Feast on the Bread He Provides

Have you ever seen something in a couple of different verses, and missed putting the two together?

I had that happen this week, and I felt God breathing on it. When I feel that, I try to take it seriously, even if the thing he’s breathing on isn’t exegetically pristine.

Someone pointed out this verse to me recently:

"If the Lord delights in us, then He will bring us into this land and give it to us, a land which flows with milk and honey. "Only do not rebel against the Lord, nor fear the people of the land, for they are our bread; their protection has departed from them, and the Lord is with us. Do not fear them." [Numbers 14:8-9]

Read that again: the enemies of the fulfillment of the promise of God are our bread. Our nourishment. Provision for us.

This reminds me of something Father said to me one time when I was asking him to take these kind of enemies away from me: “Son, how do you ever expect to become an overcomer if you never have anything to overcome?” May I be honest? That wasn’t actually comforting to me at the time.

But he’s talking about enemies as bread. Bread. That reminds me of another verse:

“Give us this day our daily bread.” [Matthew 6:11]

Together, these verses are suggesting a couple of truths to me:

♦ I’ve misunderstood the enemies and obstacles to the fulfillment of God’s promises. I’ve thought of them as evil, bad, nasty things. It sounds like they’re something I should embrace: my nourishment, my provision, the stepping stones into the promise.

♦ There’s a connection between these enemies and obstacles, and the provision that Jesus specifically instructs me to pray for. Seriously? Am I supposed to pray for these? Well, if the Book is true (consider Matthew 5:44) Now I’m not convinced that he’s necessarily saying, “Pray that enemies come into your life” when he commands “Pray for your enemies,” but I don’t think I can stretch it to “Pray that you’d never have enemies” either.

♦ And what’s this about *daily* bread? I heard something the other day: “A day without an enemy to overcome is a wasted day.”

♦ Can I be honest? Learning how to receive nourishment from bread is easy. Learning how to receive nourishment from enemies is more difficult. It might be, though, more important.

Father is not, I’m convinced, all that excited about us having enemies to overcome. I’m convinced that he’s far more interested in the “overcoming” part than he is about the difficulties of handling the enemies. I’m convinced that part of the reason that overcoming is interesting to him is that it brings plunder into the Kingdom.

It also rubs the enemy’s nose in God’s victory in us. That’s cool too.

But the enemies in your way, the obstacles between you and your promises, those are your bread. Learn to feast on them.

No Wonder The World Doesn’t Love Christians.

No wonder the world doesn’t love Christians.

Many of the members of the Church of North America are the loudest an most vitriolic when pointing out the sins of others: the sins of a president they don’t like, the sins of other political leaders they don’t agree with, even the sins of their own brothers and sisters, Christian leaders whom they find fault with.

No wonder the world doesn’t take Christianity seriously.

“But they’re in sin! I must warn them of their sin!”

Bosh! If you bring me a wheelbarrow of that, I can fertilize my petunias, but I won’t use it on my vegetable garden. Ewww.

First, if you’re a child of God, then you carry some of the authority of God’s family: what you declare is, in some mysterious way, empowered to come about in the world of men. If you constantly speak of their sin, guess what’s reinforced? Their sin.

But it impacts you, too: if you’re constantly pointing out sin, then guess what happens in you: your life, being focused on sin, becomes sin-centric. I can’t imagine any good thing that could come from that. I sure wouldn’t want to live with you.

If a prophet or, even better, a friend had stepped in and warned some of those we’re describing, if they were speaking with the heart of God, then they'd be speaking TO the leader they were warning, not speaking evil of him to folks on the outside. You don’t warn somebody of anything by spouting nasty things about them on Facebok.

I hate to break it to you, but President Obama doesn’t follow your Facebook page. Neither does that televangelist that you think is spending money foolishly.

It is ABSOLUTELY part of the Kingdom to go to a brother and say, "Hey, friend. I see a problem here. Can I help you with it?" This is where a real friend can really help. It may be the only place. And it isn't really an option to strangers. Sorry, but unless I know them, and know them personally, I don’t qualify.

It is ABSOLUTELY part of the Kingdom to go over their head. Instead of slandering them, we always have the option of praying for them. (Now *there’s* a radical concept!) And the reality is that my words before Father will change their behavior far more than my words before my friends.

It is ABSOLUTELY from the pit of hell to go to the highways and byways, to the coffee shops and the interwebs, and spread slanderous accusations about them. There is no good that can be done by dragging their name through the mud on Facebook. Even if the accusation is true, it's still slander, it's still the work of the Accuser of the Brethren. And let’s be honest: those who actually do need to repent will not repent just because someone posted foul things online about them.

I get it that some of the slander posted about political leaders is intended as humor. And some of it – a pretty small fraction, if I’m honest – actually is funny. But really, it’s still slander. It’s still exercising whatever “kingly anointing” that I carry as a child of God, not for their freedom, but to keep them enslaved in their sin.

The hardest part is remembering that ultimately, the only one who can make choices for their life is them. You and I cannot, no matter how deeply we care. It is not, in the end, our choice.

Does that mean that I need to shut up and submit to what I believe is terrible and unconstitutional devastation done to my country? Oh, Heavens no! Please, no! But whining accusations are not the answer.

The Danger of Following Orders Given To Another

As servants of the Lord, as warriors, we are responsible for the orders given to us. I am not responsible for the orders that he gives to someone else, and they are not accountable for how I carry out my orders.

In Ephesians 5, the apostle gives specific commands to husbands and wives. It took me a couple of decades to realize that v22 was not written to me. I was cheating, eavesdropping on a private conversation if I even read that verse.

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord” is clearly written to wives, not to husbands. It does NOT say, “Husbands, make sure your wives submit!” which is how many husbands have interpreted it, and which has led to immense sin in untold thousands of Christian homes over the centuries since it was written.

It’s hard for me to acknowledge that the command doesn’t apply to me in any way, shape or form. There’s another command that is not given to me to obey. Let me explain.

Some have pointed out, “homosexuality is not acceptable in either the OT or NT.” That is true. What it does not say is “Condemn homosexuals,” and the church is finally beginning to figure that out (thank God!). I observe that neither does the Word say, “Condemn homosexuality.” There is no such command for me to obey. 

We have (fairly glibly, I fear) spouted “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” but mostly, our application has been condemning. We say that we don’t condemn the person, but we condemn an aspect of their lives that they experience as an aspect of their character, who they are. Condemnation is also not in our commands. 

“Love homosexuals, hate homosexuality!” is perceived (how I meant it is completely irrelevant here) as if I were to declare to my daughter, “I love you as a person, but I hate the fact that you’re a woman.” It’s deeper and more powerful than shouting at Billy Graham, “I respect you as a person, but I reject evangelism.” Billy can no more stop being an evangelist than my daughter can stop being a woman.

Of course, we don’t reject women (any longer) or evangelists (mostly), but this is the conversation that we still have with the homosexual community. “I love you, but I hate who you are!” has functionally been our message. No wonder our message hasn't been received well.

There’s a second part to this conversation.

I’ve had people tell me how important it is that we warn them of their sin and the consequences thereof. (Then I observe that the vitriol with which they declare it disqualifies those very speakers from having any right to speak to the issue. We are commanded to approach people through love, NOT through compliance with the law as interpreted through us.)

So the question I have had to ask is this: Whose job is it to convict the world of sin? Whose job is it to convict the believer of sin? At what point does it become my job to convict you of your sin?

We could -- and in my opinion, we must -- apply the answer equally: if we are called to convict the sinner of his sin, then the need to call out the sin of homosexuality is accompanied by the need to call out the sins of pride or gluttony, which are from my perspective more prevalent in our world than homosexuality.

Ironically, those who are willing to call out others’ sins but not their own are, by that choice, committing the additional sin of hypocrisy.

I’m NOT advocating “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” When we teach, we must teach the Word. We must teach that sin is real, and that it opens the door for hell to torment us. We must teach the way to freedom, which is NOT through obeying rules, not your rules, not my rules, not the church's rules, and not even God’s rules. 

When we prophesy, we must prophesy the word of the Lord. We must prophesy hope. We must prophesy comfort, edification and encouragement. If we speak words that minister death or rejection, it is not the Spirit of the Lord that is speaking through us, but another spirit. (It is left to the reader to consider what spirit that might be.)

Our call is to minister life, never “right and wrong.” We were specifically prohibited from eating of the “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in the very beginning. “It will bring death,” we were commanded. It still brings death.

The tree that we must eat from is the Tree of Life. The fruit we give to others must be from the Tree of Life.

Prayer From a Poverty Spirit

I felt Father saying recently that one reason that some of our prayers aren't answered is because they're asked too early in the process, and thus, they’re not an expression of faith, but an expression of lack of faith.

Sometimes we are facing a journey, an obstacle, and we ask for help overcoming the obstacle BEFORE we start the process of overcoming it. We ask for help overcoming an enemy, a habit, a temptation, a struggle, but we ask before we've started to fight, before we’ve started the struggle (Heb 12:4), which means we don’t need that answer yet.

Sometimes, we feel the need to understand the process BEFORE starting the process; we want help in the warfare BEFORE we’ve engaged in the warfare. In other words, before we need the help.

Sometimes we feel the need to ask in advance because we don’t trust that Father will provide for us IN the process. We ask BEFORE we need because we don’t trust Father to provide IN our need.

Functionally, this is the expression of a poverty spirit: a lack of confidence that Father will be a good father to us; a lack of confidence in our place as favored son or daughter.

If we understand before we start, then the process, the journey, is not a journey of faith, it's a journey of knowledge. And suddenly, verses like Rom 14:23, 1Cor 8:1, and Gen 2:9 come into play:

[Romans 14:23b] "for whatever is not from faith is sin."

[1 Corinthians 8:1b] "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies."

[Genesis 2:9b] "The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

When we’re asking for God to give us NOW what we don’t yet need, we are not walking in faith, in trust. Or rather, we’re not trusting in him; we’re trusting in what we have, what we know, our own strength. That is a prayer that Father, because of his great love for us, cannot answer.

Having said that, it’s very appropriate to ask NOW for provision once we engage in the battle. I refer to these as time-warp prayers. “I expect to be engaged in this battle soon, Father, and I’m asking, now, that you’ll put into my hand the weapons that I need, when I need them.”

I believe that a good part of the solution to this is to change our trust from trusting the provision, to trusting our Provider. In application, this means more time in prayer knowing Him, and less time asking him for stuff; more time on the couch next to Him, and less time across the desk from him; more time in relational prayer, less time in business prayer.

Asking for What’s Already Been Promised

Dealing with a promise from God – whether a promise from the Scriptures or a prophetic promise – is in some ways a little counter-intuitive.

We tend to think, “He’s promised. He’s God! He’s probably not going to forget!”

No, God’s not going to forget, but that doesn’t mean that we can forget, and just expect the Bluebird of Happiness to drop promised blessings on our heads whenever he gets around to it.

King David was awesome. He’s the most “New Covenant” character in the Old Testament. I love learning from David! In 2 Samuel 7, God makes this epic promise to him.

So how did David respond to the epic promise from God? He walked out on the prophet.

He walked out without even a polite word, got on his face in God’s presence, worshipped, and then did something really strange.

He asked God to do the very thing that God had just promised he’d do.

"Now, O LORD God, the word which You have spoken concerning Your servant and concerning his house, establish it forever and do as You have said. "So let Your name be magnified forever, saying, 'The LORD of hosts is the God over Israel.' And let the house of Your servant David be established before You. [2 Samuel 7:25-26 NKJV]

So David receives the promise from God, and then immediately asks God for the exact thing that God had just promised.

First of all, that sounds like a good way to get your prayers answered: ask God for what he’s already promised.

But more to our point today, it seems like a wise response to a promise: When God promises something that you like, respond by asking him for the very thing that he’s promised.

Jacob does the same thing in Genesis 32, and he, also, knows that he’s doing it: he’s asking God for what God has promised.

It’s easy to complain, “But he promised! It’s up to him to fulfill it! I shouldn’t have to do anything!” I understand that complaint, as I used to whine it at God with some regularity.

Have you ever been to a sushi bar that has thousands of plates of sushi on conveyor belts? They’re kind of fun. All kinds of yumminess rolling on by, and you can reach out and pick the one you like.

I suspect that God’s promises are a little bit like that. Or think of them like a menu: he’s making the offers, but it’s up to us to order what we want off the menu, or to take the sushi we want off the conveyor belt.

Why would God expect that of us? I’m so glad you asked. I believe there are two reasons.

First, he is honoring his promise to us. In Psalm 115:16, God declares, “The heavens are the heavens of the LORD, But the earth He has given to the sons of men.” This is the same commission he gave us in Genesis 1:26: he has delegated authority for what happens on this planet to us: he is asking for someone with that delegated authority to partner with him, to give him permission to do what he has indicated is his will to do. But he won’t go around our authority.

And second, he’s training us, as any good father will, for the job that we’re inheriting. We are heirs of the kingdom of Heaven, and if we don’t learn how to administrate the kingdom with little things (like believing him for the things that he has already promised), then we’ll never be ready for the work he’s planning for us.

This has the additional advantage of changing how our soul deals with things: if I’ve spent time in prayer on the topic, then it’s much easier for me to trust God in that area than if I’ve just seen it on the menu, and assumed that he’ll deliver it to my table.

So when you encounter a promise – whether in the Book or in a prophetic message – my recommendation is that you treat it like God has just described the “Specials of the Day” and order the ones that you want. 

A little bit of self disclosure. Or maybe an explanation.

You’ve probably already figured out that my first name isn’t actually “Northwest” and that I’m not really Gandalf the Grey. This is a “pen name”  (“A pen name, nom de plume, or literary double, is a pseudonym adopted by an author.” ~Wikipedia).

Pen names, of course, are not uncommon. Stan Lee (born Stanley Martin Lieber) to Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) and George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) all wrote under pen names, though for different reasons than I do, I’m sure.

Here’s a little insight into my reasoning:

●         For the vast majority of people who read my writing, there is no functional difference between knowing me as “Todd” or as “Nor’west.” Whether you know my name or not, you don’t actually know me. Knowing me only comes through relationship, not through names. Get to know me, and then you'll know me, regardless of the name you know me under.

●         Some people want to say, “But that doesn’t tell me anything about you!” Those people aren’t paying attention: knowing my name doesn't tell you anything about me either. On the other hand, a fair bit of my calling is to build up the prophetic gifts in the Pacific Northwest region of the US, the area that geologists and sociologists call Cascadia; that’s where the name comes from. Facebook wouldn’t take “Northwest” as a first name, so we go with “Nor’west,”a nautical term that means the same thing. That certainly says more about who I am than “Bill Smith” ever would.

(By the way: Note that my name is NOT “Nor’west Prophet.” I’m not naming myself a prophet. Too many people give themselves titles and offices; don’t count me among them, please.)

●         I’ve run into a fair number of people who want to know my name simply to exercise some sort of power over me, whether imagined or real. I’ve walked this walk long enough to know that the enemy of our soul is real, and has real followers. I’ve found enough sacrificed animals to decide I don’t want to be part of that stupidness.

●         I’m not, as some have feared, trying to accomplish some nefarious purpose with this pseudonym. If that were my goal, I’d need to do something nefarious, and no thank you. Besides, I don’t like doing things I’d need to repent of later. 

●         More important to me, I’ve watched many believers work for the Lord, but build up their own name. I’ve met so many “ministers,” who are quick with their business card, announcing that they’re the founder and apostolic leader of “Fredrick J. Fuffenfuffer Intergalactic Glory Network” or some such foolishness. It is my opinion that there’s only one Name that needs to be magnified, and let's acknowledge, it isn’t mine. 

●         Perhaps you’ve heard the stories about the children of Christian leaders? They’re called “PK’s” (Preacher’s Kids) or MK’s (Missionary’s Kids). One of my best friends growing up was a PK, and I watched as he lived up to (down to?) the nasty reputation surrounding the name. There is a stupid amount of social pressure placed on the children of known church leaders. I determined not to do that to my treasured children. Frankly, I think it’s sad how many amazing kids are sacrificed on the altar of a parent’s ministry or career or public image. My children are in full agreement with my anonymity and the reasons for it.

●         The only folks who are treated worse than PK’s are Pastor’s Wives. I’ve been a pastor much of my life. If you knew the treasure who is The Lady that has, at great personal cost, gloriously lived out her vows about “for better or for worse,” then you’d understand why I don’t care to force her, against her will, into a fleshly limelight that glorifies people instead of God. It’s repugnant to both of us. I will not knowingly ask more of this from her.

●         A few people have been concerned that I’m not accountable. That’s silly. I’m just not accountable to them. I have a number of godly men (and one beautiful bride) whom I trust completely, and to whom I make my life as open a book as I am able. I reserve that kind of relationship for folks who have walked many miles through stinky places with me, and I’m not actually looking for new accountability partners at this time. 

●         I’ll tell you how the Gandalf image came about: over the years. (I use his image as an avatar on Facebook and other social media sites.) Over the years, I’ve used a number of photos as avatars (http://on.fb.me/1119FTZ ); one time when I changed my image from Gandalf to something else, a lot of people fussed and wanted Gandalf back. OK, sure. Since Gandalf, like myself, has long hair and a big ol’ beard, and since he doesn’t come with all the social baggage of the other Bearded Guy (Hint: Ho, Ho, Ho!), I stuck with it.  I admit, I've been inconsistent, if only to save me from having to come up with new faces every few weeks. Besides, I love who Gandalf is in the books wherein he appears.

If you want to know more about me, then read what I write (I do write under this name for several blogs; they’ll generally post to Facebook automatically, so that is where you’ll find the biggest selection.) Feel free to dig through my archives in this blog and on Facebook, and read what I write about. Listen to see if God speaks to you there (that is, after all, the goal). Or you may ask other people about me (but please honor them [and me] enough to NOT ask them private details, like my name or my family life).

If you want to really know me, join in the conversation, though understand that I’ll be far more receptive to it in the public arena, particularly on ongoing threads on my wall. As a matter of policy (and honor for that treasured lady whom I mentioned earlier), I generally don’t engage in private conversation with women.

If all of this offends you, that’s actually OK, isn't it? God has given both of us a free will, and you’re completely free to choose not to be in relationship with a strange old guy with hidden face and a funny name. God bless you as you follow Him along the path He’s leading you on. This is the path He’s leading me on. I really like walking with him, so I’m going to stay on this path, because that’s where I find him. If any of the insights from my path help you on yours, then we’re both richer for it, aren’t we?

(This page is http://nwp.link/nwp_disclosure.
This article is adapted from here: http://bit.ly/NWPDisclosure

The Egotistical Nature of a Faulty Theology

I’ve come to suspect that it is one of the most egotistical and self-aggrandizing things we can do to declare that “God causes sickness in order to bring glory out of it.”

First cousin – and co-conspirator in this plot – is the slightly more timid version, “God allows sickness in order to bring glory out of it.”

My friend Joel Marius asks, “If you were a father, would you inject your kids with a disease to get some sort of glory from it?” to which the answer inevitably is “Dude? What kind of question is that? Of course not””

And of course, we’d all say the same.

But If I declare, “I will not do this, because it’s not the right thing for a father to do to his daughter,” and yet I hold that it’s something that God does to his daughters and sons, then I’ve just painted myself into a corner.

Logically, this leads me to one of three conclusions:

1)       We’re functionally declaring that we’re better parents than God is. Ya gotta have an epic ego to say you’re a better father than The Father. Or

2)       We’re accusing God of hypocrisy: things that would *obviously* be unthinkable for us to do are somehow magically morphed into good and helpful things when an omnipotent being performs the same crime. Or

3)       We’re mistaken, and God does not actually cause sickness.

I propose that we consider the third alternative. Sickness is not from God. Sure, he uses it for good; come on! he uses *everything* for good. That’s just who he is.

But the cause is not in God, and the permission is not in God.