Welcoming the Present in Order to Move on From the Past

Personal transformation is challenged, and often thwarted, when we, or others, keep ourselves in the past.

When that happens, we—along with those who pigeonhole us into the person we used to be—are backward-invested rather than present-invested. What hope is there, then, of any future investment if we cannot even get past yesterday to today?

Warren Wiersbe has some great things to say about this, especially in regard to the Apostle Paul—a man who not only promoted, but also lived, the adage, “Don’t look back”:

“When he became a Christian, it was not the end for Paul, but the beginning.”

“And this experience continued in the years to follow. It was a personal experience (‘that I may know Him…’) as Paul walked with Christ, prayed, obeyed His will, and sought to glorify His name…now he had a Friend, a Master, a constant Companion!”

“There were things in Paul’s past that could have been weights to hold him back (1 Tim 1:12-17), but they became inspirations to speed him ahead. The events did not change but his understanding of them changed.”

“So, ‘forgetting those things which are behind’…means that we break the power of the past…We cannot change the past but we can change the meaning of the past.”

“‘To forget’ in the Bible means ‘no longer to be influenced by or affected by.’”

“Too many Christians are shackled by regrets of the past. They are trying to run the race by looking backward!….'The things which are behind' must be set aside and ‘the things which are before’ must take their place.”

I find it appropriate that Wiersbe titled the book in which these quotes appear, Be Joyful.

Because joy and freedom from our past are inextricably linked.

This freedom also entails paying no mind to those who, out of their own warped pride of needing to nurse old wounds, or out of ignorance that some people actually do change for the better, or because they feel jealous of or threatened by the improvements in our character, refuse to live in the present with us. 

And sometimes, they just don't like the "better" version of us! So be it. 

My husband once said, referring to the early months of my faith,

“I noticed the bus was leaving. And I wasn’t on it.” 

Thankfully, as he observed and was a benefactor of the positive difference in me, he eventually did get on the bus, about a year later. 

And that is where we both still find ourselves, side by side, having the best time ever in our lives, today, in the here and in the now. 

Copyright Barb Harwood

Individual and Group Humility Can Still Work Today

“I often reckon with the very fact that I was such a small pebble in a large stream of thousands and thousands of men who went to fight this war.” James Martin Feezel 

Jim Feezel was a U.S. Army veteran of World War II, who drove a tank that broke through one of the main Dachau concentration camp gates on April 29th, 1945. His action was one of the immeasurable acts that led to and made possible the freeing of 30,000 prisoners. 

This quote defines humility in a way not often observable today. 

Feezel reveals an understanding of himself and his place in the world as no less than or greater than the next person’s, but as one individual in a collective of individuals from all walks of life, political leanings and personal backgrounds, who had no problem working as a companion in attaining something so much larger than all of them. 

I believe this attitude, which to me conveys the idea that, although the soldiers were spread out in their platoons, most likely never to meet one another, they were convinced that each one of them was in it just the same. And that, all of them, though individually scattered across fields and forests, could, as one large force of unwavering integrity for the cause—each man in agreement on the big picture of what needs to happen—keep moving forward.

This attitude, so beautifully modeled, is what will still work today, given a chance. 

Jim Fezeel passed away on Thursday, October 15, 2020, at the age of 95. 

We thank you, James, for your service. Godspeed. 

Copyright Barb Harwood

Common Sense and Calm, Please

Joseph Epstein, in his collection of essays titled Narcissus Leaves the Pool, writes:

"The cultivated not only know a great deal but, more important, they know what is significant--they know, not to put too fine a point on it, what is really worth knowing.

Part of being a cultivated person is knowing what to forget...The cultivated person is good at the act of extrapolation: at imagining the unknown on the evidence of the known. He has a strong historical sense, so that he tends to be less impressed by the crisis of the week that agitates the news media, which they in turn use to agitate the rest of us. From his historical sense, he knows that this caravan has passed before, and that another, not very different one will pass through next week and another the week after that."

"The allegiance to common sense implies an automatic diminution of zeal."

The above quotes from Joseph Epstein could not be more applicable to our time.

Evil is a Privation of Good

The idea that evil is the absence of goodness has been shared and discussed by various authors, in various places.

Therefore, I cannot cite one person as being "the one" who arrived at this thought. 

However, who came up with it isn't as important as the idea itself, because I believe that this definition of evil as being the absence of something is the only definition of evil that even comes close to making any sense, or perhaps more appropriately, explains why "bad" things happen to "good" people, or why negative states of being can exist at all. 

Norm Geisler looks to Aquinas to formulate a conception of evil:

"Aquinas is quick to note that privation is not the same as absence. Sight is absent in a stone as well as a blind person. But absence in a stone is not privation. Privation is the lack of something that ought to be there. Since the stone by nature ought not to see, it is not deprived of sight as is a blind person. Evil then is the deprivation of some good that ought to be there." Norm Geisler

Author Keith Ogorek, in his book, A Clear View, expounds on the above:

"Evil is not something, but is rather a privation of a good thing that God has made."

He goes on to show how the following conclusion--drawn by many and used often in their opposition to God--is flawed:

1. God is the creator of everything.
2. Evil is something.
3. Therefore, God is the author of evil.

This is incorrect, according to Ogorek, in that evil is not a thing and therefore God did not create it.

"It is vital to have a right definition of good (because) it clarifies our understanding of evil. Recall that we said evil is a privation of good. Therefore, if we are unclear as to what is good, we will be unsure of what is evil." 

He goes on to make a great point about pantheism:

"This is the idea that the universe taken or conceived of as a whole, is God. So God is not an independent being. Rather the combined materials and forces that make up the world constitute God. In this view, God's nature is diminished while material nature is elevated, for we and everything around us possess some degree of 'goodness.' This view also suggests that God is not immutable or unchanging, for as matter decays, so does God." 

Jesus makes clear that all goodness derives from God--that nothing in and of itself is good (Mark 10:18). 

And if pantheism were true, that the world and people in it are inherently good, then logically speaking, why would evil even have a chance? This innate goodness would win the day, wouldn't you think? But when posed with this question, people don't have an answer because they can't comprehend a lack of goodness in anything, including themselves.

Scripture supports the view of evil as presented here by Geisler and Ogorek:

"Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good." Romans 12:9b

Because just as evil is the privation of goodness, goodness is the privation of evil. When we cling to goodness, we deprive evil a foothold.

"Never pay back evil for evil to anyone." Romans 12:17a

Because the only way to curtail or to end evil, is to stop it in its tracks. 

Evil as a lack of goodness directed at us ends when we do not retaliate. To lack goodness for the express purpose of creating evil, even when directed at a person who would legitimately seem to deserve it, only circulates more evil.

And I will say, justice (one of God's attributes) is not the dishing out of evil. A prison sentence, monetary fine, or a divorce granted due to the abuse (evil) perpetrated by a spouse are righteous consequences for a lack of living out goodness--in other words, for the living out of evil by choice. 

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12:21

Do not be overcome by a lack of goodness, but overcome a lack of goodness with good.



copyright Barb Harwood

C.S. Lewis: We Fear Because We Struggle

I came across this quote of C.S. Lewis today, a day on which I am once again at odds with God in regard to His peace, which I had received from Him earlier in the week regarding a matter, but which my wandering mind has managed to mess up. 

Here is the quote:

“Though we struggle against things because we are afraid of them, it is often the other way round—we get afraid because we struggle. Are you struggling, resisting? Don’t you think our Lord says to you ‘Peace, child, peace. Relax. Let go. Underneath are the everlasting arms. Let go, I will catch you. Do you trust me so little?’” C.S. Lewis

What do we struggle against, thereby instilling fear?

Family gatherings? Our being the scapegoat or outcast in our family? Holidays? Winter? Sickness? Gaining weight? Having an accident? Rejection? A political outcome which we don’t agree with and believe we cannot live with?

Think about it: because we struggle so in our attempt to prevent something coming true, the very daunting nature of our struggle infuses us with a fear of the outcome. 

We struggle, which can be a form of wanting and needing to control. 

The struggle becomes one of self versus another entity or person, and creates fear because we’ve put a value on either our ability to influence outcomes, or the very outcome itself (which can be magnified, in turn, by our sometimes dramatic imaginations and craving for excitement, even negative excitement). 

“I just can’t live with outcome A,” we say.

“Life will never be the same with outcome B.”

“I will never get relief from this situation. Everything I do fails. I'm running out of ideas.”

“So and so needs to listen to me or else such and such is sure to happen.” 

“The struggle regarding such and such is so difficult, I am afraid…..(fill in the blank).

To say “let go and let God” is no remedy and I wince every time I hear that phrase so patly tossed into the air like so many rose petals at a wedding. 

What C.S.Lewis is advocating is a relationship with God that is built up over years of going through thick and thin together, of growing in the knowledge of who, exactly, God is and the experiencing of personal transformations which God alone is capable of bringing about. 

In this context with God, we one day find ourselves trusting Him implicitly.

We no longer desire to trust ourselves, our situation, our country, our government, our family or our friends for what God alone is capable of: and that is our peace. 

I can confide in a dear friend. I can cry with my spouse and share my deepest frustrations. I can vote. I can advocate. 

But none of that can provide the peace that goes beyond understanding and removes fear: the peace of God that arrives with our trust.

When fear is removed through His peace, struggle, too, disappears, replaced by perseverance and confidence. 

We trust Him in the moment, and live those moments out, one at a time.

copyright Barb Harwood

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” Matthew 11:28-30.

Attitudes Change First Before Lasting Change is Realized

A familiar saying emblazoned on many greeting cards and bumper stickers reads,

"Be the change you want to see in the world." 

Since I've noted this credited to more than one person, I will refrain from providing its authorship. 

This gimmicky phrase, I've come to believe over the years since I first quoted it myself back in the early 90's, now falls flat as a warped and shallow platitude. After all, one man's change could be another man's being held back. I believe it also pits individual against individual in a quest for "change as I identify change," all in a context of self-aggrandizement.

But the slogan also misses a crucial point: that one cannot have change without a transformation of attitude. 

And attitude itself must also have a criteria in order for it to allow for the mutual respect required in order for the majority of folks to go forward in actual goodwill.

Paul Tournier, in his 1948 book, Escape from Loneliness, writes:

"The pressure of public opinion is everywhere toward division, competition, opposition...We realize therefore that individual efforts cannot suffice unless supported by a radical reform in popular attitudes. The whole philosophy of our age produces in modern men an independent, possessive, and vengeful spirit that sets them against one another...the result is the accumulation of suffering in discord..."

If the cause is attitude, and the solution is attitude, what then? 

How do we change from the attitude of cause to an attitude of solution? 

I would think it would be to adopt the opposite of what Tournier mentions above as being the cause: 

An other-centered attitude vs. a self-centered attitude
A non-threatened and non-easily-offended attitude vs. a possessive attitude
A forgiving, non-transactional attitude rather than a vengeful attitude

To get from the cause-of-problems attitude to the solving-problems attitude, we can ask ourselves, "Why?" 

Why am I controlling, critical and constantly self-justifying, never admitting where and when I, too, have been at fault? 

Why is it the other person, the other group, the other community, the other political party that is to blame? Why is it never, apparently, me? 

And why do we feel the need to assign blame before we can move on?

Answer honestly, and our attitudes begin to change. 

And as they do, so much of life will also begin to change, morphing into healing words and acts constructive of vibrant new beginnings and enduring grace-filled progress between mankind. 


copyright Barb Harwood

Reading to Learn Vs. Reading to Confirm What We Think We Already "Know"

The quote cited below not only applies to our approach to reading, but also to our listening and interacting with other people, and prompts us to ponder honestly whether we: 

Tend to think the worst of someone first, "confirming" our biased conclusions? 

Only surround ourselves with like-minded individuals, and expose ourselves only to like-minded journalism and social media so as to never feel challenged or perhaps threatened in the way we've always assumed things? 

Take the time to seek out original sources and scholarship based on the study of original sources, or curtly begin and end with what is easy, sounds good, or allows us to continue on feeling justified in how we have always lived and thought, or want to continue to live and think?

And finally, whether we, when all of the above is said and done, only read-into our material or person we are listening to our own stubborn "yeah butts," self-protective biases or excuse that "it just doesn't make sense" when in reality we are just lazy to do the muscular work of exploring an idea further so as to understand it.

To me, the question then becomes, "why interact with life at all if we've already made up our minds about it?"



E.D. Hirsch, Jr. writes, 


"It is pointed out that the main reason for studying texts, particularly, old ones, is to expand the mind by introducing it to the immense possibilities in human actions and thoughts--to see and feel what other men have seen and felt, to know what they have known. Furthermore, none of these expansive benefits comes to the man who simply discovers his own meanings in someone else's text and who, instead of encountering another person, merely encounters himself. When a reader does that, he finds only his own preconceptions, and these he did not need to go out and seek."
E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation, pp. 25-26.




copyright Barb Harwood