Who's glory?

The pride of Satan was that he wanted the glory that was to be reserved for God.  It was a pride that led him to storm the very throne of Heaven, and to have him and those who followed him cast out of Heaven.

Regrettably, that pride has manifested itself on Earth many times in history, and no one, large or small, is immune to the temptations involved in claiming glory that rightly belongs to God.

Moses, in Numbers 20:8-12 displays this.  God commanded Moses to gather the congregation together and speak to the rock and have water come out of the rock for the thirsty people.

Moses instead gathered the congregation, and proclaimed to them rhetorically, "You rebels, must we (Moses and Aaron) bring water out of this rock for you?" and struck the rock sharply with his rod.  The water came out, as Moses had known from God that it would, and thus the people would presume that this was Moses who had done this, not God.

See what I have done?

Sadly for Moses, that Rock represented Christ.  God had wanted to teach people that Moses asking of Jesus was the way to get what was needed.  And in disobeying God and claiming a glory that properly belonged only to His Son Jesus Christ, Moses was committing the same sin of pride that Satan had.

Ahh, but what of it, really?  Is this even really a thing to worry over?  Not like any are wandering about the desert so is this a sin likely to come up often?

You'd be surprised.  I heard of a woman in a church who just generally does not get along with many in that church, and insists that it's their fault for that, not hers.  She asked though for a "toiletries program", an outreach whereby many little kits of basic toiletries would be made up and could be distributed to the homeless.

A good idea.  A good program.  It was then asked of the church membership that they donate toiletries and bags and such to this program.  And the congregation - not being a tenth as mean or rude as the woman had thought - donated abundantly, so that there were the makings of at least 80 kits, of the 100 she had hoped for.

It was announced that the distribution of these kits would be on the 29th of July.  Giving everyone time to donate any more if they had it.  And to plan to be there after church to aid in passing them out.  

The woman even asked the church leadership for some out and out cash - $150 - to just go make up the difference.  A few raised eyebrows over why we did not just wait till we had enough donated in kind, but sure, fine, the money was disbursed.

Others were attempting to contact the woman to coordinate the toiletries program with a bag lunch distribution program.  Or to secure some kits for a local sober living home.  In one case, email was not returned, in another case, it was acted as if all was well, and that the distribution was on track for the 29th.

Yet on the 28th, the day before, and late at night when no one else was there, the woman came to the church and removed all the donated kits.  And skipping church the next day, theoretically delivered them all herself, to the homeless of the community.

What was the money spent on, how much if any was left over?  Did it all go to the homeless, or was some for her family and friends?  There is no sure way of knowing, save the word of the woman who saw fit to remove all the kits the day before those who had donated them hoped to aid in passing them.

She claimed later that she thought a person who had asked to help had changed her mind.  What that had to do with taking all the bags the day before the church had been told they'd be distributed, no one knows.  Why no one was given an opportunity to join in the distribution efforts on the announced day, no one knows.

What is known is that some of the kits did get to the homeless, because those who showed up for the lunch bag distribution - expecting to also be able to give out toiletry kits - did see that some of the homeless they visited already had some of those kits.

With NO tracts or pamphlets in them.  See, the church as a matter of routine places tracts or pamphlets or booklets in with each bag lunch.  And if the lunches and toiletries had been gave out at once, then each who received one would get physical and spiritual aid.

And not the least, those pamphlets - and the presence of four or five other church volunteers in a group - would make it clear that these were donated by that church, so there'd be some hope that seeds would not only be planted, but might encourage those who were aided to come to their specific church.

But the way it was done instead, whoever got the toiletries did not get that spiritual refreshment.  Nor were they given the kits by those who donated them.  They were not given the kits by a church, as far as they could tell.  

They were given those kits by one woman.

Maybe she honestly spent the full $150 on toiletries and dutifully placed them all in each and every kit. Maybe in no case did she self-deal, but rather gave each and every one out to a needy homeless person. Let that be so.

But she accepted the work of those who donated - but stole from them the joy of getting to see the smiles of gratitude from the recipients.  She accepted their efforts - but stole from them the blessings that they too could have received had they been gave the opportunity to pass the kits out.  She accepted money from the church - but the church was not then gave the credit.

She committed the sin that Moses committed.  The pride of an act of giving being done not by Christ, not by the congregation of Christ's church that had generously provided it, but by HER.  And as Moses had grandly proclaimed his "Must we?" speech as if only he could do it, so then did this woman by text message let another know that since so many were at odds with her, it was best for her to do this herself.

Her being, in her mind, as put upon as Moses felt he was.  And no doubt as put upon as Satan surely thought he was.  Where others are at fault for not getting along with you, and you must show them who is who and from whom all blessings flow.

There are the other random issues of fiduciary responsibility - as she holds a position of trust on the church board - and the whole issue of "If the other members provided the materials, and the church the money, what did she even bring to the table besides disruption and dissension?" but that pales in light of the literal sin committed.

Showing that Satan can deceive even the elect.

A tiny tale?  Oh, sure, you bet.  And tawdry and insignificant, no doubt.  In some kind of newsworthy sense, this is a nothing story.  Just one random woman in one random church in one random town in the middle of the vast Midwest.  Could have been any town, could have been any church.  As many reading this are nodding their heads and thinking of "that woman" or "that guy" in their own congregation.

But it serves well to show that God our Father does not cause to be recorded in the Bible stories of sin just for the heck of it. There are no words in the Bible that are simply "filler", chaff to be skimmed over and ignored.  As we read in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Did Moses hit the Rock and grab the glory?  Or ask of the Rock and let the glory be God's?  That story was shared to us for a reason.  

Because it makes a difference.  Don't ever think scripture does not.