Status is not worth a hill of beans.

There were other reasons not to accept the assignment.  To devote the required time, I might have to quit my job.  And my reputation and status would be jeopardized.

Status is not worth a hill of beans.  It’s your status with Me that counts.  Jerry, you have great talent to give Me, to put in My service.  Remember that it is not your talent, but Mine.  I do not want to put you through unnecessary disruption.  I have no desire to upset you or disrupt your life.  But I need you to begin telling My word, My story.  Not everyone can do this.  You can.  There are many fine voices, already testifying but they are not your voice.  I need your voice too.  You can offer something different.  You can have a special mission, ministry, you’ll see.


2 thoughts on “Status is not worth a hill of beans.

  1. Matt Reply

    I should like to know what opinions, if any, you have on the work of people like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Raimon Panikkar, Thomas Merton, and most recently Ilia Delio. They all seem to be hinting at something quite similar to what you’re saying on this site.

    1. Jerry L Martin Reply

      Interesting connections to make, Matt. I had not read Merton or even heard
      of Panikkar at the time but they became relevant after I had been told to
      read the sacred writings of the world’s religions and pray about them.
      Merton is a striking example of a serious, faithful Catholic who steeped
      himself in another (Buddhist) tradition. Panikkar came to my attention when
      he gave an interview about his dual commitment to Christianity and to
      Hinduism. Did he believe in some kind of blend or synthesis of the two?
      No, he replied, as a Christian, I am 100 percent Christian and, as a Hindu,
      I am 100 percent Hindu. That paradoxical statement was something I would
      have to think about.

      I had only read a smattering of Teilhard but he is actually mentioned in the
      book. I was asking whether nature, even physical matter, is in some sense
      conscious. The answer was yes, in a sense closer to Teilhard’s interiority
      of matter and Whitehead’s prehensions than Leibniz’s monads.

      It is amazing, Matt, that, just from these early excerpts, you have come up
      with three thinkers who do seem compatible, at least in some ways, with what
      I have been told.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *