“Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you at the proper time, casting all your cares on him, because he cares about you.” (CSB – Read the chapter)
Years ago I was watching a cooking show, and the host went out of her way to emphasize that salt is not a spice. When used properly, it is a flavor enhancer. It takes what is already there and highlights it and makes it more pronounced in the dish. Yesterday we talked about the importance of humility in the Advent journey. Humility, like salt, is fundamentally about being honest. And when we are honest, a host of other things begin to become possible. One of these is something the apostle Peter highlights here. Let’s talk about a powerful thing humility can accomplish in and for us.
One of the things you sometimes have to watch out for if you spend much time marinating in a Christian environment is bumper sticker theology. Bumper sticker theology is when people have ideas about God or the Scriptures or the church or Christians or what have you that are half-baked at best, and mostly come from tweetable verses taken out of context.
Bumper sticker theology is easy, and it can be packaged in really appealing ways, but it is also extraordinarily shallow, and it won’t serve you well when things get tough while following Jesus. People afflicted by bumper sticker theology tend to be like the seed that fell on rocky or thorny ground in Jesus’ parable of the sower. Their commitment tends to be more rooted in emotion and experience than real critical thinking.
I live and work in a cultural milieu that is pretty steeped in bumper sticker theology. This is why it maintains the reputation of being very Christian and conservative when in reality it is mostly just culturally Christian and Republican more so than conservative. That’s not to say there is not a higher percentage of genuinely faithful followers of Jesus around here than most other parts of the country, but the incidence of shallow, empty faith is higher as well.
In any event, I bring that up because 1 Peter 5:7 here is a common verse for doing bumper sticker theology. I mean, just look at it. “…casting all your cares on him, because he cares about you.” Usually the participle at the beginning of the verse is shortened to the simple verbal command, cast, when it appears on a piece of artwork that you probably bought at Hobby Lobby. What could be simpler and more endearing than that? Sure, it rests on a whole foundation of theological assumptions that are necessary to be able to make any real sense out of it, but most of the people who would slap that bumper sticker on their vehicle already make those assumptions in some form or fashion, so it works. There is a God who cares about you, and because of that, you can put anything that is a burden for you on Him. Who wouldn’t want to hear such a message?
The trouble with all of this is not that any of it is inherently wrong. Bumper sticker theology rarely is. The trouble with it is that in lifting it from its context, we miss out on the full picture of what Peter is talking about. For instance, the next two verses immediately go into talking about the various challenges both natural and supernatural we can and will face when we determine to cast all our cares on a God who cares for us. The obvious implication is that casting our cares on this God who cares for us is not going to immediately make our lives all sunshine and rainbows. Neither will it prevent future cares from accumulating. Peter identifies at least some of these cares as suffering, and reminds us that we aren’t alone in experiencing them. Just because we cast our cares on God, doesn’t mean the situations that caused those cares in the first place are going to vanish from our lives.
There’s still more here, and this part gets us to where we are going today. Look again at our passage for the day, and specifically v. 6. There’s another command there right at the beginning. “Humble yourselves,” Peter says. There’s that idea of humility again. More specifically, he says, “Humble yourselves, therefore.” The “therefore” is a reference to what comes even before this verse.
Looking back just a bit further we find Peter quoting from the Greek version of Proverbs 3:34 that would have been the mostly widely used and accepted version of it in his day. “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. The Hebrew version you’ll find if you flip back there in your own Bible reads like this: “He mocks those who mock but gives grace to the humble.” That makes the point a bit more colorfully.
Combining this idea with the understanding that humility is fundamentally about being honest, when someone refuses to do that, God stands against them and makes fun of them. He lets them make the ridiculous choices that will come from such a posture, and then lets them experience the natural consequences of those choices as a form of judgment.
The apostle Paul helps us understand what Peter means by being honest here in his letter to the Roman believers. “For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what he has made. As a result, people are without excuse. For though they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became worthless, and their senseless hearts were darkened.”
Being honest about the nature of reality fundamentally means acknowledging the clear and obvious pointers to God’s existence. Now, does this mean there is some kind of scientific proof for God available? No, and that’s honestly a silly expectation that reveals a total lack of understanding of the nature of what we are talking about here. Why would there be some kind of purely natural proof for the existence of a supernatural being? And yet the more we look at the world around us and come to understand how it works in a more foundational way, the clearer and clearer it becomes that apart from a Creator God who designed it all just so, there’s not another rational explanation for how and why it is the way it is.
Furthermore, this God who must exist because there’s not another rational explanation for the world’s existence as we know it to be with Him, must be good. “But what about all the bad stuff in the world?!?” the critic will quickly exclaim. Unless there was some sort of an objective standard of good to which we can appeal, how would recognize any of that as bad in the first place? Apart from a clear standard of good, identifying something as bad has no meaning. What’s more, there is good in the world. A lot of it. And this doesn’t come from us. We’ve demonstrated our inability to create and sustain things that are good rather profoundly. This good has to come from higher up the chain of creation than where we sit.
Now, come back off of that rabbit trail with me, and let’s connect some dots. When we are willing to take up a posture of humility that rightly acknowledges not only that God is, but who He is, then we will be able to interact with Him as He is. And one of the ways we can interact with Him in light of who He is, is to cast our cares on Him. The season of Advent can act a bit like salt in our lives, but not necessarily in a good way. The emotions and rhythms of this season can highlight the burdens we carry and make them seem heavier than usual. Yet we don’t have to worry and fret and be anxious about what is happening in our lives and in the world around us because there exists this God who is both powerful and good.
This doesn’t mean the situations we are in are always going to go the way we want. This is because the way we want isn’t necessarily what is ultimately good. The God who is the source of goodness is going to be aiming for that. When we are willing to acknowledge who He is honestly and cast our cares on Him – that is, to trust Him with the outcome of our situations and to demonstrate that trust by obeying His command to love one another after the pattern of His own love for us – we will put ourselves in a place to receive and experience this ultimate goodness. We can do all of this because He cares for us.
And the ultimate expression of His care for us begins in what we celebrate this season. God cares for us so much that He was not willing for us to remain stuck in sin any longer than we had to be. His ultimate solution of this was a long time in coming – the apostle Paul noted that He came at just the right time – but when the time was just right, He set everything in motion by entering our world fully as one of us and in the most humble way imaginable. The God who created the world and everything in it took on human flesh and arrived as a totally helpless baby.
What an absolutely audacious idea! No god ever did something like this. They might have put on humanity as a costume to achieve some ultimately selfish end, but to become human? And to do something that was purely for our good? Not a chance. Yet this is precisely what the God who actually exists did. And He did it because, as Peter says here, He cares for us. When we are willing to be honest about Him – that is, when we are willing to humble ourselves before Him – we can receive that care and all the blessings it brings. We can cast our cares on Him. We don’t have to turn from our burdens in fear and loathing. We can live into them and through them with His abiding help.
As you continue to move forward in this season of Advent, may you cast your cares on the God who cares for you.
The Nexus 
Now, does this mean there is some kind of scientific proof for God available?
Considering there are thousands of people who still believe the Earth is flat, I’m thinking even if there were irrefutable proof of God’s existence the conspiracies (and disbelief) would still be flowing. Lol.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was wondering if you had had time to consider?
“Okay, let’s try this.Consider the tale of the Noachian Global Flood.For the moment completely ignore anything / everything you might expect I will reply, and simply produce what you consider to be evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the Bible text and how it aligns with your worldview.”
LikeLike
I hadn’t, but I haven’t forgotten about you. I’ll leave Thomas to speak for himself.
LikeLike
I hope so. The comment was for him.
LikeLike
I know. I just wanted to give you the assurance I hadn’t forgotten about you.
LikeLike
That’s sweet of you!
😘
LikeLike
If you could produce even the merest shred of evidence for your god, Yahweh I would seriously reconsider my lack of belief.
With all due respect, I don’t believe you would. That would force you to admit you’ve been wrong all your life and to consider how many people you have mislead with your own beliefs, including family members I expect, with wrong information that has life changing implications. But to be truthful, I doubt anyone else in your shoes would reconsider their stance, either. The complications are too severe.
The only hope of you changing your stance is from the Lord himself. You’ve been reading blogs from a man who has spent his entire life studying the Bible and leading thousands to worship. If his words have not changed your mind there is no reason for me to attempt to change it.
LikeLike
As I am not prone to telling lies I assure you I would acknowledge Yahweh existing.
This does not mean I would worship this god but I would acknowledge it.
As for misleading my family…
That is very funny.
Unlike you evangelist types indoctrination is simply not my bag and I generally never discuss such things with family or friends unless I am asked directly.
I let evidence or lack thereof speak for itself.
But it is telling, Thomas that you chose to question my honesty rather than offer any evidence.
Perhaps you need to rethink your own position regarding your ‘faith’?
LikeLike
Lol. We have a saying in the South, “I don’t chew my cabbage twice” which basically means I’ve stated my case already, next time listen more closely. Usually it’s because the listener was not paying attention. Just saying.
To that end, you tend to use the word indoctrination quite often. I would wager if this blog enabled to search for a word, it would find indoctrination over a thousand times. In that frame, you do chew your cabbage twice. In fact, you’ve probably gone through several heads with that word.
LikeLike
Case? You have never presented a shred of evidence.
And it is also telling you didn’t have the decency to apologize for suggesting I lie. But this also is a trait so often displayed by those of am evangelical bent.
LikeLike
About as telling, I suppose, as your not having the decency yet to apologize for all the times you’ve outright accused me of lying…
LikeLike
Well, my memory is not as good as it once was. Perhaps you could refresh my memory as to when I called you a liar, and for what?
So, no evidence then?
Why not?
LikeLike
I’ll let you take the time to review our past conversations. Nearly all of them eventually land on your accusing me of lying in one form or fashion. You probably won’t have to look long. But your hand-waving away things like that is fairly well par for the course in our history.
LikeLike
Please see my explanation and apology.
LikeLike
Goodness gracious, I thought I was replying to Thomas. Sincere apologies, Jonathan. Yes, indeed I have accused you of lying to your children.
Do you still lie to them about religion and Christianity?
LikeLike
Shall I assume those sincerest apologies are not for accusing me of lying, but for confusing the object of your comments? Or were they broader than just that. I can easily forgive forgetting who you’re talking to on here. I’ve certainly done it before. But to your question, as I’ve said more times than I can count, I’ve never lied to them about religion or Christianity or anything else to the extent I am aware.
LikeLike
The sincere apologies are for saying I had NOT accused you of lying (to your kids.) If course I have. And I acknowledge this fact.
I thought I was initially replying to Thomas who I mistakingly thought was saying I had accused him(Thomas) of lying.
Hope that clears things up?
LikeLike
Yep, and my point stands as made. Thomas will likely have the decency to apologize for suggesting that you lied about your willingness to accept the existence of God and the Gospel message when you have the decency to apologize for accusing me of lying about all sorts of things in all sorts of ways.
LikeLike
I never mentioned the “gospel message”.
The Bible is primarily unadulterated error, filth and nonsense.
I cannot apologize for accusing you of lying to your kids about the bible and your religion when I have accused you of doing just that.
I suppose the only thing that could be used in mitigation would be your indoctrination or ignorance.
We can test this quite easily.
The Noachian Global Flood tale as featured in Genesis.
Fact or fiction?
LikeLike
Sigh… you know as well as I do that’s not worth either of our time.
LikeLike
But it was the topic of the comment I left on your previous post while you were at the dentist. Did you not say you would address it?
LikeLike
Yes, I’ll still yet reply to that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent! Then I shall eagerly await your reply.
LikeLike
Here’s the best way I know to explain my feelings about all of this….
Suppose you, Ark, started a blog about Real Madrid. Each day you added blogs about the team, La Liga, Mbappe, whatever.
One day you get comments from an NFL fan telling you there’s only one football, and it played in the US.
Soccer is for sissies, all the players ever do is fall down when they get touched, it’s not even a sport. You know this is crazy, you explain to him that soccer is the most popular sport in the world, the World Cup makes the Super Bowl look criminally small, there’s a reason millions of people love soccer.
His response? Prove it. You don’t know football unless you watch the NFL. There’s also a reason they call it soccer in our country, there is only room for one football in America. The only reason you think soccer is better is because, at an early age, it is all you knew and you’re too brainwashed to believe or appreciate the real football.
And all you wanted to do was discuss Real Madrid with fellow fans.
There you go.
If I went on a Real Madrid blog I’m not gonna try and tell anyone that the NFL is the real deal. Nor will I try to convince them to change allegiance to a sport they grew up playing, loving and watching.
It would be a waste of time and just wouldn’t make any sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except for this very salient point. .. Real Madrid and the NFL exist and are demonstrably real.
Their merits or lack thereof are purely subjective.
This is NOT the case with your god, Yahweh, however, and all that this entails.
And while I gleefully acknowledge being a major influence on the fact my children support Liverpool, I would never condemn them covertly or overtly and damn them to eternal torment in Hell if they decided to support Real Madrid.
If you refuse to provide evidence for the claim about the existence of your god, Yahweh then it brings into question your motivation or reason for believing in the first place.
If you are unable to produce evidence then simply say, “There is no evidence I am aware of and I believe because if faith. ”
And admittedly, while this brings to the fore a whole heap of other questions about the dubious nature of such beliefs at least it displays a degree of honesty which is usually lacking whenever I discuss these topics with believers.
LikeLike
I think you’re missing my point, which you have been for quite some time.
If I go to a Real Madrid blog I don’t want to argue the merits of European football vs American football. I want to discuss Real Madrid.
When I read Jonathan’s blogs I want to learn about and worship my Lord. Not discuss the legitimacy of the Christian religion. Which, again, is why I choose not to engage.
Just as I wouldn’t want to waste my time arguing the validity of whether the NFL or La Liga is the better form of football on a Real Madrid blog, neither do I want to discuss the validity or existence of God on a Christian blog.
I bold faced above for a reason.
I’m sorry you don’t understand that logic.
LikeLike
Aah, I see.
So I take it you have no evidence. Why then did you engage in the first place?
LikeLike
Sigh. Okay then. Just remember, you asked for this.
LikeLike
And this merely illustrates my point. Churlish and childish.
Sigh
From the moment I decided to investigate and research Christianity when I began to write my first novel later and took to blogging I have NEVER encountered a single online Christian of any sect, from YEC, liberals and evangelicals, that is truly honest.
As my old guitar tutor used to say: They never fail to dissapoint.
LikeLike
And yet, you keep coming back for more.
Which reminds me of the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
You know, I would have bet a $100 when I woke up this morning I would not have anyone call me churlish today. And I work with the public. Lol.
Childish, sure. Churlish? Should have taken that bet.
LikeLike
Yes I come back. But not specifically for you, Thomas. That is merely a bonus, and when you do engage it is with all the humility and honesty I have come to experience with believers.
It would have been a bet you would gave lost.
LikeLike
We all know you keep coming back for my dry humor and witty repartee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not true. It is your debonnair good looks, strict adherence to evidence based reality and the charming way you write worldview. Although I suspect it’s overuse is likely on a par with my use of the word indoctrinated.
LikeLike
Awww, now you’re going to make me blush.
LikeLike
Debonair good looks for you. Churlish for me. I guess Alvin and the Chipmunks was a bridge too far. sigh.
LikeLike
I’ve been called churlish lots of times. With debonair good looks, though, I feel like I’m really starting to move up in the world. I’m probably going to go on a big ego trip tonight. I’ll probably wind up shouting from the parade float something like, “Behold, citizens of Oakboro, I have debonair good looks. You’re welcome.” Maybe they’ll make me Grand Marshall over it.
LikeLike
You’re right, I would be willing to bet $100 you will be grand marshall. But then, that churlish bet from this morning, what do I know?
LikeLike
That’s only because of your worldview bias.
You’re not used to the flattery. Perhaps you need to worry less what Jesus might think and learn to embrace the Dark Side? Jonathan … Yahweh is not your father.
LikeLike
See, now you’re starting to get it ;~)
LikeLike
I always find it amusing that people’s feathers are ruffled when they are offended by actions they themselves produce with no whims whatsoever. I believe the term is “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. Lol. Sorry, but I love idioms.
LikeLike
Not offended at all. I find the bristles always rise on the backs of indoctrinated believers who when challenged on their faith based beliefs tend to be smug and condescending and NEVER engage in a straightforward manner and NEVER present evidence for their religious beliefs.
Case in point….
LikeLike
Well if you weren’t offended not sure why you were expecting an apology.
My bristles aren’t raised, as I’ve written before I read Jonathan’s blog to engage in furthering my understanding of the Lord. I don’t read them to engage in debates on the existence of God. From this point on I will continue to engage with your responses from time to time but don’t expect that type of feedback from me. Especially now. I’m too busy enjoying Advent. As the song says “it’s the most wonderful time of the year”.
Happy Christmas.
LikeLike
The apology issue has been cleared up. It was miscommunication on my part. So no apology from you required.
As you were…
And yet you did not deign to offer an apology over your rejection of my assertion that should evidence be produced to demonstrate the veracity of the claim of the existence of Yahweh I would acknowledge Yahweh no hesitation. Do you not have even the simplest shred of evidence to defend your position, Thomas?
LikeLike
This thread has gotten a bit haywire. 🤦
1. I never accused you of lying.
2 I have accused Jonathan of lying to his children.
3. It is disappointing you declined to accept my word that should evidence be produced I would most assuredly acknowledge Yahweh.
There, I think that about covers it?
LikeLike
@Thomas.
If you could produce even the merest shred of evidence for your god, Yahweh I would seriously reconsider my lack of belief.
However, on that note, presenting a blog piece that is considered a forgery doesn’t really help the case.
LikeLike
So you’ve never accused him of lying to his children? Hmmmmm
LikeLike
Yes, indeed I have. I mistook his question as coming from you. I apologise to you as well, in that case.
I shall endeavor to pay closer attention to who is commenting.
Carry on, Sergeant!
LikeLike