I got engaged...

in November 1989. The wedding date was set for August 1990. January 1, 1990 was the day that my future husband (FH) boarded a plane for South Korea to serve the country. Since I was also still in school, the wedding plans fell to me and my mom. Of course, I wanted, and needed, the FH's input on the many and various essential decisions. Our primary method of communication was through letters, now called snail mail. Email was not an option, and neither were international phone calls.  I was a poor, starving college student, and FH was saving for our life together.

Anyway, the first few times that I asked my FH what he thought about certain significant events of our wedding (probably real essentials like order of service or staging of bridesmaids), he answered, "I have no opinion."  I accepted this the first few times, because I interpreted his "no opinion" as deference to "my opinion."  However, at some point light began to dawn, and I suspected that perhaps his "real opinion" was indifference to the whole event.  His neutrality offended my centrality over the essentiality.

Which really, really, really upset me.

Why would my FH be indifferent to such an important, life-changing event as Our Wedding?  I was baffled.  But not so baffled that I didn't confront my FH.  To his credit, he was not intending to affect indifference to Our Wedding, but in truth, he did not want to be consumed (because I obviously was) with the minutae of details necessary to planning Our Wedding.  He cared greatly for me, but not so much for every. single. itty. bitty. detail.  In order for FH to communicate to me his primary care, I desired that he communicate interest in the details through an opinion.  Even if that opinion stated, "I'm happy for you to decide."

The life-changing event, Our Wedding, occurred on schedule and with all details intact in August 1990.  But the life-changing event that occurred prior was the discussion between FH and me that "I have no opinion" was an unacceptable statement regarding those things that affected us both.  For having "no opinion" actually implied an opinion of indifference.

While not an exact illustration, I was reminded of that event after reading Mt. 12:30, "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."  This verse in context means there is no neutrality with Jesus.  You are either with Him, or against Him.  You cannot have a "no opinion" attitude.

By this point in Matthew, Jesus has all ready addressed, repeatedly, the indifference and thereby, rejection of His gospel among the multitudes and the religious establishment.  Though He continues to give out His message, clearly the time is fast approaching where His teaching will dramatically change.  I think this verse 30 is the warning knell that a choice must be made.  An encounter with Jesus requires a response.  Neutrality is not an option.

And even more sobering is the truth that we are judged by our response to Him, with the consequence of that response bringing either condemnation or blessing.

I do not want to be of "no opinion" towards the Christ.

"I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like Him in His death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead."  Php 3:10-11