One of our friends blogged today about a daily devotional that tells young children that:

God sees inside me, he sees in my heart.
To him I am wonderful, lovely, and smart!

As she pointed out, this is completely consistent with the mantra of self-esteem that has invaded the modern evangelical church and replaced a Biblical view of man. She added that she’d even been taught that “I was to have good self-esteem because God loves me and sent Jesus Christ to die for me.”

That view, as I commented in agreement with her post, is completely backwards. Christ’s death on the cross, and God’s love toward us, should not move us to think highly of ourselves, but rather lowly. The cross was not intended to show how great we were, but show how sinful we were that we needed such drastic means to be saved!

This evening, in reading The Complete Husband by Lou Priolo, I ran across an eloquent statement that expresses this reasoning well, and thought I’d share it with our blogging audience (emphasis mine):

[Christ] did not choose to love [the church] because there was something attractive in her that caught his eye: quite the contrary—His love arose exclusively and entirely from within Himself. There was nothing within her which she possessed beforehand that moved Him to love her—not beauty, not goodness, not wealth—nothing! Neither was there anything in her that He wanted or needed. He had no hope of her giving back to him anything except that which He first gave to her. Indeed, He delights in that righteousness with which, as a glorious robe, she is clothed; and in those heavenly graces, as with precious jewels, she is decked: but that righteousness and those graces are His own—they are His free gift which He presents to himself in all her glory.

When we take the death of Christ and turn it into justification for thinking highly of ourselves (a.k.a. “self-esteem”), we are nothing short of foolish. The death of Christ was intended to rescue sinners, not saints (or otherwise worthy people). Jesus himself said, “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” God’s love “arose exclusively and entirely from within Himself” and was not in any way provoked by some imagined worth on our part (quite the opposite!).

Anyhow, just thought I’d share with you a quote that encouraged me. Not only in light of the false teaching of self-esteem, but simply in appreciating afresh the sweet love of Christ to this wretched sinner. On that note, I’ll close with the words of Isaac Watts:

Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?

Was it for crimes that I had done
He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! grace unknown!
And love beyond degree!

Well might the sun in darkness hide
And shut his glories in,
When Christ, the mighty Maker died,
For man the creature’s sin.

Thus might I hide my blushing face
While His dear cross appears,
Dissolve my heart in thankfulness,
And melt my eyes to tears.

I’ve just recently begun (again) taking Matthew through a simplified version of the Shorter Catechism. This version is titled My First Book of Questions & Answers and written by Carine MacKenzie. The form of the questions are much simpler than the original Shorter Catechism. For example, the original first question is:

Q: What is the chief end of man?
A: Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.

This version simplifies this question to:

Q: Why did God make you?
A: To glorify Him and to enjoy Him.

A couple questions later, the question/answer is:

Q: Why did God make all things?
A: For His own glory.

What I’ve discovered is that Matthew tends to mix up these two answers. Namely, he answers “for his own glory” when asked, “Why did God make you?”

That got me thinking. How is the first question (and answer) distinct from the second? In other words, are these two merely slightly different ways of expressing the same thing? And the conclusion I came to was a resounding no!

How so? As I compared these two questions, I realized that the latter encompasses everything God has made: not only people, but also trees, stars, oceans, animals, etc. Everything! And all those things, God made for His own glory. To reflect His creative splendor and awe-inspiring greatness.

But you and I? Humans? We are unique in God’s creation in that we were actually created for more than glorifying God. We were made to enjoy Him. Or, put another way, whereas trees and animals and other elements of creation can reflect His glory; it is men and women who were especially made with the capacity to find our joy in God! To revel in His goodness, mercy, kindness, love and majesty. To console ourselves in His sovereignty. To rejoice in His grace and power. So what may seem at first roughly equivalent “creation intentions” (“to glorify Him and to enjoy Him” vs. “for His own glory”) are in fact nowhere the same.

As I realized this, I made it a point to tell Matthew that, in fact, “for His own glory” is not the right answer to the question, “Why did God make you?” That’s only half the answer!

Here, in effect, is what I told him:

God made you and me in a way that’s different from how he made trees and oceans and mountains. Because you and I were made to enjoy God! You and I were made to find our deepest happiness in trusting God, and that’s something those creations can never do! Therefore, when I ask you, “Why did God make you?” I want you not simply to say, “For his own glory.” You were made for more than that. You were made “to glorify Him and to enjoy Him!”

What’s neat is that as I taught Him these simple questions, it forced me to reflect and remember core truths about why God has made me! And it reminded me that I need to live not only to magnify His glory, but to rejoice in Him. Or as John Piper has said, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God by enjoying Him!”

Andrew: “Uh oh! You caught me.”

Mom & Dad: “So that’s why you were so quiet.”

Calissa (age 3 1/2 mos): “At peace, enjoying my thumb.”

Our adoptive daughter from China, Emmaline, began walking about 6 weeks ago. At the time, we noticed that she had a “waddling” sort of gait, like a duck. We shrugged it off initially, considering it some byproduct of her development delays, low muscle tone, etc. She is nineteen months old tomorrow.

However, over the course of the subsequent weeks, as she began to be more capable in walking, the strange posture (think “rear end jutting out”, exaggerated lordosis for you medical types) continued. Two weeks ago, we met with a physical therapist who urged us to take her to an pediatric orthopaedic specialist to rule out structural problems. I took her in the next day to a recommended doctor.

Unfortunately, an x-ray revealed that she has bilateral (both sides) hip dislocation. In other words, both of her legs are out of socket. The causes for this condition can range from congenital shallow hip socket to in-utero trauma to poor handling in the early months of life. But since Emmaline was put in our care at nine months old, we unfortunately have no way to know for sure what caused it. Last week, I took her to see the chief of pediatric orthopaedics at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital to get a second opinion and plan for a surgery. He conveyed that she was unusually flexible for someone with that condition. He also said he thinks that perhaps it was not congenital but rather the result perhaps of overly-tight swaddling in the orphanage.

This morning she was scheduled for surgery on the morning of September 11. The surgeon will first attempt a “closed reduction,” which is essentially manipulating the bones into proper place under anesthesia. If that doesn’t work, they’ll need to make small incisions and do an “open reduction” in the same surgery. If that doesn’t work, a more radical approach will have to be attempted, but we are hopeful we won’t have to go there, since she’s still less than two years old. The procedure will take up to two hours, and she will need to stay in the hospital overnight.

We covet your prayers for the upcoming surgery, and perhaps as much for the subsequent twelve weeks. Emmaline will need to be in immobilized in a hip spica cast (see drawing at right) for six weeks, then a new cast will be put in place for another six. This will place an enormous burden on us, and especially on Lois, who still has two rambunctious boys and an infant to care for. Pray that God would grant us a spirit of perseverance, patience and tender love for one another for what will likely be a very difficult three months. Thank you.