Visionary Leaders Vs. Masters – Six Part Series

One of my favourite series of articles I’ve written on this blog nobody reads is my Visionary Leaders Vs. Masters series.

I’ve decided to link all six articles here for your reading enjoyment, even though I know no one is actually reading this and I am only writing to myself which is probably not very healthy mentally.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six

We Are All Selfish

We are all selfish, and that’s okay. You can be selfish and evil, and you can be selfish and good.

Jesus said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” We think of a selfish person as one who is more interested in receiving than giving. But, when you give, how does that make you feel? Usually it makes you feel good. In fact, you will probably feel better giving than receiving. If it feels better to give than to receive, you will give more for that reason, and you will be doing it for selfish reasons.

Selfishness is neutral. You can be selfish and evil, or you can be selfish and good. It’s your choice.

The Fallacy of Theodicy

Theodicy: a defence of God’s goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil

We ought to reject all attempts at theodicy. God did not need sin, death, and evil to bring about His plan for creation. Sin, death, and evil did happen, but not at God’s command or decree. And, we take comfort in the fact that God hates sin, death, and evil, and He will redeem His creation from it all.

Excerpt from an article written by David B. Hart titled Tsunami and Theodicy….

“Christians often find it hard to adopt the spiritual idiom of the New Testament—to think in terms, that is, of a cosmic struggle between good and evil, of Christ’s triumph over the principalities of this world, of the overthrow of hell. All Christians know, of course, that it is through God’s self-outpouring upon the cross that we are saved, and that we are made able by grace to participate in Christ’s suffering; but this should not obscure that other truth revealed at Easter: that the incarnate God enters ‘this cosmos’ not simply to disclose its immanent rationality, but to break the boundaries of fallen nature asunder, and to refashion creation after its ancient beauty—wherein neither sin nor death had any place. Christian thought has traditionally, of necessity, defined evil as a privation of the good, possessing no essence or nature of its own, a purely parasitic corruption of reality; hence it can have no positive role to play in God’s determination of Himself or purpose for His creatures (even if by economy God can bring good from evil); it can in no way supply any imagined deficiency in God’s or creation’s goodness. Being infinitely sufficient in Himself, God had no need of a passage through sin and death to manifest His glory in His creatures or to join them perfectly to Himself. This is why it is misleading (however soothing it may be) to say that the drama of fall and redemption will make the final state of things more glorious than it might otherwise have been. No less metaphysically incoherent—though immeasurably more vile—is the suggestion that God requires suffering and death to reveal certain of his attributes (capricious cruelty, perhaps? morbid indifference? a twisted sense of humor?). It is precisely sin, suffering, and death that blind us to God’s true nature.”

Read DBH’s full article by clicking here.