This is another aspect of devotional Bible reading that we discussed on the podcast I mentioned yesterday.  How in the world can Bible reading be dangerous?  Let's see…
            I think the first danger might be that we stop with that kind of reading and never progress further.  Remember what we said yesterday about keeping a journal?  That journal should lead you to a more complete study, the kind that involves analysis, noting repeated words and phrases, looking up word meanings, making charts and lists and perhaps pulling out a few reference books.  Stopping with simple devotional reading is like stopping the meal after the appetizer.  It will also keep you firmly in the "milk" zone rather moving on to the meat.  (Pardon my mixed metaphors, at least they are all food!)
            Another danger is that your reading will become a mere mechanical habit.  Instead of reading slowly and stopping occasionally to consider a point or make a note to pursue later, it can easily turn into, "Read my Bible today—check!"  God's Word is precious.  Don't ever treat it like your toothbrush.
            A final danger is that our "Me" culture can easily get in the way.  When all I want is something that "resonates" with me, that makes me feel good, that brings a tear to my eye or makes the hair stand up on my head, my Bible reading has become about Me instead of the God I worship; about what I like, not what He says and I need to hear.  All of us need a challenge occasionally, or even a good swift (verbal) kick once in a while.  I need to read those too, and I must not make my likes and dislikes cause me to avoid certain parts of God's Word.
            As we discussed yesterday, devotional reading can be a good and helpful part of our lives as Christians.  Just be aware that, as always, Satan knows how to take even the good and twist it into something bad.  Even he quoted the Word of God.
            If you would like to hear the podcast, you can find it easily.  On Facebook search for "Working with the Word."  Go to that page and look for the post that has my name on it.  Click on that link and it will take you straight to my interview.  I can't say it's perfect by any means.  Most of these last two articles are things I wish I had said!  But maybe you will learn some other things and will find this podcast something you might like to listen to in the future.  In fact, you can search their Facebook page while you are there for other subjects you might be interested in and listen to them.  I am sure that Emerson Brown and Jeff O'Rear would appreciate your support.
 
They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading…They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading (Neh 8:8,12).          Dene Ward

Recently I was asked to record a podcast on Devotional Bible Reading.  It took me a few minutes to realize what they meant, despite the fact that I write daily devotionals.  My definition of this type of reading versus Inductive Bible reading, would be the reading we do more or less casually, usually on a daily basis, and with no real aim in mind beyond that.  Inductive reading, then would be more of a study method involving reference works and cross referencing other passages in the Bible, with some writing almost always included.  They didn't tell me I was wrong when I gave them those definitions so I'm sticking with them.
            At first thought, devotional Bible reading seems almost pointless, but now that I have actually thought about it, I can see several advantages.  First, it gets the Word into your head.  You would be surprised how many things I was taught incorrectly as a child.  I am sure the teacher just knew the narrative so well that she didn't bother to read it again and told what she had always heard or remembered.  That is exactly how errors get passed from generation to generation.  I remember the first time I discovered an error like this.  I had pulled down my Bible and actually read what it said.  I sat back in shock for several minutes.  Over the years I have discovered several more of these instances.  It isn't that we have false teachers in the church who deliberately set out to teach our children incorrect details.  It's that we are sometimes a little lazy and we know we know it so why bother taking the time to read it again?  Because you may not know what you think you know, that's why.
            Another advantage is the ingrained habit of reading the Word of God on a schedule.  Once you train yourself to do it, you generally keep on doing it even when times are rough and life is difficult.  While I do not believe in any sort of mysticism, I do believe in God's providential care.  Who knows but as you sit there reading that particular morning (or evening), you might come across something that is just what you need right then?  Sort of like assembling.  I do not remember a time in my life when I did not assemble with the saints on Sunday morning.  Even when my spirits were low and my spirituality suffered, I went out of habit.  But where was the best place for me at such a time in my life?  Right there where I might hear something I needed, or receive an encouragement that pulled me out of the pit.  The same can be true of a practiced habit of daily reading.  A passage may "speak" to you, even a familiar passage, like it never has before. 
            A third advantage may be that Devotional Reading might be easier to relate to your life at that moment.  When you are studying more deeply, you are looking up word meanings, studying customs and geography, and finding other pertinent passages.  The nuts and bolts of taking a passage apart can completely rip the fabric of application, while a more casual reading might instantly make sense for a problem you are currently facing.  I remember tearing a passage to pieces one day, then looking with satisfaction on my paper full of notes only to suddenly think, "So how does this help me tomorrow?"  It didn't actually.  I may have learned a few things, but it didn't help me live a bit better the next morning.
            A final advantage could be that it moves you on to that deeper study we have been contrasting it to.  Keep a journal beside you as you read.  It will help you keep track of where you've been, but you can also write down things to study more intently later on.  What does this word mean?  Is this character mentioned anywhere else in the Bible?  (Do you know who that king Absalom ran off to was?)  How far is this place from that place?  (Do you know how far Hannah was from Samuel after she took him to the tabernacle?)  How much money is this (that the Samaritan left to care for a perfect stranger or that the Christians were giving when they sold property in Acts 4)?  And then, just write down things that are bothering you that particular day or that you struggle with.  All of those things can lead you to a longer, and maybe more beneficial study at another time.
            If you aren't reading your Bible daily, I hope you will start.  Two men in the Bible were told to "eat" God's Word—Ezekiel and John (Ezekiel 2:8; Revelation 10:9).  It is our spiritual sustenance.  You really can't do without it.
 
​The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever. Princes persecute me without cause, but my heart stands in awe of your words (Ps 119:160-161).
 
Dene Ward

As I write today, which is probably a month or more before this posting, we are approaching three years since Mama left us for a better home.  It took over a year before I stopped thinking, "I need to call her and tell her about this."  It took even longer before the car stopped veering to that particular exit on the interstate.  And even now, friends still tell me they miss her as well, and share funny stories and a tear or two.
            We moved her up here when she was 87.  We were already dealing with our own age, health problems, and increasing disabilities so a five hour round trip to see about her even just once a month was becoming difficult.  Then after three years here, when living alone (her preference) even so much closer to us, was no longer safe for her, we had to go the assisted living route.  Her doctor said we lived too far from him and the hospital—about thirty miles out in the country.  Due to my Daddy's careful stewardship, we were able to find a good place in town, and between us and her church family, she was the most visited resident there.  We were told that she received more visits in a week than the rest of the community did in a year.  How sad is that for them? 
            We stopped by no less than twice a week, took her to every doctor appointment, and brought her out here for every holiday, Mother's Day, birthdays, and a few others days for good measure.  Let's be honest here:  it was wearing; it was time-consuming; it was inconvenient; it was expensive—especially the gas!  But so was I, not for a mere four and a half years as it turned out, but for 20!  Which doesn't count all the continuing worry parents feel after you are out on your own.
            When, after two weeks, it became apparent that particular hospital stay was going to be the last, I had only one last thing I could do for her.  I moved myself into her hospital room for four days, and then into her hospice room for the final four.  Sleep was impossible.  Eating depended upon whether anyone had brought something by.  I talked to her.  I answered the hard, almost impossible questions.  I held her head up for a sip of water and fed her yogurt—the only thing she could stomach—a quarter teaspoon at a time, a couple of bites at a time.  In the end, I just held her hand and waited for the last breath.  It was my final gift to her and I will always be grateful I could give it.
            But she gave me a final gift as well.  In those last four and a half years, I got to know her as a person, not just Mama.  I found out what a marvelous sense of humor she had.  She kept people in stitches—sometimes in the middle of church services!  She was full of compassion, especially for the people everyone else look down on.  She was friendly—I could leave her in a waiting room while I paid the bill and made her next appointment only to come out and find her chatting away with a perfect stranger, then wishing her well in her upcoming surgery as we left!  That's how close she had gotten in five minutes.  She shared with me stories I had never heard before—about her childhood, dating Daddy, and her early married years, a treasure trove I will always have. 
            And now I have great memories—of a person, not just a parent.  Perhaps too many of us expect perfection from a parent and cling to their mistakes, while we might more easily forgive a fellow human being for simply being "human."  In those last few years my mother apologized again and again for not being her idea of the "perfect mother."  I had to shush her with constant reassurances.  All those years ago she had to learn to be a Christian, a wife, and a mother all at the same time without the blessing of "growing up in the church."  Mistakes she made were more than understandable. 
           As she lay on her deathbed, she still worried about me.  "Get some sleep," she would say, not realizing that she had her days and nights turned around and I was up with her every 15 minutes all night long.  And she asked if I thought Daddy was still waiting for her.
            "Of course he is," I told her, "and right now he's getting pretty excited."
            All those gifts I would not trade for the world.  Don't throw away your chance to receive the same.  You will never regret it.
 
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home (John 19:26-27).
 
Dene Ward

I see one Bible study mistake made over and over and even by seasoned professionals—mixing up their metaphors.
            By this I do not mean what is usually meant in grammar class, using two different and unrelated metaphors in the same phrase of an analogy.  Like this one:  "That's awfully thin gruel for the right wing to hang their hats on."  (MSNBC, September 3, 2009).  Rather, what we refer to here is assuming that every Biblical metaphor means the same thing in every context.  Prime example:
            For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Heb 5:12-14)
            So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation-- (1Pet 2:1-2)
            I don't know how many times I have heard these two passages equated just because babies and milk are mentioned in both.  Here is the problem:  they speak of two entirely different issues and if you don't separate them, you miss half the teaching. 
        In the Hebrews passage, the writer rebukes those who have not progressed in their knowledge of the word.  They are still babies who need milk.  They ought to have matured into adults who can handle a T-bone steak, but they cannot.  They have not "trained their powers of discernment."  In this case, the milk is the first principles, the ABCs of being a Christian, the easy stuff, and being a baby is something you definitely do not want to be.
           Peter, on the other hand, says we should desire the spiritual milk in the same way an infant desires its mother's milk.  The "baby" in this passage is a good example, not a bad one.  We have all seen a hungry infant open its mouth and grunt for that milk over and over until it is fed.  All of us are supposed to be like that little baby, hungering for the spiritual milk, no matter how long we have been Christians.  In this case, the metaphor is about hunger, not just for the Word but for all spirituality, and the baby is something you want to be. 
           These two passages may use some of the same words, but they are not about the same thing.  All it takes is a little slow reading of the entire context, and then maybe a little thought—pretty obvious thought as a matter of fact.  Perhaps one could even call it "milk."
           Here's another one:
          According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. (1Cor 3:10-13)
          Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. (2Tim 2:20-21)
          This one is a little trickier.  Both passages mention gold, silver and wood, along with a few other materials.  However, in the Corinthian passage, Paul uses the various building materials to say that all of us are different.  We each use whatever our abilities are to build on the spiritual foundation.  Some of us have greater abilities than others, but God will be the judge of how we use those abilities.  Being a "wood" disciple is not necessarily bad as long as we are doing what we can with that wood.  The analogy here is our various abilities, a subject he will eventually come back to in chapter 12, using the body as his analogy.
          However, in the Timothy passage, we are talking about pots, and what the pot is made of determines whether it is honorable or dishonorable.  He goes on to say that we will be honorable vessels, i.e., gold or silver, if we cleanse ourselves, making ourselves suitable for God's use.  We will be dishonorable, wood or clay, if we don't.  Do you see the difference in how this metaphor is used?  In the first, wood is not necessarily wrong, but in the second it is definitely wrong.
          These are not the only two by a long shot.  In one place Christ is the foundation; in another the apostles are.  Stop tying yourselves in knots and just realize that you are using figurative, not literal, language—metaphors, in this case.  The way some people go on, you would think Jesus and the apostles were real stones!  Separate your metaphors rather than mixing them and you will come much closer to the truths they are trying to teach you, without missing any of them.
 
Dene Ward

A certain young lady I know can name all the kings of Israel and Judah in order.  Her classmates in Bible class, whom I suppose were embarrassed that they could not do the same thing, told her, "All you know is a bunch of useless information."  Let me tell you something:  nothing in the Bible is useless information.  If you cannot use it now, someday when you learn a little more and dig a little deeper, I guarantee it will come in handy.
            Do you want an example?  A scholar named L. R. Helyer has pointed out that the Eastern cultures have an eastern orientation.  In other words, they face east to determine direction, while we Occidentals tend to face north to do the same thing.  Do you remember when Abraham and Lot separated because their flocks were too large to dwell side by side (Gen 13)?  Abraham stood in the Promised Land and said, "Do you want the left or the right?"  Abraham would have been facing east when he did that, and he would have meant, "Do you want the north or the south?"  And by that he meant the northern or the southern half of the Promised Land.  Abraham, to whom the promise was given, was generous enough to share that land with his nephew.  So what was Lot's choice?
            "But Lot journeyed east" [completely out of the land].  These four words ring increasingly ominous as the story continues.  But notice, even here, the distinction that is made between Abram who settled in the land of Canaan and Lot who settled among the cities of the valley.  "It is clear from [Gen 13:12] that the territory chosen by Lot lies outside the borders of Canaan" (Growth of the Seed, Nathan Ward). 
            If the story of Genesis is the choosing of the line of the Messiah—which I believe it is—here is one reason Lot was rejected from that line.  He wanted a land that looked well-watered and fruitful, even if it contained the most wicked heathen of the time, rather than trusting the promises of God and staying in the Land.
            BUT—would you have ever known that if you had not known about the eastern orientation of the Oriental peoples?  Would you have ever realized the significance of the choice he was offered versus the choice he made if you hadn't noticed that it was "the left or the right?"
            Now think a little more.  Is that orientation the reason the tabernacle and, ultimately, the Temple, faced east?  I don't know, but maybe it's something worth considering.  In fact, maybe any mention of direction might be worth studying yet again to find its significance, if any.
            If God had it recorded for us, it isn't useless.  In some fashion it will add to our knowledge and appreciation of him.  If I can't figure it out yet, it's up to me to work at it, not look down on someone who has gone to the trouble of learning as much as possible, even if it does not appear pertinent at the moment.
            Details matter.  Don't discard them like so much rubbish.
 
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (Matt 5:18)
 
Dene Ward

Just as we should know some basics about Hebrew in order to avoid making foolish errors in our reasoning, we should know at least a little about Greek, the language of the New Testament.  So let's learn a little something about it.
            First, at the time of the New Testament, Greek was written in uppercase letters only.  That's important because too many times I have heard people in Bible classes say something like, "Well, it has to be talking about the Holy Spirit because it's capitalized."  ALL the letters are capitalized.  In fact, in our culture we would be thinking that God is yelling at us, which of course He isn't, though I am sure He would like to fairly often.  When the translators see the word "SPIRIT" they must make the decision whether it means the Deity or an attitude, like school spirit or a spirit of unity.  These men are often so reverent that when they are not certain which it means, they will capitalize it to make sure they do not insult the Holy Spirit.  That was the mindset of the very early translations and translators, a wonderful mindset to be sure, but one that can and has often caused misinterpretations.  Be careful with those capital letters and don't make any arguments based upon them.
            Second, no spaces existed between words and there was no punctuation.  In the classic example, imagine you saw this sentence:  ISAWABUNDANCEONTHETABLE.  Now, is that "I saw a bun dance on the table," or "I saw abundance on the table?"  The translators go primarily by context as well as common sense.  I have never seen a bun dance on the table, neither the waltz nor the polka, but I have seen many feasts where indeed there was abundance on the table.  That's why the translators are acknowledged scholars.  They are used to handling that ancient language and all its peculiarities.
            The point about punctuation is also important.  Everyone knows that Paul had a penchant for long sentences, as in Eph 1:3-14.  That is one sentence.  The newer versions cater to our culture's desire for what I call "business writing"—short sentences that are simple to read and understand.  That's fine in business writing.  It is NOT fine when we are discussing important and profound subjects.  You should always keep an older version handy when you are studying from a new one (NIV, ESV, etc.) so you know exactly what was written and see the connections.  If your version includes a phrase or words four sentences later that were actually in the original one sentence, you may miss those connections.  Yet these are the markers for the beginning and end of a thought. Yes, it is more difficult to read and comprehend a long sentence, but this is your soul we are talking about.  You are supposed to be so deeply interested in these things that you will pore over them for hours, not give them a quick scan and move on.  The New Testament is not a collection of sound bites!
            Now about those italics.  Words written in Italics are supposed to be words "not actually in the Greek."  Many times those words are implied or even necessary to the Greek word they support, another thing those scholars know that we don't.  (If you took Latin in high school like I did, this probably makes perfect sense to you.)  When we say, "That italicized word is not there," a majority of the time (one scholar told me 99%), we are wrong.  It has to be there because of the word choice by the author. Please be careful when you start spouting off about a language you neither understand nor speak
            Having said all this about Hebrew and Greek, remember that very few points can be made from those languages that cannot be made from any language, including English. Our loving God would never have left us with something we could not understand and follow when He planned to judge us by it.
           
Dene Ward

(I received some help from a couple of friendly scholars on this and the next Study Time post.  Any errors are not theirs, but my own misunderstandings and ignorance.)
            No one expects you to be a Bible scholar, but let me ask you this.  What is your favorite pastime?  Sewing?  Cooking?  Baseball?  Golf?  And what do you do with those things?  Maybe you subscribe to a certain magazine.  Maybe you watch certain TV shows or sporting events.  Maybe you read books on the subject.  Whatever it is you enjoy, you spend time learning more about it, don't you?  Maybe not as much as a professional, but certainly more than the average Joe—or Josephine.  Not only do you enjoy being able to talk about it, you do not want to look foolish when you can't even define the basic terminology or know the rules of the game.
            So in that spirit, as Christians, disciples of the Lord, children of the Father, we should want to know the basics about certain subjects.  We certainly ought to know the Handbook inside and out.  I would hope I don't need to even mention that, but what about the original languages it was written in?  If we don't know the ABCs, so to speak, we may make some embarrassing errors or worse, lead someone astray with faulty arguments.
            I don't know Hebrew.  I don't read Hebrew.  It all looks like chicken scratch to me.  But over the years I have learned a few things about it.
            First, you read it right to left, not left to right as we do.  That means when you have a book written in Hebrew you will read it back to front.  I suppose to Hebrew readers it is front to back and we are the ones doing it back to front, but you get my point.  The first time I picked up a Hebrew book and found the title page in the back (front to them) it really threw me for a loop.  You ought to find one just so you have that experience.
            Second, there were no written vowels in Hebrew for centuries.  Some liberal scholars have tried to make hay with this.  Just imagine English without vowels.  The word "RD" would give you fits.  It could be read, red, rad, raid, road, rod, rid, ride, rude, and maybe a few others.  Some people have done their best to make it seem that knowing exactly what the Hebrew says is impossible, but they are wrong.  All those centuries ago the common people did not have access to written scrolls.  They were read aloud to the people, people who could memorize at the drop of a hat—it was their culture to do so.  The tradition of how a word was read was passed down through the years. They would have instantly known it when someone tried to put a different word in there. 
            Along came the Masoretes who developed a system of "pointing" around the consonants to indicate which vowel went where.  In addition to that, Origen, one of the so-called Church Fathers, included the transliteration of the Hebrew Bible into Greek when he compiled six Ancient versions of that Bible in the second century AD (the Hexapla).  In many places these match what later became the written vowels in the Masoretic text, further validation of the Old Testament we have today.
            Another interesting thing is word groups.  Most Hebrew words are based on a three letter root, which is easily seen even when transliterated into English letters.  For example, Shalom, Solomon, Jerusalem, and Shulamite are all SLM words, which tells you they are related somehow.  I have no idea how many roots there are, but I bet I can find quite a few now that I know that little trick.
            The last thing I want to mention is the use of repetition in the Hebrew language.  While there are a few intensifying words, they are rare.  The Hebrew language prefers to use word order and repetition to create emphasis.  The "(singular) of (plural)" repetitive construction will often be used, as in "Lord of Lords" and "King of Kings."  It doesn't actually say "Most Holy Place" in all those passages about the tabernacle and the Temple.  It says, "Holy of Holies."  If your Bible includes a "most," that is the translator's decision because that is how we would ordinarily say it in English.  The point is this:  repetition equals emphasis in the Old Testament.  "Abraham, Abraham" would have gotten that patriarch's attention much more readily than a single "Abraham," sort of like using all three of your child's names when you are angry with him.  Be careful when you try to make some point involving these phrases or the fact that words are repeated.  "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord," does not mean you are required to say "Holy" three times whenever you refer to God.  That was their way of saying, "The Lord is the Most Holy."
            I hope these little nuggets of information have interested you enough to learn a little more on your own.  You can never know too much about the Word of God.
            Next time we'll talk about Greek.
 
Dene Ward

Is there anything more satisfying for a grandparent than being allowed to babysit for several days while Mom and Dad are out of town?  Absolutely not.  It may wear me out, but it's a good kind of tired, the very best in fact.
            Four year old Judah has a stuffed tiger he has lugged around since he could carry anything.  It started out about the same size as he was at birth, but seems to have suffered a little stuffing-porosis.  He is limper and his body parts seem a bit more disjointed, as if someone had hugged on him for years, mashing him into whatever odd posture it took for him to lie cheek to cheek with a loving little towhead.  He is still cute—a long head at least half the size of his body with a cartoon-dufus face and a big black nose.  His stripes these days are a little more pale yellow and gray than orange and black, but there is no mistaking what he is:  a four year old's favorite "buddy."
          Sometime this past year, the tiger got a name—Lucky.  Lucky makes it out of the bed every morning and though he is often cast aside as his small master plays during the day, he always makes it back to bed.  And for some reason, he makes it to the table too. 
          When we were there this past babysitting stint, as we joined hands to pray over our meal, Lucky, for the first time, had his paw held too.  Judah very carefully held on to one paw and laid Lucky out across the large table so his Granddad could grasp the other paw and complete the circle.  "Ah," I thought.  "Something in that little four year old mind has changed.
            If you pooh-pooh your child's favorite buddy, you are missing something important.  I may not be a child psychologist, but I did have my own imaginary friends when I was growing up, so I know a thing or two about this.  Those imaginary friends are anything but imaginary to your little one.  They are best friends.  They protect.  They comfort.  They listen.  They even talk.  Why, Lucky even played a hand of "Go Fish" while we were there.  This is your child's first close relationship with someone not family.  He is learning what it means to be a friend, to be loyal, and to love as friends love.  So when something becomes important to your child, he wants to share it with that special friend. 
           Because Judah sees us praying, because he sees his mom and dad pray, because he sees a room full of friendly faces praying every week, he has learned that praying is important.  What concept does he have of God at this age?  Probably the usual, "God made me-God loves me" impression that most toddlers who have been to church since they were born have.  That doesn't matter.  What does matter is that he wants to share his understanding with his special friend.  It is a normal part of his life, his little brain is thinking, so naturally Lucky would want to do this too.  If he can play Go Fish, certainly he can pray.
           "It's a normal part of his life."  That is important.  Your child should see you interacting with God on a daily basis--in prayer, in study, in family discussions, in decisions you make.  That is how you instill faith in him.  If he grows up seeing these things, more than likely, he will do them too.  And since he believes his little friend can do exactly what he can do, letting Lucky pray will validate in his little mind--even though he has no idea what those words mean--both his relationship with his friend Lucky and his relationship with God.  If you disregard Lucky, whom he can see, how in the world can you expect him to believe in a God he doesn't yet know how to see?  Letting Lucky pray will make God become as real to him as Lucky already has, and eventually, the only real one of the two. 
           And it may all start if you just reach your hand out and grasp a well-loved paw over the dinner table.
 
But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, (Ps 103:17)
 

During my childhood when we lived near the Gulf Coast about forty miles south of Tampa, we often went to Anna Maria Island to swim.  The beach there was the usual white sand, blue-green water beach, but unusual in that it was nearly empty of tourists.  Every hundred feet or so, low concrete walls divided the beach into sections, with huge rocks piled around them from the edge of low tide to the edge of high tide.  It was like having our own private beach.  A few other local families came as well, but if at all possible, we left one "beach" between us—it was an unspoken rule.  After a day of swimming, floating, playing tag with the waves, and building sand castles, Daddy pulled the grill and the charcoal out of the trunk of the car, and we ate hamburgers as the big orange sun set into the Gulf.
            The sea always seemed alive to me as a child.  For one thing it breathed, or it sounded like it in the night as wave after wave crashed onshore.  If you stood in the shallows where the waves came up to your ankles, as it receded again, you could feel the sand under you shifting, the water pulling it out from beneath your toes, the balls of your feet, even your heels, like a critter trying to escape.  And then there was the sand.  When I got home I could never figure out how it got in all those places, despite tight elastic. 
            There was yet another thing I could never figure out as a child, not being too adept at physics and water mechanics, and that was how you could do absolutely nothing to propel yourself in the ocean water and still wind up far away from where you started.
            I do not recall ever having to worry about jellyfish, red tide, or sharks.  So my favorite thing to do was grab an air mattress and lie on it, well past the breakers, floating up and down, up and down on the swells, nearly falling asleep in the heat and gentle rocking.  But after one particularly scary moment, I learned not to lie there too long without checking my bearings.  My mother's beach towel had been right there, straight in front of my floating hammock, and now, suddenly, it was way back there, a good fifty feet up the beach.  The surf was smooth, the winds calm, and I had not used my arms and legs to push myself in any direction at all, yet there I was, far, far away from my safety zone.  It usually took a good amount of effort to get back where I started.
            And of course that leads us to the usual old warning about drifting.  Drifting happens when you don't realize it.  When your life is in an upheaval, when you undergo trials and temptations, usually you will be on the lookout.  But when things seem calm and routine, your spirituality can get away from you before you realize it.  A good warning still, but one that may have grown too banal and underwhelming.
            So, I wondered, trying to make this warning mean something again, why do we drift?  And that's when I found this:  Therefore I will scatter them like drifting straw to the desert wind. (Jer 13:24)  With just a little research I found out that was referring to the chaff the grain thresher is trying to rid himself of when he tosses the grain up into the breeze.  Really?  Yes; we drift like chaff on the breeze when we become useless to God.
            So then I looked at that Jeremiah passage again.  He may have been talking to Judah, the people of the southern kingdom who had finally become wicked enough for God to destroy, but can I become just as useless?  With some trepidation, I checked the context.
            They had become haughty (v15ff).  They were great, not because God had blessed them, but because of their own hard work, they were sure.  Or else it was because of these exciting new gods they worshipped instead. 
           They had not taken responsibility for the ones God placed in their care (v 20).  Their wealth was not something to share with the needy, but something to wallow in, fulfilling their own desires with no thought for anyone else.  They would even hurt the helpless in order to increase that wealth.
          They no longer recognized their own failings (v 22).  God's prophets were run off, imprisoned and killed for daring to tell them the truth.
           They had become accustomed to evil (v 23).  Used to it.  Inured to the filth all around them.  In another place Jeremiah says they had forgotten how to blush.
           They had removed God from their lives (v 25). 
           Sexual sin ran rampant among them (v 27). 
         If you cannot see our culture in this description, you are in danger of drifting too, because the first symptom may be to no longer recognize the difference between good and evil.  And when we become complacent, satisfied in our own spirituality regardless of the fact that we no longer cringe at foul language, blush at filthy jokes, nor live completely different lives from our neighbors, we might as well join them. 
        But, we are similarly in danger when we think that because we don't behave like them then God owes us for our faithfulness and holy living.   We are lying on exactly the same raft, drifting away from the shore, or, in the metaphor of Jeremiah, just as useless to God as the chaff drifting away in the wind.
            Drifting—maybe it's more dangerous than we ever thought before.
 
The wicked are not so, But they are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the wicked will perish. (Ps 1:4-6)
 
Dene Ward