by Os Hillman
"No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength. A horse is a vain hope for deliverance; despite all its great strength it cannot save" (Psalm 33:16-17).
The Bible tells us not to put our confidence in things the world considers to be our protection, defense, or strength. However, the man or woman who does not perform well on the job is left behind in today's competitive world. Not only is this typical of the world at large, but even many Christians promote the importance of identifying our strengths and encourage us to move in them to accomplish God's will. Yet, throughout the Bible, we are discouraged from depending upon our own strengths. Instead, we are urged to rely totally upon the Lord.
God wants us to depend upon Him, and He demonstrates this throughout Scripture. For example, in Judges 7, God wouldn't let Gideon fight against another army until he reduced his own from 22,000 soldiers to a mere 300, so that Gideon could not boast about his army's strength.
In Joshua 6, God told Joshua to walk around Jericho seven times and blow trumpets instead of relying upon his mighty army to overpower his enemy.
In 2 Samuel 24, God judged David when he counted his troops to determine the size of his army's strength, apparently because David took the census out of pride or overconfidence in the strength of his army.
On the other hand, Jesus instructed the disciples in due diligence through the parable of the builder, who is cautioned to consider the cost before beginning to build. "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish'" (Luke 14:28-30).
Today, bring every project and endeavor before the Lord as you ask for His power and grace to accomplish it using both your natural gifts and the Spirit of God working together.
Daily Smile:
A fellow bought a new Mercedes and was out on the interstate for a nice evening drive. The top was down, the breeze was blowing through what was left of his hair and he decided to open her up. As the needle jumped up to 80 mph, he suddenly saw flashing red and blue lights behind him. "There's no way they can catch a Mercedes," he thought to himself and opened her up further. The needle hit 90, 100.... Then the reality of the situation hit him. "What am I doing?" he thought and pulled over. The cop came up to him, took his license without a word and examined it and the car. "It's been a long day, this is the end of my shift and it's Friday the 13th. I don't feel like more paperwork, so if you can give me an excuse for your driving that I haven't heard before, you can go."
The guy thinks for a second and says, "Last week my wife ran off with a cop. I was afraid you were trying to give her back!"
"Have a nice weekend," said the officer.
In The News:
ACLJ Flooded With New IRS Discrimination Cases
Some have declared the Internal Revenue Service's tea party targeting scandal is over, but new complaints continue to pour in to the American Center for Law and Justice, which is already representing two dozen clients who faced IRS scrutiny, CBN News reports. Executive director Jordan Sekulow said that since the ACLJ filed a lawsuit last week on behalf of 25 organizations, they've been bombarded with requests for help. Sekulow said the ACLJ may have about 100 new possible cases of IRS discrimination. That includes reports of viewpoint discrimination by the IRS, with tax agents harassing a pro-life group by telling them their beliefs were not scientific. Sekulow said he believes the widespread IRS campaign against conservative groups was being directed by Washington, possibly White House officials. While he does not suggest there will be a "smoking gun" document, Sekulow points out that IRS officials visited the White House more times than even the U.S. attorney general, and President Obama publicly went after tea party groups during his campaign.
Supreme Court Denies Gruesome Abortion Image Case
(WNS) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on June 10 refused to hear an appeal of a Colorado ruling that bars protesters from displaying graphic images of abortion in places that might upset children.
The case originates from a 2005 protest near an outdoor Palm Sunday service at Denver’s Saint John’s Cathedral Episcopal Church — a congregation known for its support of abortion — during which anti-abortion activists held up graphic images of aborted babies. The church sued the lead activist, Kenneth Scott, for displaying gruesome images with 200 children present. Both the lower court and the Colorado appeals court ruled in favor of the church, saying there was a “compelling government interest in protecting children from disturbing images.”
Scott filed a petition seeking Supreme Court review. His attorney, UCLA professor and blogger Eugene Volokh, argued that “the ‘gruesome images’ provision restricts speech that is central to petitioners’ message,” and the restriction is content-based, applying to a “quintessential traditional public forum, a public sidewalk.”
The Supreme Court denied hearing the case, giving no reason for its decision.
“This remains as an issue across the country, and perhaps one day the U.S. Supreme Court will hear another case like it,” Volokh said.
According to The New York Times, Volokh told justices that allowing the presence of children to limit what adults may see could justify all sorts of pernicious restrictions on speech. He added that Scott’s images provided valuable information to young people: “Regrettably, many American girls are getting pregnant, and participating in the making of decisions about abortion, even in their teens. Children must be allowed the freedom to form their moral, religious, and political views about abortion on the basis of uncensored speech before they reach the age when they have to decide whether to have an abortion.”
In a brief supporting Scott, First Amendment lawyers and scholars wrote, “The decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals, which upholds a content-based restriction on political speech in a public place, is fundamentally incompatible with this Court’s understanding of the First Amendment. It should not be allowed to stand. … The Constitution does not permit the government to restrict speech because it offends or disturbs others.”
Volokh told The New York Times that vivid images are “very often the most effective way of conveying a moral truth,” and that, “the gruesomeness of the image reflects the gruesomeness of [abortion].”
No comments:
Post a Comment