Last week I talked about the Mt Carmel showdown. Elijah on one side. Ahab, the prophets of Baal and Jezebel (in absentia, but represented by the prophets) on the other. The people are pictured as lying between these competing claims to loyalty.
Elijah wins. The people shout, "The Lord, he is God."
After the sermon, I got a text: Is there any evidence that Elijah's sermon and demonstration on Mt Carmel had any lasting effect?
Intriguing question. My first response was, No. The fire fell. The rain came. Elijah ran off into the wilderness whining he was the only Israelite left who was loyal to God.
God's response to Elijah's whining was to have him anoint Elisha as his successor. Elisha's story is full of evidence that there was a pervasive change in the nation. Ahab and Jezebel did not convert. Baal worship did not disappear. ON THE OTHER HAND. People in Jericho turned to Elisha for help when they had a problem with water quality. A prophet's widow found miraculous support when she went to Elisha. Wealthy people provided hospitality for Elisha out of deep regard for his ministry. People sent their sons to schools allied with Elisha. A foreign general came to Israel to be healed, Elisha's reputation for healing had become so widespread.
While the nation did not "officially" reject the gods of the Philistines and Jeroboam. A substantial population obviously did. This is a dramatic downstream effect of Elijah's revival.
Elijah, on Mt Carmel asked God to send fire as evidence that he really was God, and that he was turning the people's hearts back to himself. From what we see in the stories of Elisha it is clear that many people did turn to God.
There is a place for "event," for special occasions, for revivals, and congresses. For excitement and times of enthusiasm. These special times help us set a new direction. They help us get up and move in the direction we have known we should be moving. Revivals or events are valuable because they are beginnings. Obviously, beginnings are not worth much if there is no continued movement. On the other hand, there can be no "continued movement" if there is not a start. There can be no maturation if there is no birth.
So take a step. Any step. Just one step. In the right direction. That is the essence of revival. And if you'll take a second step in the same direction, you're well on your way to maturity and holiness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
While reading your response to the question of "Was there any lasting effect....." I pondered the question of what is a Liberal Adventist and why you choose that title for your site? I always considered myself to be a Liberal Adventist, although politically I am a conservative. I think that I have mellowed into a Moderate Adventist. What makes a person a liberal or moderate or conservative in the Adventist Church?
Bubba: There are many possible meanings of the word "liberal."
When I call myself a "liberal Adventist" I have several things in mind.
First, while I value the church systems of doctrine, governance and finance, my first commitment is to the nurture of individuals in the context of their own particular situations.
Second, by "liberal" I mean a mind set that is open to change and learning in contrast to preserving and reinforcing. (Of course, there is a place for preserving and reinforcing. Others do it better than I do and I respect them for it. They are called conservatives.)
Third, Ellen White consistently used the word liberal as a positive adjective and conservative as a negative adjective. I think she was trying to paint the picture of a spiritual ideal that included forward-looking, generosity toward others' ideas and charity toward others' failings. I hope to embody those values.
Really liked your definition of liberal..I made a bumper sticker it says "Jesus was a liberal..He liberally loved,healed, and fed thousands"
I consider myself to be a liberal Adventist, because I am willing to question all aspects of my faith with an open mind. I may not change my values because they are challenged, but I am willing to listen to alternative positions and viewpoints. And if my church tries to apply a Christian application of the Gospel in a way that I feel is incorrect, I am willing to oppose that position and live according to what I feel is the correct interpretation of Christ's message. I also give some 'wiggle room' for EGW's writings. Sometimes it all comes down to accepting an interpretation on faith, because intensive studies have led me to a position without resolution. Religiosity vs religion. I believe the Christian Liberal will choose the latter.
Post a Comment