It's been about a week since I posted here. While I haven't been successful at reading Chambers everyday, I have managed to stay on schedule with my other personal devotion, Early Light by Dr. Charles Stanley. I like Dr. Stanley a lot--I rarely find time to watch his sermons on TV but I get his monthly magazine "In Touch" (which is the name of his ministry). He has a very easily understood way of presenting bible messages as well as how to apply them practically in every day life.
The more I read Chambers the more I feel that his daily readings aren't so much devotionals as they are small snippets of theology. By daily devotional I have in mind a biblical message that includes a piece of practical application for our lives. In some sense, I like to think of my daily devotional as giving me my micro mission for the day--here's a biblical concept, consider it throughout the day and apply it if given the opportunity. Chambers, for me, lacks the practical application piece and seems to make too many bold, theological expressions. Let's consider:
God does not hear us because we pray earnestly— He hears us solely on the basis of redemption. God is never impressed by our earnestness.
Now, I'm just a first year ministry school student, but I don't agree with Chambers' assertion at all. While I doubt that earnestness makes our prayer "louder" in God's ears, I don't think that He hears us "solely on the basis of redemption." Does that mean that an unbeliever who is unredeemed has no chance of having their prayer heard by God? And with regard to earnestness, I can't help but think that God's ear is more easily caught by the earnest prayer of the mother who has just lost her child than by the man asking for God to produce the finances for him to upgrade his car from a Ford to a Lexus. Silly example, but hopefully it gets my point across. And for Chambers to assert that God hears our prayers "solely on the basis of redemption" . . . really? Can we puny little humans make such an assertion about The Almighty? I'm not saying redemption doesn't count when it comes to prayer, but I don't think it's the make-it-or-break-it piece either.
If the Son of God has been formed in us through regeneration (see Galatians 4:19), then He will continue to press on beyond our common sense and will change our attitude about the things for which we pray.
I thought it was the Holy Spirit--not The Son--who directs our prayers and gives voice to our voiceless prayers before God?
Reading daily snippets of theology isn't bad. Obviously if Chambers' work wasn't good it wouldn't be considered a classic. Maybe it's that very theology that he includes that makes his readings so enduring? I don't see people pouring over a worn copy of "Daily Bread" eighty years after the fact.
"...I don't see people pouring over... [Charles, WHO???] Maybe 80 years from now Charles will be a "who?", too. ??
ReplyDeleteJesus...Holy Spirit...God the Father...when we get to the point we have THAT (Them? He?) all figured out, then I guess I'll deal with the semantics of Who is changing my attitude. For now, I'll settle for "the Trinity"...3-in-One.
As for the theology of what God hears from whom. I guess I'll leave that to "The Trinity", too.
So...am I smart, or dumb...or faithFUL or faithLESS for just accepting what I can't figure out? Part of me thinks all this is so important that I HAVE to get it all figured out.
The other part of me figures if I COULD figure it all out I would be on an equal plane with God. Now...I AM smart enough to know THAT'S not something I want to spend my time hoping for!!
OH...just thot of something.
ReplyDeleteDid Oswald set out to do a devotional? Or, did somebody who read all his books and listened to all his sermons set out to give us snippets of a rather compacted systematic theology course?
In the Foreword of my "Utmost" edition ala 1935... "B.C." [apparently his wife, as she later refers to him as "my husband"] comments "these daily readings have been selected from various sources, chiefly from the lectures given at the Bible Training College, Clapham [England]... etc." And..."a large portion of the readings have been chosen from talks given during the Devotional Hour at the College".
I guess O.C. meant at least some of them to be "devotional"...
But maybe "devotional" had a different meaning 100 years ago...maybe less "practical"...and more analytical/scholastic.
Well there you go, that probably explains it. As I said above, for me a devotional contains a “here’s a practical way to apply this” portion. But, that’s just me . . . there’s nothing wrong with daily snippets of theology or profound spiritual thinking (pick your term), in fact, I’d say that’s a good thing! I’ve found a similar devotional which I really like, but that’ll be the subject of another post.
ReplyDelete