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.

Investing in the Eternal

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.  For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.  When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.  For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.  But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:8-13 NASB)

So, I don't have anything before my Master without love.  I love because I worship my Master; it's a normally produced fruit of worship.  And now, what now?  Where's Paul going now?  I think, if I'm not mistaken, that Paul is heading to the 'end of the story'.  This is the 'motivation' for going through all this, and continuing on with it.

One of the things about life with God that is supposed to ultimately motivate us, but today, gets shoved to the back of our minds, is heaven.  One day, followers of Jesus will join Him in heaven.  One day.  It's only been 2,000 years, and I suspect people now are getting a little ashamed at holding on to this belief or using it to motivate.  But yes, one day, Jesus will return for us.

Here Paul points out that while love never has an end, the other stuff does.  Prophesy will be put to an end, tongues stilled, and knowledge will be put to an end (like prophesy).  Think about this.  Why will love continue, but the others won't?  Paul goes on to explain...

When the complete comes, the 'parts' will be put to an end.  In other words, in heaven, when we know fully even as we are fully known, there won't be a need for 'gifts of knowledge' or 'gifts of prophesy' because everyone in heaven will already know everything.  In that day, love will characterize our eternal lives, so love will continue on into eternity.  The other verses through 12 continue to support this view.

The last verse, 13, lists three that remain.  Prophesy, tongues, and knowledge are all gone.  Faith, hope, and love remain.  They don't pass away, but consider Hebrews 11 for a moment: "Faith is the assurance of what is hoped for..."  So, faith and hope are tied together, in that what we hope for is made firm by faith.  In Romans 8:24, we're told that no one hopes for what they see, and in hope we have been saved; the salvation is not completely seen, not yet.  But what's the connection to love?

I suspect that to have faith, we must first have hope.  Without hope, faith doesn't have anything to substantiate; and faith without hope is fake faith.  By grace we have been saved, through faith.  And this 'by-grace-through-faith' transaction is not from ourselves, but a gift of God.  The connection between hope, faith, and love traces through the actions of God on our behalf.  Once we see Him face-to-face, hope will be completed because we will see.  Faith will itself be substantiated by experience of the presence of God.  What will be left will be an eternal life of love.

What I see Paul doing here is finishing off any residual argument about continuing to focus on the wrong thing.  Love first because we will love longest.  The rest will all pass away.  For Paul, since he believed Jesus' return was right around the corner, the call was to live as if it all comes down to today, because for him, it could.  What about for me?

The reality is that I'm not given any assurance of another day.  No one is.  So, it does come down to today, every day.  But I have so many of these 'today's that it's hard to keep on going since I know that it didn't happen yesterday, so the 'odds' are it won't happen today; so I slack off. 

If I flip a coin 50 times, and come up with 'heads' 80% of the time, what are the odds that the 51st flip will be heads?  If you say 80%, you should take a statistics course.  It's 50%.  It's always 50%.  A hundred flips, and number 101 is still 50%.  The reason is that a coin only has two sides, and they are equally weighted (or nearly).  In such cases all the statistics do is record the actual history of what happened.  In cases of a coin they do not predict the outcome of the next flip.  But we don't think that way.  We live, think, and behave as if it's a predictor of the next flip.  And so it goes with life lived with God.  He says it's a static potential, but we live as it the prior 'statistics' predict today.

I will continue to love (or worship) only to the degree I recognize the static potential of my continuing in this world.  I asked in the last entry, "What would I do if I was convinced that God had my back?"  Well, here's another question, "What would I do if I was convinced that I would end the day in the physical presence of God?"  The answer to that question should rule my day as co-regent with the first question. 

So here's the point for me: I need to love like I'm going home every day.  Only love will remain.  My other gifts will be gone.  My faith and hope will stand fulfilled.  But the practice of love will continue throughout eternity with me.  Perhaps the eternal quality of love is the reason that love so characterizes my Master.  Or perhaps love is eternal because love so characterizes my Master.  Either way, an investment in love every day is an investment in the eternal.  I like the ROI for that one.