Bonhoeffer on "Religion"

I've expressed my views in the past concerning "religion", and have stated I am not a religious person, nor do I ascribe to all the do's and don'ts we seem to have in organized religion... Tonight as I was reading "Bonhoeffer" I read a quote from his journal, that he wrote after attending a service at Riverside Church, in New York, 1939. (Riverside was one of the pre-ememinent churches of it's day) I think he experienced what I have observed even today in many of our church experiences. It went as follows: "The whole thing was a respectable, self-indulgent, self-satisfied religious celebration. This sort of idolatrous religion stirs up the flesh which is used to being kept in check by the Word of God. Such sermons make for liberalism, egotism, indifference. Do people know that one can get on as well, even better, without "religion"?"

I believe what Dietrich Bonhoeffer was saying was that when we tend to get wrapped up in the whole "religion" experience we tend to lose sight of Jesus Christ's message and example. Too often we see churches get caught up in all the pomp and tradition and forget to teach (if they even know how themselves!) to live in community with God and each other. The message we hear is how we can "feel good" about ourselves, our lives, that we forget that God doesn't promise our lives will be happy, but abundant. He doesn't say our lives will be worry free, but he does say yoke up with Him and your burden will be light (more on that another time)... Bonhoeffer didn't believe in "cheap grace", or grace that people want to accept without selling out for God in return. I believe that we as Christians practice cheap grace as a matter of course. We have it so easy, not really ever experiencing any persecution for out faith, that we get lax in our faith. Sometimes, when we don't experience tough times we don't appreciate the good times... We are not called to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ only to continue to live as we see fit, we are called to sell out completely to Him if we want to be called a child of God... Food for thought...

Saul vs Paul- What really happened?

Tonight I want to get a little bit "teachy", if you will, for I want to set the record straight. One of my favorite characters in the Bible is the Apostle Paul. I won't go into all my reasons for liking him now, but I do want to look at how it all started with him. First, the fallacy. I've heard many preachers tell the story of Saul, who presecuted the early Church, and one day, while on the road to Damascus, was met with a blinding light and Jesus himself confronted Saul, asking why Saul was persecuting him... Saul was blinded, led into the city, and for three days fasted until a Christ-follower named Ananias came and restored his sight. The preaching goes, that this was so life changing an event for Saul that he changed his name to Paul and became one of the greatest Apostles ever.

Wrong. The story is correct, until you get to the name-change part. That's not history, nor is it factual or Scriptural. Yes, it was a life-changing event, and yes Saul did ultimately be called Paul. But here's the scoop...

We need to go back to the beginning, to the Roman conquest of Israel. You see, when Rome would conquer a country, or a people, they would take many of those people and disperse them throughout the Roman Empire. The thinking was that, if dispersed, it would be more difficult for people to re-band together to rise up against Rome. So many Israelites were dispersed. Paul's parents were "Jews of the Diaspora", or "Jews of the Dispersion" if you will, and were dispersed to the city of Tarsus, in the Empire, where Paul was born. The Roman custom of the day was that a child have two names, (ie. Julius Cesear, Cesear Augustus, Mark Anthony),much as we do today. Because they lived in the Empire Paul's parents gave him two names; Saul Paulus, or Saul Paul. In Israel the custom was to just give a first name, and designate who you were by your parents (ie. John, son of Zebedee). When Paul came to Israel to persecute the Church he adopted the practice of using his first name, Saul, as was the custom. Later, When he left Israel and headed back out into the Empire he resumed using his surname, Paul, as was the custom...

If you read Acts you will see that after his confrontation on the road he was still called Saul. Indeed, he stayed in the city "many days" teaching and preaching as "Saul", and then spent a year teaching with Barnabas, again called Saul. It wasn't until chosen to go out into the Empitre with Barnabas, probably some two years after his conversion, that we see the name shift. On the Island of Crete, the first stop on Paul's first missonary journey, they landed as "Barnabas and Saul" and left "Paul and his companions". So that's the story. Perhaps not as exciting as preachers have made it out to be, but it's accurate, and it's the truth. Check it out for yourself- the story is much more facinating than my dry history lesson... Food for thought...

Good vs Evil...

One of the longer definitions I've ever read in Webster's is for the little word "good". Summarily speaking, Webster's defines "good" as better than average, fertile, fresh, unspoiled, uncontaminated, valid, genuine, healthy, strong, vigorous, safe and sound, honorable, worthy, respectable, enjoyable, plesant, happy, dependable, reliable, right, thourough, complete, adequate, ample, sufficient, satisfying, morally sound, excellent, virtuous, honest, just, pious, devout, kind, benevolent, generous, well-behaved, proper, becoming, correct, loyal, valid, morally right, something desireable or desired... And even more, but you get the idea. The concept of good is culturally difficult to define, because the concept of good is so subjective to each and every one of us.

Likewise, the concept of evil can be subjective. Webster says evil means morally bad or wrong, depraved, wicked, resulting from conduct regarded as immoral, offensive or disgusting, anything that causes harm, pain misery, disaster, etc. Again, a definition that can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

The problem we find is that sometimes things we deem good turn out to be evil, and things we initially label evil can be revealed as good. It is because of the personal and cultural subjectivity of the concepts- as a society because we do not have a concrete definition of good and evil that definition can change over time, circumstance, and shifting of cultural tenets and mores. Personally, because we often label things before fully comprehending or understanding them. Then, with enlightenment, our views, our labels change. In essence, we set ourselves up to be judge over what is good and what is evil, and we are not qualified to judge. It is our desire for power, freedom, and control that often influences our perception of what is good and what is not...

I believe there is a simple, concrete definition for good and evil, one which I am learning (even at my advanced age I find occassionally I can still learn. Take that old dogs!) to embrace. Good is that which is from God, that which is of God, and evil an absence of God, or that which shuns God. Short, concise, concrete. (But we really don't like concrete- it's too binding to our "freedom"). Everything can be judged by this definition- only we don't have to be judge- that's God's job. Food for thought...

Agape...

I was reading this morning, in my devotions, about love, and I was reminded again of a truth that I don't think our society has yet embraced, and yet it probably explains so many failed relationships... That truth is that we cannot love until we first learn to receive love. Love is learned; it is not that emotional response to our hormones, true love is not fickle or brittle. Love is fluid, and accepting, and intentional. "We love God because He first loved us" (I Jn 1:9). First we receive, then we give.


Relationally if we expect our mate to give us love then we must first allow them to receive (our) love. Yet I wonder how many people have grown up never really experiencing true love, or agape love, as the Bible calls it. I call it "in-spite of" love. I think there's three kinds of love: "IF" love, "BECAUSE" love, and "IN SPITE OF" love. Most people have a handle on the first two, but few really understand the third. I love you IF you do/act/perform a certain way. Or, I love you BECAUSE you did/said/acted a certain way. Not true love folks. True love says I love you in spite of your words, or actions, or shortcomings. I just love you for you. I accept you without reservation or justification.



How many of us grew up feeling we needed to earn love? Perhaps that is why we are so relationally bankrupt as a society today. Skyrocketing divorce, failed relationships, family breakdowns-unconditional love loves unconditionally, and it overcomes so many relational obstacles. But if we learned we need to earn love then we don't except love until we feel worthy, and our human condition leaves us feeling unworthy. So we never learn to just accept love, so we never learn to give love, to love unconditionally, even as we are unconditionally loved.



I think of times in relationships when I've loved and felt rejected, and I remember how painful that was, and I realized an incredibly painful truth. If indeed there is a God, and if indeed He loved us enough to send his only son to die for the sins of this world- your sin and mine- and if indeed his only condition to that love and forgiveness is our acceptance, can you try to imagine how painful His love must be by the wholesale rejection of this world? Can you imagine that each time someone chooses not to believe in Him, chooses to reject His love, the pain it must cause Him? And still He loves- Agape love, in spite of us. God, please allow me to accept your love and learn to love like you.

Real Manhood...

My studies recently have been in the book of John, and one prominent character in the book is John the Baptist, the cousin of Jesus. Jesus said that if we want to see a real man, a man that God honors, look no further than John B. As a matter of fact, in Luke 7:28 Jesus says, "I tell you, among those born of women, there is no one greater than John..." In looking at John B Stuart Briscoe lists six characteristics of a real man, all exemplified in the life of John B. Those six characteristics are: sincerity, simplicity, conviction, courage, vision, and vulnerability. He then goes on to list the five most difficult statements for men to make today. They are:

1. I don't know.

2. I was wrong.

3. I need help.

4. I'm afraid.

5. I'm sorry.

There is so much truth to these statements, for today society pushes men to be "macho", and to be sensitive or vulnerable is viewed as signs of weakness. And yet, to be sensitive, or vulnerable, is not weak, but proportionally strength of character. It is much harder to admit failure or weakness, to display honesty and humility, than to attempt to bluff our way through, in essence, to live the lie...

Personally, my goal, these past few years especially, is to try to attune myself to God, to try and understand my example Jesus Christ and emulate him, and ultimately move toward becoming the man that is pleasing to God, my Father. I know I'm sadly flawed, and need work in many of these areas, but every now and then I'm rewarded with a comment, or compliment that shows me I'm beginning to reflect some of these traits. Just recently, one who is very special in my life told me she appreciated my sincerity. It was like receiving an "A" on a mid-term or something. What a great feeling, and I so appreciate her sensitivity to say it. (She also reminds me often to keep things simple, so I'm working on simplicity, not my strong suit!). And I know that often I limit my vision...

I also find great difficulty asking for help, for I am terribly self-sufficient in my mind, yet delight in doing things with another... Learning to allow others to help me is a constant struggle, as is admitting fear. So I am a work in progress, but one day, God willing, (and if he allows me a real long life), I may just evolve into a "God's man", rather than being a "man's man"... I think the the neatest reference to walking with God, to pleasing God, is found in the reference to Enoch, where it is written, "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away." And, "By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God." (Gen. 5:24 and Heb. 11:5). How cool would that be, to live so pleasing to the Father that we don't have to experience the ultimate penalty for our sin- the pain of death...

Age vs Agelessness...

I think I'm older than God. Really. Not that I'm all that old, but I think God is eternally young, for he is eternal, and I am far closer to death and dying than God ever will be. Man is born to die, and every living moment is a moment closer to death; the older we get the closer to dying. My God doesn't have to worry about that, for he is the Uncreated, and death has no sway over Him. He is eternally young, and when I think of my youth I remember things as new, and fresh, and the excitement of discovery... Imagine an eternity of new and fresh and exciting!

It's true that chronologically God has been around many more years than I (an eternity, to be exact) but I don't think an eternal God ages, for he is outside the constraints of time, therefore can be forever young, forever fresh, forever exciting. He is abundant life. So why do I picture him as young, and not an old guy sitting up in heaven dictating things? Because the older I get, the more I observe people as they age, the more I realize we tend to lose our zest for life. We get in ruts, the day-to-day grind wears on us, we allow life's problems to drag us down. Look around, it's the kids who live life abundantly. They're not able to care for themselves, feed themselves, meet their daily needs, yet they find joy in living, they find abundance in their life. So I've got to think, abundant living must have something to do with that total abandonment to the one who loves me, and promises to meet my every need, want, and desire, just as little kids abandon their needs to the ones who love them and care for them (that would be their parents!)

I was sitting in the hot tub tonight, looking up at the millions of stars in the heavens and couldn't help but think how arrogant we are here on Earth. I'm a micro-organism on a speck of dirt on the edge of one out of countless solar systems on the fringe of an immeasureable galaxcy, and I think my day-to-day problems are relevant and important. I do think they're important to God, but only because they're important to me, and he loves me unconditionally so my problems are his concerns too. Yet if I ever learned to view life from an eternal perspective I think my day-o-day troubles would disappear, for I would be totally abandoned to my Heavenly Father, and he can handle anything! The amazing thoughts tonight though, were that, despite the uncalcuable size of the heavens, despite the millions and billions of stars, each with the possibility of their own solar systems, their own creations, there is something beyond the heavens... We know, for the Bible tells us so. Genesis, chapter one decribes the second and third days of creation as follows:

"And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky" (or, "the heavens"). And there was evening, and there was morning-- the second day. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good." (NIV, v.6-10)

So the question for today is, "What did God do with the waters that he separated that are above the heavens?" Food for thought...

Fall in the Garden...

I was reading again this morning the creation account in Genesis, and several things struck me, but one thought was new and worthy of further consideration... As God spoke creation into being, as he created man and animals, he did so out of the dust of the Earth (Adam: ch.2, v.7- animals: ch.2, v.19), but when he created woman it was out of Adam's rib (Eve: ch.2, v21-22). I think it is interesting that of all God's creation only woman was created out of different material than all the rest of creation, only woman formed out of living organism... Woman was formed out of man, yet is delightfully unique from all of creation! What a blessing! Perhaps we as men have too long done a disservice to our counterparts, holding them as lesser than us rather than acknowledging their wonderful uniqueness- equal but different... Food for thought.

I was also reminded this morning, as I reread this account, that God created man in the wild, and placed him in the Garden, and gave to man the ultimatum not to eat from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil before Eve was created... It was man's responsibility to protect that mandate, and though Eve was decieved, Adam was clearly there and did nothing to stop the deception... Though we blame Eve for being the deceived one the reality is that it was Adam's responsibility to protect not only the mandate of God, but also Eve from the deception. Adam failed both Eve and God...

The other thing I found interesting about the whole Garden of Eden account was the incredible size that the Garden must have encompassed. For kicks and giggles I called up a map of the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (two of the four rivers that flowed out of the headwaters of the river that flowed from the Garden of Eden- the other two rivers are not there today) and the area encompassed is huge! Imagine living in a garden that is the size of a good size state! Each day you could explore and experience something new, something fresh, everything there for your delight. It shows how even before the Fall, before the deception, our human nature was to want what we cannot have. Adam and Eve were given everything, but with only one restriction, and they had to break that one restriction. Just like us today...

Joy vs Happiness...

My studies of late have centered around understanding the difference between happiness and joy. They are often used to define each other, and I think most would use them synonymously, yet they are different. I think happiness is more of that emotional state that we experience in the moment. It defines a specific moment or moments in time, in our lives. Joy, on the other hand, is a state of being. It transcends the moment and can permeate all facets of our lives, even when living in those negative moments. Where happiness may come and go easily, joy is much more permanant in its nature. It is delight, gratification, pleasure. It is the anticipation, as well as the experience. It is so much more than happiness; for happiness is just one small facet of joy.

As Christ-followers we aren't promised happy lives, rather we are promised joyful ones. We aren't promised one facet, one side of the diamond, we are offered the entire gem, the whole treasure. There are about 30 references to "happy" or "happiness" in the Bible, and they almost exsclusively refer to man, and a state of being in the moment. There are over 240 references to "joy" or "joyful" and many of them refer directly to God, and his state of being. We are promised his joy, which will make our joy complete (John 15:11). We are told that our strength comes from the joy of the Lord (Neh. 8:10). We are instructed to ask for things in Jesus' name and we will receive, and our joy will be complete (John 16:24). These are but a few of the references to God's joy and ours, and how they are tied together. Many references to God's joy are tied to his love, and his love for us...

So why are so many people who claim to be "Christians" walking around joyless? Why do you go into so many churches and look around and everyone looks like they were weaned on a pickle? If we are commanded to be joyful and aren't, then aren't we disobeying God's command? I think we need to learn not only what joy is but also how to achieve it... Can you imagine the reaction of our world if it suddenly thought Christianity was fun?

Social context...

It's important to understand the social climate to fully appreciate the teachings of Jesus. All too often we read our Bible and don't get the full impact of Jesus' words because we haven't fully investigated the context in which those words were spoken. Let's look at one example, the parable of the lost (or prodigal) son. just reading the story today we see a son who asks for his inheritance early, and when granted, takes it, spends it, and ends up a homeless person eating pig slop. He realizes his father's servants live better than he, so he decides to head for home and ask for a job as a servant. As he heads for home, while still far off, the father (who watched the road daily) sees him and runs to greet him and welcome him home. He embraces him and honors him and escorts him home where they prepare a celebration feast...
But is this as deep as the story goes? If you were hearing this in Jesus' day several things would be immediately obvious, for they were cultural taboos. First, for a son to ask for his inheritance prior to his father's death was a great insult, paramount to disowning your family. This son, in his discontent and desire to get out from under his father's authority did what would have been considered irreversible in Jesus' day. Still, the father waited, and when the son found himself humbled, destitute, and lost the father ran to him, embraced him, forgave him, and welcomed him home.
Did you catch that, the other taboo? The father ran to him... In Jesus' day those of position, those of social stature never ran; as a matter of fact, the more prestigious you were the slower, and more stately your walk. This man, obviusly a man of wealth and position, forsook all social mores and ran to his son. Looking at this parable in light of the social context in which Jesus spoke it gives us a deeper, more profound sense of the heart of God, the Father. We are loved so much, so deeply, that despite the seemingly unforgivable things we do in the eyes of society it is not enough to seperate us from the love of our God. Wow. And our God doesn't care what anyone thinks of his unconditional love and forgiveness, he's ready to meet us when and where we are, no matter how undeserving we may feel we are. Wow.
Perhaps, if we really want to understand the depth of the message God is giving us, to gain a fuller understanding of His word, perhaps we need to study the contexts; the context of the thought in relation to the passage, and the social context of the day... Just a thought...

Spiritual vs Physical

As I sat in church this morning and took communion, I was again amazed at the "teaching" to take the bread and drink the cup in rememberance of our Lord... The pastor went on to say, (as often is said), that durig the busy-ness of our schedules we are commanded to do this.
Isn't the bread the symbol of Christ's body, and the wine his blood? Doesn't this represent the physical-ness of Jesus' sacrifice for us, the giving of his physical, human being? Should we not then be living for Him in our everyday, physical lives, not just dedicating a Sunday or so to Him? Too often we tend to seperate the spiritual from the physical, yet everything Jesus did or lived was a physical expression of his Spiritual condition... We can't daily emulate Jesus Christ if we confine our "spirituality" to Church, or Sundays... We must learn to live each moment of each day embracing the physical example of Jesus Christ, so that when that moment of decision comes, the time for critical action arrives, we react out of our discipline of following Him instead of our natural or carnal desires... Indeed, the outflowing of "works" is a natural result of living a discplined life that emulates Jesus, and difuses the argument of "faith vs works"... The two are interrelated and co-dependant on each other in the "Spirit-filled" life.
Until we learn the correlation between the physical and the spiritual we cannot expect to experience the kind of abundant life God promises to his children...

Defending the Rock -Pt 2

Again, in John’s gospel, chapter 18, beginning with verse three, we find this incident concerning Jesus and Peter:
So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.
Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, "Who is it you want?"
"Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "I am he," Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.)
When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.
Again he asked them, "Who is it you want?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."
"I told you that I am he," Jesus answered. "If you are looking for me, then let these men go."
This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have not lost one of those you gave me."
Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)
Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him.” (NIV)Jesus was being betrayed by one of his own, Judas, while the other disciples stood by watching. Judas has all the “help” he needs to secure Jesus’ arrest; he has officials representing the Jews and soldiers representing Rome, giving at least tacit consent of the prevailing government. Jesus has committed no wrong, yet they are arresting him. Again, actions do not emerge from nothing, so out of his ignorant love Simon Peter pulls a sword to defend his Lord, though not a soldier, and greatly outnumbered. The important note here is Peter acted; while the others stood idly by, too afraid to come to Jesus’ defense, Peter acted, despite any hope of winning and realizing the probable outcome. All too often we call Peter impulsive, acting rashly, but in light of the circumstance, we must realize that he was living a kingdom heart, for as Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Peter was willing to lay down his life for his friend, his Lord, Jesus. Peter actively demonstrated the very love Jesus desires us to live; the heart was right, even if the action was wrong

Defending the Rock

I was raised on Bible stories, and one of the central New Testament characters outside of Jesus Christ himself was the Apostle Peter. I read the stories of Peter walking on water only to sink, of his denial of three times of Jesus, of his impulsive actions when he cut off a soldier’s ear- just some of the examples of Peter’s “failings” in his walk with Jesus Christ. But I think we’re wrong to view these recorded instances of Peter as failures, indeed, we’ve conditioned ourselves to view his actions as an example of what not to do for so long we’ve lost his example that Jesus so readily embraced. Peter was “The Rock” upon which Jesus was to build his church! Jesus said, in Matthew’s gospel, chapter 16, verse 18, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (NIV) Jesus himself, the most brilliant, intuitive, enlightened man ever to walk this earth saw in Peter a lasting legacy of Kingdom living that we have somehow missed or lost sight of. Noted theologian and scholar Dallas Willard wrote, “Actions do not emerge from nothing. They faithfully reveal what is in the heart, and we can know what is in the heart that they depend upon.” With that in mind let’s look at Peter and his “failings”.

Perhaps the most widely recognized story of the Apostle Peter is found in Matthew’s gospel, the fourteenth chapter. This is what we read:
Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd.
After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.
During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake.
When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.
But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."
"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
"Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"
And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down.
Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." (NIV)
When we examine the text directly as recorded, we don’t necessarily find our English translation entirely accurate. The word used by Jesus when he said, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” is the word “autos”, and can just as easily refer to you, as a group, as well as you singular. Consider for a moment, that Jesus, as he reaches down to pull Peter up from the swells, doesn’t address Peter, but looks beyond him at the eleven watching from the boat, and directs his question to them. Perhaps the lesson here isn’t Peter’s failure to keep his eyes on Jesus, the source and author of his faith, thus his experiencing that sinking feeling that so often plagues all of us when life’s storms seem to overwhelm us, but perhaps the lesson we need to take from this is found still in the boat. There were twelve watching Jesus walking out to them on the water, twelve terrified men. Yet, when the offer was issued to come, only Peter got out of the boat and went. That was an act of faith that the other eleven failed to exercise. Eleven men opted for the dubious safety of the boat; Peter elected to step out in faith and answer Jesus’ call. What benefits did Peter reap from his willingness to act?

Before Jesus came out to the boat the apostles found themselves in the midst of a storm. They were tired, and harried, and scared. When Jesus walked across the water to them they still remained in the storm, remained harried, but their fear intensified to terror. Yet when he called they stayed in the boat, in their “known” world, in the setting they were most comfortable in, where they could rely on themselves, on their skills for their safety. There wasn’t any reliance on God. But what about Peter? How was his experience different?
First, Peter acted out his faith. He asked for specific instruction from Jesus, and upon receiving it he acted. Because he stepped out in faith he experienced God sustaining him, and allowing him to perform in a supernatural way, allowing him to also walk on water. Stepping out in faith gave him an opportunity to experience the power of God beyond the life experiences of the other eleven. Yet when circumstances caused him to take his eyes off Jesus, and he began to realize how he was so far beyond his own capabilities to sustain himself, he began to sink, his faith began to “fail”. His response was immediate; “Lord, save me”. At once, in the face of the storm, he redirected his focus back on the author of his faith, Jesus Christ, and Jesus saved him. The interesting thing to note is that, while all twelve were in the storm only Peter obeyed Jesus, and in his most desperate moment we find him closest to Jesus, so close in fact that Jesus reaches out and draws him up to himself. Peter was immediately reassured of his safety and comforted while in the midst of the storm, comfort and assurance the eleven didn’t yet experience. Because of his willingness to act Peter was touched by Jesus, and was again brought into that supernatural power of God, for after Jesus lifted him up they walked again together, and got into the boat. It was then Jesus caused the storm to be still; it was then the others experienced peace and comfort from the storm. It is important to note that the others received their comfort when Jesus came to them and met them where they were. Peter experienced that comfort and assurance by going to where Jesus was. Peter’s willingness to act in faith, to move toward Jesus, gave him a whole new level of experience and appreciation for the power and sustaining grace of God.