Wrecked

I will be out of town for a few days so I thought I would post this song by Sarrah Willhite (WorshipMob) before I go. I love the title because it explains what happened to me when I finally accepted Jesus’ invitation into His life.

Here are a few thoughts on this: 

My stubborn and blind rebellion against what was in own best interest was wrecked when He awakened me in His glorious light.

My self-condemnation and disgrace was wrecked by His scandalous grace.

My wounded orphan fears that erected comfortable walls for my self-protection were wrecked by His fatherly affections.

My self-assured reasons not to care were wrecked by His unrelenting kindness and compassion.

My cynical outlook on life was challenged and dismantled, yes, wrecked by His matchless splendor and perfection and beauty.

My cold dull heart was wrecked in the blazing bonfire of His white-hot love.

My performance addiction was wrecked by His unconditional acceptance and mercy.

My fear-driven need to control my little world was wrecked by His reassuring smile.

My need for significance was wrecked when He called my name.

My codependence on my brokenness was wrecked in His embrace.

Yes, I am most sincerely wrecked. I will never be the same. And I wouldn’t want it any other way.

Yet all of the accomplishments that I once took credit for, I’ve now forsaken them and I regard it all as nothing compared to the delight of experiencing Jesus Christ as my Lord! To truly know him meant letting go of everything from my past and throwing all my boasting on the garbage heap. It’s all like a pile of manure to me now, so that I may be enriched in the reality of knowing Jesus Christ and embrace him as Lord in all of his greatness.  (Phil. 3:7-8 TPT)

Precious sought out one, it’s my hope and prayer that you’ll be wrecked, too. 🙂

Wrecked
By Sarrah Willhite

I don’t know where I’m going
but I know I’m not looking back
You’re what I’m after
I want to be found in Your footsteps
I want to be found in Your arms
A Holy Spirit Disaster

I just want to be in Your presence Lord
I just want to soak in our love
I just want to make You proud of every nail that You bore
To hear you say You would’ve taken more

You wreck me, Lord

I just want to make You proud
To make You feel overjoyed
You’re so very important
You’re what I wanted to find
Come and please take my hand
Draw a line in the sand

I just want to be in Your presence Lord
I just want to soak in our love
I just want to make You proud of every nail that You bore
to hear You say You would’ve taken more
to hear You say I was worth so many more

You wreck me, Lord

Advertisements

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 37 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Freedom, Grace, Identity, Love, Worship and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Wrecked

  1. jim- says:

    Self deprecation is not productive imho. Reducing ones self to a worthless nothing without the aid of another is an abusive relationship. Most counselors would recommend getting out of a relationship where the authoritative partner claims credit for any part of your success. All the things listed in your post are things everyone can do on their own without the self abasement.

    • And on a global comparison all the things a person and groups do that are consider a greater good (including for a greater number) can and SHOULD be an accolade/credit for those doing it and are RARELY always attributed to any one entity. For example, in advance mathematics the incredible historical contributions of Indian Hindus, then Arabian/Persian Muslims in terrestrial and space exploration and more fully understanding it all. It all speaks VOLUMES about and toward neverending diversity… not in the least toward the ficticious concept of monism.

    • Mel Wild says:

      “Self deprecation is not productive imho. Reducing ones self to a worthless nothing without the aid of another is an abusive relationship.”

      Of course, Jim, but I’m baffled why you’re saying this in response to what I said. It certainly does not represent my views. Self-depreciation is the false humility of religious people. And insecurity and my need for affirmation were erased in the transformation relationship with God. Following Jesus makes one more fully human, not codependent or dysfunctional. And I would actually make the opposite case about our worth. We have infinite worth to God because He gave what was most precious to Himself, Jesus.

  2. Ron says:

    I can’t imagine anything more immoral than vicarious redemption. How does killing an innocent person bring about justice? Would you respect a judge who releases convicted felons in exchange for the execution of his own progeny and calls that “justice”?

    And given that humans can and do frequently forgive others unconditionally, it boggles my mind that an all-powerful, all-merciful being can’t do likewise.

    • John Branyan says:

      Will you give a brief summary of your religious background?
      Your comment suggests that you’ve never been to Sunday School or even colored any pictures of Bible characters.

      • Ron says:

        I’ll grant your request when you finally submit that list of objective moral values I asked for almost a year ago. Until then, this will be my final comment to you.

        • John Branyan says:

          I gave you that list of objective moral values.
          You’re pretending that I avoid your questions when it is YOU who folds like a card table whenever you’re pressed to explain yourself.
          Man up, Ron.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I can’t imagine anything more immoral than vicarious redemption. How does killing an innocent person bring about justice?

      I would agree, but I’m curious. What is your understanding of “redemption?” What you’re alluding to is one particular theory of atonement.

      • Ron says:

        I’m referring to the “Plan of Redemption” found on page four of the “What We Believe” document linked to under the “Affiliation and Statement of Faith” header of your church’s “about us” page.

        We believe that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us, the Just for the unjust; freely, and by divine appointment of the Father, taking the sinner’s place, bearing
        his sins, receiving his condemnation, dying his death, fully paying his penalty, and
        signing with His life’s blood, the pardon of every one who should believe upon Him;
        that upon simple faith and acceptance of the atonement purchased on Mount
        Calvary, the vilest sinner may be cleansed of his iniquities and made whiter than
        driven snow.

        Do you no longer subscribe to this position?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I’m referring to the “Plan of Redemption” found on page four of the “What We Believe” document linked to under the “Affiliation and Statement of Faith” header of your church’s “about us” page.

          Yes, but what does this have to do with what you said here:

          I can’t imagine anything more immoral than vicarious redemption. How does killing an innocent person bring about justice?

          God didn’t kill Jesus, WE did (by way of the Romans and Jews). We are the immoral ones. God does NOT have to kill anyone to forgive them. That’s what’s absurd about your accusation. Jesus forgave people before the cross, without bloodshed. WE (humankind) are the ones who rejected Him and put Him on the cross. But God allowed us to kill Him because of His great love for us. Why? Because His death is vicarious in the sense that He died our death. He took all our vitriolic poison, all our hatred, all our tragic flaws and brokenness, our blind rebellion unto Himself and put it in the grave forever. But that’s not all. When Jesus rose from the dead, He brought us with Him, so now we have open access to His life! Our relationship with God is Jesus’ relationship with God. Now, there is no more separation between us and God. The problem has always been with us, not God. We are the murderers with blood on our hands, not God.

          And what kind of justice is this? It’s not retributive justice; that’s pagan. God’s justice is restorative. God was in Christ reconciling us to Himself, not counting our sins against us anymore (2 Cor.5:19). Jesus came to restore us to our original place in relationship with God.

        • Ron says:

          I never said God killed Jesus. Nor will I assume responsibility for an execution carried out by Roman officials at the bequest of Jewish high priests well over 1900 years prior to my birth.

          But it’s impossible to deny the words contained within your organization’s “statement of faith” echo the sentiments expressed within my opening post. No matter how much you wish to sugarcoat it, Christian theology rests upon the abhorent proposition that an innocent man had to serve as a scapegoat for the guilty to effect forgiveness.

        • John Branyan says:

          “Christian theology rests upon the abhorrent proposition that an innocent man had to serve as a scapegoat for the guilty to effect forgiveness.”

          Abhorrent?
          LOL – Ron is complaining about “abhorrent” propositions!
          Did you forget that objective morality doesn’t exist in your worldview?
          There is NOTHING abhorrent about an innocent man being used as a scapegoat.

          Before you start arguing for your position you need to HAVE a position.
          No matter how much you wish to sugarcoat it, atheism rests upon a foundation of incoherence.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I never said God killed Jesus.
          No matter how much you wish to sugarcoat it, Christian theology rests upon the abhorent proposition that an innocent man had to serve as a scapegoat for the guilty to effect forgiveness.

          Okay, so if God didn’t kill Jesus, and yet Jesus is the scapegoat, then who is Jesus a scapegoat for? In other words, who is the one scapegoating here? Your accusation is incoherent, Ron. Unless, of course, you’re talking about Pele or Molech, or some other pagan god of appeasement.

        • Ron says:

          Huh? Who is Jesus the scapegoat for? Are you sure you’re a pastor?

          The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” John 1:29 (NLT)

          And the reason it sounds incoherent is because the doctrine IS incoherent. Had Marcion’s opinion held sway, things might have gone differently. But early Christians hitched there wagon to Yahweh, the tribal war god of the Israelites who commanded slavery, genocide and ritual sacrifice–so now you’re stuck defending the horrific moral codes of ancient men.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Huh? Who is Jesus the scapegoat for?

          Well, see for yourself….

          10 The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. 11 Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. 12 That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies. (Luke 23:10-12)

          This is classic scapegoating. Something humankind has been doing since the beginning of time, as anthropologist Rene Girard brings out brilliantly in his book, The Scapegoat.

          Had Marcion’s opinion held sway, things might have gone differently. But early Christians hitched there wagon to Yahweh, the tribal war god of the Israelites who commanded slavery, genocide and ritual sacrifice–so now you’re stuck defending the horrific moral codes of ancient men.

          Nice parroting of shop-worn angry atheist’s talking points, sorry I don’t buy it. You don’t know what you’re talking about and have obviously never actually read the details of the Marcion case. What’s also ironic is that you have an extreme Fundamentalist view of the Bible, and a poor one at that. The Westboro Baptists would be proud of you.

        • Nan says:

          Your may be getting weary of non-believers and atheists questioning and/or disputing your posts, but IMO, it doesn’t behoove you, as one who teaches/preaches the “love of Jesus,” to react with (obvious) disgust and anger. Case in point: your response to Ron’s latest comment.

        • Ron says:

          According to Mark 14:61-64, Jesus was charged with blasphemy–a capital offense under Mosaic law.

          But that’s neither here nor there. Belief that Jesus died to pay for our sins is not an atheist talking point — it’s a core tenet of Christianity. And the God from whom we’re supposedly being saved, is the same jealous and vengeful God who appears in the OT.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Wrong, but thanks.

        • Ron says:

          Wrong about what? Care to expand?

        • Mel Wild says:

          You are wrong about what you think the core tenets are, at least, for classic Christianity. On my way out the door. Will have to explain later.

        • Ron says:

          Am I?

          “For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he makes sinners right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.” Romans 3:25-26 (NLT)

        • Mel Wild says:

          You are quoting a paraphrased translation of Romans 3:25-26 where, unfortunately, the interpreters are adding in their particular view of the atonement. I use the NLT sometimes when it makes the original clearer, but it tends to be loaded with additional interpretation not in the text. Many of these words are not in the original Greek. In order to give you a translation that’s closer to the Greek, I will use the Young’s Literal:

          25 whom God did set forth a mercy seat, through the faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God —
          26 for the shewing forth of His righteousness in the present time, for His being righteous, and declaring him righteous who [is] of the faith of Jesus.

          What it’s saying is that God has mercy on us and did not deal with our tragic flaw (sin) until the time when Christ would come and take it upon Himself (and put it to death when he died – Romans 5). It is a free gift that we receive the benefit of by faith.

          The point is, there is nothing here where God demanded payment for sins like some pagan ritual. That was a medieval invention by Anselm in the eleventh century. Jesus sacrificed His life for us in the sense someone would take a bullet for us. He took our sin away because of love (John 3:14-17).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.