Learning from Job

Finishing a study into the book of Job, I was hit with an interesting thought. Through the devil's intervention, Job is stripped of everything he has: family, property and health. The devil's hope is that without God's blessing, we will cease to praise Him with all our heart. What struck me most in this text was not Job's initial response to his suffering, but the lesson he learned later from God's revelation. Job thought that God's blessing came as a result of his own righteousness, when truly our own abilities to please God fall short.

This falls in with what I am reading in Deuteronomy, where God blesses Israel with its inheritance:

It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people. (Dt 9:5-6 niv)

God is blessing to fulfill a promise and reveal Himself, not as a reward for righteousness. Like many others, I consider God's blessing as a sign of approval; not looking into what role the blessing may play. Even in Genesis, God speaks of blessing others through those that already know Him:

Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. (Gen 18:18 niv)

What does this mean for me? It means I need to look outside myself. It means that His blessing is not a reward, but a tool to be used for His good work. Am I to be like Job at the start, and ask to be rewarded for my own righteousness; or will I acknowledge that God is using me to glorify Himself? Our reward is not of this world, but with Christ in heaven.


Web-log or Web-news?
Matthew Self at Gad(d)about just posted a commentary on the popular "death of traditional media and the role of bloggers as journalists" thought that seems to pour from the internet. According to Matthew, we are not journalists, but commentators; very much using the traditional outlets as a source and starting point for our own work.

I don't want bloggers to be journalists. I would hate to take away the personal face from the writing. There is no editorial process, no interest in newsworthiness or marketability; just reflections on the aspects of life that interest the writer most. It would be akin to calling the novel the death of poetry. Blogging is not a replacement for news; it is the color that gives it life.