In Exodus now in my daily Bible reading. Chapters 3-4. God finds Moses on the far side of the wilderness. Calls to him from a burning shrub that attracts his attention—not because it’s on fire but—because the fire is not destroying it. That’s a lesson right there. There’s fire

that lights up, fire that heats, fire that draws forth the worship of God. Then there’s unholy fire that utterly destroys. The difference is obvious in its wake. God tells Moses to say to the Israelites, “I have paid close attention to you & to what has been done to you.” Always.
God is faithful. He sees. He knows. He will act. God tells Moses his name to authorize him then performs wonders to prove he’ll empower him. The former prince of Egypt replies with a line that makes me want to laugh every time I read it: “Please, Lord, I have never been eloquent
—either in the past or recently or since you have been speaking to your servant...” In other words, “Lord, there you are and here I am and, as great as you are, I’m no better than I was.” Then the Lord replies with something I find so profound: “Go! I will teach you what to say.”
Not “I will TELL you what to say.” He says, “I will TEACH you.” Three verses later, God repeats the same idea: “I will teach you both (Moses and Aaron) what to do.” We’d anticipate the word “tell” in both cases. In fact, it’s often what we prefer. Sometimes we want God to simply
TELL us what to say. Tell us what to do. He wants to TEACH us what to say. Teach us what to do. Because teaching requires interaction: the teacher & the taught. Teaching implies connection. Relationship. It requires instructor and student. Rabbi and disciple. A table for two.
Psalm 103:7 tells us God “revealed his ways to Moses.” The psalmist cries out to God, “teach me your ways!” Don’t just tell me. TEACH me. We who put our trust in Christ don’t just have a boss barking orders. We have a teacher. We’re taught in the classroom as we study Scripture.
Taught on field trips we sometimes never meant to take. Taught. Not just told. We have a God who wants to be with us. Who wants to show us his ways. Reveal to us his heart. His good intentions. His righteousness. He wants to teach us how to live. How to love. How to endure.
A disciple is a learner. A lifelong learner. There’s no graduating here. No getting it all right. All learned. And sometimes we will feel like we are no better at the end of class than we were at the beginning. But we will know we’re learning when He says “now go!” And we do.

More from Beth Moore

More from Religion

#Ramayana #LecturesOnTheRamayana

In the past, we had a glimpse of Lakshmana's devotion towards Sri Rama, his brother and father figure.

However, it is interesting to note his unique relationship with Sita, especially as seen by from her perspective.

Thread below

1/

We all know about the Golden Deer / Maricha incident and the way Sita influences Lakshmana to go in search of his brother.

Personally, I am unable to get 2 strong emotional points in one thread and hence, I will skip this incident for today.

2/

In Sundara Kanda, when Hanuman meets Sita, she says the following

सिंहस्कन्धो महाबाहुर्मनस्वी प्रियदर्शिनः।
पितृवद्वर्तते रामे मातृवन्मां समाचरन्।।

Lakshmana, who has lionshoulders and strong arms, who is handsome, who takes Rama as his father & treats me as his own mother

3/

ह्रियमाणां तदा वीरो न तु मां वेद लक्ष्मणः।
वृद्धोपसेवी लक्ष्मीवान् शक्तो न बहुभाषिता।।

Heroic Lakshmana, did not know while I was borne away. He is prosperous, foremost in serving elders. He is energetic and reserved in his speech like my father-in-law ..

4/

He is a prince dear (to his brother).

These are from Sarga-38, shlokas 60 and 61.

There are 3 distinct points which I want to draw the attention of the reader to.

1. She also compares Lakshmana to Dasaratha much like how Rama did when he constructed the hut in panchavati

5/

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?