The Lord calls us to seek His face.

More science - yeah, that ought to do it.

Indentured Servitude--Let’s notice a few things about slavery in ancient Israel which are hinted at in this text.

Slavery--From our perspective of post-abolition and civil rights, it is difficult to understand the teaching of God’s Law about slavery.

Resting the Earth--During the seventh year people were not to work the land.

Poor, but No Poor--Gleaning was not the only provision made for the poor in the Law of God for ancient Israel.

Remember You Were Slaves--The motivation for caring for the poor through the institution of gleaning was the memory of what it was like to be oppressed and enslaved in Egypt.

Gleaning--Paul’s instruction to the Thessalonians, that any who would not work should not eat, derives from the institution of gleaning.

Loans before the Seventh Year--Remembering that, at the Sabbath year, all debts were cancelled, some might be unwilling to help their neighbor with a loan.

Soul friends depend on one another.

Self-watch/Accountability

But though this discipline seem hard to the hard-hearted, namely that a man should always hang on the lips of another, yet by those who are fixed in their fear of God it will be found pleasant and safe, if it is kept wholly and not in part, since nothing is pleasanter than safety of conscience and nothing safer than exoneration of the soul, which none can provide for himself by his own efforts, since it properly belongs to the judgment of others.

  - Columbanus, Monks' Rule (Irish, 7th century)

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy...

  -Hebrews 13.17

The idea of "soul friends" occurs with some consistency throughout the period of the Celtic revival (ca 430-800 AD). Soul friends were partners in accountabilty, encouragement, prayer, and edification, and they depended on one another to help in the work of sanctification.

In order to have a soul friend you must be willing to allow another into the deeper sectors of your soul, to share your aspirations, hopes, dreams, and visions, as well as your struggles, fears, and shortcomings. Columbanus was right when he wrote that we can't count on ourselves alone to watch over our souls. We need someone more objective than that, someone who loves us enough to tell the truth, even when it hurts, and to lead us in celebration before the Lord for every indication of growth and progress.

Husbands and wives must work to be the best of soul friends, but each should also seek out soul friends of the same sex to help in the work of sanctification. In the structure of the church, as the Lord Jesus designed it, elders - shepherds - are appointed to watch over the souls of the people of God. Every church member should have a shepherd to nurture, encourage, guide, correct, and disciple him or her. The fact that this exists hardly anywhere in the Church today is just one more measure of our low regard for the plain teaching of Scripture.

If we begin with ourselves, by seeking out accountability partners and exercising loving oversight of one another's souls, soon enough the benefits of such relationships might find their way into the lives of our church leaders. Who knows? We may even have an outbreak of shepherding that will trip the Lord's tumblers and unlock revival throughout the land.

If we're serious about growing in the Lord, we'll find a soul friend or two to help us make continuous progress. This matters a lot. Brigid, the 6th century Irish saint, declared that a man without a soul friend is like a man without a head.

Haven't you been headless long enough?

Today at The Fellowship of Ailbe

The problem with art today is the same as the problem with ethics, as I explain in today's ReVision column.

Why not send today's Crosfigell to a friend and challenge him or her to become a soul friend with you? Write me and I'll send you some additional guidance in what such a relationship entails.

T. M. Moore, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Smithsonian Secretary Wayne Clough has been taking some heat of late for his decision to remove a four-minute video from an exhibition.

The video, which featured ants crawling over a crucified Christ, was deemed offensive by Catholic and other groups, as well as several members of Congress. It's doubtful the religious groups would have had much influence with Mr. Clough, but the Congress persons provided all the impetus he needed to yank the bit.

As he acknowledged to the Associate Press, some "very difficult budget situations" with Congress - which provides 65% of the Smithsonian's budget - led him to take the course of least resistance on the Hill.

However, Mr. Clough continued, he still believes the video is a "work of art." But what does that mean? Is a "work of art" to be valued and exhibited merely because of its stature as such, rather than because of its quality, theme, or truthfulness? And what makes something a "work of art" anyway?

These are not questions asked of the arts any more, as Arthur Danto pointed out a decade ago in his book, Art After the End of Art. These days the only standards determining whether an object is a work of art are the declaration of its maker and the willingness of someone else - anyone else - to regard it as such.

So simply to say that something is a "work of art" might seem to invest it with significance, and, thus, make the situation of one piece of art's removal from an exhibition a deplorable act of censorship.

But surely there is more to art than just the fact that someone creates something and offers it as a work of art, and that others are willing to receive it as such, even if only for political ends? There was a time when it was not necessary to announce something as a work of art, and when nearly everyone could recognize good works of art when they saw them; but questions about standards in the arts have become so relativized and politicized that it's impossible for anyone to say with finality which objects are and which are not "art."

Art has become like ethics, another hyper-relativized field of study. Art and ethics are what anyone says they are, and no one can deny you or me or anyone else our own opinions about such matters. It's art - or ethics - if I say it is, and any attempt on your part to say it ain't so is a form of censorship, if not oppression.

But Christians must not allow themselves to be bullied by relativists into denying the objectivity of truth and the necessity of tested standards in all fields of endeavor. Indeed, Christians ought to be taking the lead to establish such standards and to demonstrate their power to make things beautiful, good, and true. This is true not only in the areas of art and ethics, but in every other aspect of life as well.

The Christian worldview requires that we judge things - our own thoughts and actions as well as those of others - according to the righteous standards of God's Word. If we aren't willing to do that, and to extend the reach of such righteous judgment, then we can only expect that what has happened in the areas of art and ethics will, soon enough, become established in every other area of life as well.

Additional related texts: 2 Timothy 2.15-17; Psalm 36.9; John 17.17

A conversation starter: "Are there any standards of beauty, goodness, and truth by which we can judge which works of art are truly 'art'?"

T. M. Moore

Where do we get such dumb ideas, anyway?