"The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever."
Just yesterday while we were traveling up to Grand Marais we listened to a sermon Piper gave at the pastors conference on the life of George Mueller. Therein pastor John was really driving home the point that Muller's chief reason for starting orphan houses was to "strengthen the faith of the children of God [the Church]." His secondary reasons were for the faith and well being of the children and their physical needs. Both Muller and pastor John were really trying to drive home the point that it wasn't about the children foremost.
My question is, why make the distinction? So, instead of saying "we first care about the faith of the Church, and then the needs of the kids," why not say, "we care about the faith of the Church by meeting the needs of the children."
I was actually turned off by the sermon because it seemed to be more about this distinction than the fact that Muller strengthened millions of peoples faith by taking care of the needs of orphans. These distinctions aren't helpful for me.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
You have a hang up on distinctions. Maybe a helpful hang up. This reminds me of our conversation at Chipotle. I think that sometimes for some people distinctions are important. Motives are important, aren't they?
ReplyDeleteBeing self-analytical and self-critical is sometimes helpful for me. I think I would want to know why I was helping the orphans. In the larger picture is that really that important? Maybe. If I was helping the orphans for my own gain, it would be a huge problem. I sure do appreciate your way of thinking though. Thanks for sharing.