We fill-in-the-blank with a wide variety of things for a whole host of reasons, but today I want to talk about giving to charities. I saw a discussion on an INFJ Facebook group several months ago asking which charities other INFJs support. INFJs are considered one of the “save the world” personality types, as evidenced by the fact that two of the most famous INFJs were Mother Theresa and Gandhi. Many of the INFJ profiles you’ll read online talk about how INFJs often find work in non-profits and support charities. But even among a group of INFJs, there were plenty of people talking about the fact that they never donate to anything.
Now, there are perfectly understandable reasons for not giving money and I would never suggest you donate money that you don’t have. But if you have the means and desire to help, excuses like “I don’t trust charities” or “I don’t have the time” don’t hold up well in my mind. You can donate your time and money within your own community so you can see exactly what effects your efforts are having. There are also charities with good reputations who use their money wisely — you just have to look for them. And after that initial time-outlay of finding a charity you like, getting online to send money takes about a minute.
Personally, I like to sponsor children. I use Unbound, but as far as I know Compassion International is a great option as well. This is the perfect fit for me for several reasons:
I’m making a difference now, on an individual level for this child and their family
I’m affecting the future, because children become the adults that shape their countries
I get to build a relationship with the people I’m helping, through letter-writing
I guess the main thing I want to do today is encourage you to think about the impact you’re having on this world for good. It can be in any number of ways — serving in our church groups, going out of your way to make someone smile, donating money or food stuffs, volunteering your time, sponsoring a child … the list just goes on and on. I want to leave you with a quote from C.S. Lewis that convicted me to start finding more ways to give, though I still think I fall short by these standards.
I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc, is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charitable expenditure excludes them.”– C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
It seems that Christians are often suspicious of feelings. And why shouldn’t we be? After all, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9). We can’t understand our own hearts, so how can we trust anything they tell us?
I’ve suspected for some time that our feelings may be more important to our relationship with God than some people like to admit, but I wondered if my own tendency to favor intuition and feelings in decision-making was coloring my thinking. Then I noticed a verse in my King James study Bible that talked about people seeking the Lord “if haply they might feel after Him” (Acts. 17:27). When you look at the Greek this doesn’t really havemuch to do with emotions, but it did prompt a more in-depth study about how much we can trust our hearts and feelings.
New Hearts
When we talk about our “hearts” in the Bible, the Hebrew word is lebab (H3824). The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Harris, Gleason, and Waltke describes this word as “the richest Biblical term for the totality of man’s inner or immaterial nature.” It refers to someone’s personality, and primarily includes their emotions, thoughts, and will. Any sort of feeling — positive and negative — can be attributed to the heart.
The passage in Jeremiah 17 which tells us our hearts are deceitful and wicked also tells us that the Lord is able to know, search, and try our hearts (Jer. 17:9-10). As the only one Who can really understand what’s going on in our innermost self, God is also able to effect changes inside us at a heart-level.
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. (Ezk. 36:26-27)
Our hearts can be changed. They don’t have to stay wicked and untrustworthy. That doesn’t, however, mean we can follow our hearts all the time once we’re in a relationship with God. David walked “in integrity of heart” and God called him “a man after My own heart, who will do all My will” (1 Kings 9:4; Acts 13:22), yet he still sinned by acting on his feelings for Bathsheba.
Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life. (Prov. 4:23)
Even when God is working with our hearts, we still have an obligation to keep and guard our inner selves. We have the Holy Spirit in us, but we’re also still human. While our gut instincts and feelings are more likely to be right when we’re in covenant with God, we could still be deceived by our hearts.
Reach Out
Let’s go back to that verse I mentioned in Acts. It’s part of Paul’s sermon in Athens.
And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ (Acts 17:26-28)
In the Greek, the phrase “grope for” (NKJV) or “feel after” (KJV) is translated from the word pselaphao (G5584). This word is derived from a root that means “to touch lightly,” and here in Acts if means to feel or touch and object. The picture it paints is of us reaching out, searching for God like someone feeling around in the dark to find another person.
By night on my bed I sought the one I love; I sought him, but I did not find him. “I will rise now,” I said, “And go about the city; in the streets and in the squares I will seek the one I love.” I sought him, but I did not find him.” (Song 3:1-2)
Since we’re not going to find God by waving our hands around and reaching for something physically tangible, I imagine this “feeling after” God takes place in our hearts. This brings us right back to the idea of emotions, thoughts, and the immaterial parts of us.
I’m reminded of a conversation I had with a friend some years ago about what role emotions have in our faith. One of the questions that came up was, “What does the Holy Spirit in us feel like, if it’s not a feeling?” It’s an appeal to probability fallacy to , but it illustrates a point — we instinctively sense that the immaterial part of us will be involved in noticing the immaterial Spirit of God.
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.” (John 14:23)
In Acts 17, Paul told those who were “feeling after” God that “He is not far from each one of us.” Here in John, Christ tells us that both He and His Father will dwell with an inside of Their people via the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-18). Talk about being close to someone! We “live and move and have our being” in Them, and They live inside us. That’s the most intimate relationship you’ll ever have with anyone.
For in Him [Jesus] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. (Col. 2:9-10)
Being in relationship with God makes us complete. He strengthens our weaknesses, makes wise our foolishness, and quiets our anxieties. When we go looking for God and cling tightly to Him, the change He can and will work inside us on a spiritual, emotional, and mental level is astonishing. It transforms us to the core of our being, including our feelings.
The latest issue of Femnista is now online — and I have an article in it! The theme is Swashbucklers. My article’s about Robin Hood, and there are others for Blackbeard, The Princess Bride, The Three Musketeers, Zorro, Shipwrecked, The Scarlet Pimpernel, and Jack Sparrow. Do us a favor and check them out 🙂
In the world of fictional typology, Sherlock Holmes is typically cited either as the perfect example of an INTP or as a notoriously difficult charter to type. Some writers say this difficulty is because the character displays aspects of several different types (including INTJ and ISTP) due to the writers’ ignorance of Myers-Briggs theory.
While this may be partly true, I think we can pin-down a single best-fit type for most portrayals of Sherlock Holmes in film and television (I’m not covering the original stories in this post). Rather than showing several different personality types, the different portrayals of Sherlock Holmes show how much variation there can be within a single personality type.
INTP Traits
The personality type that fits most film and movie portrayals of Sherlock best is INTP. The function stack for this type is this:
Introverted Thinking (Ti)
Extroverted Intuition (Ne)
Introverted Sensing (Si)
Extroverted Feeling (Fe)
This means that Sherlock first approaches the world with a judging attitude that is focused inward and relies on impersonal analysis. Ti prefers to internalize observations and work with abstract ideas. It “values facts chiefly as illustrative proofs of the idea,” and rejects things that seem irrelevant (Myers, Gifts Differing, p.78). This would explain why BBC’s Sherlock didn’t bother to remember that the earth goes around the sun. Read more →
So many people, across every Christian denomination, are becoming fed-up with church. Last week, we talked about how part of the reason people say they leave the church is how badly they were treated by fellow believers. Another reason people give for leaving, or at least rejecting “organized religion,” is how they’ve been treated by the ministry.
I’ve been blessed in that I’ve had both good and bad experiences with people in ministry roles. I know others who have only seen exploitative, authoritarian, or otherwise bad examples of the ministry. To keep hold of our faith, sometimes we have to be able to look past men like this and cling fast to God. We can’t fall into the trap of blaming Him for what people do. In fact, He’s probably upset even more upset than we are. How would you feel if someone started mis-treating your children while saying that they served you?
Seeing so many examples of what the ministry shouldn’t be leads some to think perhaps there shouldn’t be a ministry or human leadership roles in the church at all. There are too many scriptures that talk about the proper role of ministers, though, for me to agree. Rather, it make me ask, “Ideally, what does God want the ministry to do?” and “How can we recognize a true minister?” If we can answer those questions, perhaps we can encourage the people who do have leadership and teaching abilities towards being the kind of ministers God wants so see. Perhaps some of us can even fill those roles.
Puts Christ First
Jesus Christ is the Head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:22) and the Head of each individual (1 Cor. 11:3). A true minister will acknowledge Christ as his Head, and also respect Christ’s role as your Head.
Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand. (2 Cor. 1:24)
Good ministers also recognize that any authority they do have comes from Jesus. He is the One who appoints ministry roles in order that His people might grow towards perfection and be edified in unity (Eph. 4:11-16).
And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry (1 Tim. 1:12)
I dare say no one has had an experience quite like Paul’s conversion and calling, but everyone in a ministry role owes their appointment to Jesus Christ. If their allegiance lies anywhere else, then they are not a true minister. As believers we cannot build on any foundation other than Jesus Christ, and as teachers we cannot lay any other foundation and expect to prosper (1 Cor. 3:11-13).
Not A “Hireling”
I’m of two minds regarding the paid ministry. One the one hand, it is clear in scripture that the people who serve God’s people are supposed to be supported by the brethren. On the other hand, it seems that (in the church as well as in the world) the more money involved the more likely people are to become corrupt.
If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:11-14)
Paul did not choose to live off the churches’ money and generosity, but he would have had every right to do so. Similarly, when Jesus sent the 70 out to preach He told them to dwell as guests in one house “eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages” (Luke 10:7). Paul uses the same phrase in 1 Timothy when explaining why elders deserve respect (1 Tim. 5:17-18).
( Paul Woods, via Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA)
The problems are more likely to arise, I think, when ministers are hired and paid by a corporation rather than supported by their local churches. To be fair, I have seen good and bad ministers in both independent and corporate churches, but I do think the corporate ministry is more likely to attract more of the sort of people who are in it for the prestige, politics, and paycheck.
But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. (John 10:12-13)
Again, I want to stress that not all paid ministers have this attitude. I do think, however, that a system in which ministers are dependent on a corporate group for money and assignments rather than being connected to a local congregation is more likely to produce “hirelings” who are not invested in truly caring for Christ’s sheep.
Helpers of Your Joy
We already quoted 1 Corinthians 1:24, which describes the ministry’s role as “fellow workers for your joy.” The King James Version renders this “helpers of your joy.” There are times for correcting those who teach other doctrines and rejecting heretics “after the first and second admonition,” as Paul told Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 1:3-8; Tit. 3:10-11). Discipline and rule is not a minister’s main role, though. A minister’s influence in a congregation should bring joy and peace. If someone needs corrected, it should be done with the respect due a family member (1 Tim. 5:1-2).
When Paul gives instructions to Timothy and Titus, he tells them to remind the brethren of our foundation in Christ, to teach and encourage, to exercise godliness, to shun profanity and nonsense, and to live peaceably (1 Tim. 4:6-7; 2 Tim. 2:14-16; Tit. 2:1-15). Basically, they were to do what Paul himself did — teach the brethren and equip them with the tools needed so they could draw closer to God and not “be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3).
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. (Phil. 2:12-13)
Notice that Paul wanted this church group to be able to work toward salvation without his help or presence, recognizing that it was God who worked in them. This didn’t eliminate the need for Paul’s role, but it meant they weren’t supposed to be dependent on any human minister. Other believers, including the ministry, can help us on the road to salvation, but they are not the One “who works in you” (1 Cor. 3:4-11).
That is the key to what make a true minister — they seek God first, and do everything they can to make sure the people they serve also seek God first and develop a relationship with Him. Really, it just means they are doing the same thing that every believer should be doing. They are showing love and helping their brethren in the best way they can using their specific gifts. There is much more to a minister’s role than this, but this is where everything has to start.
The House of the Seven Gables by Nathaniel Hawthorn was the book from my first Classics Club book spin. I was supposed to have it finished by January 5. I started it the last week of December, and didn’t finish until January 13. It wasn’t even that long, and I wasn’t reading anything else to distract me. I just found it terribly dull.
I had such high hopes for this book, since I didn’t dislike The Scarlet Letter,and my favorite English professor had told me this was the Hawthorne he taught in his American literature classes (I now half-suspect this was simply to convince students that British literature is more fun than American).
Top Reasons This Book Was Disappointing:
The author kept apologizing for his boring characters and plot. Page-space would have been better spent if he’d focused less on apology and more on actually making them interesting.
Hawthorn’s limited-omniscient narrator spent one. entire. chapter talking to a corpse. We all knew the character was dead, but the narrative voice just kept calling for him to rise up and get on with his schedule. Only one paragraph of this entire chapter was relevant to the plot.
The ending was happy. Usually I like happy endings, but when I’ve been miserable for the entire book, I expect at least a few characters to be miserable as well.
The House of the Seven Gables is a Gothic romance originally published in 1851, and set around the same time. It was the novel Hawthorne published after The Scarlet Letter, and never quite equaled its predecessor’s popularity. It was still plenty popular, though, and I found someone online comparing its reception in America to the UK’s reaction to Jane Eyre, which was published just 4 years earlier (and is a much better book, in case you were wondering).
I felt like this story wasn’t quite sure what it wanted to be. Sometimes it felt like a moral tale, sometimes like a supernatural story, sometimes like a revenge narrative, sometimes a class satire. But the moral is never really a clear part of the story, the apparently “supernatural” is meticulously explained, revenge just sort of happens by chance, and the class satire is only marginally more effective. Obviously it works for some readers, but not for this one.
. Please note that this is an affiliate link. This means that, at no additional cost to you, I will receive a commission if you click on the link and make a purchase.
Like An Anchor 