Missionaries II

Well, I have now asked and heard back from many of our missionaries, and also had the opportunity to talk a few people who have been associated with missions work in the past.

And I have to report that every one of the missionaries that our church financially supports, and the others that I have spoken to, are singing the same tune: They hear very little from a very few people on a regular basis.

In fact most of them said that they have not one person who keeps in regular touch with them, and the only one who said otherwise, has one single pastor who has been keeping in touch on a fairly regular basis, but that has only been the last year or so - this missionary has been on that field for around 25 years.
And the biggest tragedy of that is that this includes even the sending church and the Pastor who is their authority.
One mentioned that he knew of another missionary who basically never heard from his sending church Pastor, and that Sending Pastor simply had no idea what the missionary was doing in the field, and how the support was being used nor even whether or not the missionary was actually serving the Lord.

I have not had the privilege of sending a missionary to the field - I hope to one day - but I would like to think that I would care for at least "our own" missionary enough to keep in touch and keep him encouraged. But that is probably a bit like the person who said that they knew all about being a parent until they had kids......

What this shows me is that there is even more need and even more importance to keeping in touch with our missionaries regularly. We simply don't know how many and how often people are keeping in touch with them, and one thing we should all realise is that out there on the forefront of the battle, away from family and friends, these soldiers need to know that they have people "back at home" who really do care for them - and care enough to give them a call on occasion, to send them emails, even to send letters the old fashioned way.

As I read response after response, my heart was breaking with pain for these hardworking servants who never murmur about all of this, and my heart was filling with shame at my own lack of care and my own selfishness.

But I need to acknowledge one thing - I am likely to slip in this at times. I actually wrote back and told the missionaries to give me a kick if I start to get slack. Or maybe that should be when I start to get slack - I know me. Please pray for me on this.

But also I need to ask anyone reading this to get in touch with your own missionaries.
I cannot believe that the missionaries that we support are the ONLY ones who are experiencing this. Sorry folks, just not possible.

So get in touch with your missionaries, and let them know what is going on in your church and your life, and ask them how you can pray for them, and say hi, and chat a while...........

And I think that we need to start calling them "My Missionary".
We know they are God's missionaries, but when I think of my kids I think differently to the way I think of other kids.
Maybe if we start to call them "My Missionary" we might start to think of them as "My missionary", and then we might just care for them more.

Am I rambling about this? I feel like I am, but this is my thoughts blog and if it wasn't already obvious, these last two posts and what they relate to in my life just prove that I have named it right - these are the thoughts of a dumb bloke.......

Missionaries.

Our church supports a number of missionaries financially - not for huge amounts but what we can afford, and I hope it makes a difference to them.

But I have in the past sort of made some assumptions about missionaries.
Things such as "Missionaries are always popular when they visit churches, so they must have plenty of friends." Another goes something like - "I went to a local small Bible college (between 3 and 8 students while I was there) in a fairly remote city, so that is why I don't know or talk to many other pastors, Most missionaries went to bigger Bible colleges in bigger places, so they obviously have far more ministry friends than I have."

Another assumption I have made is that missionaries are always so busy that if I email them too often they will get annoyed at the interruptions and having to answer my petty little conversations.

Over the past few months I have found that maybe my assumptions are a little inaccurate.

If there is a missionary out there that is reading this then you are probably simultaneously laughing, crying, and choking on your breakfast cereal at the thought of this being "a little inaccurate".
Actually I am coming to the realisation that it is entirely inaccurate.

Missionaries appreciate and very much need the financial support. I am coming to understand that missionaries in general don't have enough financial support to get by, but somehow the Lord keeps them fed. I had built up this idea that the average missionary has loads of churches which support them for little bits and a few that support them with big bits, but I think the truth is that most missionaries have a few churches that support them for little bits and even fewer that support them for medium bits, and then they just manage somehow.......

But this is not actually about the financial support.
Missionaries DO need and appreciate the financial support, but they also need to have friends that they can talk to and who talk to them.
And missionary wives need to have friends that they can talk to and who will talk to them.

And these friends need to be someone outside their place of ministry.
Something that only a Pastor or pastor's wife can understand is that everyone in your church - even those you count as friends - are ministry. There is no such thing as a "pure friendship" within your church for the Pastor and his wife.
The same goes for the missionary - they no doubt have friends in their field, but not the same way that other people have friends - everyone in your mission field is part of your ministry, and you are by the very definition, ministering to them, even if they are your friends.
But it is exacerbated even further by the distance and isolation of the missionary. I can if I really need to, go and talk to a Pastor/friend nearby. But where does a missionary go if there are no other missionaries in his field?
And this goes for the missionary's wife as well, but in some ways even moreso, for women in general are more reliant on that sort of talk and interaction.

And although none have mentioned it to me, in thinking about it, I would want my kids to know also the culture that I came from, and for them to have friends from among that group.

What I am saying is that Pastors in particular need to do more than send cheques to missionaries.
We need to be friends to them. We need to send emails just to say "Hi, how are you going?" or to let them know what is happening in your own life - I am sure they want to hear from time to time what life "back home" is like now.
And Pastor's wives need to make friends of missionary wives, and just chat from time to time.
And Pastors need to encourage their kids to get in touch with the missionary kids and just make friends of them.

We need to not be so worried about "interrupting" or "bothering" the missionary and his family, and I think we need to DETERMINE to bother and interrupt the missionary and their families.

Let THEM tell us when we are overdoing it, rather than being too timid about it.
They will find a few "friends" in all this that they will make closer friends with, and those that they don't will still be appreciated I am sure.

Am I totally off track with this?
I don't know - I haven't actually asked any of our missionaries about this.
This is just what I think, and it has come from observing some of the goings on with missionaries of late.

I am pretty sure about one thing though - they want people to do more than just send them a cheque very month.
They want people to remember them.
And they NEED people to be praying for them.

I am going to try harder.........

Where does the blame belong?

I have known people who have been abused by priests.
Almost to the man, these people blame "the church" for the attacks, and project that blame onto all who use the name Christian.
AND almost to a man, these people are supporters of the current movement for tolerance of homosexuality.

This, I find a confusing pair of positions to take.

Let me explain why.

First of all, in general these atrocious crimes are committed by Catholic church Priests. This is an important point, in that it is actually very easy to show that the Catholic church does not follow the Bible, and is therefore not actually Christian. To then use this as the basis for rejecting the Bible and Christ, is not only unjust, it is also stupid.
Catholicism has very little to do with Christianity and even less to do with the Bible.
The Bible clearly condemns such practices, and anyone who commits such crimes does so not because they area  Christian, but because they reject Christian teaching.

So the perpetrators of these horrible crimes are not even Christians, and do not follow Biblical teaching.
To therefore blame Christianity and Christ for these crimes is wrong and unfair.

Add to this that the Catholic church as a group does not follow Biblical teaching, and you can not even apply the blame which rightly belongs to that organisation, to Christians in general or to Christ in particular.

Make no mistake - I am not in any way trying to minimise the crimes committed by such people, or the continued crimes of the organisation in covering up and protecting such evil men. The men and the organisation should be held 100% accountable for their crimes.

I also recognise that while the majority of such crimes are involved in the Catholic church mechanism, they are not the exclusive holders of such men or such cover ups.
But it does not change the fact that such crimes are done by men (primarily) who are not following the commands of Christ, but are in fact going against specific directives in God's Word.

So to blame all of Christianity for the crimes of some who call themselves Christian, but who by their actions clearly prove they are not, is both irrational, and unfair.

But it gets even more confusing when these same victims who blame all of Christianity for these crimes, then turn and support homosexuality and the tolerance of it as an alternative lifestyle.

I find this amazing because, by the very definition of the actions, the perpetrators are homosexuals.
And they are participating in homosexual actions.

Why then, do these victims not blame "the homosexual community" in the same way that they blame "the Christian community"?
After all, I can easily display for you how the perpetrators are not following Christian principles and are in most cases not even Christians according to the Bible.
But it is plainly clear by their actions that these men ARE part of the homosexual community - by the very definition of the acts.

I am not suggesting for one minute that ALL homosexuals are paedophile predators - not in any way shape or form. But it is clear that these particular perpetrators ARE homosexual.

On the other hand, almost to a man, the victims of these clearly homosexual predators DO in fact apportion blame to ALL Christians.
They say that it is Christianity that is to blame for their trouble.

But in fact, these predators are not Christian at all - but they are homosexual - as proven by their acts.

I am not suggesting that the whole homosexual community is to blame for this, but I am suggesting that it appears to be acceptable to place that blame on the whole Christian community.

I would simply like to see some equity.

If these men were actually Christians, they would not perform such crimes.

Crimes, I will note, that are committed by homosexuals, but not by real Christians.

Put the blame where it actually belongs - with the individual homosexual men who commit the crimes, and with the false "Christian" organisations that unjustly protect such men.

But not with Christ.
Not with the Bible.
And not with real followers of Christ.

Missions offerings

2Co 8:1  Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;
2Co 8:2  How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.
2Co 8:3  For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves;
2Co 8:4  Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.
2Co 8:5  And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God.

We are going through a series right now about Missions giving.
In this passage we see a group of people from the churches in Macedonia, who gave gifts of money to Paul for the work of the ministry. Now understanding that Paul was doing the work of a missionary, that makes this a missionary offering.
And it is interesting to note a few short points about this giving for missions.

• It was a grace that God had bestowed upon them. God allowed and provided for them to give in this way - not the money, but intent.
• They were in a "...great trial of affliction..." and also in"...deep poverty..." when they exercised this grace.
• They had an abundance of joy when they exercised this grace.
• They were very liberal - or generous - in this offering.
• They gave not only "to their power", but also "beyond their power". They gave not only what they had, but they even gave that which they didn't have to give.
• They insisted that this gift be given to the missionary Paul - they would not be refused.

This is really interesting to me, because in this we see that these people gave what they could, and then gave what they (in the world's eyes) shouldn't have given. They were already in great trial of affliction and deep poverty, but they gave what little they had - everything they could afford to give, and even more that they couldn't really afford to give.

And they did this because of what is written in vs 5 - they gave their own selves to the Lord.
The series we are going trough, the preacher says "If you say you love God and don't give to missions, I don't believe it". "If you say you love God and don't come to services, I don't believe it". "If you say you love God and don't witness and share the Gospel, I don't believe it".
Their love for God was shown out by them first giving their own selves, and the actions followed - actions where they gave money they couldn't afford to, so that the Gospel could be preached. I wonder where that money came from? I wonder if that money meant that they had to do without lunch for a week so that the missionary could eat?
Love is not some mushy emotion - it is seen in action, and these people first gave their own selves, and that meant that they gave to their power and beyond their power, even though they were in affliction and deep poverty.
I shake my head at myself when I think of this - at how little I love the Lord when I look at what of my life I give to Him and I allow Him to direct.
I wonder what would happen if Christians today truly "..first gave their own selves to the Lord."?

My problem...... well, one of the many anyway.

I have this way about me that makes people think I am not working hard.

I don't quite know what it is - maybe it's because I don't seem to panic or get flustered very much, but just get on and do what needs to be done?
Maybe it is because I don't fuss too much about the small details, just do them?
Maybe it is because I tend to ignore the unimportant even if other people think it is important?

I have always had this problem, as long as I can remember.

I apparently make things look effortless, and therefore people think I am not putting any effort in.

Many years ago, when I was working a labouring job, I got into trouble for being slack with a shovel, even though I had moved more of the clay dust than any one else in my group. One guy in our group I don't think actually used his shovel at all, and we got the job done in time, but I was the one singled out as being slack while the other guys laughed about it. They made fun of me for it later - they all thought it was a great joke.

Later, when I moved into an office situation, I was sacked after 8 months with the company for not putting in enough effort. That news was given to me an hour and half after closing time, when I finally got back from delivering a project to a client that a job manager had me deliver in peak hour traffic on a Friday night, after having worked till 2am that morning on this project that the project manager had not started until Thursday morning. That guy went home after sending me on the delivery by the way. And when I finally got back after battling the traffic there and back for 60km each way, one of the bosses called me into his office and let me know that they didn't think I was putting in enough effort. That was 6:30pm on a Friday night after having started at 7am that morning, and having done a 17 hour day the day before.

I have always been amongst the best producers in any office I have worked at in my field of work, sometimes producing nearly twice the volume of work of others in the various offices I have worked at.
The only time that was recognised was when I was poached by an old workmate who was then in charge of an office. He needed someone to show his junior workers how to work, and he thought I would be a good candidate.
I accepted the job, and the young guys in the office were a bit put out of joint with them bringing in an "old school" guy who had never even used digital methods in that line before.
They got a huge shock when, in less than a week I had picked up the basics of the digital software, and was producing three times as much as any of them were.
Shook up the office alright, and within the next month the production of the section improved dramatically as they tried to keep up with me.
Within six months one of them was outproducing me, and the rest were not far off - so my job was done.
After about 4 years there was an industry downturn, and I volunteered to move to another section and learn a different process.
I admit I struggled to grasp all the intricacies of the process, but I was as good as most - never fantastic, but passable, which I personally found frustrating. I like to be able to do really well at my work, and that only happened in certain aspects or particular projects.
But my boss in that section called me in for a talk one day to discuss why I was so sloppy and careless in my work. He totally got it wrong. I was not careless in my work, just average, and I messed a few projects up in a row. What I needed was better instruction and possibly not to be given jobs from certain people. Instead of making sure that proper and clear instructions were given to me, he accused me of being lazy and careless - which was not the problem at all.
In fact, there were a few project managers who gave very vague instructions and expected the operator to know how to fill in the gaps, and I just didn't know how to fill in those gaps - more experience for me, and better instructions from them, and it might have been different. But it is always the operator's fault. It did seem funny that I never got any complaints from the managers who gave clear and complete instructions. I left there voluntarily when Redundancies were offered, and my first boss there said that if things ever lift again he will have me back.

Now I find the situation still abides.

I still have people who think that I am lazy, in spite of the fact that in 20 years of this I have never missed a deadline, and always been there when I was needed.
I have people who expect me to do the impossible, and when I fail them I am a waste of space.
I have people who are disappointed when I don't have fresh milk on hand for their coffee.
I have people who are disappointed when I don't do for them that which they could easily do for themselves.

The problem is that there is no "statement of duties" for my current position.
There is no outline of what is reasonable expectation and what is not.
And I am apparently expected to be able to do every kind of maintenance job, every kind of administrative job, every kind of counseling job, every kind of teaching job, as well as keeping track of what everyone is up to and needs without spying on or intruding into anyone's life, and all this while I am the best husband and father in the world.

And people think that this is a breeze for me.

I don't know how, but I apparently make this all look so easy that the reason I can't do all these things is because I am just not trying and working hard enough.

I put a fair bit of effort in - I know there is more I can do, and I keep trying to do better and more, but in the end I am only human, and I can only do so much, and I only have so many skills and talents with which to work. And some who read this will just think to themselves that I am just making excuses. And maybe I am. Maybe I should just shut up and take a spoonful of concrete, toughen up and work harder and longer.

I could go and find a red cape and some blue tights, but I can't seem to find that big "S" to put on the chest, and without it, people just laugh at me in tights.

Movie: Let The Lion Roar

There is all this hype going on in my area right now about the movie "Let the Lion Roar".

Now, let me state at the outset that I have not seen the movie.
You may think it a little presumptuous to form opinions before seeing the movie, but let me explain: The information that is being pushed around to promote the movie is fairly general and bland - there is little detail in the promotional material, and even the "preview clip" does not reveal the nature or premise of the movie.

So, in order that I might decide whether it was even worth seeing to check on it, I went searching for information.

Let me further say that the information I found was on the official website, so it is information that they approve of.

And again, on investigating the information, their stated purpose is a good one:

However, the focus of our particular message is that God's covenant love was for the entire Jewish people, as much for the unfaithful as for the faithful. Clearly He deals with the unfaithful very differently from the faithful, but the key point we make is that they have never ceased to be His chosen people despite their unfaithfulness.

(Second paragraph, FAQ "Why don't you say more about the remnant of Israel".

However, I have some very serious concerns about this movie, probably the greatest of which is:

Let the Lion Roar did indeed begin with a repeated prophetic vision and a word of knowledge to 'Complete The Reformation'. But it was tested for over 20 years, so that its interpretation and application fitted with the 150 verses which Escaping The Great Deception quotes.

(Fourth paragraph, FAQ "How sound is it to base Let the Lion Roar on a prophetic vision?)

The Bible is plain about one thing:

Rev 22:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

There is to be no words of prophecy added to this book. Whether you want this to be only the book of Revelation, or the whole Bible makes no difference to the fact that there was to be no further revelation once the Bible was completed.

This passage aligns perfectly with:

1Co 13:8  Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
1Co 13:9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Now it for another time to discuss this thoroughly, but that which is perfect is the Word of God - the whole subject of this passage is knowledge, and the Bible says that "when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away". And then it tells us what is "in part" - knowledge and prophecy. The last words of the book of Revelation tell us that the Bible is completed, and therefore extra knwoledge and prophecy is done away.
We don't need any more special knowledge and new revelation, for we have all that we need in the Word of God.

Even Peter put little store in visions:

2Pe 1:17  For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2Pe 1:18  And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
2Pe 1:19  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

He says in this passage that we have a more sure word of prophecy, but note what it is more sure than: "....this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount."
Peter said that they saw the Lord transfigured on the mount (See Matt 17), but that the Word of God was more sure than even that vision - which was a real physical thing they saw with their own eyes, not even something in a dream.

 

 So to base this movie on some sort of prophetic vision is simply not biblical.

The second concern I have about this movie is the claim with regard to "completing the Reformation".

Only God can complete the Reformation. However He will do it through His body, so that no one usurps His glory.

(First sentence of FAQ "Isn't it pretentious to claim that you could complete the Reformation?")

I have an issue with this because God's goal has NEVER BEEN to complete the Reformation.

The very idea of the reformation was to "return the church to the truth", but that church - the Catholic church - never had the truth. They were based on a faulty and unbiblical premise from the first, and have never held to the way that Jesus taught and bled and died for.

Likewise the Reformation, started by men who saw the false doctrine and wrong teaching that was rampant in the catholic "church", was about bringing truth to the Catholic church. When they would not accept that truth, these men started their own "break away" churches from the Catholic "Church", but they based their new "churches" on the old one, just with the little bits of truth that they had found from the Bible.

But they did not forsake all the false teaching of the Catholics, and they also invented some of their own.

We agree that there has always been a remnant, but it was never found in the Catholic "Church", nor was it found in the Reformation or protestant churches.

There has always existed a number of people who have followed the Word of God alone, and whilst among these there has been variation of belief in the lesser points of doctrine, there has always been those who have taught salvation by grace through faith and not of works. (Eph 2:8,9)

The Reformation  and the protestant movement was not against a "church that had lost it's way", but in fact a false "church" which was not a church at all, and who preached another gospel which is not another." (Gal 1:6,7)

How can "completing the Reformation" be condoned of God when the purpose of it was never to return to the Bible, but simply to add some more Bible to a false system?

And let's not forget that the reformers were just as hard on the  true Christians of their day as the Catholics were. Both Luther and Calvin hated the "anabaptists" or "rebaptisers" or whatever other name they chose to call them by, and persecuted them by direct order, often with death.
And plenty of others joined them in their persecution of true Christians.

Personally, I don't want that work finished. I don't want the Catholic "church" reformed - I want the people in it to be saved by the precious blood of Christ, and to .."come out from among them" (2 Cor 6:17).
And I don't want the reformation work of the persecution of true Christians completed either.

I won't be seeing this movie, and I won't be recommending anyone else does either.
It is based on an unbiblical vision, and it has an unbiblical purpose.

There can be no value for any true Christian in this movie.

Discouragement

I have been thinking about discouragement lately, and thought it would be a worthwhile subject for a short study.

In reading I came across this passage and it occurred to me that whilst we wouldn't normally associate this passage with discouragement, I think the marks are there.

Luk 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

Luk 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

Luk 17:4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

Luk 17:5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.

Luk 17:6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

Luk 17:7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?

Luk 17:8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?

Luk 17:9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.

Luk 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

The Lord is talking about offences, and his primary words to them are about forgiveness.

The interesting thing about this passage is that their response to the Lord is to ask Him to give them more faith.

I think they knew what the Lord said was right, but they also knew it is a very hard thing to be offended and then forgive that person – we are so quick to hold offences.

I am so glad that God does not hold our offences against Him, against us once we are saved.

In fact God says that if you are saved by faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, that He has cast your sins as far as the east from the west.

But the apostles here asked the Lord for more faith so that they might be able to do what He has just told them to do.

I see in this the marks of discouragement.

I see in this an attitude of resignation, in that they know what they need to do, but they just don't think they can do it. They think it is too hard for them, and they want to honour the Lord, but they just don't think they can do it.

This is discouragement – when you know what you should do, but you simply can not find the wherewithal to it – it seems impossible, but it is necessary, and that is when discouragement rears its ugly head.

So at this point in the passage I am all ears, because discouragement is no stranger to me – in fact it is close neighbour at times.

So I want this advice and instruction.

I need more faith.

I need stronger faith.

Then the Lord answers his apostles.

Luk 17:6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

It is not the amount of faith that matters – even a small amount of faith is enough to do miraculous things.

No, the answer to discouragement and the ability to do as the Lord commands us is in the verses that follow vs 6.

And it will not be a popular answer.

I don't like to hear it myself, so I don't expect that too many reading this will like what the Lord ahs to say.

When I am discouraged I want someone to come up beside me and say “You poor baby. Life is really tough for you right now isn't it?”

But what does the Lord say?

Luk 17:7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?

Luk 17:8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?

Luk 17:9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.

Luk 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

This is a really strange answer to give to someone who is discouraged, especially at their own inability to do what the Lord commands.

Basically the Lord here reminds the apostles that they are servants, and that their job is to serve their master.

It actually doesn't matter if they are discouraged about their task, and it certainly has nothing to do with faith.

They didn't need more faith.

They needed do what they were told.

And at the end of it, they needed to realise that they are only doing what a servant should do – what he is commanded to by his master.

So the Lord told them to set aside their offences and forgive the people who offended them, and simply to get on with the forgiving that they had been told to.

In other words – discouragement is neither here nor there – just get about the master's business.

And then He emphasises the point by saying that when the servant has done what he should do, he is not to be looking for any special reward – it is simply the servant's duty.

This is probably the hardest part of this to swallow – and this is the real answer to their request for increased faith.

They wanted more faith so that they could do this forgiving that the Lord had commanded them, but the Lord replies to them that this command is no special thing – it is simply what needs to be done, simply their duty.

In other words, discouragement is not a lack of faith, it is simply a lack of obedience.........

THAT, my friends, is a bitter pill if ever there was one.

When I am discouraged, I want to put the blame of it onto the people around me, but the Lord simply says “Get over it and get on with it”.

As I have been looking at this passage, I dearly wanted to find a different message in it than this one, but this is what the Lord is teaching me through it.

Discouragement is a lack of obedience.

Not due to the people around me.

Not due to the things that happen to me.

Not due to the troubles of this life.

Simply an unwillingness on my part to do “that which is my duty to do”.

And if I want victory over this discouragement, I simply have to be about the Master's work.