I Will Restore What the Locusts Have Eaten - Part One

I Will Restore What the Locusts Have Eaten

Part One - Joel 2:18-27

Would you like the lost years of your youth and young adulthood back?  Would you like the years that you wasted in unproductive relationships and jobs that did not match your personality and skills set?  The locusts of time have eaten many days of our lives.  Consider the various false starts of your life.  Think of the years of sweat equity in business, school, marriage, family, organizations, service and other worthy causes that did not yield a harvest.  You concur with the characterization of “failure.”  You greatly lament the swarm of locusts: finances, fear, anger, frustration, impatience, apathy, blame, indifference, reputation, resources, doubt, and cynicism.  Calculate the colossal lost of time, talent, treasure and temperament that these locusts consumed over those years.  Possibly, this swarm of emotional, psychological and spiritual locusts continues to consume your potential harvest by eating away meticulously and steadily your belief in Almighty God and yourself.  Each day, you lose countless of amount of money and immeasurable success because you fail to sow seeds of creativity and ingenuity.  However, the immortal words of the prophet, Joel, encourage us that God will restore all that has been lost!

The book of Joel centers upon a plague of locusts which the Lord allows to punish His people.  The opening verses details five types of locusts which can devour viciously the much-needed crops any potential harvests.  The people to whom Joel spoke were dependent primarily upon the land and its yield of crops.  Because of the density of the population in this region, the land produced just enough food.  The lost of a year’s harvest easily threatened a famine.  More unfortunately, ravenous swarms of locusts remain indigenous to Africa, Asia and the Middle East where Joel’s audience resides.  Mostly, their merciless consumption affects sixty countries which equate withy one-fifth of the world’s surface and one-tenth of the world’s population.  More specifically, a desert locust swarm could comprise four hundred and sixty square miles inclusive of forty to eighty million locusts per one-half square mile.  Numerically, a plague of desert locusts potentially totaled eighty to one hundred and sixty million locusts per square mile resulting in a possible minimum of 36,800 million to a total of 73,600 million locusts.  Hence, Joel speaks with the vivid imagery of the sky darkening with a plague of locusts.  Their sheer number covers the canvass of the horizon enroute to a plague.  This vast army of predatory insects consumes 423 million pounds of crops per day.  Arguably, this plague greatly exceeds the damage that any human army, however fierce and formidable, could perpetrate upon an enemy.

Biblical scholars debate the historical verifiability of Joel’s prophecy.  Scarce extra-biblical evidence exists to corroborate independently Joel’s assertions about the plague and its devastation.  Yet, we have the privilege of allegorizes this intriguing passage.  Many of us have experienced plagues in our lives reminiscent of the destruction of the desert locusts.  Perhaps, your recollections of your childhood years do not conjure pleasant and satisfying memories.  Honestly, the average American family does not resemble the Cosby, Brady or Walton families portrayed on television.  Maybe, you were robbed of feelings of love, admiration, affirmation and security due to the incapacities of your parents, siblings and extended family members.  If you grew up in an impoverished environment, you probably have a hard time trusting Almighty God for your daily bread.  You may think that you cannot give to charitable causes because you fear that you will not have enough for your family and yourself.  Tithing is simply out of the question.  Someone with such a background, undoubtedly, watches every penny and fears that the ends of the months will not meet harmoniously.  This type of individual harbors the deeply held anxiety that his or her quality of life and standard of living will not exceed measurably the childhood years. 

I Will Restore What the Locusts Have Eaten - Part Two

I Will Restore What the Locusts Have Eaten

Part Two - Joel 2:18-27

Further, there are those persons for whom the quest for love repeatedly terminated in disappointing and hurtful relationships.  Quite possibly, you may have invested years into relations with people hoping to achieve the ultimate experience of God’s unconditional love as evidenced in time, trust and feelings with people.  The failure of these interactions hurt so deeply because time is something that we can never replace not repay.  What an incredible waste of emotions, money, time and energy!  In response, one may be afraid of other relationships.  Should regret and depression solidify in one’ heart and mind, one may often think about the invaluable lost of one’s time and self in those relationships.  On a good day, one would want that time back.  Nevertheless, this scenario happens in business and one’s attempt to succeed in a given profession.   Failed businesses, bankruptcies, termination and false starts are as hurtful as broken engagements, divorces and relation breakups.  Then, you can always take the wrong side at a fork in the road.  Perhaps, you invest years in a given job, project, specialty, or pursuit to discover that it is not as fulfilling as you originally imagined.  You may obtain a certain level of expertise and a favorable reputation with it.  Yet, if you are not happy, joyous and free, you cannot resist the feeling that you are wasting your time and your abilities as life passes by.  In direct response to this dilemma, Joel offers one of the most encouraging prophecies found in the Bible.  He affirms that God will restore the wasted years!

The great British preacher and revivalist, Charles Spurgeon, spoke of the mystery of God’s handiwork while discoursing upon this text.  He succinctly describes the essence of Joel’s encouraging words to the people.  The locusts did not consume any time; they devour the fruit of years of hard work and toiling.  But, God “has a strange and wonderful way in [He] can give back to you the wasted blessings.”  Almighty God supernaturally and majestically restores “the unripened fruit of years of over which you mourned.  The fruit of wasted years may yet be yours.” 

However, God calls us into a process of discernment, personal development and spiritual growth as a prerequisite for His grand purposes of restoration.  It begins with public and private repentance and fasting.  Practically speaking, repentance means to turn around and go in the opposite direction.  Sin, rebellion and disobedience, all, lead to a dead end road which forces one to make a u-turn.  Likewise, years of unrewarding rewarding investments of time and abilities necessitates a comprehensive analysis of one’s goals and purposes.  A new way of thinking and being becomes necessary.  The old paradigm no longer works.  A fresh outlook reveals previously unseen vistas of possibilities for a productive use of one’s time and talents.  Nonetheless, the humility and willingness to re-evaluate one’s choices and action is the first and non-negotiable step to discovering these latent possibilities for a more fulfilling and rewarding life.

This repentance motivates God to take pity on the people.  Accompanied by a righteous act of fasting, this decision to return to the Lord leads to His relenting of sending judgment upon the people.  The prophet tells them to rend their hearts instead of their clothing.  The usual customs led people to tear their outer garments as a demonstration of their sorrow and horror in the face of calamity.  This outward display of religious piety proved utterly meaningless to Joel, if it were not matched with an internal and genuine desire to change.  Thus, the combination of the sincere repentance and authentic fasting yield the Lord’s gracious bestowal of grain, new wine and oil.  Furthermore, He promises that the people will never again be the objects of scorn or the victims of such treacherous judgment.

I Will Restore What the Locusts Have Eaten - Part Three

I Will Restore What the Locusts Have Eaten

Part Three - Joel 2:18-27

If we are willing to abandon our self-made plans and exchange them for the wisdom and guidance of Almighty God, He will bless us as bountifully as He did Joel’s hearers.  In the wonderful phrase of one biblical commentator, the Lord requires the cessation of “our vain efforts at self-reform.”  It is so easy to try plan after plan after plan when we encounter hardships, disappointments and failures.  The myth of the self-made person deceitfully encourages us to stay the course in the midst of adversity.  In contrast, God lovingly recommends that we develop the spiritual discipline of daily consulting with Him about His “good, pleasing and perfect” will for us.  As our Creator, the Lord knows us better than we know ourselves.  He knows perfectly what will make us happy, joyous and free.  He knows our passions, talents, abilities and interests.  He knows the types of work and activities in which we will find the most fulfillments.  Accordingly, God will lead us in the direction of this abundant and eternal life if we trust Him by following His lead.

Conceivably, a percentage of the wasted years could have been salvaged had we diligently asked God for His daily will for our lives.  In the midst of unfortunate situations, God will grant graciously His guidance to bring about a reversal of fortunes.  As I write, I immediately conjure a memory of a time when I knew that I was making the wring choice in a matter.  I allowed fear to become larger than life itself.  I proceeded in this relationship when every sign that I could see warned me that I was headed for disaster.  Yet, I was afraid that if I let this “opportunity” pass that I would not receive another.  As this choice unfolded in my life, I actually tolerated unacceptable circumstances all the while fearing that if I let go I would be left empty.  I could not have been more wrong!  Years removed from that experience, I can testify that God does indeed restore what the locusts of time have eaten.  If only, I had trusted Him sooner.

Joel expands this remarkable prophecy to include all of nature.  God’s promises of restoration extend to the animals and the open fields which will yield a heretofore immeasurable harvest.  The land shall rejoice and be glad.  Flourishing green pastures await the animals of grazing.  The fig tree and vine will produce untold riches.  Abundant rains will come and wipe out the drought.  Both the fall and spring rains will descend to yield a bountiful harvest.  The former rains ensure the year’s harvest and the latter one prepares the soil for next year’s yield.  Accordingly, the threshing floors overrun with grain and the vats overflow with wine and oil.  These vivid and positive nature images depict spiritual and material blessings of restoration for us.  Although we may sow in tears, the day will dawn when we shall come rejoicing bringing in the sheaves. 

I Will Restore What the Locusts Have Eaten - Part Four

I Will Restore What the Locusts Have Eaten

Part Four - Joel 2:18-27

In the twenty-third verse, Joel speaks of the gift of “the autumn rain in righteousness.”  That saying describes the bestowal of a teacher of righteousness, one who instructs us about living in right relationship with Almighty God.  This teacher’s lessons and wisdom resemble the torrential downpours of the autumn rains.  For us, he will aid us in finding creativity and ideas that previously eluded us.  His teachings will re-ignite our imaginations.  We will think of ways to better ourselves.  We will not despise the day of small beginnings.  We will take the first step toward a life of inner healing and wholeness which include the merciful restoration of material blessings that lacked fruition before. 

Maya Angelou tells the story of Ms. Annie Johnson who lived in Arkansas in 1903.  Ms. Johnson had to take a new direction in the road of life.  Ms Johnson and her husband decided to separate.  He, a minister, felt called to leave Arkansas and relocate to Oklahoma to further his calling in the gospel ministry.  Ms. Johnson stayed behind with four children.  Having no idea how she would provide for them, she prayed to Almighty God for wisdom and insight.  In His infinite grace, He guided her toward a greater use of her cooking abilities.  Ms. Johnson began to cook for the workers in a mill near her house.  At first, she had few customers because most of the men brought their lunches from home.  Soon, she gained the confidence and patronage of a small percentage of the crew; they, in turn, told their coworkers about her delicious and affordable meals.  In time, her shack became the equivalent of a convenience store which later grew in numbers.  Ms. Johnson’s willingness to take a “U-turn” in the road of life enabled her to receive the financial and material blessings of God’s promise to restore the lost years.  I imagine that she looked back on those initial hard times with amazement at the Lord’s faithfulness and humor at her anxiety.

Joel concludes this grand prophecy with an incredible promise that extends beyond the finite realms of monetary substance.  He says that those persons who look to the Lord and heed His promises shall not be put to shame.  One biblical commentator posits a tripartite blessing for such persons.  First, they shall not be disregarded by Almighty God.  He will answer assuredly their prayers.  Second, they will not be disappointed.  Their expectations will be fulfilled.  Third, God will not let the circumstances of their lives debase them.  These believers have the full assurance of God’s unfailing love, unquestionable faithfulness and unending grace.  Summarily, God will restore what the locusts have eaten.

Utilizing Sympathy and Empathy in Historical Analysis

Utilizing Sympathy and Empathy in Historical Analysis

It is very easy for contemporary students of history to condemn past generations for their crimes against humanity.  How could not the people who legally, socially, politically, economically and religiously institutionalize chattel slavery in the United States fail to see moral repugnance and insidiousness of their actions?  How did Jefferson fail to comprehend the inherent and seemingly very apparent contradictions between his grandiloquent words in the Declaration of Independence and his status as a slave owner?  It remains startling to consider the historical reality that women were deprived of the right to vote from 1607 to 1920.  John Winthrop, the second governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Puritan clergyman, who penned the immortal words referring to the burgeoning settlement as “a city upon a hill” also characterized the annihilation of Native Americans as service in the name of Almighty God. 

For a century following the abolition of slavery in the United States, the Southern system of legal and social segregation, undergirded by an uncritical acceptance of White supremacy, persisted without any formidable challenge from the federal government.  It created the conditions in which nearly four thousand people were lynched without any adjudication of those murders.  Perhaps one of history’s starkest ironies is found in the documentary accounts of White Southerners leaving church services and then attending a picnic in an open field where someone was lynched.  Consider the smell of burning and searing human flesh permeating the air as people ate fried chicken and potato salad.  Incredulously, countless murders of African Americans in the South during the height of segregation remain unsolved.  Nevertheless, as we evaluate those dastardly deeds, we quickly and facilely pass judgment upon the perpetrators and other people who indirectly supported their actions.  Yet, a frightening question remains.  Would we have chosen and acted differently?  Were we in the same set of circumstances, how would we have responded to the predominant worldview?  Moreover, are we any different than those persons?  Are our contemporary moral, ethical, legal, economic and political choices any different than theirs relatives to circumstances of a twenty-first century, global economy and village?

A scholarly consensus amongst historians posits the necessity of a minimum of a quarter century’s distance from an event in order to analyze it without emotion and undue influence from one’s personal prism of experience.  When we are too close to a situation, personal feelings and preferences inevitably invade our perspective.  Even in the grand academic discipline and study of history, without distancing one’s self, depersonalizing the topic and emotionally detaching from the object of study, any student will surrender fallaciously to moral superiority and arrogance in his or her assessment of the past deeds of humankind.  The benefit of hindsight fuels this myopic analysis in which a student of history fails to appreciate the inherent limitations of his viewpoint as he or she condemns historical persons for the same offenses.  Rather, as he or she grapples relentlessly with the hard facts and factors which reliable and authentic evidence demonstrates with which historical persons lived, sympathy if not empathy might taper the intensity, breadth, depth and certainty of analysis and judgment. 

I hasten to state and accept the formal and socially scientific respectable methodology of the discipline of history which insists upon requisite evidentiary standards as one analyzes the record of past events.  The historical method first requires thorough research and gathering of extensive and relevant evidence. Second, you evaluate the evidence for its reliability, authenticity and relevance.  Third, a historian synthesizes evidence thereby drawing logical, factual and collegially and intellectually respectable conclusions which instruct our understanding of past events.  Historical methodology does not permit historians to extrapolate a comprehensive understanding from a past era or event from meager evidence.  Erroneously, a historian attempted to detail the lives of wives of slave owners solely from the diary of one woman who acknowledged the fictionalization of certain details.  Parallel to the necessity of maintaining a chain of evidence in the practice of law, historians discard embellishments, hearsay and fictional details.  Conversely, an embarrassment of riches in which a historian peruses bountiful documents does not necessarily yield a more insightful or correct analysis. 

Mostly, historians detach emotionally thus they resist any statements of feelings and personal outlook as these undoubtedly skew anyone’s evaluation.  They restrict themselves to the hard facts, reliable documents and reasonable evidence.  Historians seek a logical conclusion based primarily and fundamentally upon foregoing methods.  Like scientists who submit willingly to peer review, historians offer logical assessments of the data that any reasonable, impartial colleagues can corroborate independently.  Assuredly, historians resist the superfluous notion that their analyses are “the truth.”  The historical method, properly employed, yields “a truth” which future discovery of evidence and release of relevant documents may expel, expand or revise.

Utilizing Sympathy and Empathy in Historical Analysis - Part Two

Utilizing Sympathy and Empathy in Historical Analysis

Part Two

I suggest we employ these lessons and techniques from the study of history to personal development and spiritual growth.  As we learn to forgive people, an appreciation of the vivid circumstances and hard facts in which they made choices that harmed us may help us to sympathize and even empathize with them.  An easier and less difficult assessment makes uninformed judgments of the actions of the people who have harmed you.  Immediately, we condemn them for hurting us and being insensitive to our feelings and pain.  Yet, if we exchange places with them, would we choose differently?  Are we better able to defeat our self-centered fears and self-seeking motives?  Do we possess a steadfast and formidable character whereby we are able to choose morally and ethically correct actions despite the hard variables in any situation?  Isn’t it less painful emotionally and spiritually to digress to moral pragmatism and utilitarianism in which we assure ourselves that we seek the best outcome for the most people using favorable and practical means?  In contrast, do we not possess the same moral cowardice and constitutional incapacities that we observe in others?

Consider a specific example.  Approximately forty-five years ago, a grandmother faced a critical decision relating to seven of her grandchildren.  They had been abandoned by their mother in the middle of a winter’s afternoon.  The mother left under the pretext of running an errand at a neighborhood store.  She never returned to her family.  Instead, she left to live with a common law husband with whom she carried on a relationship for the next thirty-eight years.  Her husband and the father of the seven children arrived home that night after a long day of work to discover that his wife and their mother had left them.  An abusive alcoholic, he knew he could not rear his seven children. 

He summoned his mother-in-law to the inner city public housing complex where they lived.  She assisted him and transporting the children to a Southern state where both sets of grandparents resided.  The father asked his mother-in-law to assume custody of his children and her grandchildren considering the fact that her oldest daughter and child had abandoned them.  The maternal grandmother said “No” in response to this request which probably was made as a conditional arrangement until the father could return to assume custody and care of his children.  Parenthetically, he never did.  In fact, he proceeded to acquire a common law wife with whom he would have two other children in addition yet another son with a third woman.  Nevertheless, the maternal grandmother straightforwardly refused to assume custody of the seven grandchildren notwithstanding the fact of her daughter abruptly abandoning and leaving them helpless.

Before rushing to judge the grandmother for her indifference to her grandchildren, pause and consider the very hard facts and context in which her decision was made.  Her husband was an active alcoholic who was not a professional man but the equivalent of a day laborer or tenant farmer in a rural Southern town.  They had late adolescent children who still needed a lot of resources and care as they had not yet graduated from high school which was the requirement for civil service and other jobs at the time.  Plus, they had already assumed custody of a niece and nephew meaning there were four teenagers in their household.  Even with public assistance such as food stamps and supplemental security income, it would have been very hard to provide food, clothing, transportation and other necessities for thirteen people not to mention the lack of healthcare, entertainment and adequate living space. 

If you are a parent of just one child, you can imagine how hard it would be to say “Yes” to the father’s request whether temporary or permanent.  Without any of the advantages or opportunities of middle strata and formally educated American citizens, how do you double the size of your household and provide sufficiently for everyone?  Honestly, would you have been able to say “Yes?”  Further, reflect on the possibility of extensive mental, emotional and psychological damage to the seven grandchildren had their maternal grandmother said “Yes” but eventually was unable to fulfill the obligations.  As wards of the state and rotating within foster care, they would have been prime candidates for criminal activity and other types of deviant behavior.  Notwithstanding her clear alternative to the contrary, arguably the maternal grandmother made the correct choice.

Utilizing Sympathy and Empathy in Historical Analysis - Part Three

Utilizing Sympathy and Empathy in Historical Analysis

Part Three

For anyone who disagrees, the burden of history with the hard facts delineated above challenges you to consider if you could have chosen realistically to assume custody of those seven grandchildren.  Switch places with the maternal grandmother and genuinely ascertain whether you could have assumed the responsibility of eleven children in your early sixties.  If you were confronted with a similar and contemporary dilemma, would you be able to say “Yes?”  If you are a spouse and parent, whether you agree with the maternal grandmother’s decision, presumably you can sympathize if not empathize with her.  In November 1967, life’s complexities coerce you in deciding whether you will double the size of your family without any additional resources.  These emotionally intense conditions are compounded by your oldest daughter’s incapacities; you wonder whether you are abandoning these children a second time.  Will they hate your daughter and you? 

Pragmatically and practically, does it make sense to assume an obligation that you are unsure whether you can meet it?  The social and cultural milieu in which you were reared and reside insist that you have unconditional faith in Almighty God who will provide faithfully were you to say “Yes.”  However, you must wrestle with the inflexible and wooden facts which are not in your favor.  You sense your son-in-law is constitutionally incapable of returning to assume custody of the children as he fervently declares he will.  If you say “Yes,” you are committing the balance of your natural life to rearing another family beginning in your sixties.  Will anyone really understand the authenticity of your answer? 

Heretofore, one of the seven grandchildren actually assumed his maternal grandmother was as indifferent to the pain and suffering of his siblings and him.  If asked, he venomously quipped, “She didn’t give a damn about us either.”  Conversely, with forty five years of distance from the experience inclusive of seventeen years of marriage and fourteen years as a parent of two children, he presently feels substantial sympathy and empathy towards his maternal grandmother.  As he emotionally detaches from his unrequited personal pain and depersonalizes the experience through the prism of marriage and fatherhood, he sympathizes and even empathizes with his maternal grandmother.  He realizes he probably would have done exactly what she did.  If challenged with a parallel situation today, he does not know if he could assume such a tremendous responsibility albeit he possesses a stalwart faith in God’s unquestionable faithfulness.

The preceding personal interlude instructs students of history to lessen the forthrightness and ferocity of their analyses of past events.  Like the grandson who arrogantly judged his maternal grandmother over the course of many years, contemporary students of history superfluously believe in their moral superiority when compared with any litany of historical crimes and scandals.  Each subsequent generation deludes itself into believing they would have made more just and moral decisions than their forebears.  Ponder the historical judgments of future generations when they evaluate the use of economic resources, technology, science, the sole superpower status of the United States and her increasingly religious, racial, ethnic and cultural pluralism in the second half of the twentieth century and the first quarter of the twenty-first century.  The “Iron Curtain” fell decisively and irretrievably in 1990.  Communism failed without question as a means of maintaining a state and creating flourishing society in which the average citizen enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Rather than foster relationships with Middle Eastern countries and Third World nations that furthered democracy and individual freedoms, the United States arguably sought economic and cultural imperialism as she strove for control of oil reserves and an unfair advantage in the global market.  Domestically, the last decade of the twentieth century, “The Clinton Years,” was the most prosperous era in human history as no other people have enjoyed the riches and blessings of money, technology, science and political power relative to their historical context.