Treating Causes Versus Treating Symptoms

Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.  All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. (1 Corinthians 6:11-12 NASB)

One minor difficulty with 1 Corinthians 6 is its internal relationship, and its relationship to the previous chapter (ejecting the sinful man from the congregation).  Within this chapter and even at the beginning, the typical transition used by Paul to introduce a new topic is missing:  "Now about..."  The result is that what transitions are there are left to the reader to piece together, and internal relationships are expected to be picked up along the way.  It's probably easier if one reads ancient Greek and is familiar with ancient Greek literature and informal writing.  Most people don't fit this description and instead rely on a variety of translations.

So, in the previous chapter, a man who has been publicly guilty of incest (with his father's wife) is to be expelled from the congregation.  It's a clear admonishment to address sin within the congregation.  The final element to Paul's argument tells them not to judge 'outsiders' but instead only those within the congregation.  This actually dovetails well with the first element of chapter 6 which deals with outsiders judging issues between believers; which Paul commands them to stop doing.

It is the linkage between the first admonition to keep civil cases within the church and addressing sexual sins that we might miss the connection.  The only grammatical transition is found in the above verses, but they may seem difficult to connect in theme or topic.  But if I step back, I think I can see a literary transition when I connect the final piece of chapter 6 with Paul's charge in chapter 5.  In fact, all along to this point, I believe Paul has been trying to wake the congregational leaders up to their complete neglect of sin within themselves.  And I believe he wraps up that argument here in chapter 6.

Their perspective of these sins which have been plaguing them has been that they either don't see them at all or seem them completely differently from how God views them.  Paul's correction has been less about specific behavior and more about shifting their paradigm through which they view them.  He has used sarcasm, biting criticism, and logical argument to correct these deviations from the teaching he first gave them.  His method has been partly in response to their disrespect for him on top of all else.

So in verses 11 and 12, what we see is Paul's return to paradigm correction.  He moves from their current status (washed, sanctified, justified) and begins to use that to correct the paradigm.  He starts in verse 12 by conceding their belief that they are not under law (see my previous blog entry), but adds to it, adjusting their perspective to include what is profitable to them and their being mastered by what isn't profitable.  I believe the reason for this is that he wants them to apply those foundational truths about themselves from verse 11.

But even topically, what verses 12 through 20 are about might actually provide a partial view of why the incestuous man was permitted to remain in the congregation.  If sexual sins were actually rampant in that participating in prostitution was actually a common practice, then accepting the man with his father's wife would suddenly make a lot more sense.  While it's not clear how common this practice was in the congregation, that it warrants its own section indicates it was far too common.

So, I see this final part of chapter 6 wrapping up Paul's correction of the paradigm which forms the broken framework supporting the rest of his sections in this letter.  In other words, what he is addressing in the first six chapters is the causes of the rest of the problems, not additional symptoms.  He refers to symptoms to support his points, but his aim is deeper.  He continually uses their 'words' or their twisting of his against them, each time shifting them away from the broken view they have to the more right view of their Master.

Okay, so what I derive from this is that I too need a paradigm shift.  Perhaps I need it constantly, and maybe we all do.  But I think that repentance is that process of correcting my perspective on my behavior to bring it more in line with my Master's perspective.  Repentance aligns my mental framework with His, which requires reconstruction of mine to more closely match His.  I get this concept of what my Master's framework looks like from Scripture.  So, basically, I begin to think more like my Master through studying Scripture.  Or at least that's how it's supposed to work.  I wish it made me smarter too.  Clearly there's more to it...

The Law of Profit and Mastery

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.  Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. (1 Corinthians 6:12-13 NASB)

 It seems odd to say that all things are 'lawful'.  It just does.  It doesn't sound right.  How can all things be lawful?  Paul refers to the Jewish law and justification before God, but that's only possible to understand for us through other writings of his (Galatians and Romans for instance).  Even so, how can all things suddenly become lawful?  Paul can eat a ham sandwich because Jesus died on a cross and rose again?  It doesn't seem to fit.

The church in Corinth is made up of both Jewish and Gentile believers.  They keep the Passover together.  Their Scriptures are the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek, but still the Hebrew Scriptures.  They are mixed, very likely with a majority of Gentile believers, but there is still an inescapable Jewish context for the early church.  The teachings of Paul seem to have included resistance toward becoming Jewish either to be saved, or as a mark of salvation.

On the other hand, Paul has clearly said that no one who is characterized by any of several sins he lists, twice, will inherit the Kingdom of God; therefore behavior is a mark of salvation.  That in itself can be difficult, and has confused various church denominations causing strife between some.  What is the relationship between being justified solely by faith yet that justification being evident in activities?  Again, how can all things be lawful, yet following the rules is evidence of salvation?

Not all things are profitable, nor will Paul permit himself to be mastered by anything.  For Paul it seems that behavior, and therefore the evidence of salvation, is not a matter of rules and law, but of profit and mastery.  It almost sounds like a 'situational ethical' criteria.  But he goes on to explain in a specific instance, getting there from the oblique reference to food, but centering around a different appetite.

Food and sex are probably the most clearly difficult addictions to overcome.  After all, both are naturally occurring physiological drives of all humans.  One we can't live without.  Both have very pronounced affects on our emotions and brain physiology.  These chemicals released into our brains can become very pleasant, and our drive can easily tend toward such things rather than the behavior, which becomes a vehicle.  This is why it's also easy to jump from one to the other addiction, or between addictions in general (smokers who quit becoming over weight for instance).

So what?  Paul drives at the heart of this right here.  He is obviously familiar with these two appetites, what human isn't.  And he has probably seen more than most how destructive they can become when lives become obsessed with them.  He brings this home to this congregation in Ancient Corinth because it clearly has become an issue there, or at least an obsession with sex has.

Paul addresses this problem not from the standpoint of 'law', but rather from the standpoint of profit and mastery.  These people are proud of their 'mastery' over whatever, philosophy, intellect, debate, each other, and so on.  Paul points out that they have been 'mastered' by something else.  Ironically, salvation is made up of submission to God, so we are to be mastered, but by God, not our own appetites.

What Paul is doing can be guessed at by his method.  It makes sense if the ancient congregation has a prevailing thought that, since they are not under the Jewish law, giving in to their appetites is acceptable.  So while Paul concedes that they are not under law, he argues against giving in to being mastered by their appetites.  Since the basis for his argument can't be 'law', he instead bases it on profitability in their relationship with their Savior.

In essence, Paul is stating that when the believers practiced sexually immoral behavior, they brought the Spirit of God into the practice with them.  The Holy Spirit was 'joined' (in a sense) with an unholy act.  When put that way, it actually explains why behavior should mark salvation really well.  How could we join the holiness of our Immanent Savior with acts of unholiness, and then somehow believe it's all okay?  We can't!  It doesn't fit.  What didn't make sense before (all things are lawful) now is eclipsed by the sheer senselessness of joining the holy and profane.

So while it's not about some 'legal code' for me, it is about holiness.  And this holiness, like my faith, my righteousness, and justification is 'imputed' rather than earned.  In other words, just like I didn't earn faith but it is a gift, like I didn't earn my relationship with Jesus it was given to me, and like I didn't earn my 'not-guilty' declaration by God but received it from Jesus' payment on my behalf; so also holiness has been given to me.  Therefore it's now a matter of what I do with this holiness rather than about being under a set of rules.

My desire to please my Master means that I 'steward' this imputed holiness.  I keep myself a clean temple in which He has condescended to live.  I will not be mastered by anything, but I will be mastered by Someone.  That's the difference.  I am holy as He is holy, for much the same reason as the Hebrews in the desert.  For as God was among His people, so He is within me, within the wasteland of my soul.  And He still brings streams in the desert, and flowers in the wastes.

A List of Who Won't Be There

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.  Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NASB)

This passage or these verses are Paul's answer to why he thinks the church is seeking civil cases outside of the church.  He says they defraud each other, and his charge to this is for them to become aware, again, that this sort of thinking comes from the world, not from God.  But he puts it in very strong terms, terms that most churches in our country today would find uncomfortable.

I don't hear much today that the 'unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God.'  I attend a church where our 'slogan' is 'No perfect people allowed.'  Which is well and good, no one is perfect, I get it.  But we can't then become complacent and simply accept sin.  Here's the problem:  We're not supposed to remain as we were before we were 'saved' by God.

So, while we still make mistakes, 'mistake' isn't supposed to be our 'default setting'.  These mistakes are supposed to lead us into repentance and renewal.  The idea is that we are constantly in a state of repentance from one thing or another.  Our need for the Spirit of our Savior is constant, and His work with us is also constant.  Our minds are constantly being adjusted more and more to reflect His thought, His nature, and therefore His attitudes.

In other words, we are to display the fruit of the Spirit of God more and more as we spend time with Jesus.  So sins with which we struggle are supposed to go away.  I say this as an addict, one who has struggled with his addiction for years.  I'm never supposed to just resign myself to it, play it down, accept it, become comfortable with it, etc.  It's never 'just the way I am.'  It is always contrary to my identity before my Master.  But it seems to be a part of my 'nature'; a part that is dying (or it sure better be).

What Paul is pointing out here is that people who live such lives haven't 'confessed Jesus as Lord,' nor have they 'believed in their heart that God has raised Him from the dead.'  If they had, then they would submit to Jesus as Lord, and the power of the resurrection would be at work in them to revive them from their body of sin and death.  If that's not happening, then they are not going to inherit the Kingdom of God.  We're either in a state of submissive repentance, or we're headed for a very fiery end.

It's at this point that I have had discussions with people who then have simply given up.  "I guess I'm headed for a fiery end," they'll say.  I've said that, or at least wondered if it were true of me.  But there is something about my addiction that has been true all along, I've never been 'comfortable' with it.  What I mean by that is that my mind and heart have never seen it as acceptable.  Now, that's not 'repentance' as such, but it does mean that my mind has always had some part of it more or less with my Master.  He's always had a 'handle'.  And it's been this handle of which He has never let go.  I am free and different now, not because of my own work, but because of His.

So, the point is verse 11.  We were this way, but we were 'washed', 'sanctified', 'justified', and this in the name of Jesus and the power of His Spirit.  It's not the word 'baptism' in the Greek, but I believe it's an allusion to the practice or event.  We were washed.  We didn't 'wash ourselves' but were washed.  We didn't sanctify ourselves, we were sanctified.  We didn't justify ourselves, we were justified.  What else could be wrong?  Our condition is different, but does our behavior match that new condition?

I have been 'saved' but my struggles as an addict came after that event.  Did I lose my salvation in the midst of that struggle?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so.  I still considered Jesus as my Lord, but I found it so difficult to let go of this other 'master'.  It may be a 'mental condition' of some sort, but it's not really unassailable.  It's difficult, but not indomitable.  It can be defeated, must be defeated, and it can't form an excuse to have something which I don't submit to my Master.  I can't.  It doesn't work that way.

So, Paul's charge to the ancient church is also the charge of the Spirit of God today:  Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.  Having said that, this is also true:  Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.  The question is, will I live in the victory I've been given, or will I live in the defeat of the life I lived before?  I choose victory.  

Tort Reform In Scripture?

Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? (1 Corinthians 6:1-4 NASB)

Tort reform is all the rage, and I doubt means anything close to the same thing to various people.  We all see different problems in lawsuits between people, between people and businesses, between businesses, between professionals and clients/patients, and it goes on.  Medical malpractice insurance seems to drive the cost of medical care off the charts, requiring higher costs for medical insurance, and that's just one slice of a huge pie.  It seems anybody can sue anyone about anything and get punitive damages.  The problems only seem to benefit the lawyers and insurance companies.

Well, what if believers opted to be different?  What if believers opted to keep civil matters within the church, believer to believer?  Paul seems assume this is supposed to be how it works, not suggesting the church in Ancient Corinth try it.  Think about that.  He's using the Hebrew Scriptures as his basis, influenced by the teachings of Jesus from the 12 Apostles, and the understanding given to him through the Holy Spirit.  And he arrives at the assumption churches will handle civil disputes between members within the church.

We, in churches in this society, have arrived elsewhere, and in my opinion would require a huge paradigm shift in order to envision such a thing.  Between assumptions we don't need it (there are no torts between believers), and the hesitation to be bound by a non-lawyer religious group, I doubt this could ever become the norm.  In fact, I suspect that it could possibly put congregations at legal risk of being sued themselves (ironically).

Having said that, please note Paul's statement recorded in verse 5 (look it up, I didn't include it).  "I say this to your shame."  And yet I suspect many congregations would be proud, consider themselves prudent or wise, to avoid handling civil matters between congregation members within the congregation itself.  Where's the shame?  Where's the assumption that this is how it should be rather than a risky option?  Why has 'prudence' deserted the biblical form we were supposed to have?

Well, consider verses 6 through 8 (also not included, you'll just have to open a Bible).  The reason is our own sinfulness; sinfulness we refuse to acknowledge, of which we refuse to repent, sinfulness of which we seem to be proud.  How different are we from this ancient congregation to whom Paul wrote?  What would he write to us?  How large would be the book, long the letter, angry the words?  Would the accusing words of Jesus reverberate through our sanctuaries, "It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the Day of Judgement than for you"( Matthew 11:24).

I don't know what solution would work for tort reform in our country.  But I think I see a huge place for it in our churches.  It mostly has to do with attitude and pervasive sin within our congregations rather than actual procedure.  The procedure is actually already in place in every state, typically known as rules of arbitration or some such.  The legal limits and scope of such activity is already defined, and there's no real requirement that legal code be used in lieu of Scripture for decisions, so religious 'courts' are already legal.  The only requirement is that those within churches submit themselves to the decisions of such 'courts'.

Would I be willing to submit myself to such a 'court', one basing its decisions on interpretations of Scripture rather than local, state, and federal legal code (I can't imagine they would have jurisdiction in Federal matters)?  That would require a lot of trust in my fellow believers.  It would require humility on my part.  But I can't be alone in this (duh!), so would I be willing to bring this up with others; explore the possibility of true mediation and arbitration rules?  It's a lot of work, and to what end?  Can I trust that my Master has it all figured out, and all I need to do is be obedient?  Okay, so I want tort reform within my church, so sue me!  Oh, wait...

Judge or Not to Judge or When to Judge

For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.  In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5:3-5 NASB)

So, in the previous chapter (1 Corinthians 4:3-5) Paul doesn't even 'judge' himself and tells the church not to pass judgement before Jesus comes again.  Yet here he is having already passed judgement on this one.  Are we missing something here?  I suspect we are missing something huge.

In my opinion, humans pass judgement very indiscriminately typically based on personal (as in self-centered) foundations for judging.  We do it daily, mostly to make decisions, but also with regard to value assessments of other humans.  We also can be, and often are, intentionally malicious in such activities.  Since we can't truly know someone else very well, or thoroughly enough to assess value, we are typically poor judges.

But there are times when this ability to judge between two things comes in handy and is in fact a responsibility.  The problem comes down to knowing when and among what we are supposed to judge.  So here is my basic, overly simplistic, rudimentary, rule-of-thumb to figure it out:

1. Use Scripture to judge behavior (what 1 Corinthians 5 is about)
2. Don't judge 'character' or personal value/worth (what 1 Corinthians 4 is about)

 This is really easy to say, but not so easy to accomplish when the two things blur.  For instance, is the guy referred to in 1 Corinthians 5 of good character?  Well, probably not, and you wouldn't want him running the youth program at church.  But what is addressed is the behavior, not the value or character.

Here's why I believe this simple assessment matches Scripture.  I believe the purpose behind Scripture is redemptive.  When a person's character is judged, there's not much room for redemption.  But someone can come back from behavior flaws, and their character can be redeemed. 

The way I define it, 'to judge' means to render a final assessment/decision.  So, when a person's character is judged, it has been stated what this person is at their core.  No one can really do that very well, even though some may be able to guess better than others, no one truly knows enough.  Behavior is much more clear.

So, to sum up, I can judge behavior but probably not motive.  Therefore, I judge behavior, and leave the judgement of motive to my Master. 

The way this works is that when I witness behavior in myself or in another that clearly violates my Master's mandates in Scripture, I address it with that person (or myself - I confess it to my Master).  If that doesn't work (if I persist in the sin), then I bring someone else in on it (for myself, I confess it to another).  If that fails (and it better NOT fail me) I bring such a thing to the church.  If the sin persists beyond such a public revelation, then offending person is treated as outside the fellowship of the church.  So, no need to buy a gavel just yet.

As an aside, this is one of the main reasons I encourage followers of Jesus to study the Hebrew Law.  The other reasons are are found in the next chapter.  So, I have another blog for which I seem to have no time called "Scriptural Laws for Christians".  In it I examine the practical application of Hebrew legal texts to modern Christian life.  I haven't made a new entry since March, 2012, and there's only 7 entries total.  Sorry to advertise something so limited, but the concept it presents would be helpful here.

Church Response to Internal Sin

You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. (1 Corinthians 5:2 NASB)

Chapter 5 of 1 Corinthians is about 'church discipline' in a way.  It is about the application of Jesus' principles in Matthew 18 in a specific situation.  It is probably good to note that Matthew wrote his Gospel after this letter had been written, but still the principle was within the church and its teaching in the oral accounts of the Twelve.  But truly, the idea/concept of this is actually derived from the Hebrew Scriptures.

What Paul pulls his application from is the various passages from the Hebrew Scriptures about removing the practice of sin from Israel.  There are plenty to choose from, but he seems drawn to the Law, specifically Deuteronomy.  In so doing, he raises an interesting question about the practice of church discipline.

In Matthew 18, the process Jesus describes is restorative trying to bring about confession and repentance.  Here it sounds more final, but that may be because Paul is correcting a dangerous perception and practice.  It seems that in the fledgling church in ancient Corinth that they were proud that they would tolerate such behavior.  For Paul this is unthinkable, for them it is something to boast about.

It may be that this letter, with all its biting sarcasm so far, is really leading up to this discussion.  Paul seemed worked up before, but he is truly hot here.  But what is his real point?  Why is he so worked up?

I believe the key to understanding Paul's attitude in this chapter stems from his statement in verse 2, 'you are arrogant and have not mourned instead.'  The response to sin in the church (and within ourselves as well) should be mourning.  This is the word Jesus used in the Beatitudes where He said 'Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted' (Matthew 5:4).  This should be the attitude toward sin.  And I believe this is the mark in a person repenting as well.

So my response to sin within me and that I see in our church should begin with mourning.  Then movement to change, but the change will stem from the right attitude.  I can't come with an attitude of superiority or pride or arrogance.  Even any anger I feel should come out of my grief over this sin.

When I 'wink' at my own practice of sin, then I am being so selfish that I refuse to see the effects it has on my relationship with my Master, my wife, my daughter, and my church.  I fail to accept that it robs me of courage to bring my faith to my neighbors.  I refuse to see that it has become a weapon of my enemy which I have forged, sharpened, and handed to him.

When I 'wink' at the practice of sin within my church, then I am refusing to protect the 'Bride of Christ'.  The practice of sin in the church incapacitates ministry.  Everything stops.  Some may mourn the loss of 'fire', others the 'way we used to be', some may be sad about how the Spirit doesn't seem to move any more.  That's a good place to start, but this sadness needs to become pervasive if change is to come about.

The practice of sin is difficult to keep secret.  Once known it must be dealt with.  The idea is to keep a single mistake from becoming a practice, both within ourselves and within our congregation.  The process described in Matthew 18:15-17 is really four-part:  1) go to the one and bring it up; failing repentance 2) bring another to verify the validity of repentance; if that fails to bring repentance 3) bring it before the church, and if that fails to bring repentance 4) 'let him be as a Gentile and a tax collector'.

Paul 'illuminates' what is meant by 'let him be as a Gentile and tax collector' when he calls on the church to 'remove the wicked man from among yourselves.'  Such a person is cut off from participation in the congregation, in much the same way that the Hebrews were to expel certain people from the Temple or Tabernacle; they were cut off from the 'assembly'.

Churches are hesitant to follow this practice.  Whatever reason they cite, the effects are the same.  It shouldn't be done, it can't be done and the church survive.  And neither can I accept such practices in myself.  I can't.  If I do, then I'm shot; my availability to my Master, my effectiveness in His Kingdom, and my role as knight and servant are nullified.  And I can be sure that He knows, there are no secrets with Him.

In order to keep even mistakes from becoming practices I must confess.  There's really no other way.  I have an accountability partner, and he and I work to keep each other 'current'.  Just as in the church we have to work together to keep the church sin-free, so I also need another to help keep me sin-free.  It's the way my Master designed it to work.  Confession is good for my soul; and healthy for my church.

Paul As A Life-Model?

I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children.  For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.  Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me. (1 Corinthians 4:14-16 NASB)

 I sell stuff for a living.  It's a common profession, and I am common among such laborers.  I wonder what sort of 'salesperson' Paul would make.  Consider that just prior to his admonition to 'be imitators of me' he claims that his way of life means that he is hungry, thirsty, poorly clothed, roughly treated, homeless, works hard with his hands, blesses those who revile him, endures persecution, conciliates with those who slander him, and is considered the dregs of the world, scum of the earth.  Now, imitate this...seriously?

I admit that the product I sell and those who produce it have issues.  Sometimes, it simply doesn't work.  Other times, most times, it works extremely well, but not intuitively.  But I can show a perspective customer how it works, and help them see themselves using it, liking it, and eventually needing it.  I don't do that by pointing out every broken piece, quirky nuance, and cosmetic blemish in my product.  I help them look through those to the positive.  It's just me, perhaps, but Paul doesn't seem to do that.

So how does this apostle bridge the gap between the 'horror' of his life and being able to promote it to these people he wants to follow him into it?  To discover the answer, there are a few things that need to be understood first. 

Simply put, as we have this record in English, there is a 'literary context' for both his negative description and his positive admonition.  That context is that they have been the ones speaking poorly of him and well of themselves.  The negative statements provide a contrast to their view of themselves.  Understood in this context, the negative can be seen as somewhat of a hyperbole.  It's not that these things don't happen, but they form only part of the story of his life; the part they have focused on in their criticism.

Second, there is a 'life context' in that the cultural and situational setting of Paul in that day, in the places he writes from and to form backdrop that aides in understanding.  For instance, in this letter, Paul is not advocating an itinerant lifestyle, but rather a paradigm where Jesus is Lord of all.  Paul is an itinerant because Jesus is his Lord, and told him to travel and live so.  So, Paul is advocating a framework through which to understand and relate to living in this world.  It's a 'life philosophy' where Jesus is God and Immanent Master.

Because of this Paul can juxtapose the negative elements of his lifestyle with a charge to imitate him; not the 'style of his life' but his lifestyle or paradigm.  I think this is different, but both less troubling, and more intimidating for me.  It's less troubling because I don't relish the idea of becoming homeless and persecuted right now.  There ample opportunities for me to do so, plenty of places to go to experience such things in this world, and so on.  But, they wouldn't be my first choice of mode of service to my Master.

But it is more intimidating because this same sense in which it is less 'frightening' means it is a more realistic expectation.  It's a serious charge on me to be an imitator of such a paradigm.  I freely admit that my particular paradigm is much more centered around me than my Master.  But how can I be satisfied with such knowledge when I see evidence of one that is not, and also a charge to imitate that one?  But then how can I not be intimidated by the understanding that adopting such a paradigm would require the destruction of the one I have created with me at the center?  I'm kind of attached to me, honestly, and my self-preservation instinct I use as an excuse so much of the time rebels against such an idea.  Where would I be if not in the center of my own paradigm?  I believe the answer is also 'hidden' in this chapter.

Forming the background of Paul's sarcastic assertion that the believers in Corinth are 'already become rich', already filled, become kings without Paul is the truth that these things should be expectations.  In other words, the rewards for destroying my busted self-centered paradigm and replacing it with one centered on my Master, Jesus, includes being filled, being rich, and becoming a king.  These are not things my paradigm will produce.  It can't because everyone else has the same paradigm, and I'm not skilled or motivated enough to compete with them to reign or become rich in such an environment.  Even so, I would be rich and/or reign among a bunch of self-centered people, people who would only view me in terms of how I enhance their 'center' (i.e. themselves).  That's not a secure sense of reigning or becoming rich.

The truth is that the 'riches', 'filling', and 'reigning' contained in this new paradigm are true contentedness, riches, and power.  They are secure in the One having formed stars, not my meager abilities to entice people into believing I enhance their self-centers.  So, if I ditch my paradigm for His, then I gain the peace, wealth, and authority I could never gain on my own.  And while any such gain on my own would fail eventually, this gain, founded on my Master, would last as long as Him.  Considered this way, I'd say it was really more in my favor to not be the center of my world-view.  I think the rest of this letter to the ancient church in Corinth is about how to create this paradigm around Jesus, and finally, that I can trust it.

So, yes, Paul is a life model, 'warts and all.'  But it's his paradigm through which he views and lives his life I need, not the activities it produces.  I can see I have a lot of praying to do.  Best get after it!

The Proof of Power

1Co 4:18-20
18 Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power. 20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power.
http://olivetree.com/b3/1Co.4.18.NASBStr

How do you know?  It is the basic debate question among friends and frenimies.  It drives to the essential epistemological foundation of the incredulous.  It signals the 'loser' in a formal debate, is the scariest question for followers of Jesus in 'God discussions', and marked much of the arguments of my childhood.

In these verses it is an unasked question, but is assumed.  How do the Corinthians know they are right, and Paul is wrong?  Who's to say he has authority, wisdom, and insight to instruct them, and not these teachers who came after him? Well, Paul proposes a comparison of power.

Like the conversation Jesus had on the road to Emmaus, I'd like to know what a test of power looked like.  How does Paul propose to find out their power?  Even more though, how does the Kingdom of God consist in power?  Is he referring to 'gifts of the Spirit'?  Is he referring to the ability to endure persecution?  What does kingdom power look like?

The real tradgedy in asking such questions is that I have to ask.  You may read this and assume I will get to the answer but I don't.  I don't know.  I feel terrible to say that, but I don't think I've experienced something that I would call the power of the kingdom of God.  I've experienced the presence of God, and that is powerful.  I've experienced the rescue of my life by God; and that is a demonstration of His power, the Power of His Kingdom.  Salvation opens our lives, but what about after that?

I don't think that is what Paul has in mind here.  On the otherhand, I don't think he has in mind a challenge on Mount Carmel either.  I suppose they could compare the numbers of believers they brought to Jesus, or the number of baptisms I  the past year.   Maybe he intends to have a healing service and see who heals more people.

I honestly don't think it's any of those.  I'm still not sure what it looked like if it happened, nor what Paul had in mind as he wrote this, but I'm fairly confident it wasn't the options in the above paragraph.  That bothers me because Paul thought it was either obvious not to need explanation, or using a scare ploy by not explaining (make them wonder).  In either case he knows what something like this looks like and I don't.  Shouldn't we?

Shouldn't a demonstration of Kingdom Power be a regular thing for us?  We're the people of the Kingdom, so Kingdom Power should be a norm, not an unexpected thing.  We shouldn't be baffled by what such power looks like, we should be nodding our heads in agreement as we read this passage.  It's also not sufficient that we have an idea or a guess, or an interpretation of this power, we should KNOW.

But I don't.  I'll admit it.  I don't know what Paul had in mind, what kingdom power looks like, what such a challenge looked like.  And that bothers me.  Maybe it shouldn't but I think it should.  I want to know what Kingdom Power looks like, feels like, and sounds like.  I want to see it in action, demonstrating that the Kingdom of God has come.  Is it too late for me?

The Camouflage of Sarcasm

1Co 4:8-13
8 You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and indeed, I wish that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. 9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. 11 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; 12 and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; 13 when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now.
http://olivetree.com/b3/1Co.4.8.NASBStr

Sarcasm is one of the many skills I'd rather not have.  It can be skillfully used to make a point, as Paul does here.  But I am more inclined to use it in more hurtful, spiteful, and malicious ways than for teaching the Truths of God to His human creatures.

In this verse Paul uses it really well to contrast their views of him and themselves with God's view of both him and them. It's humorous, dramatic, pointed, and clear.  It's truth wrapped in humor used to do surgery on your heart.

Paul uses a perfect tense (action complete in the past and still effective in the present) in verse 8, making the statements sound straight forward, but his 'wish' at the end reveals his literary 'trick' for what it is.  Of course they haven't been filled, made rich, or become king; such people would not act as they act, nor need the correction of Paul. 

By switching to referring to apostles, Paul continues his humorous poke by contrasting now their view of him versus their view of themselves. Yet the transition is itself free from sarcasm.  He truly sees himself and those like him as last among believers, or perhaps last in the timeline of the faithful ones used by God.  Either way, they are used to declare to angels and men that death holds no power over such people.

Then, again he switches to truth in verse 11, illustrating the foolishness of their views of themselves, and how they are to respond to insults and rough treatment.  His point is in providing them a model of behavior and perspective not just to make them ashamed of how they have been.  Sure, he uses sarcasm, but he is sparingly sprinkling his teaching with it, not making it his primary method or tool.

The truth of Paul's teaching is that we should all respond to difficulty this way.  I don't.   I whine, moan, get angry, pout, treat others mean, am vengeful, and generally immature and childish.  That may overstate my case, but at various times, in response to various difficulties, I will respond in one or more of these poor childish ways.

Perhaps we all do, but I know I do.  Maybe Paul wrote 2,000 years ago, but I find this is necessary for me today.  Perhaps his sarcasm resonates with me  or maybe it's the obvious behavior pattern I see so clearly in myself.  Whatever it is, this passage for believers in the Roman world 2,000 ago still hammers me with the same humorous scalpel.  Of course, like then, there's not much in the way of anesthesia is ever used.

What Has Been Written

1Co 4:6-7 6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 7 For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? http://olivetree.com/b3/1Co.4.6.NASBStr

I am a huge proponent of reading Scripture, and doing so submissively. Wht I mean by that is to read Scripture submitting myself to what I read. It's something I have to consciously attempt to do; I'm very impressed with my own views, I have to work to submit those to my Master's views. I wish it came naturally. I wish it were as easy to see in myself as it is to see in others.

The fact that Paul ties pride to this problem here is neither an accident nor unique to problems in the church in Corinth.  My difficulty submitting myself to what has been written is a direct result of my own pride.  What's interesting to me is how he puts it, 'not to exceed what is written', which an interesting way to approach Scripture.

Many people in and outside the community of faith in Jesus consider Scripture to be old, of another culture, and therefore out of touch with modern issues and problems.  Therefore the need to 'exceed what is written' is considered a necessity by many.  So, they add things to their faith in Jesus, they add practices to their worship, and they add perspectives from modern sources to their world view; the Bible just doesn't address so many of these 'modern' issues.

I do this when my 'interpretations' of Scripture become like Scripture, and disagreements become personal insults.  I've crossed a line at that point.  What my Master inspired to be written, He intended for reproof, correction, and for more.  What is recorded is the self-revelation of my Master to His human creatures.  He inspired what we need to know Him and have a relationship with Him.  If it accomplishes this, how can it be lacking?

The problems begin when I remove submission from my practice.  Then what I read is more about me than Him.  This passage is about correcting the pride and arrogance that pits one believer against another instead of submitting in humility to our Savior, and then to each other.  It's not about a method of interpretation,  even though one may be assumed behind the statement.  It's not about the believers in Corinth.  It is about how they, and therefore all of us, relate to our Savior.  Because if I can treat my brother in Christ with contempt or disdain, how am I not treating my Savior the same way?  If I treat my fellow believer as if they are fools compared to me, how am I not treating my Savior in the same way?  Did He not make us both?  Aren't we both servants of the same Master?

So my response needs to be submission; first to my Master, then to Scripture, then to my fellow servants.  So I learn not to exceed what my Master has inspired, learn to submit myself, limit myself to that.  Rather than what I want Scripture to say, I allow it to say what my Master inspires.  Then I am learning, and more likely able to teach.  But even that isn't,  can't be, the point.  The point must be the work of my Master in me, and through that work, in the lives of those around me.