Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation’ (Galatians 6:12-15).
"To put this in another way, Paul criticized these teachers for their wrong focus. They looked to the law and an outward appearance rather than looking to the heart, the spirit, and the ‘new creation’–that which they could not see. What about us? Are we focused on that which we can see, like numbers, or are we focused on the spirit, the new creation? Are we reporting our church attendance and baptisms because we ‘want to make a good impression outwardly?’ Are we guilty of inflating the numbers to put off embarrassment? To paraphrase Paul: neither counting nor not counting means anything; what counts is the new creation! That number only God knows.
"Can you imagine a modern evangelical encountering Jesus at a convention? ‘Good to meet you, Jesus. Where's home?’ Answer: ‘Nazareth.’ ‘What church are you a member of?’ Answer: ‘It’s still being built.’ ‘Whachyourunnin?’ In regard to numbers Jesus replies, ‘Evangelistic events about 5,000, but regular attendance about a dozen.’ Would he be laughed out of the convention?
"D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said this, ‘My friends, our business, our work, our first call is to declare in a certain and unequivocal manner the sovereignty, the majesty, the holiness of God; the sinfulness and the utter depravity of man, his total inability to save and to rescue himself; and the sacrificial, expiatory, atoning death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, on that Cross on Calvary's hill, and His glorious resurrection, as the only means and the only hope of human salvation.’ [D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The First Forty Years, 302].
"If, after faithfully doing all that Lloyd-Jones suggests, you still have time to count, then I would suggest you count your blessings rather than your flock. It will surely take longer and be far more profitable."
Matt is exactly right. If we base our church decisions upon how they will affect our attendance and offerings, then we have ceased to follow Christ and have begun to follow the world. Read John 6 and see what happened when Jesus presented a particularly hard truth to the thousands listening to him: "Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can understand it?’ When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. And He said, ‘Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father. From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more’" (John 6:60-66).
Let’s be a people who love God’s truth and love others enough to tell them what they need to hear even if it is not what they want to hear.
Bill Moore
Being Religious Is Not Good Enough
You have often heard it said that many of us will be amazed at some of the people who will one day be in heaven. Certainly the same can be said about the inhabitants of hell.
There are many groups of people which are generally believed to deserve the eternal torment of hell—such as atheists, murderers, worshipers of false gods, child molesters, pornographers, and homosexuals. We look at these people and conclude without doubt that they deserve God's wrath.
However, the fact of the matter is that these groups will probably comprise a minority of hell's occupants. A large number of the doomed will be religious people. Men and women who were baptized, taught Sunday school classes, attended church regularly, sang in church choirs or gospel quartets, served on church boards, preached sermons, and gave large sums to the church will one day stand condemned before God.
We must realize that being religious is not synonymous with being right with God. Jesus warns, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). Notice that Christ is not speaking of those whom we would denounce as heinous sinners—these are religious people. They call Christ "Lord, Lord." They may be respectable neighbors, good employees, caring parents, or generous philanthropists, but Christ says that they will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
They will protest the Lord's judgment by claiming "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?" (Matthew 7:22). We do not know whether their claims are simply false, whether their acts were done by the power of Satan (Deuteronomy 13:1-3), or whether they were allowed to accomplish these feats by God's power (even as God used the false prophet Balaam in Numbers 23:5). We do know this—Christ will not be impressed by their claims: "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:23).
The Bible clearly teaches that only those who come in faith to Christ, turning away from their sins and believing that He died on the cross to pay their penalty, will be saved. The apostle John teaches that "as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12). Paul explains that "by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).
It is distressing that many who fill the pews of our churches have never repented of their sins and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. Their lives have never been changed by the power of the gospel. Relying upon their baptism, church membership, or good deeds, they feel that surely they are right with God. If they remain in their unrepentant state, they will be eternally damned by the One whom they claim to follow. There will be no second chance; there will only be eternal rejection.
Where do you stand today? Are you truly His? If, by His grace, you have repented and you do believe on the risen Lord, trusting that He died in your place upon the cross, then give thanks to a merciful God who has wooed you unto Himself. If you have no such assurance and realize that your religious activities have been a hollow substitute for a relationship with God, then honestly go before God and acknowledge what He knows to be true. Seek the Lord while He may be found (Isaiah 55:6).
Bill Moore
Submission—The Mark of a Christian
How submissive are you to the Word of God? When it is clear that the meaning of Scripture necessitates a change in your attitude or lifestyle, are you willing to change, regardless of the consequences?
Sometimes it is difficult to do what the Bible says. A woman once came to me concerning a problem she faced. She had been divorced by her husband, was receiving disability payments, and was living with another man whom she said she deeply loved. She said that she was receiving no alimony from her former husband, she was receiving too little disability money to live alone, and yet if she and her boyfriend were to become married, she would lose her disability income. Her boyfriend did not make enough to support them both, and she said that she was unable to work to increase her income.
Although I sympathized with the woman over her dilemma, I pointed out to her that Scripture plainly forbade her to live with a man to whom she was not married. I asked her if she would be willing to trust God by being obedient to Him, but she left my office refusing to do so. She was afraid that being obedient to God would mean being left in poverty. She had rather continue as she was than face the possibility of lowering her standard of living.
One of the great lessons of the Christmas season is that of submission. When the angel Gabriel announced to the virgin Mary that she would miraculously conceive and give birth to the Messiah, she could have protested that her reputation would be ruined. It was known that her marriage to Joseph had not yet been consummated. Who would believe that the cause of her pregnancy was God?
The religious crowd, those who were more concerned with appearing to be godly than actually being godly, would totally reject her for having conceived out of wedlock. Surely many of her relatives and friends would reject her because of her apparent transgression. Mary must have considered the possibility that her beloved Joseph would abandon any wedding plans.
Mary, however, simply submitted to the will of God: "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). For Mary, submitting to the will of God, regardless of the potential sacrifice and reproach, was the only thing that mattered. With heartfelt joy she praised God, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior" (Luke 1:46-47).
The only happy Christian is the one who is totally surrendered to the will of God. When he finds a command in the Bible, he does not hedge or attempt to rationalize away its meaning. Even in the face of the loss of business, friends, or prestige, he joyfully obeys the Word of God. He realizes that the precepts of God are always for his good and for God's glory.
May this season of celebrating the coming of Christ be an especially joyous one as you seek to be submissive to His Word.
Bill Moore