Finding the Right One

Helping folk find the "right one" is big business. Ads for dating and matchmaking services fill the web, TV, and the mails. It is not unusual to see such endeavors openly associate with Christianity or have departments that cater to the faith community. Love and marriage is not only important to us, but to God (and to pastors), so let me offer some advice for those seeking to find that special one to spend a life with.

THERE IS NEVER JUST ONE

As special as you may be, you're not that unique--you're not God. There is no such thing as the one: that is nothing more than a Hollywood fabrication meant to stir the flesh. If this one doesn't produce a love connection, then the next one could or the one after that. Out of 6.3 billion people in the world, I'd have to imagine that at least 100,000 would suit you just fine; that is if you're looking for a spouse, rather than a circus dog who can jump flawlessly through hoops.

         

Picky people end up lonely, get desperate, and then settle for less. Nobody's perfect so don't look for the perfect one for you. Even if someone could meet your standard, what's the likelihood you'd meet theirs? Though not just any one will do, remember that everyone has some annoying habits, and some philosophical disagreements with anyone else. So don't hold a standard that would exclude you if the other party approached this thing like you were or that only God would have a right to.

FIND SOMEONE WHO TRUSTS CHRIST

With rare exceptions, the choice of a mate is ours rather than God's, but we must exercise that freedom in line with Christ. If you and your potential mate do not agree on Christ, how will you be able to agree on a godly course through life? "Converting" in order to marry will not do, because folk will do almost anything to marry their love, even falsely acknowledging Christ. If you downplay or do not mention you allegiance to Christ, or accept a lame conversion by your mate in the selection of a spouse, you are out and out ashamed of Christ and that has no future at all!

FIND SOMEONE WITH A SERVANT'S HEART

Jesus, the mightiest, came to serve and he is the example we emulate. We should look for something of Jesus in our potential someones. Therefore, look for a person who endeavors to serve you; who does not consider it inconvenient to do so; who does not consider it a burden. If a potential mate doesn't want to serve you, plain and simple, he or she does not love you.

Don't be so afraid to not be in a relationship that you endure the boot heel of an unloving potential mate--that's mentally ill! Spouses are meant by God to be complementary companions, which means they help each other. Queens that wish to be pampered and kings that demand to be served are alike unfit for marriage, may they make themselves eunuchs or true widows for life! So be a servant, and look for a servant, if you desire marital bliss.

FIND SOMEONE WITH INTEGRITY IN THE SMALL THINGS

Someone who will cheat in little matters will cheat in the big ones too. That one will cheat on you (I certainly hope you see yourself as a big matter as a spouse)! So look for character, with integrity being the key issue. Don't look for a mate like a loaf of bread: just because it's soft to the touch, smells good, and doesn't look moldy, doesn't mean it must be wholesome.

The Bible never promotes romanticism in finding a mate, (even the Song of Solomon refers to love after marriage). God wants godly parents and godly children. If you want a mate, use your heart for sure, but also your Bible and your head! The lust of the flesh and eyes are no basis to find a suitable mate: no more than is mutual hedonism. Who you find, you give your life to, so pick the right one. Look for someone whose vision for God matches yours.

Some Thoughts on Time and Logic

Anything created has a definite beginning and a potential ending. It is in the nature of being created, it is necessary.  An ultimate creator has neither beginning nor ending, necessarily,  because that one is not created. If that one had either beginning or ending, that one would not be the ultimate creator. The attempt to mandate a created quality for the ultimate creator, such as a beginning and a potential end (as atheist sometimes do in saying "where did God come from?"), is to not understand the necessary qualities of the ultimate creator.

Beginning and ending are time ordinals which only have meaning within the stream of elapsing time. The words have no meaning apart from the reality of time. Therefore, time is not only a dimensional aspect of the created order because Einstein theorized it so and findings afterward verified that; but also because, philosophically, time ultimately is entailed within creation. Time is nothing more than something that passes sequentially between ultimate beginning and (potentially) ultimate ending.

Time is wed to created things: it's locked into initiations and progressions. Time cannot exist substantially where there is no beginning, what would it be? It cannot exist in the realm of the ultimate creator, in the place that is other than creation, or that place, that person, wouldn't be without a beginning. Some theologians have been saying for centuries that God is outside of time--they spoke well; for if time is an attribute or aspect of God, then God is subject to time as is any created thing, and his self-contained existence is undermined.

Logicians can have difficulty with such a concept because of the necessities of order in logic. Some thoughts have to occur before others in sequence. I think that situation is more a consequence of our thoughts and experiences being locked within the created order than it is of any ultimate truth in the realm of the ultimate creator. All that can be truly said, I think, is that logic works that way in our realm of elapsing time. Who among us can know the mind of God?

The Necessity of Spiritual Encounter

The pattern of scripture is not that men choose God but that men are encountered by God and a relationship ensues. Pelagic theologies frame man's capacity as something capable of initiating a relationship with God, but I think the scriptures are clear that man would never bother with God if God didn't intervene. It's not that we cannot come to an unaided conclusion that God exists or even comprehend his attributes, but in the gap between knowing about someone and knowing him personally, mankind can do none other than chiseling that data to our own liking (idolatry). God, the infinite and transcendent, is never subject to our powers of drawing him out.

Folk bent on discovering God, or knowing the Great Truth--Buddha, Lao-Tzu, or Plato for instance--do not find God the Creator, nor the Son who conquered death. They merely rearrange the particulars of projections of humanity and/or human reasoning. God as he is, God the only all-wise, the self-existent, the maker of heaven and earth, he who sees the end from the beginning, the one who talks, they do not find. Humans cannot find God, he must "find" them.

There is the scriptural command to seek God with one's whole heart with the promise of finding him as a result. However, just a modicum of thought will recognize that it was the word from God to seek and find that was itself the initiator of process in the first place. God "saying" something is how it always begins. God must show up in the places we can perceive (but not necessarily see) and poke us, shake us, call us or we remain apart. If one is ever to truly know God as he truly is, a spiritual encounter initiated by him is absolutely necessary.

Miracles Among the Masses: Faith

If authority isn't the telling issue in the manifesting of miracles, what is? To say, "faith," as if that alone was it would be inaccurate, although faith is very important in the scheme of things. There are recorded incidents of God producing miracles when no faith was present nor was any ensuing. God, of course, can do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants, with whom and to whom he wants; but he doesn't act purposelessly in the manifesting miracles. It seems to me, what could be called ministering miracles, occur at the nexus of three things: 1) faith in the doer, 2) faith in the receiver, and 3) the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Though God is the ultimate performer of the miraculous, if the human agent does not have faith, the likelihood is that the miraculous will not occur. The faith necessary is the kind that has no doubts concerning the thing about to be done: doubt is the underminer of divine intervention. I think that is a hard thing for humans in general to produce, thankfully for God's glory, there is a gracious enablement that can accompany the need for the miracle. That is not to say that we do not have power over our own belief, so if we slough off counting on God to bail us out of our unbelief, we're likely to face disappointment.

If the receiver does not have some measure of faith, the likelihood of a miracle is next to nothing. God occasionally intervenes despite the unbelief of a receiver rather than in conjunction with his or her faith, but generally, that will not be the case. Today, the receiver is often saddled with the entire burden of failure in the effort to produce the miraculous, but I don't think that represents the total picture of what is going on. Regardless, it cannot be denied that Jesus clearly taught miraculous ministry is received according to one's faith.

The Spirit does as he wills and doesn't do as doesn't will. If the Holy Spirit does not have a mind to do a thing, it just ain't gettin' done! We can exercise some will in relation to the Spirit's will insofar as we go along with what he enables (like in tongues), but his doing is still absolutely necessary to anything miraculous. The only means we have of influencing the impetus of the Spirit is prayer, but the Spirit must be present to do whatever if whatever is to be done.

So, when faith in the doer is contemporaneous with faith in the receiver and the Spirit's willing, a miracle occurs.

Miracles Among Masses: Authority

Among the charismatic, over the last 100 years, a phenomenon known as the healing evangelist or miracle crusade has become common place. More or less, such ministry is an attempt to replicate the ministry of Christ (primarily) and (to a degree) the Apostles. Imo, the result has been less than stellar, many (most) of the miracles less than miraculous, and the practitioners a lot more than shoddy. The concept of replicating the works of Christ, is a noble endeavor: the practice, the miracle crusade, doesn't seem very noble at all to me.

Since I'm not ready or willing to saddle the practitioners with the accusation of outright fraud, what do I think is the problem with their doctrine and practice? First, I think there is a misapplication of the concept of authority in their sense of mission; and second, I think there is an ignorance of what inspiration entails in their practice. Let me develop these thoughts, with this presuppostion: Neither Christ nor the Apostles (in Acts) ever commanded things that did not happen. Therefore, a command or declaration that something is so that doesn't become so in short order is not in the pattern of Christ or the Apostles.

Authority can only go so far. Jesus had as much authority as any human will ever possess. He stilled the wind and waves, cursed the fig, forgave sins, and raised the dead. And yet for all his authority, he was stopped cold in Nazareth. Why? Was he not as in touch with Spirit as he ever was in Nazareth? Was he not as perfectly obedient to his heavenly Father there? Did he not have as much authority as he had anywhere else he went?

Jesus was stymied in Nazareth, not because of any issue of authority, but because of unbelief in the potential receivers of God's miraculous blessing. God is certainly under no obligation to put on a demonstrative show for the entertainment of those who would persist in unbelief anyhow. Besides, even Adam in sinless innocence was not forced by God to believe in God or his word--something tells me it wouldn't be belief if it was imposed. So, though unbelief in people doesn't diminish God's authority in the least, it does prevent them from receiving his gracious ministrations or knowing him intimately.

We have the authority we need, and all the authority we're going to get in our Great Commission. Authority in itself, however, will never be the issue that determines our success, it is merely the invitation for us to proceed. We have no power over the belief or unbelief of people, and in that regard, we'll see what Jesus saw: some believe, some will believe, and some won't believe no matter what we do or don't do. All we can do is not give them a reason for unbelief, and in dependence, follow the lead of the Holy Spirit.

I'll complete my thoughts in my next post.

Living in the Future Backwards

Hebrews 11.

Part of faith is embracing a picture of what life could or will be, but isn't at the moment. That is not to say that what could be is relegated to the distant future, but just to say that it isn't in this instant. In this regard faith is sort of like living currently by rules and reality that don't exist now. Living in the moment as if what isn't in the moment is.

Now that could seem a disingenuous mantra, but I take it (at least in part) to be something of what it means to be in the world, but not of it. Without faith, all one has it what is: with faith, one embraces the sovereignty of God and the possibilities entailed therein. I do not believe Christians are meant to go about spouting positive confessions, that in truth are just false confessions (e.g. one who has a fever who says his temperature is normal is lying, not positively confessing), but neither do I believe that we should sit back and take it as if God isn't in charge and hasn't made promises to those who trust him.

We have been redeemed and translated into a kingdom where there is no sickness or death, no class or gender divisions, no racial divides and no sin. Where the light is the Lord himself and there is no cause for sorrow. Part of being God's people in the here and now is appropriating the earnest of our inheritance in the there and then. In that respect, faith is not just about slugging through the now while looking forward to a better future, but also living in the future, backwards.

Just A Bit More About Communion

Continuing on the subject of Communion...

Guilt for the Body and Blood

One may wonder how the violation of the elements of a memorial meal would rise to the level of weakness and death in punishment. To such reverie, I say let us remember: a simple command to not eat a piece of fruit resulted in the weakness and death of everything. It is not the relative scope of the offense itself (as we would see it) which determines God's response in judgment, but what he can see the offense betrays about the condition of faith in the perpetrator. Our scales can in no way be applied to the justice of God.

A God-given sign of faith, not honored as such, carries notable risk with its dishonor. It's not because the substance of the sign (the elements) was violated, but because of the attitude betrayed toward what is conveyed by them. There is no implication in such punishment that necessitates that it entail an affront to some special presence, or gracious virtue. Guilt accrues over simple bread and wine simply because one who is disrespectful of the sign is disdainful of the thing signified by it. One needs to discern this truth when participating in the Supper.

Grace

What God gives us is himself. It's what is at the heart and soul of being born again. The Spirit of God quickens us, and we become living stones, part of the Temple, or habitation of God. It can't get better than that. God, no longer at a distance, but instantly with us and us always with him. To see grace, effectively, as some piece-meal add-on to rebirth fails to understand rebirth. Whatever God wants to demonstrate within the believer springs from his abiding presence within. There are no means of grace, for the only means of divine blessing is God the Spirit, and he is within us before and quite apart from the performance of any ritual.

Superstition

Stevie Wonder was right, superstition ain't the way. Yet it is all too human, even amongst "believers". Case in point: the Bronze Serpent Moses lifted up and of which Jesus said he was the antitype. A memorial for the power God displayed when that serpent was lifted up became, through the superstitious seating of power in the serpent, idolatry. The hold of serpent superstition had to be broken then, the same is true of sacramentalism in the Lord's supper today.

If history is any guide, that same serpent devolution happened quickly in the early church with the Lord's Supper. I think sometimes folks look to the early church for too much. The NT epistles are filled with corrections, rebukes, astonished acknowledgments of sin and doctrinal error in the earliest church. If believers could mess up that badly when the Apostles were still alive and well, what confidence can be placed in their practice once the bodies of the Apostles were cold? The only reliable, authoritative guide we have for faith and practice is the Bible itself!

Conclusion
There is no biblical rule that tells us how often to celebrate the Lord's Supper. The implication in the NT, it seems to me, is that it was practiced often, maybe even at every worship meeting of the first congregations. Nonetheless, I think that if God would have had in mind the sacramental effect that has been saddled on the practice of Communion throughout most of church history, the Spirit would have commanded it less nebulously than "as oft as you eat and drink." No, the spooky necessity attached to the feast is on the back of man rather than the Son of Man.

The celebration does nothing to forgive sin, tap into the blessings God has provided in Christ, or mysteriously bind us together in the one bread and one body of Christ--it bears no sacramental necessity at all.  Jesus inaugurated the meal with the disciples to serve as a memorial until he could eat and drink it again with them in the kingdom of God.  It is simply a God-given way of remembering the means by which we stand before God accepted, and to proclaim our faith that Christ died for our sins, rose for our justification, and is returning for the consummation of his eternal kingdom.

As such the ordinance should not be entered upon callously. One should examine himself before participating and ensure within his own mind that he participates with Christ in view, in a way that honors what Jesus did and taught. That means not eating to satisfy physical hunger or appetite; nor eating self-centeredly, ignoring the body Christ bled and died for. To participate in an manner unworthy of Christ is to eat and drink judgment upon oneself.

A Bit More About Communion

Continuing on the subject of Communion...

Participation

Participation, or communion (koinonia), can occur at several levels in regard to the Lord's Supper. There is taking part in the actual ritual, there is the reminiscence of the referent of the symbol, and there is an organic connection to other partakers. None of these levels of participation require  special spiritual presence or grace to be effected. In fact, anything that one could posit as an effect of participation (at any of these levels) is actually stated elsewhere in scripture to be ours just through faith or the Spirit (rebirth).

What one already has through faith and rebirth is not subsequently participated in through ritual. If it were, the ritual would be the efficacious source of whatever grace is envisioned to come through it, regardless of how carefully one may attempt to formulate the concept to make it seem otherwise. NT rituals (baptism and the Lord's Supper) are merely a symbolic and/or memorial celebration of what one already possesses--an outward sign of an inner reality possessed apart from the sign.

Paul's comparison of believers' communion in the Lord's Supper to pagans' participation in the sacrifices of idolatry goes a long way in proving the point. Pagans were participating in their altars by eating the meat sacrificed upon them, much in the same way OT saints did with their altar in Jerusalem. The basis for pagan belief was non-existent--idols are nothing and can produce no aftereffect in what is sacrificed to them--but what the pagans were doing was worship, and therefore sin. Demons were the force pulling the strings behind the scene, so even though there was nothing to idols, even less to meat sacrificed to a nothing; what pagans were doing was, nonetheless, a "joining of hands" with demons and therefore forbidden to Christians.

Rather than substantiating the thought that there is "something going on" in the elements eaten from the table, Paul's argument actually undermines it. By comparing the Lord's Supper to the nothingness of idol sacrifice, Paul locates anything substantial in such participation in the faith it betrays in the honoree rather than in the elements of that honor. The problem with eating meat one knows is sacrificed to an idol is not in any heeby-geebies in the meat, but in what it says about one's faith in the false god (really, the demon) behind it.

Our participation in the Lord's Supper is actually of a similar sort of sharing as the pagans are "experiencing" at their altars. Substantially, spiritually, it's not about the bread or wine or the eating of it--its about faith and worship. The participation of the pagan idolaters in their altars did not require any reality of presence or substance in order for it to be real participation (and incur just condemnation), the same holds true for believers and the Lord's Supper. What makes the practice is not the presence or the substance, it's the faith the participant has in the God it celebrates.

With a bit more to follow...

A Bit About Communion

Biblical Development
From Jesus' institution of the memorial until Paul's exposition of it as the Lord's Supper, the ritual known as Communion seems to have developed significant qualities. For Jesus the rite was associated with the tradition of Passover in what appears to be a type/antitype relationship. The OT solemn ritual prefigured the sacrifice of Christ within its symbolic rehearsal of the Passover miracle. Though the entire ritual can be shown to point to Christ, Jesus recast those elements within the meal (bread and wine) which in particular served to reference his sacrifice over and above the Exodus miracle.

Only the elements Christ recast were mandated as the Christian memorial. The rest of Passover's symbology was jettisoned, the Jewish feast not carried over into NT practice. Some twenty years later, Paul seemingly strengthened the spiritual nature of the meal, invoking a mysterious (rather than merely sacred quality), by claiming that unfortunate consequences result when one mishandles it. The offense involved is against the body and blood of Christ, not against mere decorum, and could result in death.

Symbol, Metaphor and Memorial

It is obvious that the feast from which the Lord's Supper derived was a symbolic ritual. Only in the actual occurrence of the Passover on the last night in Egypt was efficacious blood painted on the lintels and doorposts, only then was death to the firstborn actually avoided and freedom secured. All the celebrations of Passover since that singular event were symbolic retellings, including that which Jesus gave new meaning to. What was eaten, in the way it was eaten, pointed back to an actuality that had happened long before without any hint that the retelling secured freedom or redemption or in any way mysteriously connected to it after the fact. It was memorial.

Though Christ was giving new meanings to elements, and pointing the retelling to a different redemptive act (his own death and resurrection), there is nothing that can change the fact that it was symbolic. When first initiated, the act referenced had not even occurred! Were the Disciples and Apostles in that upper room mysteriously in the presence of Christ through partaking those elements? Were they made part of the one body through it? Were they spiritually connected to the benefits of the cross thereby? It would be anachronistic at least and ridiculous at worst to envision any of those kinds of things as occurring in that first, really last, Supper. And if not in the first, with Christ, then why in any of those afterward remembering him?

Though I believe literal interpretation is the way to handle the scriptures, taking figures of speech literally means apprehending the referent of the figure. The Bible identifying Jesus as the Lamb of God doesn't mean that Christ is specially present in ovines (even sacrificial ones) any more than identifying us as sheep means that we are. Christ is not made of wood and hinges though he is called a gate, nor is Christ in any way present in or with bread and wine though the scriptures say that they are the body and blood of Christ. The spilling of Christ's blood and the breaking of his body was a singular historic occurrence: the feast is a symbolic way of retelling, remembering, and celebrating that occurrence. As it was in Passover, so it is in the Lord's Supper.

A bit more to follow...