So You Want a Father?

Imagine this.

I am at a seminar.  Fred comes up having freshly kissed the Blarney Stone, and after all of the blather about how great I am, asks me to father him.

He is followed by Sally who gives me an equally detailed story line, this time of how fatherless her childhood was.  Based on her pain, she asks me to father her.

I decline both.

I do that even though I am very clear and very confident that by design, at my core, I am a father.  It is who I am, what I was made for, where the grace from God is and where I find deep fulfillment.

So why won’t I father people who so overtly ask me to father them, and so clearly need it?

The problem is in the social contract that is embedded in their understanding of fathering, vs. mine.

You see, there is an issue of rights and responsibilities.

In the Biblical model of fathering, the father has most of the rights, and the children have most of the responsibilities at the beginning of the relationship.

For example, can you find a picture in Scripture of the child choosing his father?  Doesn’t the spiritual father usually initiate reaching out to select the child?

Think of all the mentoring relationships in Scripture that were inherently fathering.

Masses of people followed Jesus, but He picked the men He was going to father.

Paul picked his sons.

Admittedly, God picked a son for Elijah, but for sure, Elisha did not pick his own mentor.

Then look at the terms of the relationship.

It is always a responsibility-based relationship at first.  Jesus laid it on thick.  “Come follow me.”  No discussion of boundaries.  No full disclosure statement.  No promise of deliverance and inner healing.  No discussion of the stress it would put on them to be on a different track than their family.

With Elisha, when he tried to negotiate with Elijah on the terms of engagement, he got his first smack down and Elijah left in a huff, going on without Elisha, refusing to negotiate the nature of the alignment.

Even at the end of their relationship, Elisha tried to turn it from his responsibility to some imaginary rights.  Elijah clapped right back and said it was all about whether Elisha could step up to the level of responsibility required.

In the Biblical model of sonship, it is compared overtly to slavery.  Galatians 4.

And since so many people have been in slave-based organizations and have been broken there, they believe what they need in order to heal is an extravagant flow of life from their newly appointed father.

But the reality is that both in a fathering relationship and with a predatory leader relationship it begins with massive rights for the father to command and demand, and massive responsibility on the sons to obey and follow.

Now the OUTCOME is different.  In a slave organization, the control continues relentlessly.  You watch those who have been in the organization for years, who by dint of hard work and submission have worked their way up, and even though they may have some fancy titles, they are still slaves.

By contrast, a father like Jesus or Paul progressively transitions a son from massive responsibility to huge rights – ultimately to an inheritance he never worked for but can receive because he has learned to walk in responsibility.

I am continually asked to do the impossible in my fathering.  People come in with a 40 unit problem and they want me to fix their lives by tinkering with just two percent of their discretionary world.

Do the math.  I am not that good.  No father is.

And THAT is why a father needs the position of being able to inflict productive pain on a son, when needed, even though the son is still in unproductive pain from his rotten choices.

This is a model we know well all through the culture.

You go to school as a slave.  Your teacher has broad license to inflict pain on you.  You protest that your brain is bleeding and you need a break.  The teacher/father assures you that millions before you have grown through this process and you will survive too.

Why is the teacher given so much authority to hurt you?  Because they know you won’t inflict enough productive pain on yourself to get where you want to be.

You join the military.  You are a slave, with someone inflicting productive pain on you.

You join a sports team.  You are a slave, with someone inflicting productive pain on you.

The pattern is well established in the culture.

There is no question that most people need a mentor to push them into productive pain to become what they want to be.  And most mentors who are willing to push people hard, push them into unproductive pain, to enlarge the mentor, not the mentee.  That is slave leadership.

But no matter how often the principles of fatherhood are violated by a predatory leader, that does not change the viability of the Biblical model, where the rights are with the father, the responsibilities are with the son, and over time, as the son grows, there  is a transition from responsibilities to rights.

But fatherhood is NOT an ATM machine with unlimited cash for the son to make withdrawals from as desired.

THAT model of being a father will bankrupt me with one son.  AND, ATM fathers don’t produce great sons.  They produce entitled, spoiled brats who are not good for the community they are in.

Sincerely, passionately embracing a wrong model of fathering does not make it work.  It is still a busted model and if a leader allows his mentees to inflict that model on him, he will be busted by them, eventually.

ATM fathering IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

Rejecting the Biblical model of fathering because it looks almost identical to slave-based, exploitive leaders, doesn’t solve the problem either.

There IS a model.  And it DOES work.

Copyright April 2018 by Arthur Burk

 

Posted in Perspectives, The Culture | 13 Comments

When You Have More Than One Redemptive Gift

Over the years, I have received endless emails – short and gracious, long and nasty, and every other combination – exploring or defending the concept of someone having more than one redemptive gift in their soul.

My standard answer is in this paper, but here are some additional considerations.

One of the services I offer is to coach people who are ministering to others.  I am in touch with someone who does a complex blend of deliverance, inner healing, life coaching, developing your spirit and what not.

She has a client named “Sally” who is sure she is a Giver.  “Jasmine” the life coach is not convinced.  Sally certainly manifests a number of characteristics of Giver, but is missing many others.  An alternative gift, Exhorter, is discussed, but again, there are markers for Exhorter, but some significant missing characteristics.

Here are some of the ideas I tossed in Jasmine’s direction.

1.     Check for family imprint.

Was she raised in a family where either a Giver or an Exhorter ruled with a heavy hand and imprinted his or her nature, values and thought processes on all the kids?

2.     Is there a vanishing twin AHS?

3.     Is the portion of the spirit that matches the redemptive gift of the soul, missing?

Jasmine pushed back on that one and said that she had already checked and all of the portions of the spirit are present and accounted for.

4.     Then I suggested she check the Exhorter and Giver portions of her spirit to see if possibly one of them was a synthetic and not the real deal.

5.     Is there a wound to her core gift?

Often, the expression of a gift is warped in childhood because someone in the environment does not like some facet of the gift.  I was an extremely passionate Prophet kid, but passion was frowned on in childhood and deemed utterly inappropriate.  A great number of people in different contexts worked hard to mellow me out.

They failed utterly to mellow ME out, but they did succeed to tamp down my public presentation a LOT.  I am a wild man in private but rarely in public.

So it is entirely possible that Sally IS a Giver, but a few key facets of her Giver gift were roundly repudiated in childhood so she learned to shut them off from the public, therefore Jasmine can’t see them at present.

There is a floating lack of legitimacy in Sally (not much different than anyone else).  It is not pervasive and crippling, but pops up like a prairie dog with regularity.

It could be a standalone wound, or it could be related to #2, #4 or #5.  Once the redemptive gift issue is sorted out, it will be interesting to see if the prairie dog fades away on its own, or whether it needs to be hunted down and resolved as its own issue.

Meanwhile, Jasmine is methodical and Sally is willing, so I am sure something will become clear in time.

Copyright April 2018 by Arthur Burk

Posted in Exhorter, The Redemptive Gifts of Individuals | 2 Comments

The Art of Leaving

Is there such an art?

I sure didn’t grow up knowing about it.  We just left!

By the time I was 40, I had moved 27 times, often from one continent to another.  It was simple.  We set the date.  Packed the old place.  Got in the car and drove away, knowing we would never see most of those people again.

Simple.

Just go.

The past paled in contrast with the sparkles of the future.

While I am still a future-focused person, I have come to the point of believing that the past, if handled rightly, can contribute to the future so it needs to factor into the transition.

It is a theory anyway.

And, since we are moving from Anaheim, California to Spartanburg, South Carolina in September, I have the opportunity to test the theory.

Except . . . since I have never done this before, how do I do it?

Well, for starters, I am going to make a list of people and places that were significant during my 44 years here.  I wonder what will happen if I engage with either the memory or the reality of those people (a lot of them are already reading the archives ahead of me) and revisit the land.

No clue if that is the best way, but it is a place to start for an amateur.

Another possibility is that some of you who are wise in the ways of leaving could write some comments and coach me on how you do it, to see if there are transferable concepts for our journey.

Stand by for some of our classic SLG failing forward.

Copyright December 2017 by Arthur Burk

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Spiritual Growth | 23 Comments

When You are NOT in Your Office

I received an e-mail this week with the following paragraph.

My wife and I are not convinced that I am walking in the office of husband.   I know it is the will of God.   I am definitely willing and wanting to walk in the office.  How do I embrace the office of husband so that I can truly walk in that office?  It feels like I am a lot closer than I have ever been before.

It is my opinion that there are a lot of people who are not spiritually in the office that they technically occupy.  You can get a paycheck for being a teacher or a mayor or a doctor without being in the office that parallels that paycheck.

The same is true for “Fred” and his being married to the same woman for decades, being committed to that marriage, but not being “in” the office of husband.

I think we find some clues in the story of King Saul.  Samuel informed him that God had chosen him to be king.  There were several supernatural confirmations.  Now note 1 Samuel 10:7.  “Once these signs are fulfilled, do whatever your hand finds to do, for God is with you.”

The signs were fulfilled and Saul went back to farming instead of stepping into the office.

God tried a second time to put him in the office of king using the public coronation, but he was Teflon coated and it didn’t stick.

But when the incident with Jabesh Gilead went down, he suddenly found something to do with his hands, and God indeed was with him!

What happened there?

I believe that the issues are perception and permission.  Do YOU perceive yourself as worthy of the office, and have YOU given yourself permission to step into the office, in spite of the fact that others do not perceive you as worthy or do not give you permission?

Saul clearly had God’s permission to take the office.  But he does not seem to have given himself permission, based on his hiding with the baggage on coronation day.  It can be challenging for a Servant redemptive gift to give themselves permission to step into an office of leadership.

And it is quite clear that some of the subjects of the king did not want him to be king over them, and he probably heard about that.

So between the internal lack of permission and the external lack of permission, he choked and had the crown but was not personally “in” the office of king.

When Nahash the Ammonite attempted to shame all Israel by gouging out the right eye of everyone in Jabesh Gilead, Saul had permission, he put himself in the office and acted. People followed him.  God validated him.

What happened?  Well, I am reading his mind from a few thousand years’ distance, but let me suggest the following, based on my knowledge of more than a few Servants.  It can be hard for a Servant to accept that they deserve the perks of any office, so they commonly do not step into an office.  By contrast, Servants are the first to believe someone else deserves all sort of things.

Hence, Saul could see the people of Jebesh Gilead deserving life and freedom, and he could consistently see that his son Jonathan deserved to be king after him, instead of that upstart, David.

There are so many permissions lacking for those who are in place, but not in the office.  I know a Christian man who has been in business for a while, but was not in the office of businessmen because of what the church taught about “the love of money.”

I know an artist who could not step into the office because of all the snide comments made about “starving artists.”

Many a pastor has not given himself permission to actually step into the office of pastor because they compare themselves with others who they feel are so much more “qualified” than they are.

So, for Fred who is not in the office of husband, I suggest looking inside and outside to see where the lack of permission is.

-Did friends and relatives object to the marriage – especially her parents?

-Was your father in the office of husband?  If you come from a family line where the husbands are generally not in the office, then there could be some generational delegitimization that has been passed down through the years.

-Do you feel you have not lived up to your own expectations for what a good husband should be?  How valid are those expectations?  There are 100 flavors of good marriages.  Are you using the currency from some other marriage to measure value, instead of the currency you bring to the table?

-Has there been a big failure in your role as husband:  alcoholism, bankruptcy, adultery, etc.?

-Have there been a multitude of small failures, like ten thousand evenings spent in front of the television or weekends spent on your hobby instead engaging with her and the kids?

-In the redemptive gift matchup between you and your wife, do you clash with cultural expectations?  If your wife is a verbal expressive with quick decision-making skills while you are a ponderer, the culture will generally think less of you.

There is one other angle that is more vague, yet powerful.  There is a story of a woman who was hell-bent on getting her husband saved.  She brought everyone she could to the house to do spiritual mugging.  On one occasion, the husband confided to the resident evangelist that he had been saved for five years but didn’t want his wife to know, because if she did know he was saved, she would immediately raise the bar in a dozen other areas of his life.

Sometimes a man knows in his spirit that as long as he is a loser in the marriage, expectations are manageable, but if he steps into the office of husband, his wife will know it in her spirit and instantly raise the bar far beyond what he thinks is attainable.  So if he is going to end up a loser all over again, he may as well be a loser with a beer bottle in front of the tube, instead of playing his heart out in the marriage.

Perhaps a month’s worth of prayer against the mesmerizing spirit would flush out the rest of the hidden prohibitions to being in whatever office is in question.  At the end of the day, if God has designed someone to be in a particular office, and they are functionally in that role already, but they are not in the office, there is a permission lacking.

Now, flip it to the other side.  There are three primary facets to the office of husband:  to provide, to protect and to lead.

Each comes with a very broad spectrum of options, and we can focus on what we can’t do among the many options, or what we can.

Take providing.  You may not be as good as you like in providing financially, but there are 50 other things you can provide besides dollars.  How are you with providing dignity, or peace, or wisdom, or perspective, or a well-maintained car?  Do you provide her with the permissions she needs in life?

Protection is more and more difficult in our culture.  If your wife is out in the working world, she is completely beyond your physical protection most of the day.  Do you protect her spiritually?  Emotionally?  Financially?  What is your currency of protection?

And leadership is as broad as one can imagine.  Many times a wife is not willing to be led in certain areas and in others he can’t lead her since he doesn’t know her area of technical expertise.  But where can he lead?

If a man considers himself unqualified in one or more of those areas, he will not feel legitimate in the office of husband.  And the enemy is quick to point out where he is NOT qualified.  Unless you spend some time with the Holy Spirit to figure out what your currency IS, instead of what it isn’t, the delegitimization will be devastating.

Let’s summarize where we are so far, before going for the nub of the matter.

-The culture (especially the in-laws) have defined the proper currencies for providing, protecting and leading.  The man may or may not be able to demonstrate competency in those currencies.

-The wife has her own definition of the proper currencies in those areas.

-The man has his own definition of the proper currencies in those areas.

Any one of the three (or all three groups) may be far off base from the design-based and calling-centered currencies that the man has been equipped by God to use.  Therefore, THE question that will have to be answered before a man steps into the office of husband, is whether he has developed the currencies God intended him to, and whether he is using them.

In one marriage, what the man provided was a very respected family name.  He inherited a good name from both his father and mother’s family lines, and he built it into a higher profile name, with more honor.  This was one of the primary currencies God had equipped him to provide for his wife – a good name.

However, she came from a fear-based family line where being visible in the culture was anathema.  Their family code said you keep a low profile, don’t attract any attention, especially from important people.  So his gift was vigorously rejected by her.  In fact, the thing he was designed by God to give was seen as an absolute stripping of her protection.  She only felt safe in anonymity and hiding.

She (and her parents) made it plain that he was not protecting her with the required dosages of hiddenness.  He, on the other hand, was providing for her with the currency God had given him.

For a very long time after the rings and vows were exchanged, he was not in the office of husband because of the criticism by her and them.  Eventually he had to wrestle this to the ground and decide whether or not God has the right to make the rules of the game.

Once he decided that God had the right to equip him with his own unique combination of the three currencies, and that he was indeed walking in God’s design for him as a husband, even though their marriage was in rough shape because of her woundedness, he was able to step into the office of husband.

And, remarkably, when he did, she began to respect him, instead of fearing his supposed irresponsibility.

The finest permissions come from God.  And when you are sure that God has designed you for an office, and that you are walking out the office properly, then you HAVE all the permissions you need to step into the office.

One final story.  A father died and God came to the firstborn son and informed him that the son was now the patriarch of the family.  In other words, it was time for the son to step into that office.

The son pushed back to God and reminded God that neither his mother, nor his siblings were going to accept him in that office at all. They had long since rejected his role in the family and considered him utterly unqualified to be a spiritual leader of any sort.

God’s response was eloquent and final.  “I don’t care.”

Permission granted.  Now the son needed to receive it – from God and God alone.

Copyright March 2015 by Arthur Burk

From the Hub

Posted in Perspectives | 29 Comments

Three Facets of Being in a Spiritual Office

The Five-fold Offices get a lot of attention these days, but there are many other spiritual and social offices available to us outside the construct of the local church.

Many times a person is in the role represented by an office, but they are not “in” the spiritual office itself.

Take the simple office of a husband.  A ring and a ceremony do not make a man a husband.  He can be in the role, without being in the office.

This is quite common when the marriage was not based on the right objectives.  From time to time we will find a male who is not in the office of manhood marrying a woman because he wants a mommy to pick up after him and feed him, etc.

She on the other hand, has deep maternal drives and is marrying a little boy who she can mother, instead of being a wife to him.

So it is a simple codependent marriage as neither is in the office of husband or wife, although they have the rings and the roles.

Let’s imagine that the man gradually grows up, finds joy in being a responsible provider, protector and leader to the woman he married.  This happens over time.  He moves into manhood gradually, without pomp and ceremony, and likewise moves into the role of husband with a thousand little steps.

In some cases, a man never actually comes to terms with the office of husband.  Other times, there is a dramatic or traumatic event that brings that out of him.  Often it could be the birth of his first child that causes him to subconsciously transition into that office.

But what about a conscious transition?  What would it look like?

I see three components needing to be in place.  First is the will of God.  He has designed us for a specific task (Ephesians 2:10) which is time sensitive on the stage of world affairs.  So when we reach for something that IS our design, but is not in the time of God, it does not put us into an office no matter how vigorously we reach for it.

Think of Abraham trying to be a father 13 years too early.  Moses trying to be an emancipator 40 years too early.  Jesus trying to be a rabbi 18 years too early.  Nothing came of their attempts.

A huge number of people confuse design and calling with office.  The fact that God made Jesus to be a rabbi is design.  The fact that He knew at 12 that He was called to the office and He could do some of the skills of the office right, did not mean it was God’s time for Him to be in the office.

The second component is the individual’s willingness to be in the office.  It is amazing the number of mental barriers that the devil can place in our heads to cause us to avoid actually being in one office or another.

Take Saul.  He was clearly designed for the office of King and placed in the office by the will of God and of the people.  And he just as clearly was not willing to step into the office.  He was a farmer, thank you very much, so he went back to the office that he was comfortable in.

Once God has determined that the time is right for you to step into an office and you become willing, the third step obviously is for you to embrace the office.  For Saul, the Servant, it happened when Nahash the Ammonite assaulted Jabesh Gilead, and the terms of surrender were that Nahash would gouge out the right eye of each person in the city, so as to shame Israel.

Well, something snapped in Saul.  His Servant software for protecting people from shame popped open on the monitor in front of everything else and screamed, “Not on MYYYYYYYYYY watch!  Those are MYYYYYYYYYYYYYY people.”

And suddenly he was barking orders and threats to the whole nation as he launched such a savage attack on old Nahash that no two Ammonite soldiers were left together.  It was the most extreme rout ever recorded in Scripture.

And guess what!  The next day, Saul was not plowing dirt!  He had stepped into the office of king, and there was no going back.

Now notice that the approval of other people doesn’t factor in.  When it was God’s time for Jesus to become a rabbi, it mattered not a whit whether anyone signed off on it.  Stepping into an office is a personal transaction witnessed by God more than any other.

BUT, on the flip side, you have the fact that people generally know when you are in a role without the office, and they really know when you are claiming an office God has not qualified you for.

Back to Saul.  When he was crowned king by Samuel, with the blessing of God, but didn’t step into the office, a bunch of people spurned him.  They knew he was a phony.  After he stepped into his office, people wanted to kill those who spurned him, but he stopped them, because he kind of sort of knew that it was mostly his own fault they spurned him.

So what does it look like on Monday morning for you?

First of all, consider design and figure out who you are called to be.  I had an amusing chat with a friend today about a farmer they know.  He is obviously in business, but he is a farmer, not a businessman.  But the smile is that his father, who worked the same farm, was clearly a businessman, not a farmer.

It was unmistakable which man was in which office even though they would never use those terms themselves, but everyone around them knew!

Don’t confuse your job or your social role with your calling.  Look at your design.  Find language for it.  Are you a healer or a builder?  A mother or a father?  A prophet or a priest?  A strategist or an implementer?  A researcher or a compiler?

There are hundreds of language pictures to be pulled out and used.  Don’t be limited to familiar social titles.  And be crystal clear that you may do a lot of things that you are not.  Many people are successfully in business for years, without actually BEING a businessman.  That is what they did, not who they were.

Many people teach and have the job of teaching and the title of teacher, but that is not the same as being designed by God for the office of teacher and being fit for that office.

Then, once you know what you are supposed to be when you grow up, see if you can identify where you are on the time line of God.  You have to unpack a significant amount of the resources God designed you with before you are allowed to step into the office.

Too many people get a prophetic word about their life, and they interpret it as being installed in an office, when it was really just an announcement that they needed to report for boot camp.

You should be able to identify several offices that are “in process” in your life, but you are not there yet!  Double down on preparation for that office, instead of claiming what is not yours yet.

BUT, when you can clearly see that God has been systematically preparing you for decades for a particular office that He first designed you for, and when He has agreed with you that it is time and you are ready, then have a ceremony.

Spend time alone with the King, review the process, give Him credit for growing you up, look forward to the responsibilities of your office, then commit yourself to fulfilling those responsibilities when you step into the office.

Whether anyone else knows with their soul or not, their spirit will be able to tell the difference in you, if you are rightly in your office.

Copyright February 2015 by Arthur Burk

From the Hub, just before heading to the airport

 

Posted in Spiritual Growth | 20 Comments

A Different Perspective

As I expected, the reaction to last night’s blog has been voluble and intense.  Here are two observations culled from various comments and personal e-mails.

1)     The Exodus was a corporate event, not Moses’ personal event.  He was never a slave in the brickyard; he just led the slaves out.  Therefore, my lack of a big story is irrelevant, and I should be celebrating all the big stories that happened for the SLG tribe.  Apparently it was a pretty dramatic week for many of you.

2)     The overwhelming consensus from the field is that it is not over.  For two weeks I have been getting a flood of e-mails pointing to Esther’s story and Purim.  I didn’t reject them but wasn’t able to figure out how to overlay the two narratives.  Finally someone dumbed it down enough for me to actually hear it.

There is a backstory.  I have said to my team repeatedly that there is a difference between us and the Hebrews in the Exodus because we do not have a spirit of slavery and are approaching this very differently than they did.

Against that backdrop, one of you pointed out that the Hebrews were passive in Exodus with God and Moses doing most of the work.  And Pharaoh was high profile in pursuing the Hebrews.  God and Moses killed the Egyptians.  This is the slave posture.  “Where is our hero who will rescue us?”

By contrast Esther’s story is one of sons, with the Persians hiding like scared cockroaches.  There was an edict given that the Jews could seek out and kill anyone they considered anti-Semitic and thereafter appropriate their assets.

This required individual initiative and aggressive action on the part of the Jews without a group leader and without any report of God doing big miracles for them.  No Red Sea here, just individual hand to hand combat.

So using that model, today and tomorrow are days when the enemy is laying low, hoping to escape notice, but we have the authority to hunt him down and each person take immense ground.

That would fit the original words about a “brief window of time in mid-March.”

Another facet of this story is that there is not corporate payback.  In Egypt, we have 400 years of back wages with penalties and interest.  Here it was not a corporate issue.  The nation (Babylon) that had taken Judah into captivity had already been punished.  It was the Medo-Persian government in power at this time.

And it was not a centuries-old national edict that the Jews should be abused that was being contested.  It was simple, personal anti-Semitic attitudes and behaviors that were at stake here, epitomized by Haman being fried to a crisp that Mordecai did not respect him.

Using the Esther model, today and tomorrow are times to go on a search-and-destroy mission for every critter that has ever dinged you.  It was a very narrow window in the original story.  Monday then, becomes the day of celebration.

Copyright March 2014 by Arthur Burk

From home, early on Saturday morning

Posted in Perspectives, The Kingdom of God | 17 Comments

RG of the Bride of Christ

Israel is Giver.  The Old Testament portrayal of Israel as the wife of God is consistent with the wounded Giver profile we are familiar with.

That said, what is the redemptive gift of the Bride of Christ?  And what makes you think that?  I can see all seven gifts strongly at work in the Body, but what would be the ideal gift for the task God has given The Church?

I have a bunch of ideas, but no clear picture yet.  Let’s dialog for a while through the comments and see if we can get through the smog of surface stuff to hear the heartbeat of the church.

Copyright July 2013 by Arthur Burk

Airborne over Ohio, on my way to an intense research retreat for the fractal of four with a small team

Posted in The Redemptive Gifts of Individuals | 58 Comments

Redemptive Gift Test

Would you like to test your knowledge of the redemptive gifts?  Kids are an excellent way to do it because they have not been fixed yet.  Check out this batch of wonderfully transparent darlings.

My votes.

Chuck is a Prophet with a predator spirit.  Unless he might be an Exhorter who needs help.

Serena is just an average ornery Prophet without the predator spirit.  A kinder, gentler version.

I thought McKay was a Ruler but I am wondering about Servant.

Noah was too easy.  Teacher all the way.

Danal has such a fine grasp of melodrama, not much else shows.

Nameless #12 is our token Giver.

Tamara has my vote for Exhorter.

And the Mercies abound.

So let’s sound off in the comments.  Share your pick and your reasoning.

Copyright July 2013 by Arthur Burk

From a hot cottage in McKinney

Posted in The Redemptive Gifts of Individuals | 23 Comments