“The real test of being in the presence of God is, that you either forget about yourself altogether or see yourself as a small, dirty object.”
Wisdom from C.S. Lewis
Will They Learn?
Will they learn?
The lessons about leadership from 1 Samuel are inescapable for people with discernment. Samuel was God’s prophet, leader, and judge for Israel. Despite his godly leadership, teaching, and life, Israel remained spiritually blind, recalcitrant, and self-centered.
1 Samuel 8 is one of the most important and instructive chapters in the entire canon of Scripture. The spiritually blind people demanded “a king to judge us like all the nations” (1 Samuel 8:5).
And just so we wouldn’t miss the point, God tells his servant Samuel not to take it personally. It was not about Samuel; it was about Israel’s persistent self-centeredness: “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them” (1 Samuel 8:7).
How clear is that? Crystal.
And in the very next paragraph, God tells them what Saul, the wicked king who’d serve as the means of Israel’s disasters, would do. He will make everything about himself:
- “He will take . . .” (1 Samuel 8:11)
- “He will appoint for himself . . .” (1 Samuel 8:12)
- “He will take . . .” (1 Samuel 8:13)
- “He will take . . .” (1 Samuel 8:14)
- “He will take . . .” (1 Samuel 8:15)
- “He will take . . .” (1 Samuel 8:16)
- “He will take . . .” (1 Samuel 8:17)
Saul was in it to take. He didn’t care about the people. He cared only for self.
And in verses 17-18, God does a mic drop: “He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day” (1 Samuel 8:17-18).
Will they learn? That’s a question you should ask. Because the pattern of choosing unwise, unregenerate, ungodly leaders is obvious: wreckage.
Encouragement: These historical narratives are written for our instruction, dear ones. We’re to learn how important it is to have wise, godly leaders.
Some Reflections on the Use of AI in Literature
For many years now, I have taught literature. It is part of who I am, I suppose. I discovered a passion for reading when a teenager and that passion is unabated. I do not truck with much popular-level reading, like that which you’ll find in airport kiosks or on the tables at your town’s chain bookstores. I love the classics–most of them anyway. There are a few books considered classics that I just cannot seem to enjoy. There are some Austen books that put me to sleep. Give me Dickens and Hardy over Austen, any day.
But this is about Artificial Intelligence, not about my literary interests. Here are a few questions I’m thinking through:
- Is AI to be welcomed in when it comes to literary analysis?
- That is, is ‘close reading’ even possible if AI becomes the de facto medium for students’ literary analyses?
- What happens to students’ intellectual development if and when they rely on AI to ‘do the reading’ for them?
- Is it possible to inculcate critical thinking skills when AI is prevalent?
I was grading papers today and, after reading six or seven essays from my college kids, I discovered a pattern–almost the exact same lingo, quotes from short stories, and conclusions. Some overlap is understandable, of course. But when the pattern repeats again and again, “Houston, we have a problem.”
I concede that we should aim to learn the history of the best commentaries on the classics. I mean, if one’s reading is so ‘out there’ that it’s unhitched from the wisdom of the past, there may be good reason to be suspicious.
But what I’m seeing is just the opposite in today’s culture of AI, especially when it comes to my lane of the classics. The responses to questions I pose to students in literature classes grow more and more similar. It’s likely due to their almost complete reliance upon AI engines of their choice.
For those of us who love great literature, this is a dark cloud. It portends ominously over lands that should ideally be filled with critical thinkers. But when auto-generated responses, divorced from close personal reading, are the medium students rely upon, I cannot be confident that much learning at all is actually occurring. Just my thoughts.
Not Title but Character
Not title but character.
Introduction: I am currently reading through some of my favorite books of the Bible. The books of 1 and 2 Samuel are about the necessity of having God as king. They are simultaneously about what happens to people when hirelings and false shepherds are at the helm. When there are godless leaders at the top of any organization, spiritual scorched earth will be the result.
When 1 Samuel opens, it begins by introducing several characters that embody the apostasy of some spiritual leaders. Eli’s two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, were two of those men. They had the title of priests (1 Samuel 1:3). But they were wicked to the core. And God would deal with them in short order. They had the titles of spiritual leaders, but their character was wanting. God put it plainly: “Now the sons of Eli were worthless men. They did not know the LORD” (1 Samuel 1:12).
Is that unclear? They were godless priests. They were unsaved men. They hated God. They just wanted the benefits of being priests, but their hearts were not in it. They were hirelings. And God was using them as examples of corruption to teach the people that we get the leadership we deserve. If we are a wicked people, we should not be surprised that many spiritual leaders are not any different.
And yet God still had his people. Amidst all the evil, noble people emerged. Hannah is one example. Samuel is another. And on and on it goes.
Hophni and Phinehas were killed when the Philistines defeated Israel: “And there was a very great slaughter, for thirty thousand foot soldiers of Israel fell. And the ark of God was captured, and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, died” (1 Samuel 4:10b-11).
Encouragement: Titles don’t make the man, dear ones. What’s down in the well comes up in the bucket. Therefore, drink from wells of righteousness, and drink deeply. It’s not about titles but about character.
From Bitter to Sweet
Questions:
- Should we expect only good (and good things) from God?
- If not, why do many people complain?
- What does it reveal about a person’s theology when he/she says, “Why doesn’t God do something about ________?”
Text:
19So the two of them went on until they came to Bethlehem. And when they came to Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them. And the women said, “Is this Naomi?” 20 She said to them, “Do not call me Naomi;[a] call me Mara,[b] for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. 21 I went away full, and the Lord has brought me back empty. Why call me Naomi, when the Lord has testified against me and the Almighty has brought calamity upon me?” (Ruth 1:19-21)
Context, Context, Context: Noami was returning from Moab to Bethlehem in Judah c. 1000 B.C. Naomi’s husband and two sons-in-law had died. Her other daughter-in-law chose to remain in Moab. But Ruth had clung to Naomi. Ruth believed in her mother-in-law and in the Lord. And her behavior demonstrated that. She was making her theology visible.
Yet Naomi felt like God was against her (Naomi). How could a good God allow all this suffering? Wasn’t God supposed to be good? Should she not expect blessing rather than hardship?
Naomi even told the women, “Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me” (Ruth 1:20). Naomi means “pleasant,”but Mara means “bitter.”
Encouragement: But God. God was not finished with Naomi. And God was not finished with Ruth. God was still very much in the midst and working his plan for their good and his glory. God was about to introduce Boaz, a kinsman-redeemer into the plans he had for Naomi and Ruth. And Ruth would indeed “find favor” in his eyes. Ruth, a Moabitess, was finding favor in the eyes of the kinsman-redeemer. Those outside the camp, you see, were being brought inside. Why? Because the gospel is to go out to all—Jew and Gentile, male and female, native and foreigner—”red, yellow, black and white; they are precious in his sight.”
But God. God was using Naomi’s sufferings to reveal his grace and providence at the right time. The pilgrimage we are on necessitates trusting God. Why? For “we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).
But Ruth Clung . . .
It was the time of the judges (c. 1000s B.C.). Israel had succumbed once again to apostasy. God’s hand of judgment was upon them for their sin. There was “a famine in the land” (Ruth 1:1). Because of the famine, Elimelech and his wife Naomi, and their two sons leave Judah and walk to Moab. Then, to make matters worse, the patriarch of the family, Elimelech, dies. Now only Naomi and her two sons-in-law, and Naomi’s two daughters-in-law (Orpah and Ruth). Then the two sons-in-law die. It’s bleak for Naomi. She is now a widow in a foreign land and she’s left with two Moabitess daughters-in-law.
Questions:
- Why would God allow this?
- Does God not care for the widow?
- Is God unmoved by human suffering?
- Will God abandon his people?
Finally the famine back in Judah abated and Naomi vowed to return to the place of her roots. But what would her two daughters-in-law do? Would it not be wise for them to remain in Moab in hopes of remarrying?
Naomi urges the two girls to remain in Moab: “Turn back, my daughters; go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say I have hope, even if I should have a husband this night and bear sons, would you therefore wait till they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughter, for it is exceedingly bitter to me for your sake that the hand of the LORD has gone out against me” (Ruth 1:12-13).
Ruth, a Portrait of Faith: Orpah remained in Moab but Ruth trusted the Lord and Naomi: “Then they [Orpah and Ruth] lifted up their voices and wept again. And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her” (Ruth 1:14). Ruth clung. Ruth held on. She gripped onto Naomi. She trusted God.
Ruth uttered some of the most moving words in all of Scripture: “For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall by my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16).
Encouragement: Why did God allow all of this? To show what true faith in God looks like. Does God care for the widow? Absolutely. Naomi’s story is not finished yet. You must read on. I’ll write about this in the next installment. Is God unmoved by human suffering? No, God forbid! He brings blessing and sweetness out of persecution and bitterness. Does God abandon his people? Absolutely not! He never leaves them or forsakes them. Let us learn from Ruth in this masterful historical narrative. When trials come, cling to the Lord, and see the deliverance he brings.
Samson as Prototype
Text: “When he came to Lehi, the Philistines came shouting to meet him. Then the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon him, and the ropes that were on his arms became as flax that has caught fire, and his bonds melted off his hands” (Judges 15:14).
Context, Context, Context: Samson, though a throughly fallen man, served as a saving figure and judge of Israel. He was impetuous at times. He was prideful at times. He was vainglorious at times. But God still installed Samson as a judge to execute the will of God.
In the verse quoted above, it’s important to notice the phrase “the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon [Samson].” Why? It’s to teach us that it was God who was acting through his servant Samson against the enemies of God.
Just when it appeared that the forces of darkness would triumph, God’s appointed servant and judge arose in triumph. Sounds a lot like the gospel of Christ Jesus, right? Because it is just that.
Encouragement: When the enemies are at the gate, when the Philistines in your life assault God’s people, when truth seems it is being eclipsed by the powers of hell, God rises. You can even murder God the Son, but three days later, God will have the last word. Truth eventually but always wins out and exposes the darkness.
God’s Prophets
The prophetic voice is a gift of God’s grace.
Questions: When you hear the word prophet, what comes to your mind? Does it usher in thoughts of ease and comfort? When you study the lives of men like Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, are ease and comfort what you find with those men? Or is it more accurate to say that God’s prophets meet with resistance from forces hostile to God and God’s ways? The questions answer themselves, of course.
Text:
When the people of Israel cried out to the Lord on account of the Midianites, the Lord sent a prophet to the people of Israel. And he said to them, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: I led you up from Egypt and brought you out of the house of slavery. And I delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the hand of all who oppressed you, and drove them out before you and gave you their land. And I said to you, ‘I am the Lord your God; you shall not fear the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell.’ But you have not obeyed my voice.” (Judges 6:7-10)
Teaching: In Judges 6, as in sundry other passages from Judges, God sends prophetic voices to wake the people up from spiritual slumber and apostasy. The prophetic voice is a gift of God’s grace.
Verse 7 of Judges 6 records that “the people of Israel cried out to the LORD . . .”
Why? Because they were being overrun by the Midianites. And what did God do in his grace? He sent them a prophet. The truth-telling prophet called the people back to God, to the history of God’s fidelity, to God’s providential hand, and the prophet called the people to trust. He didn’t call them to trust wicked leaders; he called them to trust God and God’s messenger.
Encouragement: May God grant hearts and minds that discern God’s truth-telling prophets. Why? Because the prophetic voice is a gift of God’s grace.
Remembering Dr. Higgins
One of the most influential professors I had in studying literature in younger days was Dr. Higgins. He was a master teacher. How so? Well, he was a master of clarity. His preferred way of teaching hinged upon the use of contrasts. He would put up a T-chart on the board that looked like this, for example:
Atheistic Writers (Secularists) vs. Theistic Writers (Biblical):
| Crane, Stephen | vs. | Melville, Herman |
| Hemingway, Ernest | vs. | Faulkner, William |
| Sartre, Jean-Paul | vs. | Percy, Walker |
| Camus, Albert | vs. | O’Connor, Flannery |
Then he would pose questions of us related to atheistic writers:
- What worldview is espoused in Crane’s short stories?
- How do Crane’s characters wind up?
- What emotions characterize Sartre’s protagonists?
- Why is the anti-hero part and parcel of the atheistic writers?
We students would discuss the novels and short stories and poems of said writers, and he’d ask still more questions, and force us to justify our responses based upon the many books we’d had to read. Then he would pose questions of the contrasting writers:
- What worldview is espoused in O’Connor’s stories?
- How do self-righteous people play out in her stories?
- What emotions characterize Percy’s protagonists?
- Why is nobility possible in Melville and Faulkner but not in Sartre’s fiction?
The hinge upon which his teaching turned was the inculcation of our understanding pattern recognition and contrasts. Not this, but that.
In Proverbs 19:1 Solomon writes, “Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool.”
Do you see the contrast and recognize the pattern?
Solomon contrasts two types of people–those of integrity vs. those of duplicity. One is honorable; the other is dishonorable. One person is honest; the other is dishonest. One is put together and straight. The other is a fool and is up to no good.
All these years later, Dr. Higgins, I still thank God for his putting you in my life. I have reread all of those long novels and stories more than a few times now, and they were just as you said. Thank you for teaching me. I hope I made you proud. You have since gone to your reward, and I hope to learn from you again one day. Until then, just know you made a good difference and a difference for good.
Some Reflections Upon Lent
For much of Christendom, Lent is viewed as a 40-day season that begins approximately 40 days prior to Jesus’ passion. In other words, it’s the 40 days (excluding Sundays) prior to Passover/Holy Thursday, 2 April 2026, and Easter week.
The 40-day stretch usually involves prayer, fasting, reflection, self-denial, sacrificial giving, and reminders of and connections to Jesus’ 40 days in the desert as recorded in Scripture (see Matthew 4, e.g.).
As a Protestant, we too can benefit from being mindful of this Lenten season in the Christian calendar. We do not necessarily have to have ashes applied to our foreheads to be reminded of our mortality. Nor do we have to make public our private fasting. Nor do we have to forgo desserts, chocolates, or other sweets, etc.
- A goal associated with this season is that of Christian mindfulness of the One who overcame mortality for all who are found in Christ.
- Another goal is to connect us to God in Christ, who lived and dwelled among us in space-time history, and who himself fasted and prayed.
- Another goal is to bolster our Christian faith in the One who conquered Satan and all the powers of hell for the sake of his people.
Whether or not you choose to make a public display of ahes upon your forehead is up to you, but surely all of us who are in Christ can agree on those three goals associated with this tradition in the history of Christ’s church.
MIND & MATTERS 