Crouching Worshipper, Hidden Servant

21 May

Good Sam GlassSubtitle: Why I Won’t Worship Jesus in Church Anymore

(I’ve been told that using that title for this post would drive up traffic. Lol. I replied that I was more concerned not to lay a stumbling block, than to generate traffic.)

 We are discussing “Worship” here. Such a powerful word. So critical… to God, to us, to our relationships with Him and with one another…

Ah, Gentle Reader, feel free to chuckle at me, if you will…

I have tried now, three times, to type this post “my own way”. The first time, well along the way, the Lord trashed it. I went to “Save Draft” and got that annoying message: “Something went wrong here, do you want to retry?” And when I retried, I’d lost everything after the first paragraph. The next two attempts just wouldn’t go anywhere, and I trashed them.

So —

Clearly I’m not supposed to get all “preachy/teachy” here, but rather just set out some little stepping stones, some breadcrumbs towards my Rose Garden, and let you meander on to wherever He leads you. Perhaps that will be the same place as I am, perhaps something entirely different. But that will be between you and Him.

There are two Greek words often translated “worship” in the English New Testament. Both of them appear in this quotation Jesus makes to Satan…

Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain and *showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus *said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’” Then the devil *left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him. [Matthew 4:8-11]

The two words, in this text, are translated “worship” and “serve”. The first is the “crouchy-cringy” word. The second is the “reverence through service” word. In Greek they are προσκυνέω (proskyneō) and λατρεύω (latreuō).

Working your way prayerfully down the list of verses that use these words, makes it very clear that Jesus reserves the first to apply to Our Father, and the second is deep in the nature of discipleship to Him.

It’s important to note a thing here… through all this pondering it’s been my singular hitch of discomfort. To be honest, I frequently worship Jesus. I can’t help it, sort of. It’s not a ritualistic plan on my part. It just happens. Know what I mean? I mean, don’t you sometimes just have those… well… those Isaiah 6 kind of moments? I mean you just see Him, feel Him, sense His majesty and the very power of His love, and it just takes the legs out from under you? Well, whether it happens sometimes to you or not, I can assure you… it happens to me.

So… this gave me pause. Is the fact that Jesus never says to DO this, the same as Him saying NOT TO DO it? I have to admit, many MANY of my colleagues work this way! If Jesus didn’t say to do something, or didn’t say it was specifically good… then we are to assume it is bad! (In fact, for some of them, even some things Jesus actually DID, were somehow bad. This reasoning escapes me utterly, but anyway…) So I had to keep looking at Jesus use of proskyneo and see what I could make of it, and the verses that use it.

What I found was this. It seems Jesus reserves His recommendation or encouragement of this kind of worship to the Father alone. HOWEVER, there are various times and occasions when, uncommanded, people spontaneously do this to HIM. He does not object, correct, or condemn them when this happens. But He never solicits it.

A number of examples come to mind. The Man Born Blind, when Jesus reveals Himself to him. Certainly the Galilee mountaintop after His Resurrection, when He meets all the disciples after the women tell them to go there. Sometimes we even see the phrase that someone or other worshiped at His feet.

This reality confused me, as sometimes… at least for myself… sometimes, worship seems to “overtake me” or “overcome me”. I don’t seek after it, it just sort of jumps on me unexpectedly. Know what I mean? And the sensation may indeed be “crouchy”, but not in the least “cringy” or fearful. It’s more like bowing my head that the Lord be able to reach out, lay His hand atop it, and bless me. Reverence? Absolutely! Fear? Not a bit of it!

So, at least for my own spirit and heart (feel free to discard this if the Lord leads yours differently), but it seems as if Jesus is perfectly at peace with the proskyneo worship of Him when it is spontaneous, a reaction to the heart’s leap of wonder at His presence or grace. But He is not looking for this as an ongoing lifestyle.

The worship He seeks as an ongoing lifestyle is the latreuo worship. That’s the “follow Me” worship, the servant one, the walking one. That’s the kind of worship that can go throughout the world, sharing Good News, making followers of the Way, teaching all that He commanded, and healing broken lives. We can’t do any of that from our knees.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There’s where it all seems to come together for me, Gentle Reader. Three points:

  • One: Jesus considers The Father is greater than He, and seems to reserve ultimate worship to God the Father.
  • Two: Crouching worship certainly honors God, but it is stationary and motionless, precluding other service and following or serving Jesus in the process.
  • Three: Jesus has declared our relationship with Him to be “joint-heir”, brother, co-habitation of the body. He has declared our proper relationship with Him to be Union Itself. That requires level ground, heart-to-heart, eye-to-eye posturing.

On this last point… kneeling down in homage to an enthroned Jesus mounted upon His holy plinth may not be a “wrong” posture or a “bad” posture, but it is a distinctly “separated” posture. Sometimes, in moments of conviction, awe, amazement, wonder… that may well be a “right” posture. But those are “moments”, not the fundamental tenor of the “relationship” with Him. THAT seems to be Jesus’ biggest concern in my spirit on this.

The Lord seemed to sum all this up this way…

“Little Monk, such moments are true, good, and right, yes. But those moments are transitory. I seek intimate presence with My Bride, My people, My brethren under Our Father. People hardly dare conceive of this Identity, let alone enter into it, and I work constantly to try to remove barriers and boundaries between us.

“My words were clear. ‘You in Me, and I in you, and together we in the Father.’ I meant what I said. But a brother and I can only enter the same space at the same time through the most intimate ‘hug’. And that has to be face-to-face, not face-to-toes. No one can enter into Me through My feet. Can’t be done! It’s eye to eye or not at all.

“So, feel free to bow or kneel when you must or you feel so moved. But remember, the relationship I WANT… the one I came to make possible and establish… is person-to-person, face-to-face, eye-to-eye. This is how I most seek My followers to worship Me, and then together, we will worship the Father as we enter into Him, speak His words, and do His works.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Yes, I think that about sums it up. Thank you for being here, Gentle Reader. Feel free to comment, disagree, agree… ponder… whatever! Grace to thee — The Little Monk


Tags: ,

20 responses to “Crouching Worshipper, Hidden Servant

  1. paulfg

    May 21, 2014 at 6:05 PM

    Sounds a lot like Love.


  2. Levi Thetford

    May 21, 2014 at 6:33 PM

    This is a wonderful piece and I agree whole-heartedly. So good. Thanks LM.


    • Little Monk

      May 21, 2014 at 6:42 PM

      Thank you, Levi. And it is so wonderful to hear of your son’s progress and recovery. Allow me strongly to recommend the free Dragon app for iPad or Facetime or Skype for keeping up with social media or writing, without fatiguing his hand with typing. Memo app or Dragon app are terrific for short notes.(And both are free).

      Still praying! Thanks for liking this piece. Really hard to write when you’re trying hard not to desecrate anyone’s “icons”. Wonderful thing to know I can be “right” in my experience. Your experience can be utterly and completely different. And you can be “right” too… just as “right” as I am. Romans 14 has been both the bane, and a great gift, to my existence. Took me the longest time to “get it” with that chapter.

      Grace — LM


      • Levi Thetford

        May 21, 2014 at 6:51 PM

        Thanks for the apps. We all use FaceTime and Skype but I’m not familiar with Dragon. I’ll let him know.

        Tomorrow I’m posting the latest news about it to date. I won’t repeat it here. Thanks so much for your prayers. It truly is wonderful.

        I understand what you are saying, but I really do agree with what you taught. Yes, Romans 14 has been taught to me slowly and still learning.

        I appreciate you!!!


  3. Nate

    May 22, 2014 at 2:17 AM

    It is an interesting idea that ‘crouchy’ worship is more for the Father rather than the son.
    Some thoughts on a few things that might be at play, with respect to trinitarian thought.
    Jesus in his role as Son was functionally subordinate, but not ontologically subordinate. While he lived his pre-resurrection life this was more relevant and so this comes out in his use of proskyneo
    While we are ‘joint-heirs’ with Jesus, he is the monogenas son – the unique – son. His relationship to father is different to ours.
    Certainly I agree that we need a latreuo lifestyle.


    • Little Monk

      May 22, 2014 at 7:12 AM

      Good morning, Nate. Thank you for your reply and thoughts. I am thrilled at the thoughtful response. And I’d like to make an ongoing “response”… but only if we can be sure clearly to distinguish that from “argument”! No part of me, “argues” with you here. I have no claim on unique or correct interpretation or revelation… you could well be right in the way you look at this, and I wrong. Happy to admit that in a heartbeat.

      The funnest part about God and this Holy Spirit life though, is the possibility that you could be seeing things precisely “right”, and… *cough*… so could I. (One of those mysterious perks of Him being an Infinite God… that whole Romans 14 thing…) And, in that to the best of my knowledge, everyone here engages in these dialogues the better to “know Him”, and that is how Jesus defined eternal life… this discussion is all true, good, loving, respectful, and honors Him, His call on our lives, and one another.

      In that careful and respectful tone, I respond in this discussion…

      “Jesus in his role as Son was functionally subordinate, but not ontologically subordinate.”

      Like all things trinitarian, this discussion is so very wrapped in “mystery” and “matters above my pay grade” that it is probably amusing beyond words for Our Father even to have to behold me discussing it. But… nonetheless… over the years I’ve come more and more to grapple with the illogical possibility that Jesus is more than functionally subordinate… but truly ontologically subordinate… AND God, fully God, One in and with the Father at the same time. That is a semantic impossibility, a logical contradiction… and yet… always, in every scriptural context, we see the Father bestow and grant, and Jesus receive and accept. Or even John 1:1, that amazing verse, we see Jesus as “Word”… which requires “Speaker” as initiator and progenitor. Jesus’ use of μέγας (megas) in John 14:28 is not a casual word choice, and there is no dispute around this word’s meaning or connotations.

      “While we are ‘joint-heirs’ with Jesus, he is the monogenas son – the unique – son. His relationship to father is different to ours.”

      This, my response of heart to this, is much simpler and less academic. I agree with you that this statement is “true”. But over the years I’ve come to the conviction that this is precisely what Jesus came to “change and correct” through His grace. Again, the scriptural words around all this are fairly unequivocal, but our awareness of our frailties just cannot embrace the possibility. Nonetheless, we rather shrug and dissemble over the words “joint-heir with”… and tend to blow it off. Theology courses and writers tend to adopt a bit of a “red-headed stepchild” view of us on this, when the text really does no such thing. Three things have led me to this conviction… One, Jesus was extremely clear, intense, and careful in His choice of words in John 14-17, and His meanings are both astonishing and unequivocal in light of later events when the Holy Spirit came. Two, while indeed His relationship with the Father as “only begotten” is indeed (and always will be) unique, it seems His will to enter us into not “our” relationship with the Father, but “His own”. We are to die in “our” lives, to “enter” His. He presents us to the Father “in Him”. Many many such verses. Hard for me to wrap words around this. Three, John 14:3 I think has a much more significant meaning than geography. It CAN be “place”, yes. But it also means “state, condition” as well.

      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

      What difference does all this make? Am I just “disputing” out of a sense of sophistry or contentiousness or ego? I pray not. I believe Jesus opened the way, and calls us to, the most amazing relationship of full Union with and in Him, and most incredible relationship of intimacy and worship and wonder and… gosh… can’t even find the words… “snuggly security” (awful phrase, probably)… with the Father, far beyond what we can imagine. And He’s called us to it right here, right now… not just when we physically die.

      I don’t think any message is so clearly or strongly repeated throughout the entire New Testament. But if the enemy cannot keep us from walking in this, this eternal life, this kingdom of God, one way (through temptation to sin and carnality)… then he’s perfectly satisfied to do it another way, through false humility, and generation of doubt and unfaith in the potency and capacity for Jesus to transform us and our frail lives as He chooses.

      We can reject all this that the Lord has not only provided, but commanded… Not only by willful refusal and rejection, but also by simple disbelief that it is even possible. Just as deep sinners can reject salvation because “It’s too good to be true!”… so milk-drinkers can reject the reality of meat, to be one in and with Christ, and together we in the Father… because again, “too good to be true. Cannot be! Cannot be!”

      I spend my life in the effort to “open the eyes of the heart” that brethren come directly to experience the fullness available to us. And even as I say that, there’s the constant awareness that however great that ever seems to be, He and They are yet so vastly more than that… that we are as toddlers, stumbling alongside our grown up family members. The “fullness available to us” is always transitory and limited by our own finite perspective. My little mind/heart/life is always vastly too small, too limited, too bounded and hedged… to “contain” to “comprehend” any but the most miniscule bit of His infinite love and grace. Therefore, I certainly cannot judge or belittle that experienced by others at all.

      But I’m determined, day by day, to let my own bit, my own relationship, my own experience, my own love and grace… grow. That I die, that He live in me. And I’m equally determined to encourage others, all others, any others… to do the same. It’s sort of “come on in, the water’s fine”… and we can all enjoy the water together, in the love of this incredible Family!

      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

      Yeah, ok. So I’ve just written this response comment… and now I’m looking it over… and saying… yeah, Little Monk… this should probably be a post itself. Sorry ’bout that.

      Oh well, at least I’ve done this on my own blog, rather than Don’s… which is where this normally happens.

      Please reply, Carl. Otherwise I’ll feel like this foreclosed the discussion, which is the LAST thing I want!

      Grace — LM


      • Nate

        May 22, 2014 at 11:15 AM

        I’m happy for discussion and not much into argument.
        I can see that it might be possible for ontological subordination, but I don’t particularly agree with it.
        I’m a little unsure of the reference to John 14-17 with respect to ‘being heirs’, except perhaps that it comes in with ‘oneness’.
        Does the ‘step-child’ aspect comes from Paul’s teaching on being ‘adopted’? Or am I missing something? I see being adopted as quite different from being a step-child. But it does reinforce the ‘uniqueness’ of Jesus’ sonship.
        I have friends that have adopted and friends that have been adopted. Some have been treated differently from non-adopted children and some treat their adopted children as their own. I suspect our view on adoption might impact the way we see the ‘oneness’ in John’s farewell discourse.


        • Little Monk

          May 22, 2014 at 12:14 PM

          “Does the ‘step-child’ aspect comes from Paul’s teaching on being ‘adopted’?”

          A fair question. Um… no, I didn’t mean that quite that directly. I mean the step-child thing more as an attitude of the “second class child” of God as an overall mood among many Christians. It’s that sense of “distance” between the sonship of Jesus and the sonship He made available to us.

          However, bringing up that thought… a while back I discovered an incredible thing about that verse… or those verses… Romans 8:14-17… as the Lord raised a question to me, “Did Paul mean those words as a Roman, or as a Hebrew?” At the time, the question made no sense to me. But it prompted me to research this word… υἱοθεσία (hyiothesia)… and to discover that this meant significantly different things in Hebrew culture versus Roman culture.

          Adoption, as we know it in our lives, is a wonderful thing. It is possible, however, that as student of Gamaliel, expert in Jewish law and custom, Paul may not have been speaking of Roman adoption (citizen though he was), but rather of the “investiture of the heir upon his coming to head of the family” (usually about 30 years of age or so), that is reflected in Hebrew culture with this word.

          Again, it’s just another interesting question. Others have discussed it. No one, that I know of, has the definitive answer… but I strongly suspect that this is the incredible moment that we see when Jesus comes up out of the Jordan at the hands of John the Baptist, and the Father speaks as He did.

          But as to the “adoption” issue and the John passage, no I don’t connect these much. Jesus is unmistakeably clear that He is referencing something that at that moment, the disciples yet cannot conceive of… Indwelling. When we see this phenomenon twisted in darkness, we call it “possession”. But it is the concrete reality of two entities, two distinct personalities, occupying the same space at the same time… the self, and Christ in the Holy Spirit. Until it happens to them in the Upper Room, they have no means for comprehending His words.

          This, “this mystery of Christ in you, the hope of glory” is the Oneness Without Distance, the point at which there is no more “I/Thou” to the relationship with Christ, there is but “you in Me and I in you, and together we in the Father.” To become “joint-heir” not because we are “heir alongside Him”, but because there is but one Heir, and we are “heir within Him”.

          Semantically tough to deal with.


  4. paulfg

    May 22, 2014 at 3:09 AM

    When the greek starts flying I reach for the google. And found this:

    Thought it a useful contribution 🙂


    • Little Monk

      May 22, 2014 at 7:28 AM

      That really is, Paul. That is a well done piece. Now that all of the cat is out of this bag, feel free to jump in with your itchy typing fingers here! 🙂


  5. Don Merritt

    May 22, 2014 at 5:43 AM

    Well, you did it! Great post, and insight that we need to hear, thanks LM!


    • Little Monk

      May 22, 2014 at 7:33 AM

      Remember when yer kids were in, like, 2nd grade… and sometimes you’d read their homework essays. And you’d struggle to be approving and encouraging, because they’d really done a good job? But you just had to suppress a giggle, and maybe elbow your wife over a phrase or construction? They were so over their own heads that the only word that applies is… “cute”?

      I often feel like Our Father has to deal with that same reaction when I try to discuss such mysteries as these. He’s commanded and encouraged us to do it… but I still am so constantly aware that His Truth is so much bigger than my truth… I just suspect I hear Him whisper, “Go on with this, Little Monk. You’re on to something.” while I hear the echo in His mind of “cute”.


  6. paulfg

    May 22, 2014 at 1:19 PM

    Itchy fingers moment.

    Love does not need. If there is need there is transaction. And with transaction comes earning and winning or not earning enough and losing. Grace given freely (in my mind) comes without transaction. Therefore without need. Therefore is Love.

    The “trinity” stuff we get so wrapped up in. Why?

    Just as I accept water is vapour and ice and is still water, why does God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit have to be distinct. I am hot. I get ice. I am thirsty. I drink water. I want a cuppa joe. I boil a kettle and wait for the steam. Not for a long time have I pondered “why” does it do this – what does it all mean. It is certainly wondrous and amazing. When I stop and ponder. Most of the time I just get on with it.

    Just as Love needs (as you describe it) a look in the eye rather than a downtrodden celeb induced and distanced hand kissing – why do we get hung up on who to bow down to? I didn’t get God. Too big. So I looked at Jesus. And anyone who walks amongst us and eats with us and sleeps with us and gets a tad (indignantly) cross amongst us – that is not a celeb. So I see Jesus and I get Jesus. And – as he invited – I get a glimpse of God and begin to get God. Then the physical Jesus leaves us. And leaves with us the Holy Spirit. I don’t get the Holy Spirit but I do get Jesus and God. So I begin to get the Holy Spirit as just another way of getting God and Jesus.

    I have a relationship. Not with one bit of this trinity. I have a relationship. And if some days others prefer to see that as steam rather than water or ice – good on them. If some days they prefer to see water than steam or ice- also good on them.

    My relationship is with I Am. I am of I Am. His relationship is with me. Grumpy days, tired days, doing bad days, doing good days. He is in others. He is in all around. He is still too big for me to worry about whether he should be bowed down to or not. Love does not need. He does not need. And (in my mind) I do not need. That is what makes it so wonderful. That is what makes it so free. That is what makes it so tricky to get.

    We don’t do free. No matter how much we convince ourselves we do. We just don’t. Not like He does free.

    So for those who need to know whether to bow down, or stand up, or say thank you, or apologise, or any of the other stuff we do to each other in the name of love whilst keeping a clean sheet – good on them.

    For me? I want to be me. And I want Him to be Him. And I love the loom he has given me. I love the batman stuff he gives me. I chuckle with him. I cry with him. I mutter and stutter and flutter with Him. And He with me. All for free. Him and me. Being real. Both ways. Because the less I need the more I give. The more I give the less I need. And bowing down, standing up, kneeling, kissing hands, praying and doing exercises? Go ahead if you need to make that part of your relationship. I can kneel with you. I can bow with you. I can kiss hands with you. Not for Him. Not for me. Only because I love you guys as well. Not because I need to know the right way to behave. Not because I need anything very much.

    Why do we need … anything? When we have this freely given?


    • Little Monk

      May 22, 2014 at 1:29 PM

      Wow! How neat, Paul! I knew yer fingers couldn’t deny us forever!

      What a great critique!

      “Just as Love needs (as you describe it) a look in the eye rather than a downtrodden celeb induced and distanced hand kissing – why do we get hung up on who to bow down to? I didn’t get God. Too big. So I looked at Jesus.”

      Awesome! Really made me stop, breathe, look… see if I was on a wrong end of a stick with all this. And yes, it’s easy for me… my mind… to get impressed with a position, an argument, an articulation… and at that point I’m on the wrong end of the stick. I’ve missed the point. You’re totally right in the way you’re seeing this.

      And I thank you deeply for the timely reminder…

      There is only one “point” I’ve ever meant to make with this discussion, and that is… any time, and any thing, that makes us think it is “holy” and “godly” to put “distance” between us and Him… even if that seems like a “worshipful and respectful distance”… is more likely to do harm than good.

      All too often, a sense of false piety becomes a boundary between ourselves (unworthy as we are), and the Holy Perfection of God. And that just so breaks my heart, in that that was His point in the first place… to destroy that boundary, eliminate that gulf, and enter into us and us into Him.

      Anything beyond this point in my words, especially as to “spiffy trinitarian theology”, is just puff and blow… self-aggrandizement… idle speculation on matters well above my pay grade… (or the allowance He grants me).

      SO GLAD you opted in!


      • paulfg

        May 22, 2014 at 2:08 PM

        Dearest LM you raised such a loving question. Teased out over three days. Not in mind for anything other than to face another assumption, another ritual, another way we so easily push God back whilst thonking we draw close.

        At no time in these itchy fingers was there intent to diminish you or any other. Reading your comment and my words again – they a little more forthright than they sounded in my head.

        Your starting point was simple. And honest. And true. And that it remains any way your words are read.

        With great affection and respect –



        • Little Monk

          May 22, 2014 at 2:31 PM

          Oh absolutely! I mean, and meant, it when I treasured yer comment. I LIKE having a second look at things! Always! I enjoy the exploration, perhaps more than the arrival! Your servant — LM


  7. Gentle Breeze

    May 22, 2014 at 2:08 PM


    I agree with Paul’s comment above: ” I didn’t get God. Too big. So I looked at Jesus”.

    Sometimes too I didn’t get Jesus-or perhaps our interpretation of him. Reading your blog has made me wonder if that is why I cringe at some modern choruses and worship songs which are busy worshipping Jesus.Or it might just be my taste or natural reserve.

    On a different tangent, I have been thinking about one of my favourite stories whereby a woman anoints Jesus’s feet when he is dining. I think the story is in Matthew, Mark and Luke, but my favourite version of the story is in John 12: 1-11. Here the story is attributed to Mary, sister to Martha and Lazarus. I have a definite soft spot for Mary as I am more like her than Martha, preferring to do other things than housework.

    Would you say that her action with the perfume was worship and if so is it crouching type or more like a hug or embrace?

    I have written an imaginative story about the incident. Perhaps I could put it on my blog if you are interested?

    You have given me further food for thought. Thank you



    • Little Monk

      May 22, 2014 at 3:06 PM

      I love your comment, Julia… Thank you so much for entering into the discussion!

      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

      By all means blog/share your story. I would love to see it, as I’m sure several of us here!

      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

      “Would you say that her action with the perfume was worship and if so is it crouching type or more like a hug or embrace?”

      I’m no judge for this. I think each of us are the only ones who can answer this for ourselves, and I’m in no position to see Mary’s heart or motives here. For myself, such a moment would doubtless be both… awestruck worship at His feet, and service… anointing Him for His death.

      But let me repeat something that’s hard to express or make clear. There are RIGHT TIMES, there are moments of impulse that are true prompt to what we may call “prostrate adoration” of Jesus. I’ve known countless such moments. The best way I can express is that they are moments I feel overwhelmed with Him… with His majesty… grace… or love. I irresistibly bow my head… not in shame, but in invitation to His blessing, to His hand upon me. By no means am I counseling that such an impulse is out of order or is to be resisted. (To do so would be incredibly out of order for me, and I need to be exceedingly careful there.)

      There are, assuredly, right times and moments to bow to Jesus in abject proskyneō worship. Yes. I felt this discomfort, this struggle to make sense of what He was trying to teach, at the very beginning of these reflections quite a while back. It’s taken a lot of time for me to see the point and get the balance I think is presented here in scripture.

      Perhaps the clearest I can express it is as if Jesus were to say…

      “Little Monk, there are right times to bow at My feet in worship, awe, love, or even contrition and repentance. But never forget… while such moments are critical, necessary, and precious… one of My very favorite things to say in response (and I said it far more often than reported)… is when I take that hand and respond… ‘Talitha kum’. THAT is one of My favorite phrases, and clearly reflects My heart.”

      Whether sinful woman anointing His feet with her tears and wiping them with her hair at the pharisee’s dinner… the woman taken in adultery… many other moments of bowed-down worship… His joy is in the release, the freedom and relief from burden, in the words… “Talitha kum”. Little one, I say, ‘Arise”.

      To bow in love, good. To Arise in Love, priceless.



I love comments, Gentle Reader!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: