the name couldnt have been more apt than this.
my heart was so overwhelmed when watching and singing along to the song – indeed a powerful one with lyrics that are definitely Spirit-inspired.
I have come to see that profound things happen when we pay attention; when we realign our focus back unto Jesus – what He said, what He did, where He went, what He saw, what He heard, what He felt, and what He desired & burdened for…
I love my Prince of Peace.
\
(On a totally different vibe, but still so beautiful)
1. At least once every day I shall look steadily up at the sky & remember that I, a consciousness with a conscience, am on a planet travelling in space with wonderfully mysterious things above & about me.
2. Instead of the accustomed idea of a mindless & endless evolutionary change to which we can neither add nor subtract, I shall suppose the universe guided by an Intelligence which, as Aristotle said of Greek drama, requires a beginning, a middle, & an end. I think this will save me from the cynicism expressed by Bertrand Russell before his death, when he said: “There is darkness without, & when I die there will be darkness within. There is no splendour, no vastness anywhere, only triviality for a moment, & then nothing.”
3. I shall not fall into falsehood that this day, or any day, is merely another ambiguous & plodding twenty-four hours, but rather a unique event, filled, if I so wish, with worthy potentialities. I shall not be fool enough to suppose that trouble & pain are wholly evil parentheses in my existence, but just as likely ladders to be climbed toward moral & spiritual manhood.
4. I shall not turn my life into a thin, straight line which prefers abstractions to reality. I shall know what I am doing when I abstract, which of course I shall often have to do.
5. I shall not demean my own uniqueness by envy of others. I shall stop boring into myself to discover what psychological or social categories I might belong to. Mostly I shall simply forget about myself and do my work.
6. I shall open my eyes & ears. Once every day I shall simply stare at a tree, a flower, a cloud, or a person. I shall not then be concerned at all to ask what they are but simply be glad that they are. I shall joyfully allow them the mystery of what Lewis calls their “divine, magical, terrifying & ecstatic” existence.
7. I shall sometimes look back at the freshness of vision I had in childhood & try, at least for a little while, to be, in the words of Lewis Carroll, the “child of the pure unclouded brow, & dreaming eyes of wonder.”
8. I shall follow Darwin’s advice & turn frequently to imaginative things such as good literature & good music, preferably, as C.S. Lewis suggests, an old book & timeless music.
9. I shall not allow the devilish onrush of this century to usurp all my energies but will instead, as Charles Williams suggested, “fulfil the moment as the moment.” I shall try to live well just now because the only time that exists is now.
10. Even if I turn out to be wrong, I shall bet my life on the assumption that this world is not idiotic, neither run by an absentee landlord, but that today, this very day, some stroke is being added to the cosmic canvas that in due course I shall understand with joy as a stroke made by the architect who calls himself Alpha & Omega.
[ Clyde Kilby’s Resolutions, quoted by John Piper ]
My soul sings
How I love You
Oh but how that pales in comparison
with how You show Your love Abba
It’s impossible to describe, just how overwhelming it is, to witness a shooting star on an airplane, just as I was saying thank you to the Creator as I marvel at His amazing works.
I cannot even begin to describe just how loved I felt… being so near to such indescribable beauty.
#justcantstopfallinginlovewithYou
#overandoveragain
So that there’s more of You and less of me.
So that faith arises.
So that You can be wholly, completely, undoubtedly, be glorified, honoured, and deservingly praised.
–
http://theprayingwoman.com/2015/03/06/when-god-makes-you-wait/
I’ve been hearing and reading the Lazarus story a fair bit this 2weeks.
And I’ve heard of it before, many many times,
this simple story which speaks volumes about Jesus’s love,
heard & read them, together with other giants’ stories,
and understood all about this idea of how God works and moves through waiting…
And honestly I don’t exactly like talking about it, let alone write about it, because it sure does make it seem like I’m (for lack of a better word) desperate.
But I always do feel that the waiting process (as painful as it is), is absolutely beautiful.
Because it truly is a most humbling process from God. It is a progressive-buildup-manyparts kind of lesson but yet when you’re in the lesson itself, its an endless tunnel.
I have waited for too many things in life, and I know God is still making me wait for a good many things/ events too, and there are definitely more waiting processes in the future as well. I dare say I still utterly hate it, of course as a normal human being I do, but yet I can’t deny loving it more and more, because I know God is moving, and He is in no hurry at all to show me His ultimate beauty in His time. How can I ever learn lessons, and become who I am today, without those painful processes? He has shown me again and again, the need for waiting, the need to learn to see and understand things from different perspectives, and of course, the importance of gaining patience, trust, endurance, perseverance, and above all, humility.
I’ve sang and cried along to Corrinne May’s Everything In Its Time over the years, and till today it doesn’t lose its relevance and impact. The issue of Waiting, for all kind of things, seasons, reasons, is something everyone can identify with.
To learn to let go… to learn patience… Its a lifetime-worth type of lesson indeed
You remind me
Of things forgotten
You unwind me
Until I’m totally undone
And with Your arms around me
Fear was no match for Your love
Now You’ve won me
And if I lived a thousand lifetimes
And wrote a song for every day
Still there would be no way to say
How You have loved me
Oh, how You love me
And that’s how You’ve won me
So I will wake
And spend my days
Loving the One who has raised me up
From death to life
From wrong to right
You’re making all things beautiful
—–
The more I seek You the more I find You
The more I find You the more I love You
This love is so deep
Its more than I can stand
I melt in Your peace
Its overwhelming
Oh its overwhelming
—–
All I want is just to know Your Heart
Oh won’t You keep me here until we’re one
Let the King of my heart
Be the mountain where I run
The fountain I drink from
Oh, He is my Song
Let the King of my heart
Be the shadow where I hide
The ransom for my life
Oh, He is my song
You are good, good, oh
Let the King of my heart
Be the wind inside my sails
The anchor in the waves
Oh, He is my song
Let the King of my heart
Be the fire inside my veins
The echo of my days
Oh, He is my song
You are good, good, oh
You’re never gonna let
Never gonna let me down
When the night is holding on to me
God is holding on
sometimes, apart from chanting You are good repeatedly, oh, I really don’t know what else to say
You shall always be the King of my heart.
Love You YHWH <3
.
In You, is all I need
You’re my breath, You’re my life, You’re my everything.
Praise unbroken, praise unending
Be Yours, be Yours forevermore
Praise untainted, praise unfading
Be Yours, be Yours forevermore
Be Yours, be Yours forevermore
Unbroken praise be Yours, God, forever
All my praise be Yours, God, forever
Lord, take this life
Let it become Your throne
Unbroken praise be Yours
My surrender, my devotion
Be Yours, be Yours forevermore
Be Yours, be Yours forevermore
Unbroken praise be Yours, God, forever
All my praise be Yours, God, forever
Lord, take this life
Let it become Your throne
Unbroken praise be Yours
So let my deeds outrun my words
And let my life outweigh my songs
Unbroken praise be Yours, God, forever
All my praise be Yours, God, forever
Lord, take this life
Let it become Your throne
Unbroken praise be Yours
Unbroken praise be Yours, God, forever
All my praise be Yours, God, forever
Lord, take this life
Let it become Your throne
Unbroken praise be Yours
TO READ
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/gun-to-your-head-will-you-deny-christ
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/practical-faith/how-suffering-saved-my-faith
When I personally — John Piper — have worried that I may not have strength or power to suffer or be tortured or die for Christ, I have been helped by pondering 1 Peter 4:14. “If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.” Now in that text — even though it is only talking about an insult — the principle holds.
In extraordinary situations the reason you can be blessed in the moment of being assaulted, insulted, criticized, or threatened with death, the reason you can be blessed is because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. And I take that to mean that God shows up in a way, in that moment, which he doesn’t elsewhere. Which means my sense of ability to endure it at this moment, sitting peacefully here at my table, may not be all that I will have when I get there to that moment.
I don’t know how many of our listeners are familiar with Corrie ten Boom and her story. She was in a concentration camp, and before she was taken there, and knowing that she might someday have to pay with her life (which she didn’t, it turns out), she asked her father how could she have strength? And the story is that her father said to her: When I send you on the train to go somewhere, do I give you the ticket a month ahead of time, or do I give you the ticket as you get on the train? And the point she was making is God will give us what we need when the train of suffering and death arrives in the station. And that has been very helpful to me, because I think that is what 1 Peter 4:14 is saying.
We began to taste the implications of Jesus becoming human, of Him binding Himself to us and to our poverty. We experienced greater love for mankind than we had ever known, more compassion than we could ever muster up in the past. We let ourselves be ripped open, and we made the choice to sit still. We made room for mystery in our theology, and in doing so, we have found the world to be a much more beautiful place.
I once doubted a God who wouldn’t set a little boy free. Now I recognize that He used that suffering to transform the boy’s parents into the ones he needed: ones who, rather than will away his messy places, could sit down to link arms with him and say “me too.”
I have been considering the issue of suffering for Christ, and how sufferings affect us; affect the decisions we make… These are heavy thoughts, lingering within me for a few months now, and I’m thankful these articles have thrown in some light. They are not exactly related, and facing death for Christ is on a whole entire level of its own… But in the context of suffering for Christ… it is certainly helpful to know that He will be with us – that He will be there, and that the sufferings are not worthless, useless, purposeless, valueless…
Supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage demonstrate near the Supreme Court.(Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
June 26, 2015 Same-sex marriage is now a right in every state in the country, following a historic 5-4 decision from the Supreme Court Friday. The four justices who disagreed with the Court’s opinion, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, each wrote their own dissent laying out just why they believed the majority to be wrong.
Here’s their reasoning.
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights over what he viewed as following the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”
Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas joined him in his dissent.
While Roberts said he did not “begrudge” any of the celebrations that would follow the Court ruling, he had serious concerns that the Court had extended its role from constitutional enforcer to activist.
“Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law,” he wrote.
While, he recognized the decision would be hailed as a major victory for same-sex couples and their allies, he noted they had been set back.
“Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today,” Roberts wrote. “Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.”
Roberts disparaged the majority decision by saying that it was nothing more than a flimsy argument.
“Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society,” Roberts wrote. “If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.”
“If not having the opportunity to marry ‘serves to disrespect and subordinate’ gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same ‘imposition of this disability,’ … serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?” he writes. “I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any.”
According to Justice Antonin Scalia, today’s majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”
Scalia stated he wanted to write a separate dissent “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.” Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in this dissent.
Scalia attacked his colleagues’ opinion with his signature flourish. “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,” he wrote.
According to Scalia, the five justices in the majority are using the 14th Amendment in a way that was never intended by its writers. “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so,” he wrote.
“They [the majority] have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.”
Scalia called out the majority for acting like activists, not judges. (He was similarly critical in Thursday’s ruling on health care.) “States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ ‘reasoned judgment,'” he wrote.
Scalia’s scorn went beyond picking apart the majority’s legal judgement. He also made fun of their language.
The majority began its opinion with the line: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”
Scalia wrote that if he ever were to join an opinion that began with that sentence he “would hide my head in a bag,” saying such language was more like the “mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie” than, say, legendary Chief Justice John Marshall.
Elsewhere, the majority wrote “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”
Scalia scoffed at this assertion, saying that even “the nearest hippie” would know that marriage hinders the freedom of intimacy. Here are his words:
Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.
What the nearest hippie knows about intimacy, Scalia did not elaborate on.
In his own separate dissent, which Scalia also joined, Justice Clarence Thomas pilloried the majority opinion as “at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our nation were built.”
Kennedy and the Court’s liberal wing are invoking a definition of “liberty” that the Constitution’s framers “would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect.”
“Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government,” Thomas said. “This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.”
Thomas argues that the majority is erring in its interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s due-process clause, by reading it as more expansive and far-reaching than originally intended. The case lacks standing on this issue, he continues, because the plaintiff does not adequately show that a state ban on same-sex marriage constitutes a true deprivation of “liberty” under the law.
“As used in the Due Process Clauses, ‘liberty’ most likely refers to ‘the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law,'” Thomas wrote. “That definition is drawn from the historical roots of the Clauses and is consistent with our Constitution’s text and structure.”
Further, the long-standing legal understanding of liberty does not encompass the rights the majority opinion says it does, Thomas argues. Liberty has “long been understood as individual freedom fromgovernment action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”
“Whether we define ‘liberty’ as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have in no way been deprived of it,” he continued. “Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of ‘liberty,’ that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships.”
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also laments that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”
Thomas additionally warns that the Court’s “inversion of the original meaning of liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty.” Further, he argues that the decision will threaten religious liberty by creating an unavoidable collision between the interests of same-sex couples and some religious organizations.
“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”
In his dissent, Alito argues that gay marriage is not protected in the Constitution under the Due Process Clause because “liberty” only applies to those principles that are rooted in U.S. tradition. His argument is that the concept of gay marriage is new and therefore not included.
“For today’s majority, it does not matter that the right to same-sex marriage lacks deep roots or even that it is contrary to long-established tradition. The Justices in the majority claim the authority to confer constitutional protection upon that right simply because they believe that it is fundamental,” Alito writes.
Alito also reaffirms his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic.
“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote.
Alito’s belief is also that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children. His argument is:
For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate. Adherents to different schools of philosophy use different terms to explain why society should formalize marriage and attach special benefits and obligations to persons who marry. Their basic argument is that States formalize and promote marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to provide the best atmosphere for raising children.
Now that the majority has ruled in favor of gay marriage, Alito offers a stark warning about future conflict between religious liberty and progressive ideas.
“By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds,” he writes.
Like his conservative colleagues, Alito worries that the Court is overstepping its power, making sweeping legal changes for every state in the country. He concludes on a warning.
“Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims,” Alito writes. “Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed. ”
薏卉 rachel 