Happy New Year

Now when Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, heard that Abner had died in Hebron, he lost courage, and all Israel was disturbed. (2 Samuel 4:1 NASB)

From the previous chapter (2 Samuel 3:6-11) it's clear that Ish-Bosheth feared Abner, and that Abner was about to give the kingdom over to David.  So when Abner dies, why fear?  This brings up a question for me that I've never been able to satisfactorily been able to answer.  Why was Abner so important to these people?

When I look at Scripture and how he is depicted, much is left to the imagination.  But perhaps my imagination fills in the blanks wrong.  I have assumed that Abner was more loyal to himself than to Saul.  He wasn't where Saul dies, and escapes along with many of the army he leads.  When they face David, he's running away.  He seems more interested in saving himself than anything.

Yet, from another perspective, he also calls a halt to the hostilities when he finally gains the advantage. He is able to speak even to the tribe of Benjamin to get them to follow David (which means they would give up prestige).  And Abner is mourned by David in a very thorough manner, he even curses Joab and his family.  Something is wrong with my estimation.

So if Abner is all that, what other explanation is there for his behavior?  It could be that Abner is more loyal to Israel than he is to anyone else (and that would include God).  The reason I say that is that it may explain why he leaves Saul to die; perhaps he was against the battle in the first place (although it doesn't say that).  It would explain why everyone seems to love him so much; they sense that he is very caring for them, has their best interests at heart.

But he does seem to be at odds with what he knows God wants to do.  He says to Ish-Bosheth that he will accomplish for David what God promised.  Why would he say that if he didn't know God had promised it?  And if he did know, what was he doing setting up Ish-Bosheth?  What about what he was doing was so good for Israel if it was contrary to what God was doing?  I don't get him.

But the reaction of the people, including Ish-Bosheth, to Abner's death is fear and troubling.  Did they fear that David would have no one to stop him from taking over by force?  Did they fear that the Philistines would finally come and finish them off?  Did they fear that losing the one guy holding them together would cause them to fall apart?  I don't know.  Perhaps the best answer that fits the facts is that, from the perspective of the people, Abner was their savior.  Maybe they thought God had punished them and they now needed Abner, a caring leader, in God's place; at least for now. Again, I don't know.

But in the dire circumstance of the people of Israel, they relied on Abner, not so much Ish-Bosheth.  In fact, his presence 'on the throne' so to speak was probably more of a nuisance than a boon; at least in their eyes.  He prevented the people from whole-heartedly following David.  So, his death should be a good thing, except for the fact that Abner had set him up.

The actions of the brothers in killing Ish-Bosheth also seems to support the theory that the soldiers were loyal to Abner more so than Ish-Bosheth, and like Abner, to Israel.  It's hard to say though.  They are quick to run to David, the one under who's protection Abner was killed.  On the other hand, David demonstrated that he had nothing to do with Abner's death.  It's a dilemma. I don't really get how Abner is so important, yet so obviously acting contrary to God.

So, what if God's selection of David only came out after Ish-Bosheth was on the throne?  What if only then did Abner realize that David was the one God chose to lead Israel?  Then he's in a dilemma because he has a sense of loyalty to this guy he put on the throne.  And this would explain why he answers Ish-Bosheth as he does when accused.  He says he has shown kindness to Saul, his family and his friends.  Were these the people to whom Abner was acting loyal when he placed Ish-Bosheth on the throne?  And after realizing that God had selected David after all, he was stuck with his deed and loyalty to his family.  Again, I don't really know.

I think that the explanation that fits the facts best is to consider Abner a quality guy who is popular because he tries to do what's right for the people of Israel.  They see that, sense that, and trust him because of it.  When he realizes that he's gone in the wrong direction, he tries to correct it when given opportunity.  In other words, he's trying to do the right thing with he best information he has.  I suspect the people of Israel could sense that, and that's why they followed him.

My take away from that is that he forms a pattern I think I should follow.  If David, a man after God's own heart, thought so highly of Abner, shouldn't I?  Sure I may be jealous because he also seems like those popular jocks from high school, but he's also a person trying to do what's right.  Aren't we all? Isn't that what I'm doing?  It should be.  I should be trying to do the right to the best of my knowledge.  What I know my God wants, I should do.  And when I don't know for sure, I should do my best to please him.  All Abner knew was that David had gone over to the Philistines.  He may not have known that David wasn't at the battle fighting against his own people.  He did what he thought was best to the best of his knowledge.

And for those of you that would criticize him for not inquiring of God, keep in mind, priests are in short supply since Saul wiped out the Priests of Nob.  David has the last of the 'high priestly family' in his camp (Abiathar).  So, inquiring of God isn't easy, especially when priests aren't likely to trust Saul's family.  I think Abner may have been doing his best with the limited knowledge he had.  And I think that my call is to do the same.  I can't become paralyzed by a lack of knowledge.  I have to fall back on the last instructions my Master gave me, and keep on moving forward.  So, my marching orders for today?  Keep moving forward...

But He's Popular...

Then Abner said to Joab, "Now let the young men arise and hold a contest before us." And Joab said, "Let them arise."  So they arose and went over by count, twelve for Benjamin and Ish- bosheth the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David.  Each one of them seized his opponent by the head and thrust his sword in his opponent's side; so they fell down together. Therefore that place was called Helkath- hazzurim, which is in Gibeon.  That day the battle was very severe, and Abner and the men of Israel were beaten before the servants of David. (2 Samuel 2:14-17 NASB)

Saul, the king, has died.  His uncle and general, Abner, has set Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul, as king over Israel, but on the other side of the Jordan.  Abner has then garnered support from all over the northern tribes of Israel for this new king.

In the mean time, David has been set as king over Judah; a very strange thing to have happen in Israel, but also a sign of things to come.   His general is Joab, one of three sons of David's sister, Zeruiah.  David has sent a blessing to one of the Northern cities who showed kindness to Saul.  Other than that, he doesn't seem to have done anything 'maneuvering' to try and become king over the whole of Israel.

So, the two sides meet at a pool in the hills of Benjamin.  It may have been arranged as a talk, it may have been by chance, or through the cleverness of one side or the other.  We don't know.  But what we do know is that Abner has the brilliant idea of having the young men fight as sport before them.  Each of the 24 kills his opponent (or 'fellow', the Hebrew word for 'friend'), and they all fall together.  Thus the pool is named for this sad event, "Hklkath-hazzurim" which means "The Field of Daggers".

But the battle doesn't go Abner's way, and he escapes, but is chased by the fastest of the soldiers in Judah, one of Zeruiah's sons, Asahel.  Abner kills Asahel, and that stops Judah, but Joab, Asahel's brother, isn't stopped until the troops rally around Abner again.  Abner asks Joab to stop the killing, and Joab does, but I wonder if it was because he thought he couldn't take Abner just at this moment.

The character of Abner puzzles me.  He seems to be the general, but is rarely in sight as stuff happens between David and Saul (with one exception).  He is rarely mentioned in battle sequences (probably assumed?).  And then, as Saul dies, there is no mention of Abner anywhere.  The next thing we read is when Abner sets up the seemingly weak son of Saul as king.  After that, Abner comes to the forefront and we finally get a view of this guy.

Abner seems popular.  He convinces many tribes, living in areas now controlled by the Philistines, to follow this guy on the other side of the Jordan.  Later on, he seems able to then turn these same tribes around to follow David.  He is the 'king-maker' in Israel.  And he doesn't seem to mind switching sides when internal stuff goes wrong (see chapter 3).  On the other hand, when it comes to 'delivering' as a general, like a football coach, we want to see victories.  He doesn't seem able to deliver.  So why is he so popular?

I wonder if, like his nephew Saul, Abner is one of those 'likable' guys; able to sway the crowds with his charisma.  He says the right things, waves his hands, tells a funny story, and is if by magic, the whole world follows him.  He's the pied-piper of Hamlin, and all Israel are his children (or rats).  I remember such guys in school, and they really bugged me.  They seemed wrong more than half the time, but everyone wanted to follow them, be close to them, be noticed by them, and they led the school to...well, it seemed they led us nowhere actually.  Maybe I was/am bitter.

Abner seems like one of these guys to me.  He is good in a fight, he takes down Asahel with the 'wrong end' of his spear.  And he is a wonderful leader if having people follow is the mark of one.  But he doesn't seem to be able to take them anywhere.  He suggests a fight and his side loses 350 people.  His enemies only lost 20, and 12 of those were at the pool, and one was Asahel.  That's not such a great 'score', yet the people rally around him again.  And that works as he faces two guys, Joab and Abishai.  Sure, facing two guys, he's able to stop the fighting, what happened before when he was booking it away from the fight?  Why was he running in the first place?

I've read ahead, and I know Abner goes down, but I'm not cutting my emotional attachment to him so it's not so hard to take.  I'm looking at this guy, and wondering if God really wanted him to go down.  He seems to have none of the 'God brought about a victory' sort of thing going on like David's men.  He doesn't seem to be interested in the king he set up since he switches sides rather quickly.  I don't see a 'victory' attached to his leadership, so where's the benefit of his popularity? 

Okay, so here's my take away:  I am bitter.  And I'm bitter because I'm jealous.  I want to be the one people look to for leadership, direction, wisdom, and so on.  I want the attention they got.  But that's wrong, and here's why:  That would make me a distraction from God.  Plain and simple, I'm supposed to be about pointing people to Jesus, not spouting off wisdom and so on.  Who cares what I think when God is waiting to communicate His real wisdom to His human creatures. 

Fortunately for me, I've never really been one of those people just follow charismatically.  The only reason people have followed me is because they thought I was smart.  Once they realized I'm not that smart, well, they found someone else to follow.  But I have craved that fickle tide of acceptance found in the favor of the crowd (or mob).  That craving needs to stop. 

The only sustaining peace for my soul is found in my service to my King.  As He comes to the forefront, and I fade into the background, as by magic, I find peace (or peace finds me).  Peace, the true sort that seeps deep into my soul and gives me a sense of wholeness, is found in the background around the throne of my Master.  Why would I look for it by pandering to the fickle tide of popularity of people just as lost as I am? 

So, I am to follow the example of David, not Abner.  In his example God does His best work.  In Abner, the work of God is simply delayed.  So, I will worship.  That's first.  Then I will serve my Master.  That's second.  Whatever happens after that will at least come from or happen with me in the right context of peace.  I like the sound of that, it sure beats the whole host of alternatives.

The Royal 'Signia'

So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown which was on his head and the bracelet which was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord." (2 Samuel 1:10 NASB)

It came about on the next day when the Philistines came to strip the slain, that they found Saul and his three sons fallen on Mount Gilboa. (1 Samuel 31:8 NASB)

 It is widely assumed that the story of the Amalekite which resulted in his execution by David was a lie.  One element of his story which was true was that he had Saul's crown and arm band.  This makes sense in a way, because it seems that the Philistines missed Saul's body on the day of the battle, and only found it the next day during 'clean up'.  A crown and shiny arm band would have been a 'dead giveaway' that this particular body was different (pun intended).  I think that they were missing was an important factor in Saul's body not being discovered right away.

Battle in those days was chaotic, often undisciplined, and brutal.  It can be assumed that it left a mess.  Among the mess, blood, dirt, and so on, bodies would be difficult to identify.  It says that the archers found him and wounded him, but that he died on his own sword.  Saul's assumption was that if the Philistines found him in that wounded fashion they would have captured him or tortured him (whatever 'sport' meant).  Whatever it meant, Saul was sure he would be found that day, not the next.

So, what the Amalekite actually did was to take those items (crown and arm band) from Saul's body after he had killed himself.  Amidst the chaos of a battle gone very wrong, it's not possible to know what he was doing there, how he got out of there, nor even what side he was on.  Since he wasn't an Israelite nor a Philistine, he could have been on either side, or both when he saw how the battle went.  But when he found the crown and arm band, he formed a plan; a stupid and ill-conceived plan, but a plan.  He would further his own position by going to David with the story that he had taken the life of David's enemy and brought the 'symbols' of the monarchy to him.  Yes, he, an Amalekite, had given the kingdom to David...or so he thought.

It seems that not only was David not all that interested in the crown and arm band, but neither was Saul's family.  No one ever mentions it.  This guy takes these 'baubles' from a dead king, thinking that they are what makes or marks a king.  But really, no one seems to care.  David cares that he says he killed Saul.  But not about the crown and arm band.  In fact, it's not that this guy took these things from a dead king (which is the true part of his story), but that he claimed to not be afraid to destroy the Lord's anointed.  This Amalekite totally missed the point.  He was so focused on the shiny things marking Saul as king, that he missed the more important element of his anointing, his position of being chosen by God.

So the application for me is to avoid the distraction of the 'trappings' of position, and focus on (or at least be mindful of) the choice of my Master with regard to a position.  I am what I am because of the choice of my Master, and it's not the money I make at my job, the house I live in, not the car I drive, nor my wife or daughter, nor is it the clothes I wear that mark me as what I am before my Master.  Jesus said,

Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat? ' or 'What will we drink? ' or 'What will we wear for clothing?'  For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. (Matthew 6:31, 32 NASB)

In the same way, knowing who I am before my Master doesn't follow the social or cultural definitions.  Rather, my Master sets His own definitions.  He has His own priorities in His choice and use of me.  And these purposes and priorities are distinct from my life situation.  It's not hard to see that life situations change, but my Master's work, priorities, and purposes do not.  I am who I am before Him regardless of what I wear, where I live, or what I eat.  If I'm reduced to a can of beans eaten in a cardboard box in a back alley, I'm still one chosen by my Master to fulfill a purpose He has designed.

Having said that, I'm not at all sure my attitude would be the best in such circumstances.  I'm not confident that the memory of better food, a better home, or better clothes would taint my ability to be about my Father's business when my 'business office' is a box, my 'business attire' are rags, my 'business lunch' is a can of beans, and my 'business location' is a back alley.  It's easy to say I am what I am before my Master when I'm warm, well-fed, and healthy. 

But even so, what will I do today? I am what I am even here, so will I live out what I am before my Master today?  Or will I let the 'wind and waves' of my job or family strife, or even inconveniences distract me from the purposes and priorities of my Master?  What I really need is some time of worship...

Why You, Son-of-an-Amalekite!

The young man who told him said, "By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa, and behold, Saul was leaning on his spear. And behold, the chariots and the horsemen pursued him closely.  When he looked behind him, he saw me and called to me. And I said, 'Here I am. '  He said to me, 'Who are you? ' And I answered him, ' I am an Amalekite. '  Then he said to me, 'Please stand beside me and kill me, for agony has seized me because my life still lingers in me. '  So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown which was on his head and the bracelet which was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord." (2 Samuel 1:6-10 NASB)

David said to the young man who told him, "Where are you from?" And he answered, " I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite." (2 Samuel 1: 13 NASB)

The setting put forth right in the first verse is that David has returned from the  'slaughter of the Amalekites', and been in his city for 2 days.  To recap, the Amalekites had razed Ziklag on a raid into Southern Judah while David was marshalling with the Philistines to go fight Israel.  He returned home to ashes.  He then spent a night and all the next day attacking those who had burned his city.  As it turns out, the reason he had this problem with the Amalekites was because Saul failed to do his job by killing their king, Agag.  Samuel killed the king, but many of the people and stuff had escaped.  Saul settled for less than complete obedience, and this contributed to his rejection by God.  The Amalekites form this social/ethnic backdrop to Saul's rejection (and eventual death) and David's election by God.

So, David returns from slaughtering Amalekite raiders only to find one a few days later telling him that he had killed Saul.  It's not a good day to be an Amalekite anywhere near David right now.  So, why is this?  What is it about the Amalekites that makes them the enemies of God, and ones He wants to destroy from the earth?  Okay, here's the condensed version:

Amalek is the grandson of Esau and his people are nomads in the region between Canaan and Egypt (Genesis 36:12, 16).  As the people of Israel venture out into the desert, the people of Amalek attack them, and are defeated by Joshua while Moses' arms are held by Aaron and Hur (Exodus 17).  As a result, God promises to 'utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven' (Exodus 17 and Deuteronomy 25:17-19).  Amalek remains a problem through time of the Judges (Judges 3 and 5), and finally, with Samuel, God commands Saul to fulfill God's curse on Amalek (1 Samuel 15) which he fails to do.  Now, the Amalekites continue to be a problem for David.

It seems that, from God's perspective, Amalek continues a form of apathetic rejection of God begun in Esau.  It's not that they are particularly evil, any more than anyone else is evil.  It's not that they raid more, worship more idols, or practice some other behavior that makes them stand out, with one exception:  They consistently attack the people God has chosen.  Others do this occasionally.  For some it varies with who happens to be king.  Edom (Esau) go in and out of favor.  Moab goes in and out of favor, even Egypt garners praise or favorable treatment from God at times.  But not Amalek.  Ishmaelites, yes.  Amalekites, no.

So, what's the point here?  Where's the point of application for me? I think one point that I need to accept is that some people have actually been rejected by God.  Whether because He knows they will never repent or because they have entered into that unforgivable state of calling the things of God the things of Satan, I don't know.  I just see that God rejects people.  I think perhaps the grace of God is demonstrated in that He doesn't reject everyone.

In fact, as I read Scripture, it looks like He truly rejects only a very select few.  Besides the Amalekites, the only people of whom I remember God requiring the complete destruction is the Canaanites.  It's instructive to me that in both cases this sentence/command wasn't carried out.  And the people of God suffered in both cases.  God rejects, and asks that His people think as He does, and address people as He does, and treat people as He does.  So, as rare as rejection is, when God makes it clear that He rejects someone, so should I.  They may be popular, it may not 'feel right', and it may not be easy to explain, but it becomes a matter of obedience.

Fortunately, in my community, I don't know of any particular rejected people group.  For that I'm very thankful, but that doesn't mean there aren't some here.  My fear is that I will know what to do when I meet them, but not have the courage to be obedient.  On the other hand, I can't avoid putting myself into the community to avoid meeting such people.  And this category of people whom my Master rejects aren't those who irritate me, I don't like, or who seem senseless and rude to me.  It's never my estimation or my ability to evaluate people, but always my Master's.  And since I'm commanded to love my enemies, it's not that my Master calls me to 'hate' them, but rather to join His perspective of rejection.  I'm not even sure what that would look like.

So, I'm sure I don't know what I would have to do with people I don't know whom my Master may have rejected for reasons I can't see.  Right.  And with that, I say, 'Good day to you'.

If I Only Love Those Who Love Me...

"O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul,
Who clothed you luxuriously in scarlet,
Who put ornaments of gold on your apparel.
" How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle!
Jonathan is slain on your high places
(2 Samuel 1:24,25 NASB)

 David was anointed to be king over Israel when they already had a king.  Talk about awkward, he then went to work for the current king and was amazing.  In fact, so amazing that the current king became jealous and tried to kill him on numerous occasions.  Part of the issue was that this was also the first king of Israel, and until one of his sons sat on the throne after him, he was really more of a 'battle chief' than true king.  Well, that wasn't going to happen, he knew it, and David was God's obvious choice.  Of course, the other issue was that Saul was just plain crazy too.

So, after years of being pursued, vilified, attempted murders, having his wife given to another, and so on, David decides to flee Saul by going to live with the Philistines.  He lives a sort of double-life pretending to work for the king of Gath while actually sending gifts to the rulers of Judah.  While that is great for his relationship with Judah, it's not so great for his relationship with the other 11 Tribes of Israel.  David lives in a difficult political situation, somewhat in exile because of a raving egomaniac currently reigning in Israel.  It's a tough life.

And this tough life is after God has chosen him to be king.  That has to rub him the wrong way.  This guy 'sitting in his seat' is trying to kill him, and is making his life difficult.  David has had multiple times to kill Saul, but each time chose not to.  He would not raise his hand against the anointed of the Lord, the one thing they held in common.  That's a good lesson to teach your rough and ready men, but it's a difficult way to live your life.  David is waiting for God, Who chose him, to also provide the opportunity to be what he has been called to be.  In so doing, it would be expected that David would resent Saul, daily.  But such resentment doesn't seem to exist with David.

When the news of the battle reaches David, he mourns over the people, and Jonathan.  But he also mourns for Saul.  The man who claims he killed Saul is executed for 'raising his hand against the Lord's anointed'; even though he thought he was doing David a favor (and that he didn't actually kill Saul - rough consequence for lying).  David then composes a song of lament, and it's about Saul!  He then teaches it to the people of Judah, even though it's about SAUL!  It's about the people and Jonathan too, but it's about SAUL!

So the application here is obvious and ridiculous.  I'm supposed to love those who try to bring me down and destroy me.  I'm supposed to love those who are taking up a place I've been given by God; they're in the way, blocking me from fulfilling God's purpose in my life...and I love them.  Seriously?  They rebel against God, treat the call and relationship with my Master with contempt, and I'm supposed to love and respect them? Yes.  Wait, they prevent me from the life God has called me to, try to kill me, defame me before all the people I'm supposed to lead, and I'm supposed to love them?  Yes.  Okay, so I'm in exile because of their actions and I'm supposed to love them?  Really?  Yes.

How many times have I read the Sermon on the Mount, and thought, "Well, yeah, but that's Jesus; I can't do that," and therefore excuse myself from His commands and teaching?  So, David, a "man after God's own heart", is also a wild sinner committing adultery and murder, and is therefore someone I can sort of identify with (at least we both love God and fail miserably).  And here I find him living out the Sermon on the Mount; only he's not Jesus.  Great, I'm out of excuses.  Lovely.  The guy-like-me lives out Jesus' impossible commands some 1,000 years before Jesus walks on the earth.  Awesome!  Okay, fine, I'll love my enemies; I'll pray for those who persecute me; I'll follow the path of my Master and not merely love those who love me.  Wow, how do I do THAT?

This is probably one of those things I can only do through worship.  I have to honor my Master, praise Him, acknowledge His Awesomeness, His reign, His power, and His glory.  Then I will be in the right frame of mind to obey, even when it's nuts to do so, or impossible.  One bright spot in this challenge is that, right now, no one is in the way of my calling, trying to kill me, or causing me to live in exile.  In counting my blessings, I certainly need to include that one.  It could be worse, and by the mercy of my Master it's not.  Still, there are those who fit in the category of 'my enemy', and I'm still supposed to love them along with my neighbors.  Better get to praising.  I've got a lot of worshiping to do.

The Danger of Bringing News to David

David said to the young man who told him, "Where are you from?" And he answered, " I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite." Then David said to him, "How is it you were not afraid to stretch out your hand to destroy the Lord's anointed?" And David called one of the young men and said, "Go, cut him down." So he struck him and he died. David said to him, " Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, 'I have killed the Lord's anointed. '" (2 Samuel 1:13-16 NASB)

 The sequence of the narrative in 2 Samuel 1 goes as follows: 1) An Amalekite comes to David and tells of the death of Saul and Jonathan and the loss by Israel. 2) David and his men mourn for the loss of Israel. 3) David has the Amalekite killed. 4) David writes a dirge for Saul and Jonathan.

Sandwiched in the middle is the death of this 'young man' who brought David news.  Ironically, the boy's news does not match the account in 1 Samuel of Saul's death, so it's possible the boy is exaggerating his role.  What he does have is the crown and the bracelet from Saul.  So, if nothing else, he got to Saul's body first, before the Philistines, and 'rescued' these items.

I think it's interesting that this guy is an Amalekite, the same people who plundered Ziklag, taking David's wives; whom David caught and fought for a day and a half, and then he plundered them.  David's not all that well disposed toward Amalekites anyway, especially right now.  And then, after David has taught his men that it's not right to strike 'The Lord's Anointed' (1 Sam 24 and 26), here's another opportunity.  And David doesn't even condescend to execute the man himself, he has one of his men do it.

Because it comes after the initial clothes-rending and wailing, I wonder if it's an 'afterthought' of David.  On the other hand, it's much more likely it simply occurs to him in the normal path of grief, when he gets to the 'anger' stage, and there's this guy who says he killed the king and that he's an Amalekite; a double-whammy in David's book.  Also, the sense I get, or how I imagine David pronouncing this judgement is with distaste in his mouth for such a person; as if this Amalekite disgusts him (my imagination, it doesn't say that).

David makes a statement in his response to this news brought by this unlikely messenger.  His command and response makes it plain that he finds no joy or relief in the death of Saul and Jonathan.  A case could be made he's more upset about Jonathan, but it's both of them together he laments.  Saul pursued him, eventually drove him from his homeland, and tried to kill him numerous times.  Yet David laments his death, and avenges him on the one claiming to have killed him.

David was no idiot.  He didn't hang out with Saul when he knew Saul would kill him if he could.  He realized he couldn't even be in the same country with Saul.  Yet, while he didn't trust his king, David always treated him with the respect that Saul was chosen by God.  Even when it became clear God had also rejected Saul, David never stopped treating him as the 'Anointed of God'.

'Anointed' is 'messiah' in Hebrew and 'christ' in Greek.  The Anointed is Jesus, the Jewish Messiah and Universal Christ.  And our culture and society treats this One as a 'historical figure', a 'wise man', a 'prophet', a 'teacher', a myth, and so on.  They truly destroy the Anointed of the Lord, seeking to treat with contempt the Eternal Son of God, the One chosen from before time to rescue His human creatures.  It's ironic we, as a race, have rejected our Creator and Savior.

So, the application is for me to have someone wipe out all humanity...wait, no.  That's not it.  I know, the application is for me to wipe out all humanity...hmmm, no, that's not it either.  Okay, here it is: my Master will wipe us all out...um, still no.  So, what is the application of this passage?  Where do I see the connection between David and Saul, and me and my circumstances?

David loved Saul to the end.  I'm to love my Savior to the end.  But I'm also to acknowledge those around me chosen by my Master as authorities over me.  For instance, pastors, teachers, elders, and so on in my church.  I would say, especially pastors.  Churches are so quick to condemn anyone, especially pastors.  Even pastors seem to have such little regard for each other.  I am particularly critical (I call it being 'picky').

When Jesus stands and speaks to John on Patmos, He says that he has 7 stars in his right hand, and that these stars are the 'angels' of the seven churches.  Angels.  My pastor said that he thought it was cool to think that every church had an angel.  I think that, in this sense or application, the word really referred to the normal Greek meaning of 'messenger'.  I think the 'pastors' are the angels; messengers of God.  That's my opinion, and there are plenty of other opinions from which to choose.  But my opinion would mean that my pastor is not only one 'anointed' but also that he is held in the right hand of my Master and Savior. 

So then, the application is to never raise my hand against the anointed of the Lord, human or deity.  It's Thanksgiving tomorrow.  Do I express thanks for my pastor?  Do I support him behind his back?  Do speak of him with the respect as one held in the right hand of my Master?  Do I consider him the messenger of my Master to our congregation?  Do I honor him even when he seeks my demise?  Do I honor him even when I don't agree with him?  What if he is out to get me (and I don't think he is)?  Do I turn on him then?  What is the application in my circumstances?  Maybe you can find the application in yours?  In any case, I don't recommend you bragging to me about how you 'brought down your pastor'...and heaven help you should you tell me you're bringing down mine.  I'm just saying.

When It's The People In Church...

But I will come to you after I go through Macedonia, for I am going through Macedonia; and perhaps I will stay with you, or even spend the winter, so that you may send me on my way wherever I may go.  For I do not wish to see you now just in passing; for I hope to remain with you for some time, if the Lord permits.  But I will remain in Ephesus until Pentecost; for a wide door for effective service has opened to me, and there are many adversaries. (1 Corinthians 16:5-9 NASB)

 One of the most frustrating elements of ministry is the people who make up the church.  It's a common joke among ministers that ministry would be great if it weren't for the people.  Paul's strained relationship with the people in the church in Corinth is not hard to spot all throughout the letter.  He clearly has issues with the way they have dealt with him, how they have treated his teaching, and so on.  He is not nearly as impressed with them as they are with themselves.

Yet with all that included, Paul still looks forward to being with them.  It sounds strange, but then, read carefully, especially the last part of the paragraph above.  He's staying in Ephesus "for a wide door for effective service has opened to me", which you would expect to encourage him to continue to serve there.  But then he adds this little nugget, "and there are many adversaries."  One of the reasons he is staying in Ephesus through Pentecost (early summer) is because there are many adversaries.

I have said before and I will say again, Paul is the most frustrating ministry example in Scripture for me.  He says and seems to do things that I just can't bring myself to match.  He sets the bar so high that I truly can't imagine hitting it, let alone going over it.  Here again, the bar is raised.  Who chooses to minister because it's hard?  Who does that?  Who looks at the frustrating people ministered to, ministered with, ministered among, and goes, "Wow, this is hard.  These people are whacked!  Let's keep going!"

This isn't an adrenaline junky in for the quick success in the face of massive odds.  This isn't the tough wrangler in for the immediate struggle against evil.  It's not the kind meek person just rolling with the 'waves' of life.  This is the guy who simply outlasts his opponents regardless of how many there are or how long it takes.  Paul is the Olympic Marathon runner of tough difficult ridiculous ministry.  Wherever, with whomever, for whomever, for however long it takes, he's going to minister.  He makes US Marines tired.  He makes Navy Seals seem like slackers.  He makes me really frustrated!

Paul wants to go to Corinth.  He wants to be among these people who slander him, disrespect him, denounce his teaching in favor of pagan philosophy, who quarrel among themselves, treat each other with contempt, treat God with contempt, have contempt for the sacrifice of Jesus as they celebrate His last meal, and basically run around as if they have 'arrived' spiritually.  I wouldn't want to be in the same city, forget being within their number.  I wouldn't even know where to start with such people.  He wants to dive right in, stay a while, share their lives, be a part of their worship and celebration.  Seriously?

Okay, it's already obvious to you, so I'll confess.  I'm ashamed that I don't have Paul's attitude toward service in the church.  In a sense I'm jealous, in a sense I'm convicted, my shortcomings are exposed, my wrong attitude made obvious in comparison to his perfect one.  And just as obvious, I don't feel like repenting of my position in favor of his.  If I did, my tone would be different, but I don't, so it isn't.  I don't want to wade into conflict, stupid arguments, foolish people, and pointless practices.  I don't.  I don't!  But who am I trying to convince?

This isn't about me, it's about my Master, His calling on my life, and only then about my obedience.  And it's not about obedience because He somehow needs me for some reason.  It's only about my obedience so that I am more available to Him, enter into a deeper dependence upon Him, and find that I am only sufficient in Him, His power, and His wisdom.  This is about the Teacher coming alongside me to help me learn that I need Him, and He is faithful.  It's about deepening faith, strengthening dependence upon my Master, and creating an environment where the lost are drawn to the throne of the King.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not in vocational ministry.  So, for the record, this is about what I do as a volunteer among such frustrating circumstances and people.  And also on that record should be the roll call of those who have been amazing blessings to me, for instance the people of my small group.  I have seen growth, I have seen faith, I have witnessed compassion for each other, and I have been a part of service with them to each other, them to me and us to others.  If you are exempting yourself from this perspective, this call to minister in the ridiculous, then you are way off.  Unfortunately for all of us, the example of Paul is for everyone, not just vocational ministers.  See, now you are frustrated with him too, aren't you?

The challenge for me is to wade into the fray of my Master's human creatures, and lovingly come alongside them as my Master has come alongside me.  It's messy, it's painful, it's time consuming, and it's sometimes fruitless.  But it is a call to follow my Master.  He didn't touch or heal everyone in Palestine or even Jerusalem.  He didn't just hang around those with whom He was popular, or help just those He liked or liked Him.  He didn't just...Instead He went where He did, met whomever was there or along the way, and did what He knew needed to be done.  He was obedient to His Father. 

And He left a trail for me to follow.  That's the challenge.  I don't like 'Pharisees' and they don't like me.  But it seems I should have a meal with them; and I shouldn't serve ham just to irk them either.  I'm not a big fan of fickle religious 'fan's' (followers of whoever or whatever is popular at the moment).  But it seems I should walk with them; and not entertain myself with kicking the frail props of their theological positions.  I'm not comfortable with those who seem to have a small god and wimpy Jesus.  But it seems that the true Son of the Creator all matter wants me to invite them over to look through my telescope at the universe, and not so I can shame them with my much bigger stronger version of God either.  Where's the fun in all that?  Well, so long 'comfort zone', good bye cynicism, ciao sarcasm, my old friends, it's been fun...

Who's Money Is It?

On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.  When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem; (1 Corinthians 16:2,3 NASB)

I rejoice over the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have supplied what was lacking on your part.  For they have refreshed my spirit and yours. Therefore acknowledge such men. (1 Corinthians 16:17,18 NASB)

Probably one of the most difficult subjects to discuss in church is money.  Simply put, there never seems to be enough of it.  On a deeper, more personal level, 'there's never enough to make me content'.  I don't believe we were created with the capacity to have money bring us contentment.  I just don't think it's possible.  Regardless of the psychological things involved, the bottom line is the same; no contentment from cash.

But it is probably equally true that we have the innate sense that money is somehow tied to our personal welfare.  So, while it may never bring contentment, it still captures our attention on the 'self-preservation' level, which is so basic and visceral that it defies reason.  As you might expect, this doesn't catch our Creator off guard.  Believe it or not, He's very aware of this problem we have.

So, the answer to this problem is a 'spiritual discipline' which is usually approached with a subjective sense of obligation.   All spiritual disciplines are supposed to bring us closer to our Savior by breaking down those barriers we create in our lives hindering our connection with Him.  Rarely are they the exact same for everyone, but there are normative categories, one of the most common of which is money.  Therefore the spiritual discipline involved in breaking down the barrier of focus on money is giving that money to the church.

It's a real fun opportunity to watch people give.  On the one hand, people find every excuse not to give to the church.  They will claim it's a human institution, that those humans running it are flawed, that the money given is being mismanaged, and so on.  All of these excuses, and any others, are just attempts to maintain the hold on that substance we have come to believe makes the world go 'round.  As you might expect, this sort of behavior and belief is somewhat irritating to the one spinning the earth...along with the rest of the elements in the entire universe.

On the other hand, those who's vocation it is to minister within the church are bombarded regularly with the constant needs of the church, the community, themselves and their own families, the world on some level or levels, and so on.  All that funnels through them into a 'supply' that is wanting, usually because of the above excuses taking precedence over the presence and power and love of our Savior.

With all the problems of Corinth (and there are 15 chapters full of them), giving was something they seemed capable of even when it was for a person (Paul) of whom they did not fully approve.  It's possible, and from 2 Corinthians even more probable, that they had a problem sending money away to Jerusalem.  But giving in general isn't part of their problems.  After the instructions in verses 2 and 3 comes a 'thank you' for their gift to him in verses 17 and 18.  Sure something was 'lacking' but it was made up.  They gave something.

So the problem wasn't giving.  It may have been immorality, pride, arrogance, foolishness, even dabbling in idolatry.  But it seems they were doing okay on giving; at least to Paul.  Perhaps it was the three people mentioned who gave any or at all.  I don't know, and from Paul's wording it could very well be. Or it could be that they hadn't, to that point in time, gave or contributed to Paul.  Either way, or any other way it could be taken, at that point, Paul received from this church.

So, the challenge is to give.  Giving is the exercise, even to a flawed group of people administered by a flawed group of people with the trust that somehow our Master and Savior multiplies it to meet needs.  The point is to give, and having given, to release our 'claim' on the gift.  Giving without 'strings', without a say.  Otherwise we've contributed to an investment where we evaluate the return on the investment, and demand a vote as if each dollar grants us a 'share' (the more shares, the more votes). 

For me, the challenge is more to not take my giving for granted.  Sometimes it simply slips through process, and here's how.  My wife and I budget, and in that budget we tithe.  But God has blessed us sometimes with excess and we know that the imperative to 'budget' that particular paycheck isn't necessary.  We can just set it aside and live off what is already there, or so we think.  So, in that situation, we also neglect to 'budget' the tithe.  Because I didn't do the one, I didn't do the other.  Truthfully, I need to do both every time.

So, for me, the lesson is to give as well.  The charge is to discipline myself to make the return to my Master the priority it must be to ensure no walls (or at least that wall) don't get built in my life with Him.  The purpose is His Kingdom, and taking my place in it.  The result will be a closer and more loving and powerful relationship with my Master.  Any other charge, purpose, or result is paltry and worthless.  Holidays are coming, the gifts are expected, the sales and 'things' are pushed into my face.  But my charge is to give, the purpose is the King being celebrated, and the result is a season of worship.  So, Happy Thankful Christmas!

I Can't Go Like This, I Have To Change...

Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.  Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, (1 Corinthians 15:50,51 NASB)

 One of the most difficult hurdles to overcome in seeking the glimpses of Himself God hid in Scripture is our ourselves.  I have things I want, things I've seen, things I've expected, and few of them correspond to my Master's perspective on things.  He sees things differently, and from a different perspective than I have right now.  That makes Him difficult to understand.

One of the things of which we seem unaware is our assumption that this place (i.e. the world or earth) faithfully represents what we can expect for the future.  Many here are telling us that this world is changing, and our future is uncertain.  Others claim that the changes are cyclical and it will all come around again to a better situation.  Even if it is cyclical, the number of beings and what they were doing was dramatically different in the last cycle, so the results will be different the next go around.  It always takes longer to dry more clothes.

What God inspired in Scripture says that there will be a new heaven and new earth.  Since we know so little of the 'heaven' (and I'm referring to astronomical heavens, not spiritual) there's little to gleaned from 'different'; we wouldn't even know really, other than what it looks like.  On the other hand, a new earth would be an enormous change for us.  Yet, we are so enamored and focused on this one, our lives here, and the next day.  It's all going to change.

This experience I pass through here is nothing to be compared to what I will know in heaven (or the new earth).  But I still rarely look past the next day.  I'm stressed about finishing the next two months well at work, year-end sales, deadlines, and goals.  That's not why I was created, and not to what my Master saved me.  It's not His purpose for my life, nor was it ever supposed to be my focus.  Yet, it's so distracting to me, that I can barely see past it.

We will all be changed, even if we don't all 'sleep'; we will all be changed.  This life, and these experiences, are not what make up what I look forward to.  In fact, Paul says in Romans 8 that all of creation groans waiting for the 'children of God' to finally be revealed; it's all waiting on us.  Everything is looking forward to a new existence; except for us.

Think about the waste of resources in that our Creator gives us minds that can imagine past this existence to new worlds, new vistas, and yet we won't.  He says that is what we have to look forward to, not this, yet we see only this because we choose to.  As believers and followers of Jesus, shouldn't we be looking toward His throne, His face, His voice?  Shouldn't we be looking past what is 'perishable' toward what will never perish?  Wouldn't that be a better use of our time and resources?  It would give us a hope which would baffle this place and people.

Reality is the term we use to refer to our actual experiences and situations; distinct from what can be imagined or 'dreamed'.  For Christians, those who claim Jesus as Lord, who believe He was raised from the dead, for us, reality is actually on the other side of whatever we can imagine or dream.  We are called into a new 'reality' redefined by the One who made us, lost us, then saved us, because He loves us. 

My challenge is to look beyond my current situation, and let the hope which results make enduring this reality much easier.  I let it happen.  All I do is focus on my Master's face, His throne, and His glory.  Then this stuff will fall into proper perspective for me.  Why would I think of worship as merely something I do on Sunday when I desperately need it all the time, just to make it through an hour at work?  I think I should be smarter than that.

Imperishable, Glorified, Powerful, Spiritual Existence...

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:42-44 NASB)

I have a theory that whatever I can imagine of heaven, it will be even greater, more, better.  So, I have taken up the habit or 'spiritual discipline' of pushing the boundaries of what heaven will be like.   What I have taken as a model are various comments throughout Scripture on what to expect.  There aren't many, and Revelation is difficult to decipher in many places.  So, here's what I've come up with so far:

I imagine that we will know everything and everyone without hindrance, communicating without all the filters and baggage we have now.  So we will be able to communicate with all believers without limit in time or clarity. 

At the same time, or simultaneously, we will also have the complete face and attention of our Master.  We will see face to face and know fully even as we are fully known.  We will know 'prayer' in ways and to a depth we can't imagine now, again, without limits in filters or interpretation.  We will know the mind of God like we know what's scheduled on TV, simply by looking and asking.  Only He will engage with us as we engage with others now.

In the midst of this limitless communication, we will be worshiping the One True God, Creator and Master of all things and time.  We will be crying out, 'Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God Almighty; all the cosmos is full of His glory'.  We will witness the elders casting their crowns, the four creatures about His throne, and the innumerable throng before His throne all worshiping with a roaring singular, multi-tone, multi-lingual song, yet never without meaning or lack of understanding.  This activity will be without end.

Along with the activity of communicating, praying, and worshiping, will be a task and a challenge.  I consider it some sort of purpose to the glorified body we will have; something that will take eternity to accomplish.  In my imagination, I think of working within the Creation of my Master to influence free creatures to seek their Creator.  As if the 'missionary' charge of my Master would continue unabated as He continues to draw all creatures to Himself, reconciling all of His creation to it's intended design, yet freely.  This is perhaps where I've been spending most of my time imagining.  But I also recognize that it's only a piece of a whole.

I imagine all these things being true at once.  Without interruption in communication, worship, face-to-face prayer, and ministry all happening at once without regard to 'time' or 'place'; those two things will lose significance or relevance.  I imagine there will be no break in continuity between any aspect of life.  Life as we live it now in its temporal compartments will cease to have meaning, and those things we relegated to a weekly event or events will be the hub around which we live every other element of our lives; worship, prayer, and communing with the community of faith.  We will be church in every aspect of that term, both universal and local, without distinction or limit in time, space, or comprehension.

I would think that such a view would inspire to begin to implement such things into my life now, to the extent I can.  For instance, making church the priority it should have, communication, worship, prayer, and so on.  I should begin focusing on influence for my King's Kingdom as well, which should the corresponding activity to any of the other activities I've called church.  In this way, my King will have His will done here on earth as it is in heaven.  Can such things mingle in my life now?  If so, it may be time to extend my imagination even more. 

Three All In All Will Be One? Or Three?

But each in his own order:Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.  For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.  The last enemy that will be abolished is death.  For HE has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, " All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.  When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:23-28 NASB)

I had an interesting question posed last night.  At our Bible study, one lady asked what Paul meant by this last sentence in the above passage, because to her it sounded like, at the last, Jesus would cease to exist, like there would be just God and no 'Persons'.  This question had never occurred to me, partly because I don't question the Trinity, for me, it simply is the Nature of God.  I also didn't spend much time on this particular segment of Paul's argument because I avoid end-times discussions because people get so worked up about them, and we all know so little.

But having been asked, and really looking at this passage, beyond what I see on the surface with my assumptions, I see her point.  What does it mean that God will be all in all?  The Greek isn't particularly helpful here since this is precisely what it says.  Verse 28 doesn't have a lot of options for translating.  Verse 27, though, has both options and variants (but not significant ones).  In 27, Paul points out that 'everything', as in 'everything has been put under his foot', excludes 'the One having subjected everything to Him'.

That's where 28 comes in.  Regardless of your end-time view, the order depicted in verse 28 is that after Jesus has complete victory, He then subjects Himself to the Father.  In other places it says He sits at the Father's right hand; I believe this is essentially the same thing.  But it's the statement that 'God might be all in all' that led this lady to question.  It's a good question.  What does it mean that God will 'be all in all'?  Had it said, 'fill' she wouldn't have had the question, but is says, 'be'.  And it does say 'be', as in the verb, 'to be'.

One of the issues with simply taking this as an unfiltered statement is the popular belief in 'pantheism' where God is thought to be made up of everything.  So, the worship of whatever is still the worship of God.  Um, no, that doesn't work.  There is also 'panentheism' where God is understood to be 'in everything' but still beyond everything.  The degree to which His presence is thought to be a part of everything determines whether this is a problem or not.  Basically, if we don't look beyond the created things for God, we have a problem.  Panentheism is still a better option than pantheism, and it sounds vaguely like what Paul has written here.

Yet, I think what Paul is saying is not that 'developed' but really just that there will be no place God does  not 'own' or 'rule' or 'have a presence' or however you want to say it.  In other words, that once all enemies (including death) are destroyed, there won't be anywhere God is not.  John saw a vision of a "new heaven and a new earth", and perhaps this is, in a sense, the same thing.  I'm not for sure on that, but I think that we don't have to sacrifice the Trune Nature of God for Him to be 'all in all'.  In fact, we may find it easier to grasp God being all in all with His Nature intact.

The point I derive from such a discussion is that God, as He has revealed Himself to us, will remain, even when see Him face to face.  Or we will discover He is even more complex, but not less.  God is truly reality.  Everything else is 'shadow' and insubstantial compared to Him.  The reason we find that difficult to grasp is because we are so bound to our physical senses.  It used to be that humans had a 'spiritual' sense as well, and things were seen as part of a greater cosmic whole.  Now, we believe we have explained away such nonsense with science.  Which, of course, is nonsense.  We are part of a greater cosmic whole.  It's our ability to sense such a truth that has become dull.  One day, though, we won't need to wonder or imagine what it will be like, we will know and see.

So my takeaway from this is that even this teaching within this teaching of Paul points to my hope in  the resurrection, where I will witness the fulfillment of this teaching with whatever 'organ' my glorified body will use for sight.  The Triune God will complete His work, and I will worship Him along with an unnumbered throng before His throne.  So, one day I will have rest, real rest, not just 'a moment's pause' to catch my breath.  One day I will know peace in the presence of my Master.  One day...

Living As If Raised Into Something Entirely Different

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:42-44 NASB)

 One of the real problems with life on earth as a child of God is the whole, 'already-and-not-yet' aspect of that life.  On the one hand we are being transformed by the renewing of our minds, but on the other, we are still sinning.  On the one hand we are children of God, but on the other that truth is not yet realized.  We have the 'stamp' of the Holy Spirit's presence within us, but we are not yet in His presence.  We are still physical and earthly (or earthy), and not yet spiritual as we will be.

So a lot of what we are will be completed in the future.  In some sense this is frustrating, but in a much more powerful way, it gives us hope.  We are suffering, to whatever degree, through this life, but always looking forward to a future life without end in the presence of our Savior.  It's thinking about that life to come that makes this one bearable.  The assurance of that life, faith in the future, hope in what we will be overcomes the present problems and circumstances.

So, I read the description by Paul in this chapter, and much that is confusing comes to the surface.  In a sense, it will be like planting a seed, and the difference between the tree that comes up and the seed planted will approximate the difference between what I am and what I will be.  If I am a 'seed' now, what will I be like as a 'tree'?  How different, more complex, far more impressive will that life be?  Of course, Paul uses the metaphor of wheat or some other grain or something planted by a farmer.  So, perhaps it won't be an 'acorn/oak' comparison as much as a 'seed/corn' or 'seed/wheat' sort of comparison in my case.  Even in that instance, the change is profound.

And yet, it is so difficult to avoid being overwhelmed by this life, and the problems I face in this body.  Where's my perspective?  Why can't I see past my own nose to the future?  Is it because that's so far off that I can't imagine it yet?  Is it because that seems to have so little bearing on the 'reality' I'm going through now?  Aren't such statements faithless?  Don't they indicate that my 'substance of things hoped for' is insubstantial?  Where's my faith? Where's my assurance of what will be?  Where's my confidence in my Master?  Why would I doubt Him?  Why would I stopping looking forward and be so distracted by the here-and-now?  What's so stinking special about here and now that it can possibly eclipse what is to come?

I know, I want to be present for those with whom I live, that's it.  But wouldn't they be better served by my insistent hope?  Wouldn't that encourage them to also look toward heaven?  I know, it's so I can be more focused on the work of my Master's Kingdom here and now, that's it.  Yet my Master's Kingdom is also 'already-and-not-yet', so the future perspective and focus only enables me to do the work more thoroughly, and with a much better, more emphatic drive.  If I look forward to then, I won't get burned out now.

One of the most frustrating things about Paul is how he could be so driven and such an impressive example of ministry.  How did he do that?  Why?  How can he write such things, endure such things, and still be driven to go further, to speak to more people?  Because every day of his life, he was sure Jesus would return.  There was no reason to get married and settle down, because Jesus was just about to come back.  Time for Paul was always short.  Even though he was wrong, he was right.

For every generation of believers, they thought they were living in the last days.  For them, they were right.  One day Jesus will return.  And when He does He will find me doing something.  What I hope He finds me doing will be work for His Kingdom; my lamp lit, oil topped off, and wick trimmed.  Perhaps I will go to Him before He comes for me and everyone else.  Either way, will I be living looking forward or living looking around?  Will I be surprised to see His face, or will it be the relief and fulfillment of all my hopes and focus of my life? 

It's not that I want to 'leave a legacy', I want to live legendary.  It's not that I want to be a blessing to those around me, it's that I want my Master's blessings to be evident through me.  Those blessings are future hopes and future realities.  To the degree that I make those my emphasis, they will impact with force those around me in this time and place.  I will give a testimony of my hope I have within me.  What differentiates me from those dead in their sins is my hope, or at least it's supposed to be the difference.  What if they can't see that in me?  What benefit is that to them?  Where is the draw?  What is the difference that believing in and following Jesus makes?  If it's not the future, then what is there?  I can't claim victory over my present situation without a future victory in which to hope.  It must be there; it has to be, or else I have nothing to share.

If that sounds harsh, then read the previous verses, 12 through 19.  If there is no future, then there is nothing in the present.  Yet we focus so much on the present, we lose the context in which this present has any meaning.  Without heaven there is no point now.  Without a resurrection, death has no point, and therefore neither does this life.  So I am to focus on the resurrection, mine, and everyone's.  One day we will all be changed, and I must be seeking that day, that city unseen, that future hope which pulls me inexorably toward a Master calling me with a new name.  This day has meaning only as another step toward that glorious end.  May that shining glory, a reflection of my Master's face, shed light on my day today.

Therefore, What Is?

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. (1 Corinthians 14:26 NASB)

Wrapping up any argument is the hardest part.  Ending anything is truly difficult.  Sometimes it's just best to walk away, and let the ending be interpreted as it will; leave it to the 'reader' or 'listener'.  I think it's very important to realize that Paul spends three chapters on supporting his assertion made here at the end of the third chapter of his argument.  And a case could be made that his argument had more like four or five chapters.  But all of them focus right here.

It's possible that Paul could have simply 'cut to the chase' and started out with, 'everyone speak in turn'.  But there was a larger issue at hand.  It wasn't enough to address the behavior.  It wasn't enough to give direction for worship practice.  Paul saw a painful, discouraging lack of a foundational principle of Christ Jesus.  John made it the focus of his gospel, and Paul places it at the crux of his argument.  The church in Corinth had lost their love for each other.

'What is the outcome then', or literally, 'Therefore what is', after all that has been said about your loss of focus?  What is after all your faults being laid out before you?  Therefore what is to be said, to be thought, to be practiced?  Let all be done for edification.  Practice!  But practice for edification.  Build up the body of Christ Jesus, our Lord.  'Construct additions' for each person for their strengthening, for their support, for their benefit.  We all need it, and we are all to provide it.

It's not so much what we do, as much as what we do points to a deeper problem.  The problem is a failure or missing piece.  Most often a wrong piece has been put into the place of what belongs; something we prefer, we like, we brought with us from somewhere else.  We don't love like Jesus loved, we love like we like to love others; the way we see other love in the world.  Human-love rather than Divine-love does not accomplish divine purpose.

To be fair, we really can't love like Jesus; we're not capable.  That's why it's divine.  Jesus knew this, so within His call to love each other to the disciples (John 14), He also said the 'Comforter' would come.  He knew we needed help, and so the Helper came.  We can't love with divine love, but it's never really been about us.  It's about our pointing others to Jesus, so His Spirit helps us love like Jesus, so we point the right direction.

Therefore, what is?  Worship is a corporate expression of the love of our Master through us into each other.  We shed ourselves when we acknowledge His sovereignty, His holiness, His works among us, His power, and His salvation of His human creatures.  And then this is expressed as we build each other up, strengthen the weak, return strays, correct errors, and teach the ignorant (aka 'all of us'). 

One of the things the Lead Worshiper at our church does (whenever she can) is post a long roll of paper around the worship center walls.  Then during worship, the people can go and write what God places on their hearts.  This is an opportunity missed by most.  The truth is that it should be a crucial element to our worship.  We should file out of the worship center by walking past these walls.  We should stop and read, and look, and discover the words, the pictures, and the lessons our Master has prepared for us.  It's a lost opportunity.  She tries to lead us to participate, but people just don't get it. 

What is my Master leading me to do?  He's leading me to participate.  He's leading me to build up His people, to encourage, to teach, to engage with His love those around me so desperate for a touch from their Creator.  I can do this in Communion, in writing on the walls (I even love the word-play), in every opportunity afforded me to speak to our people.  But even when I have none, in greeting, in praying with and for them, with each coffee cup I pass I can bless.  I have opportunities I miss, as sad a loss as those who fail to realize what's on the walls, or should be on them, or what our Master wants them to put there.  It's time to succeed, and to accomplish the design and purpose of my Master.

Let's Worship Like It's AD 59?

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.  If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.  Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.  But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.  For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. (1 Corinthians 14:26-33 NASB)

Worship in 2014 is typically only slightly removed from a liturgical format.  Modern contemporary worship points to their music styles, and preaching styles, but in reality, everyone still sits facing forward to pay attention to the 'leader' on the 'stage'.  This is not the 'format' in the early church, and for a variety of reasons, it's probably not practical to try and recapture that style and let it be representative.  But are there elements that perhaps we should?

So, what Paul describes in chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians, after hammering them for two chapters on their over emphasis on tongues, is worship where each person can participate (setting aside verses 34-35 - see my previous entry). One may have a psalm, or a teaching, or revelation (prophesy, see verse 30), a tongue (interpreted, see verse 28).  All can participate, but Paul's point is to participate in turn, each giving way to the next.  In this way, the participation is characterized by love for each other and building up the church.

So what would that look like in a modern/contemporary setting?  I don't know that a format or arrangement like we have today is very conducive to such 'participation'.  First off, the layout where everyone faces forward separates the worshipers from those leading in worship.  To participate in this format, participants would need to come forward, and the focus shifts to them rather than on what they do to participate.  It can be done, but it lends itself to awkwardness as people move around the worship center.

The second hurdle is the concept of 'participation' by the congregation is not currently in vogue.  People attending church don't think of themselves as 'participants', so starting out it would be awkward simply because of the paradigm shift necessary.  I think most churches are comfortable with the anonymity of others leading/participating.  Initially, the narcissists and 'dramatic' personalities will see participation as the 'answer to their prayers' and a 'sign from God'; which it isn't.  That too will be awkward, but it will also present an opportunity for a congregation to grow past self-focus, and opportunities for lovingly dealing with such a focus.

Overcoming the format and paradigm are where I believe the largest problems lie.  It doesn't matter what changes are made, it will be awkward for a time, so a commitment toward a new paradigm would have to be made by leadership, and frankly, that may be the most difficult change.  I know I wouldn't feel comfortable making it.  There are the competing restraints of concern for leading the church astray, and losing the 'center stage' (that's just reality, anyone would have that concern but not everyone would confess it).  Both serve to hinder widening participation. 

But is it even right to change now?  What are the benefits?  While it may be true, wider expression of gifts in worship could have benefit; is any benefit worth the trouble Paul addresses in this church?  Notice that their wide expression didn't hinder unloving behavior nor blatant sin in the participants.  So, such expression didn't increase 'holiness'.  It seems to be more a question of worship style almost.  Except for one thing, a thing not included in the verses above but included in verses 24 and 25.  Prophesy (not preaching) provides the Holy Spirit an opportunity to address specific people about specific things within the congregation.  It's probably one of the most terrifying elements to such 'widening' within worship.  Since the Holy Spirit knows everything about us, anything He wishes can be disclosed to improve our relationship with Him.  It's one thing to 'confess', it's a whole other thing to be 'called out'.

There are other things or effects, which in my ignorance, I can't even imagine at this point.  What would a word of knowledge be like?  What would a 'random teaching' fit like in worship?  One of the interesting things is that there was no mention of 'healing' as a part of 'worship'.  Not that it wasn't a part of the Corinthian worship, but perhaps 'healing' was supposed to be a gift in a more personal, intimate setting.  Such a setting would be more about the healing by God than about the person 'gifted', but couldn't the same thing be said about tongues or prophesy?  I don't think Paul is here limiting which gifts might be expressed in worship, but rather trying to give direction on their orderly use.  It's a practical application of love in the expression of gifts.

So my personal application has more to do with widening my acceptance of the work of my Master's Spirit than anything else.  As I grow in that area, I'm sure I will need to revisit these chapters to make sure the expression of gifts is done 'in turn' and orderly.  But since in my role(s) in my church, I don't really make such changes in my congregation, perhaps my personal application will be more in my own personal expression in worship and my acceptance of the expression of others.  I suppose time will tell on this one.

Is That Really What He Meant?

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.  If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35 NASB)

After 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul goes to heroic lengths to remain balanced between genders, chapter 11 where he addresses women and prophesying or praying with their heads covered, and chapter 12 where he again strives for a balance; these verses are extremely problematic.  There's no getting around their wording, it's unequivocal.  There's no limits on application, the terms are general.  And therefore there is really no comprehension in light of the previous chapters.  It's as if these two verses are completely at odds with the rest of what Paul wrote.

But there's more: they really don't fit in the discussion at hand.  They don't refer to tongues or prophesy, and while the rest of the chapter seems to be about intelligibility, these are about who speaks, without reference to what is said.  Left out, the chapter reads just fine or even better. Their only link to this chapter is that the setting seems to be worship.

While it would just be easier for everyone to leave them out, they occur in all manuscripts we have, just not in the same place.  Some put these two verses at the end, preserving the contiguous reading of Paul's argument, but only up to that point.  The majority of texts put them right where we find them.  I don't think you'll find a modern translation pulling them out, or even noting that they don't belong.  Since they appear in all manuscripts, there wouldn't be any point in noting that.

The commentator I use for 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee, believes that they were a margin note that made it into the early manuscripts around the first century, and thereafter into all the other text families.  It makes sense from a point of view, but I believe that my Master, having inspired the texts, protected them through transmission as well.  This seems an odd thing to permit.

So, here's my take on it:  The reason it would have been an addition is because of culture, and things Paul wrote to Timothy later on.  In those instances there were specific problems that women were causing within congregations.  So, my application of this passage is that everyone should keep their communication during worship from disrupting what the Holy Spirit is doing.  In other words, rather than having a discussion about what was said right there, chatting about it while worship is going on, wait until afterwards.

But I also believe that this verse needs to be held in tension with the other things Paul wrote in this letter.  Therefore, women can prophesy and pray within worship.  Women do have status within the congregation as participants.  But as tongues would be a disruptive practice unless interpreted, so anyone simply asking questions about some item taught or prophesied which is not 'weighing' the prophesy or saying 'amen' to the prayer is also disruptive and not 'building up' of the church.

Other than that, I find these verses as unintelligible in 1 Corinthians as tongues in worship.  They seem at odds with Paul's clear teaching in other parts of the letter, so a 'cultural' application to Corinth doesn't fit.  They're not specifically about tongues or prophesy, so an application to those specific practices doesn't fit either.  They don't mention unintelligible speech, but any sort of talking; and leave out any reference to 'building up of the church' which would also be expected as support for why.

So, the literary context being what it is, I apply it as I have: generally to anyone, and about adhoc disruptive side discussions in worship distracting from the work of God in worship.  That's way wide of where it is specific and very narrow where it is general.  So, technically speaking, it's a bad interpretation.  Considering the implications of it being taken narrow where it's narrow, and wide where it's wide, I'll take the bad interpretation that figures Paul had a reason for this where it is.  The other options are to remove it, as Dr. Fee suggests, or to take it as the rule over against the other things Paul wrote.  It's not possible to take the other parts of this letter with reference to women, and these verses as they read, and make them compatible.  You either do what I did, or jettison the other references of Paul in this letter, you can't keep both.  Practically speaking, I'd much rather just leave these verses out.  But here, my Master simply isn't cooperating with my view of simplicity.  I suppose when dealing with One who forms stars with simply their voice, simplicity is relative...

Wait, Which Is For Who?

Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.  In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.  So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.  Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?  But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you. (1 Corinthians 14:20-25 NASB)

Okay, here is the first really hard passage in this chapter.  While the previous stuff may be hard to hear, this is the first one really hard to understand.  The two questions are, 1) "How are tongues a sign from God to unbelievers, not believers?" and 2) "How is prophesy a sign from God to believers, not to unbelievers?"  Good luck with these, because it appears to be written backwards to support such answers.

My first thought is that this is a corruption, that it appears much more sensible in some manuscripts.  Wrong.  All the manuscript evidence of this passage has verse 22 stated exactly the same way.  Seriously.  There are variants all around it in other verses with minor differences.  But verse 22 appears in the same words in each ancient text we have with this passage in it, even referred to it.  We have lectionaries from the early church and apostolic fathers, and when they reference this verse, it is worded exactly this way.  I learn two things from that: 1) That's how God inspired it to be written; and 2) That's how He wants me to understand it because He protected its transmission this way for 2,000 years and more.  So, it is what it is.  I have to find another way to understand it, no easy way out.

So, taken together (verses 20 through 25), sit as part of Paul's argument to the church in Corinth that gifts need to be for building up of the church through intelligibility.  Tongues isn't intelligible, so it doesn't build up the church.  Prophesy is intelligible, so it does build up the church and therefore belongs in worship.  But here Paul includes those outside the church in his argument.  This is now a bit outside the scope of 'building up the church' believers (i.e. people) by including unbelievers from outside the church.  It's now about building up the church as a 'collection of people'.

Paul supports his point that tongues is a sign for unbelievers with the illustration of everyone in worship speaking in tongues and unbelievers (and ungifted - not sure about that one) think they are insane.  So, how is considering the congregation speaking in tongues insane a sign from God?  And what is 'on the sign' for the unbelievers?


I've used Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians in the New International Commentary on the New Testament for help. Here I think I disagree with him, but only slightly.  What he says fits best is for tongues to be a sign to unbelievers that they are under God's judgment (in other words, 'not saved').  I hesitate here because I wonder if God would use a 'sign' that says, "You Lose", rather than, "Danger: You will lose if you continue".  It's very possible that Dr. Fee intended something like that, but since the example of Paul wasn't a 'suggestion' but a warning of what not to do, it's sort of hard to land on specifics here.

What I suspect is that tongues is a sign, not for believers (that they are spiritual - which, like Dr. Fee says, is what the Corinthians believed, and with which I agree), but for unbelievers that they are not a part of the congregation.  In other words, if tongues is used in personal prayer or some other non-worship venue, then witnessing it an unbeliever would still be faced with the inexplicable apart from God.  It might be a sign that someone has something they don't.  I think Paul's continued point though is that they wouldn't necessarily want it either.  In which case, perhaps Dr. Fee is more right in that it's a sign of judgement. 

Paul's point, regardless of what might be 'on the sign' for the unbeliever, is that tongues won't bring them to God, won't help them be saved, which is of primary importance.  Prophesy on the other hand does, yet it's not a sign for the unbeliever...which is unexpected.

Paul supports his point that prophesy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers with the illustration of everyone in worship prophesying, and unbelievers being convicted and falling on their faces acknowledging that God is among them.  So, how is this a sign for the believers when it sounds like it so strongly affected the unbelievers?  And, again, what's 'on the sign' for the believers?

Here I agree with Dr. Fee.  He says that the response of the unbelievers is a sign from God to the believers that affirms God is among them; in other words that they are spiritual, which is what they were after through tongues.  Of course, Paul qualifies such a conclusion with all of chapter 13, so it's not a 'sign' that they've 'arrived' or something.  Love does that.

These explanations are as difficult to understand and accept as the passage is difficult to understand.  What I think is clear though is that Paul is interested in the effect of the worship on unbelievers.  To that end, he points out that tongues doesn't help them, but prophesy does.  Therefore prophesy belongs in worship where unintelligible speech does not.  So uninterpreted tongues is fine on our own, but not in worship; including corporate prayer, especially because of 'visitors' to worship.  What needs to be in focus is building up of the church, the people. Exercising of intelligible gifts in worship does that. 

But what about me?  Where is my application?  I don't and never have spoken in tongues.  I've witnessed the 'whole church speaking in tongues' and while I didn't think they were insane, I did tell them they were 'unbiblical' (which they were).  I don't think I prophesy as a 'gift' as such.  So, where is my application?  It needs to be in Paul's point and challenge to build up the church in worship.  That worship isn't about me, it's about everyone of us there, including the unbeliever. 

So, my practice needs to be about all of us before the throne of God proclaiming His greatness, acknowledging Him as our King, and declaring His glory and presence among us.  Perhaps as we are overwhelmed by Him, unbelievers will be overwhelmed as well.  But has to be a 'we' involved, not only a me.  Here I need to be about others, not me. 

It's a challenge because being intrusive in worship can be distracting, so where do I draw the appropriate lines?  I don't want to distract from God in worship, but I want to include others in my worship.  Therein is my application.  As I learn to do that, I will learn to apply this passage to my own life.

Intelligible Edification

One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.  Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying. (1 Corinthians 14:4-5 NASB)

One of the things missing in the modern debate over gifts of the Holy Spirit and their use in worship is...balance.  It seems that somehow the camps became mostly divided into those who believe that all gifts are for today, and those who believe they are not.  While I concede they both have their reasons, I believe they both also have some dire problems with how they handle Scripture.

First off, for some reason, the group which holds to modern expression of all spiritual gifts seems to focus on tongues as the primary gift.  It's as if tongues the 'gateway' gift you have to have before you would be able to have any of the others.  If you don't speak in tongues, they believe you haven't received the 'second blessing'.  Frankly I can't stand such talk.  I have no patience with this view in the least.  It finds any sliver of Scripture without context to support a view diametrically opposed to Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12-14.

Second, the group believing the gifts have ceased seem to use 1 Corinthians 12-14, but get radically different meaning from it that what any rational person reading it would derive.  It's truly odd.  Honestly, I haven't studied their rationale, and I admit I need to so I can better understand their particular irrationality.  My guess is that their entire view is a reaction against the ridiculousness in worship behavior from so many modern practitioners of gifts.

So while I hold to neither group, I consider myself a non-ceasationist; I believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit haven't ceased today.  Although I believe the enemy, Satan, has hijacked their expression in may modern churches.  From what I have seen, the expression of so-called gifts looks nothing like the intent of Paul in 1 Corinthians, and in fact is the polar opposite of what he taught.

Enough about me and modern stupidity, what about Paul.  In order to reach chapter 14, Paul has laid down the basic element of a unified church with a diversity of gifts by the design of God; and then has gone to great lengths to describe the supremacy of love over against all spiritual gifts.  Now he looks at the purpose and practice of gifts within the context of worship.  And on that note, he's not looking at all gifts, but only a few, verbal/audible gifts.

He point in the first half of the chapter is on intelligibility and the purpose of edifying the church.  The word edifying is drawn from building construction terms.  It is essentially a word meaning to build a house or other building.  So Paul's point is that expressions of gifts should have as their purpose the 'building' of the congregation.  His question to the church in Corinth is how can people in the congregation can be 'built upon' if they can't understand what is being said?

In the second half of the chapter Paul focuses on practice.  His description looks like nothing I've ever experienced.  But I sure want to...I think.  It's so radically different, I'm pretty sure I'd be very uncomfortable.  The description of practice is fraught with difficulties, and one particular controversial piece that truly does not seem to fit (that will be another entry all on its own).

I think that for my particular application of the overall view of chapter 14, the point has to be that my experience in worship should also be for the 'building' of the church/congregation.  I think that in our modern American culture, it's easy to make worship about me, and my experience.  I know it's easy to point out others and how they don't seem to 'get into it' or something.  But I don't believe I can use that for an excuse to be about my own experience.  If I'm not going to let them keep me from experiencing God in worship just because they're not 'into it', then the result is a bunch of independent people experiencing worship and no 'unity' is achieved or experienced. 

So what would 'unity in worship' look like?  Well, I don't know.  The whole layout is more supportive of independence than unity.  It's not easy to see each other, there's little or no acceptable or comfortable participation, and we arrange the entire room to focus on a stage, and therefore, the people on it.  We have an 'audience' experience, and participation from the audience seems disruptive.  This is why Paul's description in chapter 14:27-33 is so foreign to me.  All I've ever known is the arrangement I've just described.  So, my challenge is to somehow achieve or foster an experience of unity in worship within a context favoring independence.  I will need to think about this...

Love, Power, and Evil: Playing It Out

Love...'does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;' (1 Corinthians 13:6 NASB)

Love is what makes anything, including myself, worth something; in a sense, it's what my Master values.  Not that I'm not valuable to Him enough to warrant the sacrifice of Jesus, we all are.  But what makes my Master take notice is not the use of 'gifts' but the attitude and lifestyle of His kind of love.

Love is one of those things so misunderstood by our culture that we can scarcely use the same word within groups of followers of Jesus.  What our culture means by love and what we mean by love have almost no points of connection.  I think that's partly because our culture can't even settle on some sort of definition.

When the logical problem of evil and suffering is addressed by atheists, they typically use the construction: God is Loving + God is Powerful yet Evil.  They claim that for evil to exist there would need to be either a weak God incapable of stopping evil, or an unloving God disinterested in stopping it.  The problem with both options comes down to the definition of love and power, and often evil.

Love stands defined better than I can in this venue.  A brief summary of power is perhaps best explained in terms of 'parenting'.  Just because a parent can kill their kid when they're bad, obviously showing bad/evil tendencies, and so on, they normally won't.  When that does happen, we call it 'evil'.  Most of the time, they have the power to do something but they restrain the exercising of that power because they choose to.  It's power to control power, which is much greater than simply having power in the first place.  And, ironically, it's what we expect of parents.

Evil on the other hand, at least in the Hebrew Scriptures, is subjective.  What's evil for one isn't necessarily evil for others.  It better correlates to the English word, bad.  When in war, a city is attacked and destroyed, it's evil for those in the city, but good for those attacking.  Of course, sometimes things can be seen as universally bad, where everyone agrees, that's bad.   Still though, that only means from our subjective view point, without knowledge of specifics, like how it got that way, what it would take to change it to good, and so on.  And then there is the bad mixed with good.  For instance some good things have bad consequences, and some bad things have good consequences. 

With these definitions, I believe just because evil exists it isn't necessarily tied to some defect in God.  He can easily fit the definition He provides of love, exercise power over power, and there be stuff I don't like in this world.  And, beyond that, there can be stuff He doesn't like in this world.  Being loving means that His aim isn't our 'happiness' but our absolute best.  If that absolute best is eternity in heaven, then His choices in restraining his power might not look loving to us.

I believe that the path of love described in this chapter heads directly to the throne of God.  I also believe that it is a path which returns back into the world.  The path to His throne also transmits love back into the world.  But the ultimate destination is heaven, not earth.  The ultimate good which triumphs over evil in this place is heaven.  Heaven overwhelmingly tips the balances into our favor.  And this is true regardless of the evil suffered in this world; and there is unimaginable evil suffered in this world. 

Without listing the vast examples of evil in this world, suffice it to say that love in the midst of them overcomes their consequences.  One of my favorite sayings is, 'Darkness isn't anything in and of itself, it's only the absence of light.'  The take away from that should be a fearless shining of the light of God in our lives.  The darkness in our world is only the absence of the light of God in it.  So shine. 

Now, people don't like bright lights when they've been in darkness, so it seems bad.  But the consequence is their ability to see all the stuff they've been missing because we can't see without light; and that's good.  So the patience of love and kindness of love overlook the comfort of people adapted to the dark, and shine light anyway.  It seems bad at first, but the eventual consequences are far greater than the dark-adapted good.

I have neighbors, and I'm supposed to 'shine' into their lives, even though, at first, they won't really like it.  I'm supposed to do it anyway, because if I don't they will be left in their darkness, comfortable as it may seem.  Without light, they won't know God, know His love for them, and will not have a relationship with Him.  And that's bad.  Ultimately, that's the greatest evil possible.