|
|
Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which
is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an
householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
Matthew 13:52
Shortly before Jesus ascended into Heaven, His disciples asked Him, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? (Acts 1:6) Indeed, why not? (Sounds familiar, only today people are asking, "Lord when are you going to come back?") Indeed, why not? What more was there, is there, to do? Wasn’t the ultimate sacrifice made and the sins of the world forgiven? Didn’t His death accomplish God’s purpose? His blood saved them; His blood saves us. The Old Testament Kaphar from which we derive such English words as atonement, purge, reconciliation, forgive, purge away, pacify, cleansed, disannulled, appease, pardon, cover over, pacify, propitiate, atone for sin, (see ref.) makes it pretty clear what His death was all about. Isn’t this expressed in 1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed? At least the commentary Jamieson, Fausset and Brown interprets it that way. If that is the case, why did He ascend leaving the Holy Spirit in His place as our comforter and teacher? He even said it was prudent for Him to leave so they could receive the Holy Spirit (John 16:7) – why? Why would they/we need comfort? Hadn’t they/we learned enough – done enough? What more do we need to know or do than to accept the gift His blood purchased on Calvary? Come to think of it, why weren’t they raptured? The same question might be asked of each individual convert. In simple terms, why does the world continue in its sinful state? Why did He have to leave just to return again with so much filthiness and suffering in the interim? Isn’t the answer identically the same in both instances because they were "Christian" and we are "disciples" – He has other plans? Otherwise, it wouldn’t make too much sense to hold thing up, would it? If the Plan does not call for the world to instantly end; if the Plan does not call for us, individually, at the moment of conversion, to be "caught up"(1 Thessalonians 4:17) immediately upon our conversion, what does it call for? We are told He fulfilled the need for sacrifices, (Hebrews 10:12 ), that He is our High Priest (Hebrews 3:1) and that we are His priesthood (1Peter 2:5, 2:9) and His Holy Temple (1 Corinthians 3:17). High priest (descendants of Aaron) ordinary priests and temples must not be a part of His plan. From the cross, the Holy of Holies was nullified (Matthew 27:51). It must not have been part of the Plan either. Maybe we can get a clue about the nature of Jesus’ Paradigm from the fact that "disciple" is used over 200 times in the Gospels (see ref.), "apostle" nine times (see ref.) and "church" twice. As found in the Gospels, a "disciple" is a student, a learner – a scholar. Jesus is not addressing the "scribes" in the quote from Matthew used to open this article; He is speaking to His disciples. The Greek word translated as "scribe is "grammateuvß" (grammateis) that among several possible translations can mean "students of the Scriptures." The "scribes" He often took to task were "students in the Law of Moses." These "scribes" were students of the Word – students of Jesus. As "apostle" is used in the Gospels, it means "a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders; "an ambassador of the Gospel" (Strong’s # 652; see ref.). Is it too far fetched, then, to conclude that Jesus’ Paradigm involves those who are His scholars, His students (and necessarily students of the Word) who as delegates sent by Him with orders to be His ambassadors? When the word "church" is used in the Gospels, it refers to a "calling out," a "community of Christians," (see ref.). Therefore, it isn’t at all unusual to read in Acts 2:44 that this "community" of believers were concerned about and looked after one another. The usual explanation for the absence of the church as we
know it (the structural/organizational church) in the Gospels and in the
Paradigm is that Jesus was not yet finished has ministry. Strange though
that on such an important topic as to this means of promulgating His plan He
is, for all intents and purposes, silent. How radically different this
church is from that seen in the first century church. Rather than strangers
gathering once a week in a large hall of thousands and being entertained by
professional speakers and musicians, these people gathered in small numbers
in one another’s homes. Undoubtedly, they had a great deal in common with
one another and as much concern for everyone’s welfare.
|
||||||||||||||||
He is Patient for Our Sake The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some
men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any
should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9 The saints in Biblical times fully expected Jesus’ imminent return. Historians date Second Peter between 64 and 67 AD more than enough time, in the minds of some, for His promise of a return to be fulfilled. Remember too that the Apostles, with Peter in the forefront, fully expected Jesus to restore Israel as a nation and in its rightful place as one above all, chosen of God. That expectation must have infected both Jewish and Gentile converts to this new "faith" to be called Christianity. There really isn’t anything untoward about such anticipations of a quick return, judgment and condemnation of unbelievers and the beginning of the converts’ reign as rightful princes of the "church." We, who have the fullness of Scriptures, find ourselves enthralled with the prospect of our own heavenly royalty. How could we expect less of those without the entirety of Scripture to guide them? Patients, "longsuffering," according to Paul is one of the Fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). The author of Hebrews 6:12 also writes about patients, That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises – almost the same languages used in Peter’s description of God is patient in holding off His final judgment; we are to exercise patients that others may be brought back into the fold. Much like the two accounts of "patients," the desired ends are essentially the same differing only in whom is manifesting patients. It’s interesting how words are used. "Patient" also refers to one who is ill or an "invalid." In addition to denoting one who is bedridden or a sickly person, "invalid" also means, defective, null and void, wrong and illogical. All of which seems entirely appropriate in describing God’s attitude and one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit’s action in our lives. Truly, we must behave toward the "Spiritual invalids" among us as He does with us. We must be "patient" with His "patients" as He would have none of them "die unto sin." For surely, without ourselves as the world’s "doctors," it will die. That patients toward them is their salvation as much as His longsuffering toward us was ours (2 Peter 3:15). Isn’t being judgmental very much the reverse of patients? Paul wrote of those who acted and felt to the contrary, Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things (Romans 2:1). Then, when we say this one here or that one over there is not worthy of salvation, we are being impatient – if not impertinent. We are forgetting that many around us said the same thing about us – they may be still doing so. And, for those of us so inclined, Paul admonishes, But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God (v. 5). When it was first said and who first described the church as a hospital for sinners instead of a museum for saints is probably lost in the history of modern proverbs. It took a particular mind-bent to shake off the illusion that "saved in Jesus the Christ" means perfect and sinless. A saint is not sinless, as generations of Christians were drilled to believe and thus worthy of veneration rather, a saint is one imperfect person assured of a mansion in heaven – who believes John 14:6 is true. Paul struggled with the belief in a number of congregations that their salvation gave them total license to live as they would, demand all they should and judge as only they could. Times haven’t changed. The modern equivalent of such absurdity could well be the attitude so often manifested among 21st Century Christians that we are, for all intents and purposes without sin. Isn’t that assuming the mantle of Jesus the only Perfect One? An understanding that all flesh is subject to the total array of the most outrageous sin, that we are incapable of achieving anything even close to the perfection of Jesus in this life should help us with two things. First it should helps us grasp the full and complete, the continuing and never-ending value of His sacrifice for us. It was not just a one-time dramatic occurrence it is everlasting – at least as long as we are in the flesh. The flesh is corruptible, only the resurrected body is capable of a sinless condition. Second, awareness of our own sinfulness should make us more compassionate for the sins we so easily see in the lives of others. Those who judge must do so out of a deep-seated belief that they will not be judged. In the old days we were taught to believe, "There, but for the Grace of God, go I." Amen.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
THE REFORMATION OF THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT No one needs to be told that since Paul first put quill to parchment a great deal has changed in the Christian community. Instead of tens of thousands of followers, there are tens of millions. These millions upon millions are divided and then divided again on such major theological issues as how many angels are able to crowd onto the head of a pin. Christians are now of diverse national, ethnic and racial origins instead of the 70-80% African of the early church. We live in an urban, metropolitan world of over five billion people with technology "cross-pollinating" cultures as never before. Roman Catholicism completely revolutionized our concept and practice of the church – essentially invented it – yet the lists of Fruit of the spirit remain frozen in Biblical times. It’s time for a new dispensation reforming the Fruit. Now some might argue that the Scriptures are ageless. That being the case, one wonders why Biblical precepts aren’t more closely followed. If it is unchanging, why are we constantly changing it? Do those who make such arguments really think Jesus would recognize today’s practice of the beliefs we call by His Holy Name as what He taught? Honestly, isn’t it more likely He’d think this is "dejavu" all over again? Should He sneak back unannounced, (Matthew 24:43) wouldn’t He think He was dealing with the Old Covenant Temple boys again almost as if He had never been here? Well, maybe not, but close. Therefore, to bring the list of Fruit of the spirit more into line with the beliefs and practices of the church in this modern age, the following new fruit are to be subsequently added to those already extant: abhorrence, heartache, disorder, fretfulness, cruelness, virulence, disloyality. All right, it’s simply a list of antonyms the fruit, but how much closer are we to this index than what is found in the writings of Paul? Bill Hybels, pastor of the enormously successful Willowcreek Community Church once described a large segment of Christianity as "me, me, me, me" centered. Its as though the instrumentalist playing one of the popular song from The Sound of Music only had two notes "dough" and "me." To whatever degree he is correct in his assessment, it is too much. How often does he encounter one of his benefactors, major or "wannabe," displaying one of the new breed of fruit of the Spirit?" Isn’t "name dropping," a common illness among "ministry supporters" and "pastors" themselves. How frequently do we hear conversations laced with names the speaker considers important, powerful that he is using to impress if not intimidate the listener? The test of the appropriateness of Hybels portrait or our list of silly "fruit of the spirit" in describing contemporary Christianity is to see how much the world would be changed if these were adopted over those found in the Sacred Bible. Is it cynical or truthful to suggest the most dramatic change would b "life application" of the Biblical principles? Generally, if we are truthful, don’t we score in the upper percentiles of compliance with the inverse of the Biblical Spirit’s Fruit? There are three entries for "reform" in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "1 a : to put or change into an improved form or condition b : to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses 2 : to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action 3 : to induce or cause to abandon evil ways " That’s what we need. We need to improve by removing. We need to put an end to; we need to abandon our evil ways. Now that would be a "reformation" worth noting. Wouldn’t that be a reformation? Maybe that’s what Jesus meant when He said, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 5:16). Wouldn’t that be a righteous reformation? There can be little argument that the Catholicism Luther encountered needed reforming. Its excesses were legendary and his 1517 AD "Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences" essential for the spiritual health of institutional Christianity. However, if we look at the two principle schisms of Christianity some 487 years later, how much real difference is there? But if we could offer up spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5), the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name (Hebrews 13:15), that would truly be a reformation of the Fruit of the Spirit. What if we truly offered up our thanks for His stripes rather than asking Him to give us more, would that produce a renewal in the Body of Christ?
Return to the page directory
|
||||||||||||||||
|
If You Continue In My
Word Who is a "Christian?" Protestants are fond of "converting" Roman Catholics to Christianity. Roman Catholics respond in kind. Isn’t that alarming? Then, we get into the matter of "cults." Books written on the subject of what is and what isn’t a cult fill libraries. "Continue in My Word" is the one sure answer to this 2,000±-year-old question, remember even in Paul’s day the debate raged, is that the denomination/church/etc to which we belong is most assuredly Christian. For the rest, everything seems up for grabs. And isn’t that distressing. But should we do so, we are His disciples indeed! Amen! Views of the Trinity, the proper "day of rest," the role of women, the age appropriate for baptism, the nature of church organization, qualifications for preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments, the kind and number of Sacraments, and on, and on and on. So much has divided and so little has united Christians over the centuries without any attempt to consolidate or reconcile. Little wonder that "seekers" are puzzled by the array of presumably Christian churches having nothing to do with one another – in some/many instances displaying open and aggressive hostility. Yet this is a "religion" claiming to worship the True God who, coincidentally, they claim is not the author of confusion, For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Corinthians 14:33) Really, then who is? Perhaps it might be a scandalous suggestion to make, but wouldn’t it seem frugal to check the source? Well, that does have its limitations because the one source, the Bible, has so many versions, translations, interpretations and whatnot, that it is also a source of controversy, divisiveness and feuding within the Christian "community." But, look, if we take the passage from John 8:31 and compare several "translations," isn’t there enough of a common thread that we can agree this might be a beginning point for defining a "Christian," with the understanding that Jesus did not coin the phrase?
With the "Vulgate" just thrown in for the fun of it,
isn’t there enough similarity in these renditions for us to be able to
say with some confidence that Jesus felt it was important for His
followers (the Followers of the Way) to obey His teachings? Couldn’t we
agree that being "born again,"
(John 3:3; 3:7) regardless of what
translation we use is key to the Christian spirit? What about the
passage as reported in the King James Bible in
John 14:6, I am the way, the truth,
and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Does that
go through such a metamorphosis of meaning in the various translations
that it cannot be a cardinal, defining characteristic of a Christian?
Did Jesus speak these or very similar words or not? Among several
places, it is reported in
Matthew 16:24 that Jesus said, If
any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
cross, and follow me. Is it safe to say Christians are those who
believe Jesus is "THE way, are "born again," "continue in His word,"
that we "must prepare for persecutions, sufferings, and death?" These
aren’t the only defining characteristics of a "Christian" to be found
in the Bible, (try
this resource for a more extensive listing) which isn’t the
point either. The point is that there is agreeable Scriptural
characteristics all must share if we are to refer to ourselves as
"Christian." Then why don’t we stop the bickering and finger pointing
and get on with His business? Right out of the Bible, how about this as
a confession of faith for a Christian/disciple, And we believe and
are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. John
6:69
|
||||||||||||||||
|
THY
KINGDOM COME Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Matthew 6:10 You correctly recognize this passage as part of the Lord’s Prayer. How many times have we said it without noticing the peculiar syntax of this verse? Thy Kingdom Come is a simply statement of fact. Surely, few Christians would disagree that His Kingdom is going to come. Then, this is a statement by our Lord and Savior, the Son of God, to that fact. It is inevitable; it is going to happen - or is it? In contrast to The King James Version, The New Living Translation of the Bible phrases the passage, May your Kingdom come soon. May your will be done here on earth, just as it is in heaven. Less certain. The question is far more than a comparison of two versions of the Bible, it is about an attitude, a point of view. For centuries, the children of Abraham anticipated the arrival of a Messiah. When He came, they rejected Him. They didn’t recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah because He didn’t fit their preconceptions. He wasn’t the warrior-king-prophet the synagogue preachers had forecast. He didn’t immediately assemble an army and rout the enemy from the Promised Land, rebuild the Temple, assume the Throne and properly reward them. He didn’t do anything they expected and did everything they did not. Jesus was a total surprise to the Jewish people, such that they have yet to recover. What’s more, when He finished His ministry on earth, there wasn’t anything left of their religious practices so carefully and meticulously assembled over the centuries – the Temple, the Priesthood were gone forever. A Messiah was to come and He did. The "instrument," according to the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, "by whom God's kingdom is to be established in Israel and in the world," and He was not recognized then because He did not establish the kingdom for them. Well, what did He do? Is it possible, is it remotely possible that He told them and showed them how to do it for themselves? His words were not penned to paper during His earthly ministry. They have never been written down in the Aramaic language in which He spoke. Decades, perhaps centuries later, they were written in Greek and even later translated into English. Could it have been written and translated incorrectly? Could He have said, "Thy Kingdom will come when Thy will is done on earth?" Whether or not, everything written of what He said, everything written of what He did cries at the top of its voice that this is the TRUTH. Look at it! Before He came, those chosen people expected Him to do it all. After He came aren’t we, the modern chosen people expecting Him to do it all? Without any effort, thought or plan on their part the Kingdom was supposed to be established for them. Yet God, as meticulously and carefully as they had ignored Him, laid out a step by step, inch by inch plan for what they were to do. They left Egypt but moaning and groaning all the way. They refused, that is right refused, to enter the Promised Land costing them an entire generation save for two and including Moses. They lost the ark — they lost the presence among them the very throne of God! They demanded a king to rule them. They never, never conquered the Promised Land as required - never. In fact, in His day, Israel did not exist. We are so very much like the Children of Israel. A prevalent view today is that after we’ve been saved all we have to do is sit around until we’re "caught up" – at least that how we act. What is it we do that He has told us? Love ourselves? Love our neighbor? Love God? Do we actually claim to love God? How is that possible when we don’t love our neighbor? The Scriptures tell us, If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar 1 John 4:20. Do we seek first His Kingdom? Aren’t we to be "Kingdom Builders? What have we done what are we doing to bring it about? Is His will being done on earth — even among Christians? "No" why not? Is it because we think, "Let’s just sit back and wait upon the Lord?" After all there is nothing, we have to do because our salvation is assured? We are elected and predestined aren’t we? There is nothing for us to do but debate the theological fine points of "pin sitting" (as in how many angels can sit on one) and condemn those who come up with the wrong number, is there? He’ll do the rest – and He should hurry up about it. So thought the Jews and they are still waiting. Well, we aren’t talking about our salvation; we are talking about the coming of the Kingdom of God. What if He has been waiting for nearly 2000 years for us to get started, to become actively involved in His plan so that His kingdom will come forth? Not for our salvation or any reward for us but for His glory? Just what if?
|
||||||||||||||||
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his
Father; "The future of the church in the twenty-first century will rise or fall in direct proportion to the degree we understand the role of lay people in our ministries." Many denominations are reflecting the view expressed by this speaker delivering a report to a general church conference. They, like this denomination are finding, as included in the report being delivered, "Our churches are having enormous difficulty finding pastors for their congregations. Almost 20 percent of this denomination’s congregations are without a "full-time ordained pastor." 60% of those without have been searching for two years. "The reality is," the report continues, "that the day is over when we could hope to place an ordained minister of Word and sacrament in every church." This very practical need for "pastors," has led every shape and size of Christian church and denomination in the United States to reexamine to role of the laity. Timely. If "timely" means just after devastating disaster has struck, then this "avant-garde" interest in "lay" ministry is right on cue. According to a 1997 study by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, only 53% of Americans consider religion to be very important in their lives. However, compares with the 16% in Britain, 14% in France and 13% in Germany, that’s fantastic(?) The study also determined that church attendance is declining in nearly all the advanced industrial societies of Western Europe – the home of much of Christianity and the birthplace of the Reformation. The Christian organization, Barna Research Group LTD, found in a ten-year survey of the 48 contiguous states that those considering themselves absolutely committed to the "Christian faith" was just 48% of the population. We don’t need studies, all we need is to hear and see what is going on around us to realize the bastions of Christianity are crumbling. The paradigm of the church primarily engineered by Roman Catholicism and only modestly modified by the Reformation has failed. But, then, it could not have succeeded because it is not according to God’s plan. The age, the dispensation of time for this model is at an end if was ever to be. In these last days, the church will be returned to its original condition and to its rightful heirs. The very idea, the presumptuousness, the temerity of such an illegitimate priesthood to presume to train "lay ministers" in a feeble attempt to reinvigorate their white washed tombs (Matthew 23:27) is preposterous. It is time to take the "lay" out of ministry and return to a spiritual house and a holy priesthood 1 (Peter 2:5). This is what was intended. Paul, writing to the saints at Ephesus said, you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit (Ephesians 2:22). He was not speaking to a clavern of bishops but to all the saints – all those who have confessed Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The revelation given in John, Revelation 1:6, was addressed to the children of God, not to a modern-day Sanhedrin. Of this glorious church every Christian soul is an epitome; for as God dwells in the church at large, he dwells in every believer in particular: each is a habitation of God t through the Spirit. In vain are all pretensions among sects and parties to the privileges of the church of Christ, if they have not the doctrine and life of Christ. Traditions and legends are not apostolic doctrines, and showy ceremonies are not the life of God in the soul of man. Adam Clarke’s CommentaryIt is time to return to the fullness of the Gospel that each of us, without respect to persons, is a minister of God. In Paul’s words, It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up (Ephesians 4:11-12). The Gifts of the Spirit, the offices of the church were given not so the prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers might be built up but that the body of Christ would be. That the other road has been taken is obvious as are the consequences. We have become respecters of persons. We do call others "father," "pastor" "minister," preacher to our everlasting discredit. Who teaches? The Holy Spirit. Who is endowed with the Holy Spirit? Every Christian. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethern. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: (teachers) for one is you Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant . Matthew 23:8-11Return to the page directory
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Who would really dispute the fact that our God is a "purpose driven" God or that we have a "purpose driven life" in that plan? Maybe that’s where Rick Warren got the idea – we can see a new book right now "Our Purpose Driven God." Jesus taught us to pray, Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven Matthew 6:10. At least some Bible scholars seem to think that is an indication of a Divine Plan for His creation – His Kingdom. Why, as in Matthew 18:14, would He desire that not one of us should perish unless we have a role to play in His plan to establish His Kingdom? The parable of the "vine dresser," John 15:1-8 is a strong sign that He does have such a purpose for us. Romans 8:28 speaks of His plan and our purpose in that plan, And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God. "Purpose driven" or not, Our God is an awesome God. We often overlook just how exalted He really is - world without end (Ephesians 3:21). One thing that make our God such an "awesome God" is that He is omniscient - having total knowledge; knowing everything. The word doesn’t appear in the Bible. Then, "Trinity" doesn’t either. It is an attribute few would dismiss. Paul declares, O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! (Romans 11:33). It says in Acts 15:18, Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Our "awesome God" has an infinite design for the entire universe, and beyond, and a specific strategy for our lives within that master strategy to which Matthew 25:34 gives eloquent testimony, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. Few in the Christian community would disagree with any of this – separately. Nor would we disagree with His immutable, unchanging, character as testified to in Hebrews 6:17. James 1:17 adds to our conviction of His "unchangeableness," with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Too often His "awesomeness" gets in our way. We bog down in such ethereal things as "election" and "predestination" that arise out of His omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and, just in general exalted nature. It isn’t that election and predestination aren’t as important as it is they have been taken care of in one way or another. They certainly are beyond our ability to do anything about as well as our ability to comprehend Him at all. Maybe that is why we call Christianity a "faith" instead of a "religion." There are just some things, perhaps by design, that cannot be reasoned through – such as the concept of the Trinity. Are we to reject all non-comprehensible concepts of our faith until they become understandable to us? If we could just set aside the eschatological implications and simply accept the idea that, for Him, the outcome, universal and personal, is already known, we might find a valuable lesson for living in the process. The battle is won; the outcome is certain - thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:57). Caught up in "End Times," mentality we seem to forget there is a process involving us. We, like ancient Israel, wait to be raptured just as surely as they waited for the Messiah to come down and instantly make everything right for them. It may be a diversion on our part; as long as we debate the pros and cons of Election and Predestination, we don’t have to do anything. If so, it has been an extremely effective defense mechanism – not for the Kingdom but for our own psyche. If we could overcome these weighty theological matters, our prayer-life might benefit because we would accept the fact it is His plan we are supposed to fit into not the other way around. How often are our prayers telling Him what we want and what He should do for us? We wear out that passage from Matthew 7, verse 7, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you which is true, but out of context, only half-true. An excessive concern for worldly things certainly would not be granted– except possibly to teach us a lesson - would it? But our prayers asking for His direction and help in our part of His plan just might be the ticket. Prayers of surrender and obedience to His divine will would get His attention too. Wouldn’t that be novel? What is more revealing of our actual motives than the blank slate of prayer upon which, truly, "our hearts desires" may be written? Is our desire service to Him? Is it His plan, His will we seek in prayer or our desires, our pleasures, our wishes for a long and prosperous life? |
||||||||||||||||
|
(I and Thou) What Jesus is commanding us to do is not to have, "brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence" (ref) toward our brothers and sisters in Him, but to "welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly" (ref) fellow believers. Not just as "friends" but as family members. There is another clue as to the full nature of this order. He tells us to love one another as I have loved you. "As I have." That is humanly impossible. It is a goal to strive for, to work at but like perfection itself, an "impossible dream." But, what is that love we are to strive for? It is giving of ones-self completely (Galatians 2:20); unchangeable (John 13:1); permanent; binding, impossible to dissolve, disintegrate, or decompose (Romans 8:35). It is incapable of being broken or dissolved; it is perpetually binding – without qualification; unconditional. In Solomon 8:7 we are told it cannot be destroyed or purchased at any price, Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned. Wouldn’t it be most appropriate to call this type of love "holy" in every sense of the word? In the jargon of Sociology, such relationships are called primary because they are considered basic, essential and the very foundation upon which a healthy personality is built and sustained. Martin Buber the Jewish philosopher, theologian and bible translator called such "holy love" "I and Thou" from which we derived the title of this article. Of such a relationship he said "It does not help to sustain you in life, it only helps you to glimpse eternity. (ref) We Americans are so goal oriented, purpose driven, making it even more difficult to know the "holy love" Jesus has for us. People are as much things to us, like pieces of furniture, to be manipulated for our own purposes – to be used and when no longer useful to be discarded. They are a means to our ends while the "holy love" Jesus manifested is an end in itself. Buber called such relationships "I-It" relationships and Sociologists refer to them as "Secondary." We may not recognize that we are "using" people as a means to an end, but in such relationships we sense we are being used. They are "conditional." Their duration is transitory determined by one another’s usefulness. If we no longer "need" the relationship, we move on. In contrast to family relationships that used to be considered primary, our business associates would provide good examples of such I-It associations. As a matter of fact, "associate" is often used to describe such alliances. The gain from secondary relations is not limited to financial. Status and prestige, any "need" we might have in a relationship means we are using the other person as an "it," to accomplish our purpose. "I need you" is not the same as saying, "I love you." Jesus does not need us any more than His Father does. He/they, is/are perfectly self-sufficient. Therefore, their love for us is a perfectly genuine example of "Ich ud Du." They love us for what we are not what we can do for them. By the way, Martin Buber spoke German and in German, "du" is the intimate form of "you." It is telling that in English we once had an equivalent in the word "thou" – as in And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS (Matthew 1:21). Now it is considered archaic. It is telling that to say we have an "intimate relationship" with someone implies using them as an object – "Well, were you intimate with him?" No one misses the gist of the question. In truly intimate relations, we are much more likely to "bare our soul" rather than our bodies. And, there is both the blessing and the curse. In the "intimate primary group we can "be ourselves." To "tell all" in an inappropriate social setting is not just embarrassing, it is mortifying. To be "conned" into thinking the relationship is non-judgmental (unconditional) in order to gain personal, intimate, knowledge for some advantage or purpose is devastating. We may not recognize the "I-Thou/I-It" distinction as valid, but we intuitively are aware of "being used" – all too often after the fact. That’s what makes us reluctant to divulge personal information to others. In a "purpose driven small group," we would/should be reluctant to "open up" or "tell all" out of "fear" we might do, say or be the "wrong" thing. That’s a pretty good rule of thumb; if you can do or say or be the wrong thing, if you can be rejected for what you are, what you believe, its not the type of loving relationship Jesus had in mind and caution is well advised. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 |
||||||||||||||||
|
AMBITION They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit,
one on thy right hand, James and John, cited in the above, the sons of Zebedee must have been thinking of the contemporary slogan, "If you can dream it, you can do it" when they made this request of our Master. Granted, they might have been a little too zealous, but God does want us to be all that we can be doesn’t He? Doesn’t it say in Romans 8:37 that, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us? Shouldn’t we "be all that we can be?" Maybe we should strive to be more than we can be for Him. What about Jesus’ statement that, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father (John 14:12). Isn’t that ambitious! Wasn’t the episode when Jesus walked on water and Peter saying, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water (Matthew 14:28) ambitious on his part? Peter’s ambition shown again at Jesus’ transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-4) when he said, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias (v. 4). Ambition is a good thing? Ambition is unlike a goal that is the end or purpose toward which we are striving. It is unlike aspiration that is striving for something higher than ourselves and implies that we are to be admired for our efforts, the signature characteristics of ambition are the high level of motivation and its personal frame of reference. Most dictionaries define "ambition" as an eager and sometimes inordinate desire for personal fame, advancement or power honor or superiority. That’s quite different than striving for goals or having a Godly purpose for one’s life. Those versions of the Bible that use the word "ambition" (Eritheia) suggesting: "electioneering or intriguing for office apparently, in the NT a courting distinction, a desire to put one's self forward, a partisan and fractious spirit which does not disdain low arts, partisanship, fractiousness" (ref). For example, the NASV for James 3:16 states, For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. The KJV translates this verse, For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. The fact that one translates the Greek (Strong #2054) into "ambition" and others into "strife" is very revealing. It isn’t "striving, it is strife. It is not "competition," it is "contention." One authority says ambition is, "a partisan and fractious spirit which does not disdain low arts."
Can a humble person be ambitious? Humbleness implies, "freedom from pride and arrogance; lowliness of mind; a modest estimate of one's own worth; a sense of one's own unworthiness through imperfection and sinfulness; self-abasement." Does that sound like one eager to achieve something, fame and power; having an inordinate desire for advancement, honor, superiority, power? Jesus said, Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:4) and He said, And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted (Matthew 23:12). He spoke against striving for fame, honor and power. He told us to sell all we have not collect all we can. He said, Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7). He didn’t say, "Blessed are the ambitious for they shall obtain their own selfish interests" – maybe they will.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
There’s something wrong with this picture. First of all, we're "brothers" and "sisters" outside church just as much as we are inside when we’re taking communion with these exact same people we knock over getting out of church in a rush to get home? Then, there’s this little matter to contend with. Jesus said, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Do we suppose it applies any less to us than to the disciples of His day? John Gill attaches this significance to Christ’s command, The distinguishing badge and character of a disciple of Christ, is not any outward garb, or any austerities of life, by which the disciples of John and of the Pharisees were known; nor were the ordinary nor extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, bestowed upon the disciples of Christ, what distinguished them as such; since those who were not truly his disciples, had these bestowed on them; but love to one another, brotherly love was the distinguishing character, and this is another reason or argument enforcing a regard unto it. We would do well to embrace the idea. We do smile, shake hands and say hello to perfect strangers when the pastor tells us to turn around and greet those around us. We’d never do that on the "outside." The question is, if we treat fellow Christians this way (and we do) on our way to and from church, how do we treat total strangers? Come to think of it, maybe that’s part of the problem. The people around us in many large churches today are total strangers. If what we do and learn in church has no carryover into life; not even onto the sidewalks and parking lots outside the church door, then it has become dangerously meaningless. Dangerous because we think we are worshipping God and honoring Him when, in fact we are not. Instead we are showing Him considerable disrespect because we think we can fool Him with fatuous, thoughtless, meaningless ritual. That isn’t OK. It never has been. Temple worship, the sacrifices there at the time of Jesus, had become impertinent. In His words, Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. These words, His words, were directed at the "church" of His day. They are just as applicable to the churches of today because of what takes place within apparently has no carryover beyond their gates. Seemingly, we haven’t learned the lessons He taught. We pay great attention to the form and little to the intent of worship. The church make sure that everything is outwardly proper while using whatever means necessary to support its excesses and extravagances. Little wonder that in our personal lives we believe ends justify means. It’s the example provided by the "church" – "secretly wicked." Even more serious is the churches seeming impotence brought on by the conviction that going to church is the end-all of our Christian obligations. If we are rude to people, how are we going to deal with the bigger issues of saving the world? If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a
liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love
God whom he hath not seen?
1 John 4:20 |
||||||||||||||||
|
A Relational God – His Name is Jesus For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which
was lost.
Luke 19:10 After the first couple had eaten of the forbidden fruit and discovered their nakedness, they immediately made some clothing out of leaves to cover themselves. In the nick of time too because, just then they heard the LORD God calling for them as He was walking in the Garden as was His custom. May we, while reminiscing on Paradise Lost remember this was what He intended. Not the disobedience, but the familiarity they had with Him. Oh, but God cannot be confined into one place in time, into one body. Who said? And more to the question, why would a detached God be walking in the Garden in the first place? Speculation you argue. Where’s the real Scriptural evidence for this Relational God? Jesus, that’s where. What was He doing here? Was He "slumming it?" Was He on vacation? This is why He said He was here, I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly and again, I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. There are a number of places in Scriptures where He explains His mission. John 3:17 for example, For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. John 6:33, John 6:51 and John 12:47 are some others. Enough for anyone, who wants to know, know. God loved Adam and Eve even in their sinful state and He loves us in ours. He provided for their redemption and for ours. They rejected Him just like the Nation of Israel many generations later. Today it is we, individually, who reject His open arms not He who is turning His back on us. The fundamental principle of sin and redemption has changed only from a "chosen people" to "chosen persons," from animal sacrifices to the Cross. The fundamental theme of the Bible (sin/redemption) speaks of His lasting desire to be our confidant – our friend. It differs from Testament to Testament, Book to Book only in the particulars. If there is another "fundamental theme" it is relationships. God said, It is not good that the man should be alone and created Eve as his companion. Most have taken Eve’s creation to be a concern that Adam had all the dishes and housework to do and that’s why He created Eve. Not true. To remedy for Adam’s loneliness, the Lord God said, I will make him an help meet for him. The Hebrew word "meet" does mean aid assistance and help. It also means to provide comfort, succor and support. What follows in Genesis 2:23-24 strongly suggest Eve was much more than Adam’s housekeeper. The deepest force in our being is for the company and approval of others. Rejection or its anticipation produces the greatest anxiety there is. Humanity is communal just as is Christianity. How often do Christians use the phrase, "a personal
relationship with Jesus Christ" or heard a preacher say that,
"Christianity is about relationship not religion" to describe what
Christians have and Christianity is? At one time such would have been
scornfully rejected as expressions of "Religion of the Heart" nonsense. In
Mark 12:33 it is recorded Jesus said, Loving God and our neighbors is
more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. "Relational
Christians" believes that (1) Jesus was born, lived, died, was raised from
the dead and ascended into Heaven (2) accepts that God became a man in the
person of Jesus Christ in order to redeem all men and (3) receives Jesus and
has a personal relationship with Him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets . Matthew 22:37-40 |
||||||||||||||||
|
It may not have been their desire to be ruled by an earthly king as much as the reason they wanted such a king that "upset the apple cart." This is the reason they gave to the prophet Samuel, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 1 Samuel 8:5. They wanted a "real-live ruler" and a "for real" country just like those of the Gentile nations around them. Yet, God had made it perfectly clear that He had separated them from such to be "a peculiar people." This is what He promised, And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation Exodus 19:6. They were to be a holy people above all the nations of the earth. They were to be high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as he hath spoken Deuteronomy 26:19. All of these promises were based upon an if. IF they agreed that the LORD was their God and that they would walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice. They had not been doing so, and things were not going well for the Chosen People. Due to disobedience, just prior to their asking for a king, they had lost the Ark of the Covenant after losing to the Philistines (1 Sam 4:11). The priesthood was corrupt (1 Sam 2:12-17). Even the judges were corrupt (1 Sam 8:1-3). In sum, this is what we have so far: (1) Israel, as a Nation, had been set apart from the beginning to be an example to the world. (2) The people of Israel begged for an earthly king to rule over them so they could be like the other magnificent kingdoms around them. (3) At the time of Samuel’s ministry, Israel was in a state of near total moral decay. They were not the model for others to see and emulate as God had intended. To the contrary they were an example of moral degradation. God acted. A syllogism is a "course of thought" that allows us to analyze and to learn about a subject. In requesting a king, we see the consequences of Israel rejecting its inheritance in favor of being just like everyone else. How often this story is repeated. Today, we are doing exactly the same thing – rejecting our inheritance in favor of being just like everyone else. We Christians want to look like everyone else, act like everyone else, be like everyone else. Is there any doubt that the consequences of such actions, whether as a nation or as individuals, will always result in the same consequences? Each of the three Kings of Israel ruled for roughly 40 years. In the end, the Nation was torn and divided by civil war and ultimately wiped off the face of the map. A new people, not a new nation, have been called to be the shining example to the world. Instead, we are known individually as Christians – though we are the spiritual seed of Abraham. And, how do we measure up? Are we a light, a shinning example by which the world can come to know our God or have we sold out just like Ancient Israel? On "social issues" the Barna Group was able to still see a difference between Christian and non-Christian attitudes. Still, look at the percentages of Christians who consider "co-habitation", gambling, having "sexual fantasies" OK – well over half. Almost half thought abortion and fornication were. Our Christian youth are even more favorably inclined toward such things. Overall, the differences are far from comforting if half of us act just like everyone else – a dim light.
Let
your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and
glorify your Father which is in heaven. |
||||||||||||||||
