What We Never Were But Always Will Be

Inevitability.

That which unavoidably comes to pass. Not merely predictable but certain. 

In the mind of God, I am quite sure, that is what the fall of a creature like man, made in God's image with its consequent independence and freedom, would have been considered.

Line up a thousand people and test the premise and all one thousand would prove it true, as would a million, or billions, or whatever number might be selected. You see, it is impossible for that which is not God to replicate the free choice and will of him who is. If God could be replicated by that which isn't him, then God wouldn't be God. The very thing that grants the freedom to choose determines that choice will, without fail, deviate from God's and become sin.

Is there anything that God doesn't know about a course of action he intends to take? If he is omniscient, certainly there isn't. Since he is, God would need no more than one generic sample of a thing made along the line of a human in order to demonstrate by test the nature of this glitch to any and all observers (including that human in the test). One would be more than sufficient-- as that one went, so any others would go. The prototype is all that is necessary to make the proof that then would apply to all others.

Adam was that sample, the prototypical temporal man. Eve was as well since "male and female he created them." Adam/Eve was not God, merely the image of God, and ignorant (innocent) rather than aware and knowing. They were created to do as they pleased, like God, but with one exception: they were not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. One pair of both models, one rule impinging upon their freedom was more than adequate to demonstrate that inevitable glitch that would manifest in all others of the type given the chance.

The prototype test in Eden proved to all creation that a human made in the image of God would rely on his or her own judgment rather than trust in the judgment of God. That is the particular choice from which deviation, any and all deviation, from God's will comes from. Had they trusted God there was nothing to hinder them from eating of the tree of life and living eternally. They didn't, demonstrated the inevitable glitch of which we speak and brought all of creation down with them into sin and death.

They trusted themselves, trusted the Serpent, but they did not trust God. Thereby, they became disqualified and unsuitable for an eternal life walking in the freedom intrinsic to the image of God.

Jesus was the prototypical eternal man. Not only was he flesh and bone and soulish in a human sense, he was also God in the flesh. Tested though he was, he stayed true to the Heavenly Father. He trusted his Father's judgment and stayed dedicated to his will. He never deviated, not even once from his Heavenly Father's will though he had at every turn the freedom to do so. He demonstrated that God dwelling in unity within the soul and frame of a human being made in his image was a sufficient synthesization to achieve perfection in being and eternal life.

Those who are in Christ and in whom is Christ have become, in earnest, the kind of human Christ is. We were in Adam and did as Adam did. We were flawed and not capable of being truly righteous. By faith in Jesus and rebirth in the Spirit of God we are in Jesus and Jesus is in us. What he did, as he did, we also will do. As he is righteous so are we. He lives forever and so will we. 

We were Adam, and never were nor could we ever be righteous. Now we are Christ, and will be perfectly so hereafter, and as such, will always be righteous throughout all eternity. What we never were, nor could ever be, we will be always.

How Can the Imperfect Become Perfect?

Jesus said we must be perfect because our heavenly Father is perfect. It seems an onerous demand to make upon intrinsically imperfect creatures, so is that what it intended to convey? God is undoubtedly perfect and so are his standards, so if humans are ever to peacefully coexist with him we'll have to align with his standard rather than him to ours. That much is certainly true, but I doubt that Jesus' statement was a demand so much as it was a statement of fact.

If God allowed imperfection to remain in his universe he wouldn't fit the definition of being perfect, and by extension, that of being God. If he did that, the best that could be said was that perhaps he understood what was perfect, maybe even that he wanted what was perfect, but he, himself, would not be perfect because he didn't or couldn't "make it so." "Woulda, coulda, shoulda" is not the mantra of perfection. So, Jesus spoke truth on that mount, really a logical necessity: if it wasn't so, God wouldn't be God.

We, however, are not perfect, nor can we be. We are not God. There is one, alone, who is good and it ain't us! But we must be, if we're ever to get along with him who is. We are made by a perfect creator and it is a necessity that we be perfect in all that we are. If not, we will have to be made perfect not as we are.

What?

Right now, we are free to think, desire, choose, act, create, etc. In order to continue to do so, we'll have to come into accord with, be perfectly aligned to, and be absolutely congruent with him who is perfect. If we willingly yield the degrees of freedom we have through faith (i.e. obey) because we trust God in his perfections, and are infused with the Holy Spirit throughout our being, we can thereby be enabled to walk in agreement with the perfect God. We can be like Jesus was as he walked among us.

Or...

We can be confined in hell, and by that I mean the Lake of Fire. As terrible, even barbaric, as that might seem, it is not the petty, vindictive, hissy fit of someone really big and strong. It is a logical necessity. In view of an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect God it is the only outcome possible. If those made in his image, and are eternal as a result, will not choose perfectly, then they must be perfectly incapacitated from making any choice whatsoever.

We are not perfect, nor can we ever be. Not of ourselves, not by our own resources. Yet, we must be perfect nonetheless! The solution to our dilemma is simple-- don't be dependent on our own resources. God is willing, even desirous, to share his perfect Spirit with those who put their trust in Christ. When he who is perfect is abiding in those who can't be perfect on their own, perfection becomes remarkably possible. When those folks are recreated at the Rapture, then their perfection will be complete.

What Is and Isn't In the Mind of God

God is omniscient which means he is all-knowing and all-seeing. He doesn't have to discover a thing, or even think through a thing, he "already" knows it. That being the case, can God be surprised to any degree? Surely, there is nothing of which God is not completely aware of and thoroughly comprehending from all eternity--or is there?

If God was thoroughly acquainted with evil before or apart from creation, then I submit that evil did not find its genesis in creation but in God. In that case, God did not "discover" it in creation, for evil was part of his thoughts quite apart from the existence of creation. It would have found it's way into creation reflectively rather than formatively. That seems an impossibility to me because evil is intrinsically at odds with God.

By Christ's argument, a house divided against itself cannot stand, so neither could God stand if he was for himself (good) and against himself (evil) within his own thoughts.

Therefore, evil could not have been in God's conceptions apart from those which instantiated creation. Even then, it could only have been so in general terms; i.e. "if we make creatures in our image they will do as they will rather than as we will." If evil was a subject thoroughly plumbed in God's mind apart from creation, then God's thoughts would be of evil to some extent and he would not be good, and he would not be pure. The evil that ended up being produced in the minds of mankind would exist as a reflection of the mind of God who made them rather than as an negative consequence of freewill.

Evil is a consequence of freewill, but it cannot be intrinsic in the created, pristine possessor of that freewill without it indicting the creator for it. Adam and Eve were created good and upright. Evil came their way afterwards, when they opted for their own wills instead of God's will (evil=anything against the will of God). Evil is only possible if there is a freewill apart from God's, but evil does not actually exist until (and unless) freewill is exerted in opposition to God.

A mind endued with such freewill would be transparent to God in all its evil, once it existed, because he is omnitemporally omniscient in regard to creation. Furthermore, all the minds that would ever come into existence would be transparent to God in all their evil, once creation was in place. However, if God omnisciently knew the evil thoughts of mankind from all eternity, that is, apart from creation being put in place, it would mean that something which could not come from God's own thoughts (they're not evil) and which only came into being temporally, informed God's knowledge eternally.

If God is pure and holy as the Word avows, and he actually regretted making mankind and was astonished at the depths of Israel's sin as presented in his Word, it is impossible that evil (whether his or ours) was part of his personal, eternal knowledge. The knowledge of evil, by necessity, is confined to and informed by the decision to create man in his image. If God had not created, he would not have any knowledge of evil. The existence of evil demands that God be aware of it by observation rather than by cogitation.

We may live in a universe that is quantumly frothy, but it seems to me that we must be careful in our explications of God's omniscience to accurately describe what is and isn't in the mind of God, lest we suggest something that would, by necessity, annihilate itself.

The Purpose of Discipline from God

When those Christians who do say it, say that God does not punish sin in our lifetimes (or really, at all for the believer), they do so reckoning upon the punishment for our sins Christ took upon himself. No condemnation remains for us to bear as a result. By that reckoning, anything painful experienced in this life which might appear punitive is either not coming from God or is not intended as a punishment. I must admit, there's much to commend in such a thought.

However, our thoughts about what God does or doesn't do must line up with each and every passage of scripture. Whereas it is certainly biblical to say that the Devil is seeking to bring us pain, it is not biblical at all to say that God won't or can't bring us things that are painful or punitive or both. We can say biblically that if God brings us to something painful, whether punitive or not, he does so for our own good and his grace is sufficient to bring us through it. To hold otherwise puts people who hold otherwise in the regrettable position of trying to make excuses for a theology that doesn't work in real life (unscriptural theology never does), or becoming incredibly self-absorbed trying to improve their faith to get a more desirable outcome.

"...have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons: “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by Him. For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives.” 

It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness."               Hebrews 12:3-12 NASB

Why would a loving father discipline his children through hardship and suffering? I think we have to trust that there is no other way to get us to where he wants us to be. Ultimately, that is by his side in eternity, sharing in all that is in Christ. Between now and then, Christ is our example, suffering can be a teacher, and the humility that goes with it is a boon to faith.

The bottom line in all this is understanding the reasons our forgiving God might use punitive measures in our lifetimes. Let's be clear, God's corrections mean legitimacy and life and are never without purpose. God uses corrective discipline so we do not go off the deep end and lose all we had in Christ. If punishment from God comes to believers, it comes not to write them off but to preserve them.

There's no reason to walk about shivering in fearful anticipation, looking over our shoulder expecting divine retribution for some misstep to overtake us and ruin our lives. God is not like that, he walks softly among us. But understand this: if you're on a path that could lead to your destruction as a believer, God is not above making an effort to stop you in your tracks and correct your course with a big stick.

What Is Freewill?

Freewill is a description of volitional power which God, alone, has perfectly. He does as he pleases without disability or mitigation. He can do a thing or not do it.

When God created the heavens and earth and all that lives therein, he made a freewill choice to have that creation reflect himself, and in particular for man to resemble himself. To that end, he gave mankind a physical body made of the stuff that everything else was made of, including everything else living, and infused it with a spiritual animus that made mankind uniquely, specially in his image. Whatever a soul is (and I'm certain we really don't know what that is), it is something that came into being when the breath (spirit) of God was infused into the corpus of man.

It is that ethereal thing, the soul, which expresses itself through a physical being made for it, which makes a healthy human being a reflector of God's freewill and an expresser of it in its own accord. While an individual is in a body, that individual is beholden to that body for its expression of its soulish being. If a brain is damaged, malformed, underdeveloped, diseased or afflicted, the soulish power of freewill will be affected in its expression. God has created man as a discrete singularity made of body, soul and spirit, so that as the body goes, so goes the expression of soulish personhood.

A soul without a properly functioning brain will not express in the physical world the freewill it otherwise has the innate ability to. Without a body a soul is not a complete human, which is reflected, I think, in the crying out under the altar of those martyred souls in Revelation (and the fact that we get new bodies for eternity). When a person is intact and healthy, the existence of his or her soul, is what gives that person the capacity to express freewill. There are limits, of course, the most obvious being the physical laws of the universe, and what is more important in my opinion, the law of Spirit.

The Law of the Spirit determines the ability of the soul to express itself in harmony with God. After the Fall of Adam and Eve, spiritual death, or separation between man and the Spirit of God, was imposed upon mankind. Whatever sort of resting place the soul had been made to be for the breath of God, its connection to the breath of God was broken at that time and so freewill in mankind was incapable of willing in harmony with God. After Jesus rose from the dead and made the Spirit available to those who follow him, the born again have by that rebirth a renewed ability to will freely in harmony with God (though the not perfectly so long as they are in dying bodies).

So what is freewill? It is the volitional power human beings possess, which, among other things, allows them to be the expression of the image of God who possesses freewill in its ultimate sense. Though a soulish quality, it is communicated in the physical world through the auspices of the physical being (particularly, the brain). Natural human beings have no ability to express that capacity in line with God, supernatural human beings (the regenerated) have some capacity to, eternal human beings will be able to perfectly.

Grace and Obedience

When I was a kid, the sage advice I often received from my elders was to do what I was told. That may have been the role I was saddled with for that period in my life, but I didn't like it. It chafed against my willfulness and felt oppressive. No doubt, as an adult I have passed on that counsel to others (namely the five that share my surname and grew up in my house) many times over.

I was 20 when Christ became my Lord: too young to be completely past teen rebellion, too old to be treated like a kid. Yet, the scriptures clearly taught me, in regard to my newly found faith, I had to become as a child. Humility, submissiveness and obedience were to be the watchwords of my new existence. Let me tell you: it is no easier to accept such things from God all grown up than it was to accept them from earthly elders when I was a kid.

Americans, maybe humans in general, don't like those words when they're focused on them. We can see the need for someone else to abide by them, perhaps, but not so much ourselves. We want to make our own decisions, pursue our desires, and control our destiny. Meanwhile, the idealized image of the heavenly "Father" we have fabricated in our minds sits sensitively on the sidelines, cheerleading our drive and affirming our ambitions. Isn't that what it means that "God is for us" in the modern vernacular?

Christians, at least those who catch big air surfing the hypergrace wave, go into gag reflex when someone says that God should be obeyed and is not pleased when he isn't. I've seen the claim that God is just as pleased with a Christian who is not obeying him as he is with one who is! A cursory reading of the Letters to the Churches in the Apocalypse is sufficient to put that notion to rest! Whereas that metric could be applied to the concept of acceptance or salvation, it cannot be applied to the experience of relationship.

Obeying God, treating Jesus as if he actually is the Lord, is essential to a vital and productive relationship with him. That is the approach Jesus modeled for us as humans. He loved his Father and obeyed him, and that is why they had such a close relationship. Jesus asks us, "why do you call me Lord, and do not do the things I say?" When it comes to a dynamic experience of God's presence and fellowship in our lives, when it comes to revival, there's no avoiding the fact that we're just going to have to learn to do what we're told.

Anything less is not grace, it's garbage. 

God's Sovereignty and Man's Freewill

If asked, "Is God in control?" my answer, as I understand it from scripture, is absolutely, he most certainly is! In fact, God wouldn't be God if he wasn't in control over what he made. If his will can be frustrated, then ultimately, he's not omnipotent; if he can be surprised then he's not omniscient; if he's subject to time then he's not eternal. If any of these are true then he's not holy (separate from creation).

Is it possible for God, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, to not thereby bear ultimate responsibility for everything that occurs? If he's capable of speaking the worlds into being, then, minimally, he is capable of stopping anything he wants to, anytime he wants to, with a word! Since nothing happens that he was not aware would happen, then, maximally, he is the cause of all that does happen. God is sovereign, and therefore God is responsible. 

Why then do things occur that are specifically stated in his word as being outside of his desire and will? It would seem that it must be his will for things to occur that are not in his will. What kind of mechanism would make that kind of doublespeak possible without making God hopelessly divided against himself? Namely, independent will would, created by God, for God, and allowed under his governance to express itself as it, rather than he wills.

It makes sense even if it is counterintuitive, seemingly contradicting God's omni characteristics. If will wasn't independent it couldn't actually be will, it could only be instinct or some such like. When God created wills other than his own, independence or autonomy in their expression is what he willed for them in creating them. And evidently, having created them, he is not willing to contravene the exercise of them (at least not for a while). 

So, in his sovereignty, it is God's will that we express ours. That is real, God-given freedom. I take this to be the very core and substance of being created in his image. Because I see things this way I find that Arminianism, rather than Calvinism, more fully encompasses the truth concerning God's sovereignty. The truth is that God is sovereign, and that humans truly have free wills.

A Letter to the Tolerant Church

Throughout time, churches in various places find themselves in the midst of a society which labels as acceptable, or even good, that which the church should clearly see and forthrightly eschew as evil. The pressure to affirm the practice of the broader, surrounding culture can be immense at those times. In such places and times there will be those Christians who endeavor to hold the core of the faith, even while compromising to some degree on what they'll call tangentials. That may not seem unreasonable, but what happens when reasoned compromisers lose sight of who actually holds the straight edge?

In his message to the Church in Pergamum, Christ takes to task a church that was trying to stay true to the fundamentals of the faith while compromising on the practice of morality. It appears, according to Christ, true, obedient Christianity is not maintaining historic, biblical Christology while softening stands on sexuality and idolatry. This seems to me a letter rife with application to the church today. I think we, in the Western world in particular, need to see the line Christ drew regarding these "tangentials"--there is a lot at risk!

It is possible for one to say the right things about who Christ is and what he has done, even to the point of martyrdom, but if one is soft on sexual license or the fixations and substitutions which are idolatry, that one has failed Christ. What a bracing thought! The cost of such failure is being being treated as an enemy of Christ, at war with him and subject to the judgment of his word. The benefit of repentance and success is being treated to a special intimacy with Christ, something shared with Christ that is the victors' alone.

That should be an easy choice, but never undersell the flesh's power to cloud our moral vision, even when the risk is huge!

Sex, Marriage & Fairytales

I have no, even faint, appreciation for rap, but I thought this would be an interesting change of pace. Way to say, Jefferson.

No Parlor Tricks Necessary

Divine prescience is a difficult issue for Christians. In the Bible, God demonstrates an exhaustive knowledge of things, which from our perspective, had not yet occurred. What does that say about how the universe is actually managed by God? One approach might suggest that God foreknows what is going to happen in the universe, because it was settled before it happened; or in other words, the happenings were predetermined by God. Another approach could suggest that God foreknows what will happen strictly as a matter of awareness, or omniscience, rather than necessary causation.

Regardless of what one might theorize about prescience, we should at least be clear about this: the universe, as it is, is actively sustained by the omnipotent God. Since God is the omnipotent sustainer of all things, I think reason would come to the conclusion that everything that is and that happens is so and does so because made so by God. The problem with that viewpoint is that no matter how nicely it fits the demands of reason, it doesn't quite fit the demands of scripture (this too). It may make sense, but God says it isn't so! He does things differently than that, but separating causation from observation is a difficult knot to cut, even in our endeavors.

Since I do not know how to go toe to toe with God, my response is to take the word of the Omniscient and to adjust my view of reason so it aligns with his revelation. Some of this disconnect is attributable to God's otherliness. Time is a dimension of the creation, not the Creator. He cannot be constrained nor measured by his creation, because he is other than it, therefore outside of time. His creation can tell us lots about his divine attributes, but it cannot tell us how he interacts with spacetime.

Theorizing God's action as if he was governed, constrained or obligated by time is bound to fall short of understanding how he actually sees or does things (if the timebound even could!). All he is bound to do is what he said he will do, and all that we can know in regard to that is what he tells us. To think that God can only know something before it happens because he caused it to happen, puts God into creation's constraints and binds him with our timeline. He certainly did not reveal to us that is how he knows things, particularly concerning people!

It is simpler and more correct to posit God's foreknowledge as a consequence of his otherliness. He sees the end from the beginning, and the beginning from the end. The picture is of an incomprehensible "pan-time" viewpoint. In his timeless omnipotence he is able to grant independent willful impetus to his creatures; whereby in his omniscience, he is able to thoroughly know and understand what they will think and do, without regard to the time in which they do it. He is able to intervene, react and steer the course of events in time without getting tangled in it, though he is omnipresent.

Whereas God's foreknowledge is exhaustive, he does not rely on exhaustive determinism to make it so. He is outside of time, after all, and capable of more than clever parlor tricks!

Becoming Holy

Holiness, I think I have established, is about the uniqueness of God's being, and by extension, about that which is not God being made holy by being consecrated to him. It is the consequence of anything, and eventually everything belonging entirely to the holy God. Ultimately, even the reprobate sinner and the principalities, powers and rulers of this present darkness will be his in the fullest sense of the word (that's what the Lake of Fire is all about). In this bubble of time we call history, there is an option available to us. We may render ourselves "not God's" which is but an illusion that can only last for a lifetime, or we may surrender ourselves to God believing him to be Lord which can translate into eternity.

In relinquishing ourselves to God by grace through faith, we become holy, the actual efficacy thereof coming through two impositions. First, sacrificial blood must be imposed upon that which was not intrinsically holy in order to consecrate it; and second, the divine breath (the Spirit of God) which is intrinsically holy, must be imposed upon that which was sprinkled with sacrificial blood to make holy in substance. This is the pattern of things to come revealed in the OT, and this is the fulfillment of things that are in the NT. I would call these two aspects of holiness 1) positional holiness, and 2) substantial holiness.

For humans, positional holiness can only be achieved through the application of the blood of the Lamb of God through faith. When one comes to the conviction that Jesus Christ died for his or her sin and that he or she is trusting that blood alone to make them acceptable to God, that one has become positionally holy. His or her tabernacle of flesh has been sprinkled with blood. As the Holy Spirit inhabits that sprinkled tabernacle, that one has now become one with God and is thereby made substantially holy. Since our tabernacles are made of transitory stuff, God has appointed a day when all that is passing will be transformed into that which is not. Our substantial holiness will then be perfect.

Notice, I have made no reference to efforts or toil in explaining the biblical concept and process of holiness. Had I done so, I would have been in error. Holiness is not something developed from that which is not holy of itself. Holiness is a derivative property for all but him who alone is holy. For us who are not him, holiness comes imputed and imported. To walk in holiness, then, what is required is not a supernatural effort from that which is only natural, but an abandoned cooperation of the natural with the supernatural who has come in.

How Does One Become Holy?

In the Matrix, there is a number of scenes where Agent Smith infiltrates a person, who then goes through what looks like a very painful transformation--stretcho, change-o, then snaps back into the shape of Agent Smith. Believe it or not, I actually think that is a great illustration of how a Christian becomes holy.

We look at a statement like "be holy as the Lord is holy," and instantly jump to the wrong conclusion: we think it is something we can achieve if we set our minds to it and get it done. Nothing could be further from the truth. It just isn't in the nature of the beast for a human to be holy. God alone can be attributed with that quality.

The most fundamental way to conceive of the notion of holy is to think "other" or "distinctly separate." No one can fit that description but God (see link in post title). Everything else, everyone else is just part of the creation, generally along with countless other examples of the same sort. "Other" in the realm of the created is a relative term at best!

God stands alone (and when I say that, I mean the trinitarian Godhead). Nothing else is what he is; nothing else has independent existence as he does; everything else was fashioned by him, yet he was fashioned by nothing. We generally jump immediately to the moral repercussions of God's separateness when speaking of holiness, but to do so is to not go deep enough into the subject.

If we don't plumb far enough, however, we generally devolve into some kind of petty rule keeping regimen in order to give us some sense we're aligned with the command to be holy. Holiness, however, can never arise from that which is intrinsically unholy. So, perhaps we need to rethink the force of the command, and see it more as an invitation. Like any of the commands of God in the old covenant, the point was not to elicit actual obedience, but to make us aware of just how unholy we truly are, and thereby to lead us to the gracious hand of Christ.

Oh, it's not that it's possible to be unholy and get along with with God, it's just that we can't achieve holiness by our own efforts. If we're to be holy, as we must to get into heaven (not to earn it, but just to survive it), holiness has to come to us, imported like oil is to Singapore. Since we must be holy to co-exist with God, we must come to Christ and receive the gift of his nature which alone is holy. When the holy one is in us, holiness becomes possible for us.

When Emotions Run Away With Us IV

Judas
Judas was an opportunist. That's the way I see him anyway. Jesus Christ Superstar made him the hero of the drama, but he was anything but in real life. He was a thief, and a shameless coattail rider. Jesus was nothing but his avenue to a better life. When it dawned on him that possibility wasn't going to pan out, he shifted gears without any hesitation and started shopping his connection to Jesus for personal profit.

What was motivating him (beside the Devil, that is)? Emotionally, I would say Judas was driven by avarice. His appetite for personal gain overwhelmed every other concern and experience, and in his case, that's saying a lot. Think of what Judas saw and heard! Up in smoke all of it went because he was blinded by avarice. Those that are greedy for gain end up with destruction instead. As for Judas, so for anyone.

Barnabas
Barnabas had a great name in life, not nearly as great in history. He could have had both (not that we should desire such, but you know what I mean). He ran with the handpicked agent of God to the Gentiles, who understood God's voice and the Spirit's leading. Yet, over a favorite cousin, Barnabas got into such a sharp contention with Paul that the two had to separate-- Paul on to earth shaking ministry, Barnabas on to relative obscurity in his hometown in Cyprus.

What got in his way? Nepotism, pure and simple. He let his emotional attachment to family override other concerns and rejected the more objective judgment of his fellow missionary. As I read history, Paul was right and Barnabas wasn't. When we let our attachment to family override other ministry concerns, we don't help the family member and we undermine the ministry. Wouldn't it be nice if preachers today could learn this lesson?

Emotions are not the basis upon which decisions should be made. Where can we expect to go when we let the caboose lead the train? The biblical examples we've looked at teach us that. Though emotions are God given, they can't run the show.

When Emotions Run Away With Us III

Solomon
Solomon had an auspicious start. His promise would have made him unique in history if he lived up to it. His name is great, no doubt, but so were his follies. The few things that God said a king of God's people should not do, Solomon did with relish. Hording silver and gold, horses, and whores (oops, I meant "wives" and concubines) was enthusiastically pursued: humility, faithfulness and obedience were tossed aside in his never ending search for broader experience and self-fulfillment.

Solomon may have been a poster boy for Maslow's theory, but he was a disgrace to the kingdom of God. He let his emotional, self-absorbed quest for fulfillment overwhelm every other consideration in life. The result was a kingdom at odds with him, an existential depression with life, and a broken fellowship with God. Are dreams of self-fulfillment really that important? What will such emotional satisfaction profit a man if it cost him his soul?

Jonah
Living under the shadow of ruthless conquerors, who had designs on you, your family, your nation can put a burr under any one's saddle. As conquerors go, I think it's safe to say the Assyrians put the ooh! in ruthless. Is any wonder that a person living in such a shadow would have implacable hatred for those pagan enemies, even to the extent of not wanting a warning word from God promising judgment to reach them?

The silence of God is not having a chance. In hearing, faith can erupt. Think, "September 12th, 2001;" how did you feel about Arabs and Muslims that day? Were your thoughts evangelistic? Vengeance belongs with God, it's an emotional fury we can't handle. It blinds us to the eternal significance of our enemies' souls. Instead of being like Ananias in Damascus, vengeance makes us like Jonah in the drink. Do we want to see God's enemies become his friends, or are we blinded by vengeance, and useless to the miracle of grace.

Still more to come...

When Emotions Run Away With Us II

David
David took a voracious bite out of life I think his faith in God motivated. He fought for God, and every time he went into battle, even with long odds, God gave him victory. Eventually, there weren't too many enemies left. He sought out any of his bosom buddy Jonathan's heirs, and showed his sole remaining son royal hospitality, alleviating any nagging issues of loyalty and conscience he may have had. He had a grand dream to build a magnificent temple for the ark of the covenant, but God said, "Good thought, but let your son do it."

David was a man of vision and action. He'd seen it all, done it all, gone as far as he could fulfilling every dream he had, and still had a lot of living to do. People like David love new challenges, but languish under routine. Despite his spectacular history, David came to a pass where boredom set in and just couldn't motivate himself for one more charge. He avoided the necessary and eschewed his responsibility.

Against folk wisdom, his life shows us that character is not discovered in the struggle, but rather, in the aftermath of success. David let boredom get the best of him, he forsook responsibility and necessity for idleness. At that point grievous sin was a foregone conclusion: lust, adultery, betrayal, and manslaughter were waiting in the wings. Boredom unchallenged could lead to the same for any of us.

Still more to come...

When Emotions Run Away With Us

God is an emotional being. He's created us, in his image, with the capacity for emotions as well. Unfortunately, in our fallen condition, sometimes ours get overwhelming, or run away with us, and the results are often not pretty. Sometimes we become blubbering, incapacitated, tear factories. At other times we become focused, pursuers of ungodly ends. Runaway emotions seldom lead to good decisions, often lead to sin, and so we should endeavor not to let them get away from us as have some notable biblical examples.

Cain
Cain had some problems with sibling rivalry, and seems to me to be the first model of the sociopath. He was arrogant in regard to God and willful with respect to his own life. A stinging rejection of what he tried to shove down God's throat, combined with the ringing endorsement of his brother, Abel's offering to God touched off the anger button in Cain's psyche.

There's good reason the Word says don't let the sun go down on our anger. When we live in anger, stew in it, embrace it and make it our companion in life it will lead us to misery. Sin couches at the door looking to get the advantage over us. Anger, like my kids, leaves the door wide open for the undesirable to come in. When angry, we make rash choices and follow courses that don't lead us toward God. It's OK to be angry, it's not OK to sin.

Saul
Saul seemed to be an incredibly humble individual when he was young. I don't think it was true humility, but the distortion that arises when we compare ourselves with ourselves. When we do that and our circumstances are humble, we appear meek: when our circumstances change, so does such false humility-- into arrogance and jealousy. That is what happened to Saul.

If Saul had sought the approval that came from God, rather than worrying about the accolades of man, I wouldn't be writing this piece. But Saul was not a man after God's heart; in fact, he cared less about God's rejection than he did about being given second billing in the song of some schoolgirls. God is a jealous god. We, however, don't handle the emotion all that well. Let it run away with us and we end up running away from God, just like Saul.

Stay tuned, more to come...

Marriage Is About What We Give to It

Marriage is anything but a human invention. 

Marriage licenses formulated at the whim of governing authorities didn't establish it, shifting social mores can't change it, and what God has joined together should not be separated by people. Historically, and biblically, marriage is not primarily the consequence of "falling in love." Yes, I said that! Unfortunately, the present cultural understanding of marriage in the West gets none of this.

As a result, God's purposes for marriage have been frustrated and public trust in the institution has been eroded to the point of collapse. Marriage is no longer assumed or expected to be a pathway to a life of blessedness, but has become a roll of the dice, a passing phase. The Bible tells us God instituted marriage to accomplish several things for humankind and to allow several things from our perspective to be accomplished in our lives.

From God's perspective, marriage was meant to provide the human race with companionship in the mission of life, to be the environment for sexual expression and the conception of new life, and to be a bastion of holiness and learning for the family. To be honest, it's not like fallen man was ever going to do well achieving such noble ends. Nonetheless, noble ends these are, and they need to be front and center in our consideration of the institution.

From our perspective, marriage is meant to provide mutual emotional comfort, to supply the security of a loyal commitment, and to be a reliable source of provision and care. These, too, are noble goals, but unfortunately are set before the eyes of inherently ignoble people. Nonetheless, this is the design of marriage, and we need to understand this if we're ever to honor the bond with the gravity it deserves.

Marriage has been romanticized through myth, tale, torrid paperbacks, and the insipid celluloid regurgitations of Hollywood. The emphasis, generally, is on how Prince Charming or Snow White makes their love feel. If these sources are the only input informing one's expectations of marriage, that one will, in all likelihood, make a terrible spouse. He or she will find the trouble of maintaining the bond of matrimony more than they care to bear. Marriage failure begins with self-concern, marriage success starts with self-sacrifice

In the real world God made, marriage is not about what we get out of it, but what we give to it.

.

In Light of Grace...

When it comes to getting along with God, grace is all we have going for us. 

Thankfully, God's grace is more than sufficient for that purpose, but should it be perceived as nothing more than a perpetual get out of jail free card? Humans, including Christians, are at least in some respect, nothing more than incessant recidivists. One has to wonder if God, within his gracious heart, doesn't long for more than that. Is grace just another word for him looking past the flawed nature of the creature— an acknowledgment that, that was the best he could do?

The answers to such tough questions may be disturbing to us who have come to depend upon being graded on a curve. Knowing the cut of our own jib, we may feel safer letting such things go unprobed. Put it all down to grace and move on, why pick at scabs? On to the next offense, without so much as a second thought. That appears to be a quick, convenient way to deal with things, and besides, plumbing any further can only reveal nothing but hopeless sludge. Grace is truly all we have going for us.

Yet, the Bible is filled with directives telling us to get our acts together and move on with God: press on, put off, make every effort, guard, stand, fight, don't lose heart, etc, etc, etc. Are those real directives, spoken with the expectation of compliance, or are they just decorative hooks upon which we hang our grace coveralls in the fleeting moments they are not needed? Can God possibly be that lame? No way!

Walking before God takes two legs.

Even though we are hobbled and could get no where by our own efforts, we do not seem to be considered immobile by the God who comes alongside and helps. His Word to us is "move." In light of his indwelling Spirit in the born-again, it is only reasonable to expect a difference in them— in direction, in attitude, in action, in lifestyle. The saved may be excused by God but that doesn't translate into them making excuses before God, and definitely not on his dime. 

So, we must rest in God's mercy all the while moving forward into the holiness of his Spirit.

In light of grace, it's the only sensible thing to do.

Why Is Grace So Amazing?

We need to be near God. Just to be in his presence is to know life, and there, fullness of joy is the very air breathed. God certainly has charisma, as much as a being could have, but it's more-- he has substance and energy, he is zoe. If we are separated from God, all that is shut off from us and death ensues. If we are not in the light of his presence, there is nothing but darkness of soul, emptiness of heart, despair of tomorrow, and wasting away away into vanity.

God knows we need him, and yet our sin separates us from him. The discerning among us know that we need him and that our sin has separated us from him. Many who have such insight, in response, ache to be holy, righteous, in order to correspond to the God who is life. So they can be near him and breathe in what he is and live. Toil and struggle to align themselves with the holy God becomes the religious quest of such folk, but there are dangers lurking for such valiant efforts...

Glad of God, but disappointed with self, melancholy shadows their days. Grace, to them, is that God doesn't give them what they deserve. They do get to experience God, but with their heads hanging down, their own feet filling their view. But what about grace should be about us? Grace is not obsessed with our unworthiness nor our inabilities. Grace is about God, about his kindness, his love, his desire to share himself with all he has made.

Grace is entire in its grant of acceptance. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. Grace starts out with everything being right, and then works backwards. It leaves the subject peaceful, not striving, and never uncertain. Grace moves us to a place with God and a peace with him. Too much for our comprehension, our thinking often has to run after to catch up to grace.

Thankfully, grace has long arms and strong hands.

Grace is amazing because it elevates us to mountaintops we could never climb ourselves. Grace is not crampons, or oxygen tanks, nor downy jackets that aid us in achieving what we could never achieve on our own. Grace is a helicopter ride to the top. It brings us near God without self-consciousness of effort. We're not the issue, nor is our incapability of the climb. Grace is about the heart of God and how genuinely he wants us up there with him.

And the view up there standing beside him, his hand on our shoulder...   it's spectacular!

Where Did Evil Come From?

There is evil in the world. Everywhere.

A biblical worldview would even see that there is a cabal of unseen conspirators promoting that evil. How did it manage to sprout like weeds under the eye of an omniscient, omnipotent God and where did it come from in the first place? To answer "the Devil" is too facile and actually leaves the question intact unanswered. The Devil is evil (it's in his very name!) and he certainly is the source of much that is evil, but then, where did his evil come from?

The Bible tells us that mankind is inherently evil-- an uncomfortable thought when applying it to oneself, yet readily understandable when applying it to others. Nonetheless, they surely are, and I attribute their evil to the same source as the Devil's. It wasn't God, he is inherently good, at least it wasn't him directly. God is the ultimate free moral agent: he is conscious and rational, with powers of will and choice. 

When God made mankind and angels with similar powers as he possessed and set them free in creation, the root of all evil was laid.

How can those abilities which so distinguish humans from the plethora of the living be responsible for evil? A definition would be helpful before proceeding: evil  is simply that which is not good, and more fundamentally, that which is out of harmony with the ultimate good, which is God. Evil is the "un-God." When choice and will were expressed by man or angel independently of, and in opposition to God, evil was born. 

Evil, then, is the risk inherent in freedom.

All that was made was made as a home for mankind, the crowning achievement  of God's creation. When humans embraced evil and thereby shattered the crystal purity of that pristine environment, they alienated both the creation and the creature from God and what was good. As a result, sin, death and evil, which are the fruit of such a choice, have spattered everything in the universe, alive or  inanimate, with their rot. Man, beast and the environment we live in have all been tainted by evil. 

Creation still bears the fingerprints of God, but its smudges betray, all too clearly the evil cost of image bearers going their own way instead of God's.

Evil came from us.