BREAKING GOD'S COMMANDMENTS IS NOT SIN

My freedom (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Typically, if you ask a person what sin is, they'll say something like "disobeying God" or "breaking one of Moses' Ten Commandments". Maybe they'll just say sin is "doing something wrong".

But that's not what sin is. People who think this way are like those who say that a corpse in the morgue died from "heart failure". 

Which doesn't say much because every person who dies, does so from the heart stopping — which is "heart failure". But what caused the heart to stop? Was it cancer or cirrhosis of the liver, a stab wound or an unexpected shock? Maybe they got shot...?

When anything like this happens to a person you don't say they died of heart failure... You say they died from being shot.

The same is true of sin. The confusion comes from misinterpreting which is the Cause and which is the Result: People aren't in sin because they break God's Law — they break God's Law because they're in sin. 

In the Bible, Romans 4.8 is very interesting. It reads, "Happy is the man against whom no sin is recorded by the Lord."

Understanding this will clarify what sin is. Isn't it strange that there are at least some people (who were sinners), but against whom God drops all charges of breaking His Law? Don't you want to be that person?

If you glance back over the opening verses of Rom. 4, you'll see the issue at hand isn't obedience or disobedience; it's not "breaking" or "not-breaking" God's Law. Instead the issue is whether a person trusts God to effectually deliver them from their sin. 

An example is made of Father Abraham who lived more than 3,000 years ago. In fact, when someone talks about obeying "the Law of God", Abraham lived so long ago he lived before the Law was even written. Obviously, he couldn't "break" the Law since it didn't even exist.

What is written about Abraham, though, is that Abraham "trusted in God, and it was put to his account as righteousness."

"Righteousness" (or, loosely, godlikeness) comes from one trusting and having confidence in God. Will I die, never to live again? Will sin remain an unconquerable Master over all my earthly life? Will I live in spiritual solitude and darkness, hopelessly alone in my earthly anxieties — or can I confidently trust God Who has promised to deliver me from all these things, lifting me above darkness and death into an eternal light? "Can I trust God?" and something within me whispers, then shouts, "Yes! I trust God to honor His promises of Life, and Life more abundantly — here and not only after this body dies!"

So, in light of this, what is sin? Breaking God's Commandments?

Not at all. Sin is not trusting God to keep His Promises of deliverance and Life.

Therefore, when a person "repents of sin", they're not "promising they'll never break His Commandments again"; repentance from sin means that — having heard the Promises of God to successfully deliver us from spiritual death into eternal Life — that a person believes God is capable and able to be trusted to do just that.

Which is why it says of Abraham (the spiritual Father of our Faith), "What does Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and that trust was regarded by God to be His approval of Abraham.” [Rom 4.3]

Emil & Shell Swift

Beware of By-Path Meadow…

In the spiritual classic, Pilgrim's Progress, there's a section in which those who are traveling to the Celestial City (the place in which those who desire can live eternally in the Presence of God) spy a meadow which ran alongside of the path they followed. Crossing a fence over a stile (a little wooden step provided for that purpose), they discovered to their delight a much greater comfort to their tired feet by walking in the grassy meadow.

Old Stile (Photo credit: Wikipedia)In the story, when night fell, water rose as if they were in a swamp and they couldn't find their way through the darkness back to solid footing on the main path. They realized their danger in having been tricked into crossing the stile leading into the grassy meadow. They no longer rested fearlessly in the safety of the main path (the Narrow Road of Salvation) and now feared for their lives.

In my childhood, pastors and Sunday school teachers taught us that the Narrow Path (the Safe Path) consisted of our denomination, its teachings (doctrines) and the congregational leaders such as pastor, deacons, and Sunday school teachers who led the church. Simply put, "Leaving the Path" consisted of leaving the local church and the spiritual oversight of its leaders.

But as years have passed and I've been one of those "spiritual leaders", it's finally come clear to me that entrusting one's spiritual life into the hands of local church leaders is in fact crossing over the stile into the more comfortable meadows. It's the exact reverse of that in which I'd been so carefully indoctrinated.

What, then, is the "Narrow Road" which I'd left by adhering closely to a church organization?

The Narrow Road is the road which Jesus walks. 

Not to get too woo-woo and out in the ozone here, but you can either follow organizations and theological systems which are merely human in origin, or you can walk with Jesus. Having been raised from the dead, He's alive, and in His Spirit, He presents Himself to any person who desires Him. He's not far and He's not "hard to find" because He's closer to you or I than our own thoughts. Any person who's heard of Jesus' working out our deliverance from sin and death and has confidence that what He's done is totally effective, has the opportunity to walk and (in our spirits) "talk" with Him — and THAT'S the "Narrow Path".

Pastors, church leaders and teachers will argue that no one can follow Jesus "on their own". Every person who wants to live in this world today according to the wisdom and guidance of Jesus can only do so by following the wisdom and guidance of church leaders. (It's to their own benefit to teach this — it keeps the church full, volunteers available and tithes coming in.) But this begs the question: Whose wisdom and guidance do you want to follow? Jesus'? Or self-righteous religious leaders? Even if you know a religious leader who's humble and sweet and wise — they still fall short of being as wise and safe as following Jesus Himself.

That grassy meadow in Pilgrim's Progress is called, "By-Path Meadow". The real "by-path" which threatens to derail a Christian is the "easier" and "softer" path of following human advisors. Through the printed Word of God, and the Living Word of God (not the same thing, BTW), a person faces a harder, more difficult Path.

After all — you can look at a pastor and tell her a little white lie. "How did you do this year, Mr. Smith, on truthfully reporting your income to the IRS?" [Oh! Unexpected question! Shall I be honest here and tell Pastor that I didn't underreport as badly as I usually do? And face her disapproval?] Carefully making sure your eyes give nothing away, you respond, "It was a lot easier this year, now that I learned that cheating is ridiculous since God is the Source of all my provision anyway. Why cheat when I know God's covering all that my family and I need?" [And you think to yourself how you slid through that little inquisition without revealing that you'd cheated this year just like before, and didn't even actually lie to the Pastor in the process…]

Now, try that with Jesus. Try stretching the truth with Someone Who lives inside you. Try pretending that you're more spiritually mature than in fact you really are, with the Guy Who never sleeps sitting inside, patiently waiting for you to quit deceiving yourself.

The "Narrow Path" isn't following and satisfying merely human leadership. The "Narrow Path" isn't even following and obeying the demands of the church's Canon of Rules of Membership (don't smoke, don't chew, and don't go with girls who do…)

The Narrow Path that leads to the Celestial City is a path of peace and no struggle — but requires releasing everything within that is self-focused and selfish, in order to allow Jesus to truly lead the Way. The Bible calls this "dying to self" but in a weird way typical of spiritual Truth, it's only when we die to our self-focused and selfish lives that we begin to live truly enjoyable lives.

Jesus used a farming illustration: two oxen plowing a field, side by side. To both, a farmer had tied one plow — but not to the ox on the left and the ox on the right. No — he'd placed a wooden beam (a yoke) carved to fit comfortably over the necks of these two, powerful oxen, and the ropes went from the plow to the yoke. One of the oxen was a huge brute — strong and well-experienced, knowing exactly what to do in order to produce straight furrows. The ox paired with him was smaller, younger, and ignorant — having no idea how to pull a plow straight.

Jesus is saying that He'll walk alongside of us in union to us or "yoked".  With His Strength and His wisdom, we successfully face the unfamiliar challenge of "plowing" the "spiritual fields" of our lives in order to produce a harvest of Joy. When we trust Him, He becomes not only the Power in our lives (the huge ox pulling the real weight of the plow), but He (step-by-step) leads us into "cutting straight furrows" — making the day-by-day decisions in our lives that lead us without fail into satisfaction, peace and joy. 

As Pilgrim's Progress warns, "Beware of By-Path Meadow" — beware of easily and comfortably following merely human religious leaders. Choose instead to awaken to the close Presence of Jesus Christ in your life, following His never-failing lead into life — and that life, more abundantly.

Emil & Shell

www.KingdomScribe.net

Related articles

• Having a Heart Willing to be Led

All I Ask is 4 U 2 Be Perfect...

Image via Wikipedia

An awkward verse, certainly. Matt 5.48 has left many people stumped. Certainly Jesus couldn't really be telling us that in order to enter eventually into the Kingdom of Heaven, we have to be perfect…

And not only perfect, but as perfect as is our Father in Heaven…

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Since no one can be perfect, as perfect as God Himself, obviously the verse must mean something else. Probably Jesus is just using hyperbole [exaggeration for literary purpose] to make a point. Jewish people in His day used hyperbole a lot. That would mean that to understand Jesus, we'd "un-exaggerate" these words into something like, "Try really hard to be exceptionally good." Or maybe Jesus was using the word "perfect" to mean "very, very mature" — since after all, the Pharisees were very, very mature. Then another possibility is that Jesus was using "compression" [another literary device] where the speaker "compresses the time-scale" so that he's talking about the future Kingdom of Heaven and the perfection we'll eventually experience and only sounds like He's talking about now...

But is it safe to read a Scripture, especially one seemingly as simple and clear as this one, and spin its interpretation so that it means something other than what it says?

What if Jesus actually meant what He said? What if He actually meant that if you or I am not as perfect as God Himself, we'll never be allowed into Heaven?

Let's consider another interpretation of this verse. Let's take it at face value. We'll look at it — just as it stands — and see if it makes sense. Here's a straightforward interpretation:

"Since no one (anywhere, anytime) is perfect, it's impossible for any human being in the history of the earth to be allowed entry into the Kingdom of Heaven."

How's that for straight-from-the-shoulder honesty? Jesus was essentially telling every one of His listeners that getting into Heaven was flat impossible. No one could ever do it. Impossible.

His disciples got His drift, especially since Jesus repeated this idea in other places, other teachings. Jesus really was saying that it was impossible for anyone to get into Heaven. He said it again when the rich, young ruler turned away from Jesus. They were stunned. They gasped and almost fell down in shock and cried out to Jesus, "Then it's impossible for anyone to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven!" And Jesus agreed. Patted them on their backs and said, "You got it."

But then He added this: "What is impossible for man, is possible for God."

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

Ollie, Ollie Oxen Free!

Image by a_sorense via FlickrOur local Redbud Theater once put on a performance that dealt with aging. I don’t remember the name of the play, but the story is unforgettable. It’s set in an old folks’ home. A new lodger arrives, and turns the retirement home upside down with his young ideas.

His manner and voice is young and filled with life. He wants to still enjoy life despite his grey hair. Other residents of the home are angered, set in their aged roles. Several consider the new lodger disrespectful of their advanced years.

Outcome of it all is that most of the old folks join in with the new lodger and wind up magically transported back into childhood. In the television version of the story, it ends with one irritated old codger listening through the window as evening falls, hearing the sounds of children racing to “kick-the-can”, their high, pre-adolescent shouts echoing in the streets, “Ollie, ollie oxen free!”

Ollie, ollie oxen free?

Most people don’t understand how wonderfully appropriate that child’s call is to the old folks in the rest home. How could they, since very few people even realize what the words mean. Children have been shouting, “Ollie, ollie oxen free” for centuries. Generation after generation of children have learned it from other children, not caring in the least what it means.

Centuries back, a German version of the cry entered into English, an English so old that people still used the plural “ye”. The German cry went like this: “Alle Alle auch sind frei.” It means, “All! All! (You) are also free!” and served as the call to all the children still in hiding that that round of the game had ended and they could all come out of hiding.

In England, the phrase went like this: "All ye, all ye, outs in free". In kick-the-can, everyone but whoever is It hides. The kid who’s It tries to guard the Can, while children in hiding try to run to it when it’s unguarded and kick it without being tagged first.

Get this picture: A dozen children playing; all but one in hiding; that one is It and stands near the Can, protecting it; one kid runs out of hiding but is tagged before he can kick the Can; then Suzi runs as quietly as she can, sneaks up behind the kid who’s It, kicks the Can and screams out, “All ye, all ye, outs in free!”

The ones who were still hiding – behind garbage cans, under bushes – knew that the game was over when the call went out, "Ollie Ollie oxen free!" All the children who are “outs” – still in hiding – are free to come out of their hiding places. Sometimes even, children called out this “freedom call” because it was suppertime and they needed to go home and eat.

OK. So “Ollie, ollie oxen free!” actually means “All ye, all ye, outs in free!” So what?

Remember the old folks’ home? The new lodger had come to “free” them from the prison of their own minds! It’s like the saying, “You’re only as old as you think you are.” He’d come to say that grey hairs lie, and life can be lived to the fullest, right to the very end. He’d come to “kick-the-can” of old-agedness, and “free” the residents to enjoy life again.

Nice story. That’s why it’s so appropriate for the children’s cry to be used to end that particular story.

Recently, I heard this children’s cry again. On a CD – filled with contemporary, Christian worship – one of the singers started crying out, “All ye, all ye, come in free!”

It seemed disruptive. What does a child’s game have to do with spiritual worship?

So I listened more carefully to the words of that song. It’s a song about freedom. Spiritual freedom. It’s a song written about all the people who live “in hiding”. All the people who have been wounded by others and are in hiding. They’ve been rejected by others and live in hiding – vulnerable to no one and exposing nothing to anyone for fear of being hurt yet again.

There’s a problem with raising up thick, strong walls of protection. After walling out the people who might hurt you, you discover you’ve walled yourself in to a lonely place. Back in the sixties, Simon and Garfunkle wrote about this loneliness, saying, “I am a rock, I am an island… and a rock feels no pain…”

In the first sermon Jesus preached in His home town of Nazareth, He explained that His Heavenly Father had sent Him to earth as a human being to do a job. He had been chosen “to give good news to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the broken-hearted; to let the prisoners go free, heal the blind, and set the oppressed free from their chains – and to proclaim that this is the Year of the release of God’s Pleasure into human life!” (Luke 4.18-19)

The girl on the worship CD knew that God’s heart breaks to see people who are still broken and shattered by life. Jesus came so that we could have Life with a capital “L” – an abundant life, not mere “survival”.

When Jesus chose to die on the Cross, He offered to cleanse every person from sin and guilt. He’s “washed us” from the guilt of all our sins. Better yet, He’s broken the power of Darkness from our lives.

We don’t need to “hide” in life anymore. We can “come out”. Jesus has “kicked-the-can” of our guilt and shame, He has ended the darkly demonic game that Satan loves to play; He has delivered us from our enemies and it’s finally “safe” to come out of “hiding”.

Game’s over. It’s safe to come out. It’s time for supper, so, “All ye, all ye, ‘outs’ in free!”

God Offers Us Rest — But Where is It?

Image by alandberning via FlickrA recent blog post [SoulLibertyFaith.com] entitled "How the Gospel Divides", gives a refreshing perspective on the "the Word of God" (sharp, two-edged sword…) in Hebrews 4.12 as well as some thoughts on our "entering into God's rest".

In my response to this blog post, I focused on a couple of crucial, spiritual concepts. I've always prized the "contradictions of Scripture", and there's a doozy in Heb 4.11 when it says, "Let us labor to enter into that rest..." This means that the ONLY "work" we're supposed to be striving for is to rest! (Here's  a parallel: if I have a Mini-Mart to run and hire a person, I might say, "I won't hire you unless you're going to work very hard — to do nothing but rest…" Truth to tell, there's a lot of people today who already know how to "rest on the job" in the physical, but not in the spirit!)

The blog post pointed out that the person who lives in God's Rest will be very productive (another "contradiction"!) But what, exactly, will be "produced"? What is "produced" in the life of a Christian at rest in God are the "works" God already "finished from the foundation of the world." [Heb 4.3] In resting from our own, carnal efforts, God's "finished works" can then be manifested through our daily lives. (In Gal 2, Paul says it like this: "I live, but it's not me living, but Christ living in me.") These "manifested works" are those that James points to in his letter — the "works of compassion" coming from the Love of Jesus for those around us.

A couple of observations about the "two-edged sword" which "divides": Out of the 45 times "word of God" [ton logon tou theou] is used in the NT, the majority of its uses don't refer to the written (old testament) Scriptures — mostly it refers to the current preaching (proclamation) of God's Word... And "God's Word" means more than merely the written OT Scriptures since what  Jesus preached and taught was referred to as "the word of God", and obviously He wasn't simply quoting Scriptures to the crowds.

So when it says, in Heb 4.12 that "the word of God is quicker", there's no basis for saying it's just referring to today's canon of written Scriptures — especially since the NT canon of Scripture didn't even exist at that time! This removes the ground on which so many self-righteous people use the Bible to judge others ("slice & dice"…) The "word of God" referred to here is the God's Living Word; it is A Living Thing emanating from God — not merely a printed book whose meaning can be twisted according to our biases and judgments.

And the other thing — about that "dividing" — I so wish people would read the text instead of just listening to preachers telling them "what it means". The Scriptures mean what THEY say, not what the preacher SAYS they say. This "word of God" ("quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword") isn't dividing "believers" from "unbelievers" or "the just" from the "unjust" or the "faithful" from the "slackers" — it's dividing "soul and spirit" from "joints and marrow"... The context of this chapter on "rest" is that we're to cease from our fleshly works and instead, from a place of spiritual rest, manifest God's spiritual works. The "division" is between "flesh" and "Spirit" ("soul and spirit" x "joints and marrow") and the author of Hebrews is simply telling us HOW TO REMAIN IN GOD'S REST.

Applying this: how can we tell when what we're doing is mere fleshly labor (and ultimately worthless) OR that what we're doing is manifesting the works of God from a place of rest? How can we possibly discern the difference? We can know this by trusting the Living (and Active) Word of God to show to us the difference between our merely human works and His works in and through us.

Example: I'm (say, what?) ladling steaming hot chicken soup to the homeless in a tent every Tuesday evening down in Skid Row? Is this a "good work" but still merely coming from my flesh? (That is, am I working to produce something pleasing to God?) Or is serving in the soup-line God's own work (finished from the "foundation of the world") but today manifested through me?

How can I tell the difference?

LET GOD TELL ME. His Spirit is a Discerner, dividing between carnal flesh or His Spirit IN ME. In other words, the only "division" going on in this verse isn't between "these" people and "those" people — but it's a work of discernment carried on by God within ME. The verse is to be applied WITHIN me, not amongst other people around me.


Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

Is Hell Now Welcoming Usama bin Laden?

News of the death of Osama bin Laden fueled celebrations in streets across the US. This isn't hard to understand. For many Americans, the memory of watching two airliners flying directly into the Twin Towers on that Tuesday morning is surreal and unforgettably horrifying. The sadness at losing 3,000 of our citizens in one act of terror was only slightly relieved by the miracle that on a normal day, it easily could have been tens of thousands more.

It's no wonder that the architect and creator of the fanatical organization which accomplished this monstrous act of hellish "holy war", Osama bin Laden, should be hated, nor that his death should be celebrated.

There are those who delight in the thought that bin Laden is wiser now than before the bullets took his life. In their notion, rather than passing from this life into one filled with rivers of wine and the eternal, sensuous joys of young, virginal houris, bin Laden instead now faces the Prince of Darkness and the eternally punishing fires of Hell.

Emotionally satisfying as this image appears to so many, this picture of bin Laden being turned over to torment in Satan's hands is supported by custom, but not by Scripture. This "Hell" — with its explicit torments and barb-tailed Dementors in an Underworld ruled by the devil is a fiction taken from fantasies such as Milton's Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno. 

If a Christian seriously wants to have some picture of what bin Laden may be experiencing now, that image must be drawn from the simple and clear word of Scripture. Except, when it comes to the issue of the Afterlife (good or bad), the Bible has no simple and clear teaching on it. When one goes through all of Scripture, gathering the many verses pertaining to "Heaven" and "Hell", and then compares them to each other — they paint an inconsistent, even incoherent, picture. There's not a consistent description of Hell amongst the various Bible passages, verses which range from the souls of people who die going into the earth for an eternal sleep to sinners burning in fire to the wicked being cast out into a place of eternal darkness… The images given in the Bible are inconsistent and contradictory. Overall, according to Scripture one can say that there is a sense that an Afterlife of some sort exists, but no specific conclusions can be drawn from the biblical texts made about exactly what Hell is. Or what Osama is experiencing right now.

It's time for Christians — at least, those who are true followers of Jesus Christ — to set aside the demoniacal and horrific fantasies of poets speaking merely from their own, merely human speculations. It's time for Christians instead to have an accurate and godly sense of what's happening to Osama bin Laden now, since he has died. After all, the Scriptures warn us in Proverbs 24, "Do not rejoice when your enemies fall, and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble, or else the LORD will see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from them."

No — there's only one godly point of view concerning the reality of our seeing Osama bin Laden enter into Eternity; there's only only one perspective that is dependable and in which we can have total confidence. And this "perspective" you might say is in fact a very sound and acceptable conclusion. And it is this: Today, and forever, Osama bin Laden is in God's hands.

If you trust God — that's good enough.

Shalom.

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

The Resurrected Soul...

Image by ToniVC via Flickr

How can we come to any definite conclusions about what Heaven "looks like" — or Hell, for that matter — when we can't even say what a soul "looks like".

After all: "dust to dust" and all that… Our bodies return (sooner or later) to the soil from which they emerged, and so whatever Heaven looks like, it won't look like a place inhabited by our flesh and blood bodies. Certainly, the Bible speaks of a new sort of body — first seen in Jesus after His Resurrection, a body which the Bible calls, "flesh and bone".

But according to Scripture, we don't really know what that "incorruptible body" looks like. Consider this: after the Resurrection, when others met Jesus, He wasn't immediately recognizable. Even those who were closest to Him — like Mary at the Tomb, falling to His feet in a mental torment at the disappearance of Jesus from the Tomb — didn't know who He was until He spoke. And the disciples on the road to Emmaus as well as even Peter and John, later in their fishing boat on the Sea of Galilee — none of these recognized Him merely by looking at the "flesh and bone" which Jesus "wore".

This new and incorruptible flesh in which Jesus dwelt not only didn't look familiar to those who knew Him prior to His crucifixion, this new body didn't act like the old flesh either. In His new body (incorruptible, eternal) Jesus could apparently pass through solid objects (such as the locked door behind which the disciples cowered in fear.) He could apparently transport from one place to another (Jerusalem to Galilee and back again) as He wished. Was He a spirit, only appearing to be flesh? This possibility is negated by His eating food with His disciples. What mere spirit could eat food or present the evidence of bodily wounds to the disciples for them to touch with their hands?

Not even able to understand what the characteristics of this "incorruptible" flesh are, how can anyone understand what environment this body can inhabit? Does it need "streets of gold"? (After all, the phrase "streets of transparent gold" may not be literal but merely a figure of speech in John's attempt to communicate some unearthly, incomprehensible Reality he glimpsed — perhaps suggesting what a fantastically Wonderful Place this "Heaven" will be…)

And here we're already drifting beyond what the Bible clearly says, beyond what any human has ever  truly comprehended — drifting into fantastic speculation about things so far beyond human experience that they are indescribable, at least until such a Day comes that we experience it for ourselves.

What part of Heaven, of the Body Incorruptible, of Streets of (transparent) Gold and of passing through solid walls or over lengthy distances — what part do we understand?

Yet many self-proclaimed men or women of God not only fantasize that they understand such things, they understand them well enough to go to war over them. People claiming to be "followers" of Jesus Christ argue and bicker, accuse and verbally pillor and pummel, pounce, punch and even punish people who don't "believe" in the "Heaven" or "Hell" that they themselves dogmatically promote.

Humility could certainly help in this dispute. A sort of peace and quiet could reign if various religious combatants considered that in their bickering over Eternity and Heaven and Hell, the Wrath of God and the Love of God — that in every, discrete element of the argument, no one truly comprehends anything.

Not even the simplest question like what does a soul look like now — when it's still "dwelling" within flesh and blood… Much less what it will look like in eternity!

Emil & Shell

www.KingdomScribes.net

God is Usually NOT Subtle...

Image via Wikipedia

Christians make too much of Elijah's "cave experience" in which God spoke to him. The story tells us that as Elijah waited on a desert mountain, there were huge manifestations of power — wind, earthquake and fire — but God was not "in" these. Then, in the quietness that followed, Elijah heard God speak as "a still small voice".

Drawing from this one, famous incident, when Christians refer to "hearing" something from God in respect to His leading us in life-choices, Elijah's "still small voice" is often cited as an example that if we're not listening very, very carefully, God might speak and we might not even notice.

Well, it isn't usually that way with me. In my personal experience, when God speaks, He uses a 2x4 to get my attention. In fact, when you begin to list things we know about God, He's not usually very subtle about much of anything.

How about Ps 19? The psalmist tells us:

The heavens declare the glory of God;

The skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Day after day they pour forth speech;

Night after night they display knowledge.

There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.

Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.

Basically, when God "speaks" everybody listens.

(I've also considered it very unsubtle of God that He created over 150,000 different species of beetles and 100,000+ species of flies. In every size, color and toxicity! That's extravagant but it's not "subtle"! Especially the flies…)

Recently, God needed to get my attention. He wasn't subtle. For two or three days I carried a sense of dread — a free-floating anxiety that I couldn't pin down. I wondered if I was depressed or feeling condemned (both unusual emotions for me.) At the same time, I'd also "fallen into" a heated online discussion with a fellow "student" of spiritual things, focused on whether or not a Christian can be a sinner. (My usual response is, "Only if that's what they want…" Helpful, right?)

As we "debated" the issue, I focused especially on one problem: I can't see in the Word where the New Creature — that "New Person" who is created supernaturally when a person trusts in Jesus Christ — is able to be "one with Christ" and yet still "be a sinner". As I struggled to focus on this in the discussion, I refused to accept that the Christian consists of "two people" in "one body": the Old Man and the New Man. To me, when Paul explains that we have "died" with/in Christ, it's the Old Man that's done the dying. In fact, when Paul says in Rom 6 that we've been crucified with Christ, buried with Christ and resurrected with Christ, he mentions the "buried" part to emphasize that that's where we left the Old Self. Now (beyond the grave), the only "me" is the new self  — the offspring or "seed of God", as John the Beloved puts it.

Back to the free-floating anxiety: I vaguely sensed that whatever had me upset somehow connected to this dialogue. Still, ignoring that sense in my typical dullard way, I tried to "lift" my sense of disquiet through other means. I fixed myself a nice breakfast — which didn't work. I accomplished a few tasks around the house from my honeydew list — with no effect (on my feelings, anyway. I'm sure I'll gain points with my "Honey" though!)

Finally, I clicked on the TV and searched for a recorded show, found an old "Smallville", and settled back to enjoy the old Superboy vs. Lex Luther struggle (which is, of course, the most ancient of conflicts in human history…)

In this episode, bad boy Lex is in the wrong place at the wrong time when a lab experiment with "Mineral Rock" (green kryptonite) explodes close to where he stood. He stood up, helped rush an employee to the hospital, but never noticed that when he left the lab, he left behind another "Lex Luther" slowly standing to his feet. This "Lex", we soon discovered, was the "bad" Lex — the explosion having separated Lex into two pieces: the Good Lex and the Bad Lex...

I hit the Pause button and groaned… "Oh, come on, God! Can you be any more blatant than this?" Here I am, trying to escape from the discussion of duality in the lives of Believers, and my "escape" is to watch a show which zeros in on the duality of Lex's natures? (Sheesh! That's the 2x4 I mentioned above… When God wants to get someone's attention, He's very adept and not easily ignored.) After all — how many episodes of Smallville focused on the dualistic natures of a person — good vs. bad? Exactly one. The one I "happened" to have recorded on my DVR. (!!!)

Looking at the two onscreen Lexes, I hardly got a chance to like, "ask" God what's His point because His Declaration flooded in, "There is no dualism in a Believer's life — there's only one self."

There aren't 'two Believers' somehow "inside" vying for each other's submission — one on each shoulder. Interesting as that old Eskimo story might be, there aren't "two dogs in your heart — one black, one white — and the one you feed is the one who wins." No. A Believer — a person who's truly "born again" — is only one self.

Not that there aren't "two persons" in a Believer's life chronologically. Before Christ, there was the "Old Man" and after trusting in Jesus there's the "New Man". Even though a Believer's behavior may suggest that there are "two persons battling inside", there's only one — the spiritual self — and the only "battle" is whether we choose to walk in the flesh (in which sin dwells) or walk in the Spirit. [à la, Rom 8]

Before becoming a new self in Christ, we were helplessly slaves to sin and had no choice but to follow its commands. But after being made one with Jesus (death, burial & resurrection), we're no longer the slaves of sin but are masters over our flesh. Freed from the malevolent Ruler of Darkness, we're now free to obey Jesus' lead in righteous living.

But sometimes we still choose to let sin manifest itself through our flesh. Are we then "sinners'? Here's where many Christians — more comfortable with the Law than with grace — mindlessly affirm that, yes, if we do what's wrong we're still sinners.

The apostle Paul's enemies accused him of teaching a form of antinomianism —  that once freed from the Law, a Believer cannot sin and is therefore free to sin without recognizing any moral responsibility for his unrighteousness. Paul rejected that idea, and his stance was simple: once freed from  the Law, a Believer can't "build again" the Law that made us sinners; but we're not free to sin — we're free to not sin.

When we choose to let sin rule in our flesh, it doesn't make us sinners again. One of Paul's most serious examples of "heinous sin" was the brother in Corinth living in incest with his dad's wife. Paul didn't say to throw the bum out as punishment. He didn't say throw the bum out because he wasn't really a "saint". He said throw the bum out so that by allowing Satan to destroy the man's flesh, his "spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord Jesus." Even in this instance of "serious sin", Paul didn't question whether or not the man would eventually "die in the Lord"; the destruction of the flesh freed the man's spirit at Jesus' Second Coming.

When we choose to walk in the flesh, it isn't simply that we're "sinners" again. That's been successfully dealt with. But it does mean that whatever God wanted to accomplish through us won't happen. At the end of the earthly life, every saint faces a peculiar "fire" which "tests" the fruit of their lives. Everything that that saint accomplished in life that was the outworking of Christ within, will be imperishable like gold, silver or precious stones. But everything that was the product of the flesh will be consumed just like fire turning wood, hay and stubble into ash.

Once (in Christ) we've died to the Law and are no longer slaves to sin, we no longer are "sinners" because of our life-style choices. But we are ultimately going to face rewards — and the loss of rewards — when we see Christ. And for those people who think, "That's O.K. That's going to be a long way in the future" should consider one other "option": drawing from 1Jn, if a person is somehow quite satisfied to let sin manifest itself through his flesh — perhaps that person has deceived himself and is not even in Christ at all. This is Jesus' warning in Mt 8 about the people who'll stand in front of Him on the Last Day, insisting they've done so many miraculous works in Jesus' Name, only to be rejected by Jesus Who says, "Depart from Me, workers of iniquity — I never knew you."

Persistent sin? Possible sign that you've deceived yourself into thinking you're right with God but aren't. And even if you are, your life here in this earth will simply never fulfill the joy and satisfaction of a life well lived — or (as Paul put it) your life will never be a "race well run".

Saint or sinner? Since you cannot be both, which are you?

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

Who Defines “Apostolic Ministry” for Today?

Image via Wikipedia

Back in the 60’s and early 70’s, the Charismatic Renewal swept through mainstream churches across the US, Europe and then the world. Because the majority of its participants claimed to be “baptized in the Holy Spirit” and spoke in tongues, many labeled this movement “Pentecostal” and tried to lump it in with the older, mainline Pentecostal denominations such as the Assembly of God and the United Pentecostal Church, amongst others.

Believers who had been members of mainline denomination such as Methodist or Baptist and were baptized in the Holy Spirit, were content to meet together and explore this new Move of the Holy Spirit as spiritual novices. Groups such as the FGBMFI (Full Gospel Businessmen Fellowship International) carefully chose to not align themselves with any denomination -- Pentecostal or otherwise. This led to a peculiar conflict. An apparent jealousy seemed to rise up in those Christians who had been faithful members of traditional Pentecostal groups. Whenever groups of Charismatic Believers met together, those with long histories in old-line Pentecostal groups often pushed to the forefront, offering themselves as “experts” on “the Pentecostal experience”.

Back in 1970, as a high school youth, I personally experienced some of this “ownership mentality” from old-line Pentecostals. In several public meetings and Charismatic conferences, desiring this “new-to-me” spiritual reality, I “went forward” several times hoping to be “baptized in the Spirit” with “speaking in tongues”. As a life-long Baptist, the entire, “Pentecostal experience” had previously been written off as “Satanic”, but the fruit of transformed lives and the inability for anti-Pentecostals to refute these experiences from the Bible left me open to ask God for “more”.

At these meetings, when I went forward, in every instance there were old-line Pentecostals poised to “minister the Baptism” to me. They were very prominent since -- after all -- they were the “experts”. Each instance seemed similar even though the locale and the people involved were always different. I would be instructed to kneel down and several elderly people, both men and women, would press in around me, touching my head and my shoulders as they prayed loudly for various things: “God! Send Your FIRE on this young man!”, “Holy Spirit -- descend upon this vessel!”, “Be FILLED with the Holy Ghost!”

The last time I subjected myself to these odd -- though, in their denominations, time honored -- methods, one old woman who “ministered” to me seemed so determined that  she kept hitting me, pounding me on my head and shoulders as she hollered out her petitions to God. In front of me, an old man (with objectionable breath) had knelt to shout into my face, “SAY ‘SHANDALAH!’ SAY ‘SHANDALAH!’” to which, in hopes he’d back off, I complied to no avail.

All of the traditional Pentecostals I encountered in my high school year believed that no one -- flat out, NO ONE -- who did not speak in tongues could be baptized in the Holy Ghost. I never spoke in tongues at those sessions, ergo I was not “Spirit Baptized”. Actually, I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (without tongues) in the course of a teen Bible study in Tracy, California.

During this group study, I came across the gospel passage in which Jesus affirmed the fundamental Goodness of God, saying, “If even earthly fathers who are sinners know how to give good gifts to their children, how much more so will your Father in Heaven give the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who ask.” I looked the verses over, realized they said nothing about “tongues” or “tarrying for the Spirit” or "deserving" the Father’s gift. It just said that God was a gracious Father who’d give me the gift of the Holy Spirit if I asked. So I asked and nothing whatsoever happened. No tongues. No great feelings. No brilliant light or other sensation. But I considered that since I’d read the Scripture passage clearly and accurately, that God must have given me the Gift of the Holy Spirit simply because the Word said that’s what He’d do. And as I drove home that night, singing in the car as was typical with me, I suddenly realized I’d begun singing in words and sounds that were not English. Still, by the way, no sensations!

Still, after that experience I watched again and again as old-line Pentecostals tried to push themselves into places of spiritual authority over the Charismatic movement. And repeatedly, I saw those who were novice “Pentecostals” simply ignored the Pentecostal traditionalists. It seemed reasonable to me, back then, to consider traditional Pentecostals to offer very little of value to this new Move of the Spirit. In a word, if they already “had the goods”, the Charismatic movement wouldn’t have needed to happen.

The traditionalists neither understood the Charismatic movement nor did they accept it as different from their religious experiences of the past. But subtly apart from traditional Pentecostalism, the Charismatic Renewal continued to sweep across towns, regions and nations for over a decade before it itself slowed down, its adherents beginning to “camp” on their own past experiences -- and a fresh Move of the Holy Spirit rose up, passing them by as they had passed by the old-line Pentecostals.

All this contemporary history to make one point: many people throughout the Body of Christ are sensing that (in addition to pastors, teachers and evangelists) God is raising up the ministries of apostles and prophets. How will we know who us an “apostle” or “prophet”? How will we determine what “apostolic” or “prophetic” actually consists of?

The basic answer is (of course) that we have to allow God to lead us in understanding these new ministries. But one serious caution is that people in the past who have had “apostles” or “prophets” are NOT the ones needed to define these ministries for us today. Just as the old-line Pentecostals (arrogantly) attempted to define the course (and theologies) of the Charismatic Renewal, so also people today, based on formulas from the past, will continue to define these ministries for the Body of Christ today.

For this move of God to come to true fruition, the people of God must do one thing and do it passionately. And that is, setting aside any familiar or traditional definitions (and expectations), we must know God more, patiently wait on Him and allow Jesus Christ to raise up and “define” apostolic and prophetic ministries in the world today.

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

Building the Church According to WHAT Pattern?

Image via Wikipedia

Jesus said, "I'll build My Church, and even the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." For years, people have speculated about what this "Church" looks like -- what is its structure, its organization. And for years, people have been speculating about what pattern should be followed in the building up of the Church.

Many preachers look to the Old Testament for an appropriate example: Moses. After all, he built the Tabernacle "according to the pattern" God showed to him. So, these preachers reason, if we can understand how Moses did it, then it’ll show us how we can do it.

Countless sermons have been delivered and blogs written about "God's pattern" for the Church.  Typically they go like this: "God wants us to build the Church according to the pattern of the early Church in Acts" or, "God wants us to build the Church according to the pattern of the local churches that the Apostle Paul planted" and especially, "God wants us to build the Church apostolically."

These ideas are wrong. For example:

1)    God doesn't want us to "build the Church according to the model in Acts" because there is no model given in Acts.

2)   He doesn't want us to "build the church according to Paul's patterns" because Paul didn't give us a "church-building" pattern.

3)   God doesn't want us to "build the Church apostolically" because there is no clear definition in the New Testament of an "apostolic pattern", and (in fact) there's not even a clear definition of an apostle.

4)   And God doesn't want us looking at "early church models" because no New Testament church ever became mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

All of these are wrong because they all assume that God wants us to "build the Church". Truth is, we're not the "builders" of the Church. Jesus said, "I will build My Church..."

Eph 4 clarifies this process: There is no “pattern”, no master "plan" by which the saints "build the Church". No — there is a Head (Who is Christ) Who both gifts and guides every part of its Body in the building up of itself in Love.

What's the conclusion here? Instead of looking for some divine "master plan" according to which we can "build the Church", we need to relate to the Head and to each other in such a way that every one of us (in Christ) can do our part in building each other up — until we attain the full measure of the stature of the Man, Christ, in this earth.

Let's put it this way: There's a tremendous difference in building a house or building a tree. The house requires plans, contractors, carpenters and stonemasons to build as well as an architect to watch over the project. A tree requires the planting of a seed. You throw the seed into the ground, water it and watch it grow.

So, back to "according to the pattern": The "pattern" that must be followed in "building the Church" is not organizational, because the Church is not an organization -- it is an organism. We don't look to the book of Acts to try and discern some organizational pattern for today's Church.  We don't look to Paul, the apostle, to try and discern some organizational pattern for today's Church. We don't even look to modern day apostles to try and discern some organizational pattern for today's Church. Any pattern — be it "congregational", "presbyterian", "papal", "episcopal", "evangelical", "separatistic", "hierarchical", "flat", "representative" — is not the "Pattern" by which we are to "build the Church".

No! What modern day apostles do is point every member of the Body of Christ to its Head -- and the Head directs each member of the Body into doing his or her part in the building up of the Body as He so desires. (Not according to the dreams and desires of mere human leaders.)

Or you might say, modern day apostles point every saint to Jesus Christ and tell them, “Get to know Him, and everything you do, build on Him – the Church’s only Foundation – works of silver and gold, not wood, hay or stubble.

Know Jesus, and let Him be Himself through you.

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net