Now, I hope that you are clever enough to notice something here and call me out on it. “Greg,” you ought say, “We don’ have enough information to determine the better hole here. All we have is two dimensions of a three dimensional thing.” I hope you did. If so, bravo! Here’s your missing information:
What am I trying to say in as crude a fashion Microsoft Paint will allows? Well, I think you’re already tracking with me. Are we out for something widespread and shallow in our faith, or do we crave depth? I know of many, many beautifully large and wondrous ministries that seem to be viewable from space, but you know what? They barely break the bedrock of depth and truth. As Paul says, they have not moved on to the meat of faith. On the other hand, I know of only a few holes that, when viewed from above, appear tiny and insignificant, yet when they are truly explored we find they have dared to venture far beyond the bedrock into the core of matters. Though they do not cover a large amount of surface and appear so very weak because of this reality, they have declared their purpose not something of WIDTH, but DEPTH (By which is a hole judged, anyway?), and so find what few have known before them. There are craters out there made by such projectiles that impact a wide and broad area, but do not drive the impacted deeper than a few feet. Then there are those projectiles that, with precision and velocity impact something very small, but make their way into a place further than known before. I hope that you are searching for depth. I myself would rather be and reproduce thousands of narrow holes that plummet miles into the core of faith than gather millions of shallow holes that do not know for what reason others dig, but that's just me.
No comments:
Post a Comment