Secrets Versus News

Now when they came into the house, as he was lying on his bed in his bedroom, they struck him and killed him and beheaded him. And they took his head and traveled by way of the Arabah all night. (2 Samuel 4:7 NASB)

David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said to them, "As the Lord lives, who has redeemed my life from all distress, when one told me, saying, 'Behold, Saul is dead, ' and thought he was bringing good news, I seized him and killed him in Ziklag, which was the reward I gave him for his news.  How much more, when wicked men have killed a righteous man in his own house on his bed, shall I not now require his blood from your hand and destroy you from the earth?" (2 Samuel 4:9-11 NASB)

 In this modern information age, the age of instant news, satellites, cell phones, texting, email, the internet, and social media we think we're so smart.  We think we know everything, that there are no secrets, and that privacy is something to be guarded by firewalls, passwords, and  PIN's.  Why do we continue to forget that our Master (regardless of whether we acknowledge Him as such) knows everything?

So, 3,000 years before any of that stuff I mention in the first paragraph, these two soldiers get tired of following the "man of shame", Ish-Bosheth.  And in order to get things moving, murder him in his own bed, cut off his head, and bring it overnight (overnight shipping 3,000 years ago?) to David in his capital.  They travel over night by the fastest route to the guy they think would be most interested in knowing what they've done, and yet...he already knows.

They tried to impress the king with the head of his enemy, and instead only succeed in incriminating themselves in murder.  Yes, three millennia before the cell phone, the news of their crime was faster than the current method of communication.  Why now do we think it's any different?  Why do we think that now, of all times, we can outrun the news of our sin?

The Apostle John tells us that if we confess our sin, our Savior is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).  So, why do believers still think that we can fool the Master of all the universe?  Why would someone still think that knowing all things, this one thing He doesn't?

Actually, I don't think we do.  I think, or suspect, that we simply don't care that He knows.  I know with me, that more often than not, I sin knowing I'm sinning but simply choose to do so anyway.  I then don't confess it because I know He knows, and don't care; at least not at first.  The hold of my Master doesn't let me rest that way for long though.  He doesn't leave me alone, even in my sin.  So, when I sin, and I do daily, I bring my Master with me; not because He does my bidding, I'd rather He wasn't with me when I sin.  He chooses to go with me out of love and mercy, and I choose to go where I have no business going.

Lately it has been arrogance, apathy, resentment, and probably fear that have been my preferred places to go.  Arrogance denies the mastery of my Master.  Apathy denies the worth of my King.  Resentment denies the sovereignty of the Prince of Peace.  Fear is a direct challenge to the will and reality of the King of kings.  Faith is really the answer to all of these, and for some reason it's the first thing I jettison when I encounter stupid stuff, stupid people, and my own stupidity.

When, instead, I let my Master reign (as if I somehow prevent it) everything eventually starts to make some sense and I have peace.  Or, more often, nothing ever really makes sense, and the peace is there anyway.  Truly my Master reigns, but I pretend to rule my own life.  All I accomplish is an embarrassing futile rebellion against He who loves me without limits. 

Here's what's really happening:  Within the infinite space of this universe there is a spec in one corner comprised of several galaxies grouped together.  Within that group is one particular galaxy which has, toward one of the outer spiral arms, a loose cluster of stars.  One of those stars has a system of planets, one of which has enough solid material, spins slow enough, is close enough, and tilted just so as to support the fragile life forms crawling about on its surface.  In the scheme of the universe, their life-spans are ridiculously short.  Yet their attitude is so shockingly arrogant that they behave as if all the universe is really about them.  I am such a specimen.

While this entire construct we refer to as a 'universe' is probably no more than the decoration on the workbench of its Creator, many claim that it is the height of arrogance that He should want us to worship and praise Him.  It's ironic really.  We miss that it is the probably the height of mercy that He would choose to inhabit the praise of such people.  We seem to completely miss that worship merely helps us place ourselves within the real shape and scheme of this universe.  It gives us a clearer sense of scope and scale without the overwhelm of actually trying to fit the universe into our tiny pea brains.

So there's nothing to be gained by hiding my sin from my Master.  I see no value in pretending that I'm not arrogant, that He didn't see it, or that the Creator and One sustaining my life doesn't care. Since the Maker of the vastness of all time and space has it all under His control, and is aware of all of it, why then am I afraid of a future I can merely perceive as dim and insubstantial?  If He loves me, what do I have to fear of anything clear or dim?  Am I not some ridiculous pair of soldiers carrying a grisly secret sin already known to the very one I was trying to impress?  They were killed, how much more do I expect from my own failures to hit the mark of my Master?  Isn't it much more sensible to simply confess my sin and let Him forgive and cleanse me from all that mars our relationship?  Watch me now:  It will probably take me about 10 minutes to make the same mistakes all over again...

The Royal 'Signia'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I Only Love Those Who Love Me...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Danger of Bringing News to David

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When It's The People In Church...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imperishable, Glorified, Powerful, Spiritual Existence...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three All In All Will Be One? Or Three?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Living As If Raised Into Something Entirely Different

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

It's About...Focus

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7 NASB)

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-24 NASB)

Here we are, buried in the very core of Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians, and right at the crux of his argument, in the very center of his structure is the description of love.  There are fifteen qualities that should define our relations with each other in our congregations, and more often than not, don't.  Don't get depressed, it seems they didn't define the early church either because look, Paul had to write to them to start acting this way.

One of the striking things about the list of fifteen qualities is how similar they are to the list of fruit of the Spirit.  In Galatians 5:22 and 23, we have a list of nine things that the Holy Spirit brings out in a believer; they are the 'fruit of His presence' in our lives.  So, I want to show this correlation, draw out some of word meaning, and wind up with a rather startling application for myself.

The first fruit of the Spirit is love.  So, the qualities in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 are all defining this first fruit.  The next fruit is joy, and love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices together with the truth.  The third fruit is peace, and love is not jealous, bears all things, endures all things, does not take into account a wrong suffered, and is not arrogant or bragging.  The fourth fruit is patience, which is the first quality of love.  The fifth fruit is kindness, which is the second quality of love.  The sixth fruit is goodness, and love does not seek it's own, act unbecomingly, hopes all things, believes all things, holds no grudges, and does not brag.  The seventh fruit is faithfulness, and love believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things, does not take into account wrongs suffered, and is not jealous.  The eighth fruit is gentleness, and love is kind, not arrogant, does not brag, does not act unbecomingly, does not seek its own, is not provoked, and bears and endures all things.  The ninth fruit is self-control, and love, well, does all those fifteen things it does all of which require self-control.

As I think about it, the fifteen qualities of love are impossible.  They fly in the face of proper boundaries, totally violate any concept of self-protection, create a complete wimp, a limp dishrag of a human.  How can such a one not be taken advantage of?  How can such a one not be run over by uncaring callous people who aren't evil as such, but just don't care?  Seriously, how is this possible?  Okay, some I get: patient, kind, not jealous, not bragging or arrogant, those make sense in any culture.  But not 'rude'?  So, I'm supposed to 'bow to the social mores of others' even when I disagree with them? And what about 'not seeking its own'? How can I have anything to give when I don't take care of myself?

I also get 'not provoked', that's a good one.  But not counting wrongs suffered means that someone will continue to take advantage of me over and over.  Not rejoicing in unrighteousness I get, along with rejoicing together with the truth.  But the next set of four are seriously a problem for me: bears (or covers) all things? believes all things; seriously, be intentionally stupid? hopes all things? endures all things?  How will anything change if I endure it?  How will anyone not just lie to me if I believe everything?  Should I 'cover' for someone doing wrong?  You see how this description is problematic for me?  These are universals that I don't think are wise to keep, not in this evil culture in which I live.

Reality check:  So, I'm saying that God wasn't all that bright when He inspired these things? That He actually didn't know what He was doing when He inspired Paul to write them in an equally corrupt culture to one of the most famous examples of that corruption?  Is that what I'm saying?  Or am I saying that those were for them then, not for me now?  What is it that can make believing all things a wise move?  What is it that makes not considering wrongs suffered right?  Why would not seeking my own be a good idea?  What balances the scales or tips them the other way in my weighing of these qualities?

Luke records Jesus saying, "Unless a man hate his mother, father, wife, daughter, brother, sister, and even his own life, he cannot (read, 'is not able to' or 'powerful enough to') be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)  This verse always troubled me.  I know the standard interpretation that He means 'hate' as a hyperbolic comparison to how much we love Him, but still, it's harsh.  But as I read these qualities of love, something begins to come into focus.

When I love my Master so thoroughly that all other things in my life fade to shades of gray, and only He has color, then whatever happens to me isn't really that important to me.  The secret to living out these qualities of love in my life is sociopathic devotion to Jesus.  When I don't care about anything else, then why not let every wrong go unnoticed?  Haven't I been forgiven by my Master as much?  Why not believe someone's lie about themselves or to gain and advantage over me?  What can I lose if all I have worth anything is Jesus?  What is there to protect if the one thing I care anything about is my relationship with Jesus?  That's the one thing I possess that doesn't need protection, at least not mine.  It sounds totally ridiculous, and it is sociopathic, but I think that this might be the secret of my life with God.

It's scary.  I suspect that when my wife reads the above paragraph she will not be enthused by the prospect that she will be a part of the 'gray' of the rest of the world.  Yet the irony is that such a focus in me will make me a better husband for her.  I will be free to love her, and my daughter, and those in my church, and those outside my church in my neighborhood, and so on.  I'm free to selflessly love people because I'm not concerned about myself, my protection, my time, my resources, my whatever.  I can love because I have nothing to lose; at least nothing of any value that compares to my Master.  This is why these qualities look so much like 'Fruit of the Spirit' because they are the fruit produced when the Spirit of God has all of my attention.

So, I asked this question way back in these blogs, a few years ago.  "What would you do if you were convinced that God had your back?"  In other words if you had nothing to fear, and you knew that God would protect you no matter what, what would you dare to do?  The answer is often selfish.  But what if it were completely unselfish?  What if the answer were, "I would love without limits"?  I'm becoming convinced that when I am totally confident that God has me covered, I will be living out the fifteen qualities of love fearlessly.  I won't have to think about it or work at it, I'll simply 'discover' it one day.

So, here's the 'path' to get there:  When I fail, and I will, the response I need to have is worship of my Master.  In other words, I need to 'fix my focus' not 'fix my behavior'.  The behavior is a product of my focus, not the end in and of itself.  Jesus is the End, in and of Himself.  So, when I worship Him the product of that behavior is the quality of love.  And the genuineness of my love is tied to the depth of devotion in my worship.  Sounds easy, but I believe that passage about 'hating ones own family' also mentions taking up a personal instrument of torture-to-death every day.  So, along the way in worship, I die.  And I do it anyway.  Any one want to join me?

Love or Nothing

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3 NASB)

I do a lot of stuff at my church.  Others do more, many do what I do better, but I still do a lot of stuff.   Probably, the response of my Master is like, 'Yay, but do you love others?'  He's probably not that impressed, and not because others do more and many do it better.  He's probably not impressed because One making stars doesn't look at the work of lessor beings and go, 'Impressive!'  It just doesn't happen that's all.

What my Master has done that He is most proud of is love His created people.  He showed this through Jesus paying the price for the sins of the entire world.  So, what impresses Him isn't what I can do for Him, but that I love because of Him.  When that happens, it means His human creatures are 'getting it'; they are learning the lesson of Jesus and truly following Him.  In a sense, it means all the suffering on the part of the Creator of the universe was worth it, it had an effect.

But that's not how I have measured my life before.  Before it was always by what I can do/have done for God.  I'm in this role, I've done that role, I believe that, teach this, said whatever, oh, and these people like me.  As it turns out, my Master doesn't really care about that. 

My wife took a trip to talk to her dad about Jesus and lay it out there.  His health is failing, and we're not sure how long she'd be able to still do that and have him have any understanding of it.  He was very receptive, and his wife said she had already "accepted God in her heart".  He didn't accept right there, but she knew he would be thinking about it.  As she told me about it afterwards, I thought, "God doesn't give a 'theology exam' before accepting people."  This word wasn't precisely perfect, that word was a little off, but the core idea was there.

I don't know for sure but I'm confident anyway, that my degree in Bible and ministry hasn't 'saved' anyone.  To my knowledge, no body has said, 'Wow, that guy really knows a lot about God, I want to live like he does.'  At least, no one has told me that's what it was that caused them to seek God.  Not that I've wasted 10 years of my life chasing a useless vocational degree.  I'm just saying that it's not the 'qualifier' or 'edge' in my relationship with Jesus. 

At the gates of Heaven, Jesus won't be checking 'pedigree' or certifications or other initials past my name as I enter His heaven.  The single question will be was my name written in the Lamb's Book of Life.  He won't ask me, He'll just look down his list of names.  Either I'm in there or I'm not.  I find it ironic that there will be this judgement of the works of people, but then all of it, and all those judged are thrown into the lake of fire with the devil and his minions (Revelation 20:11-15).  So it's never been what I do, but that I love, first Jesus, and because of what He's done for me, everyone else.

So, the lesson of these introductory verses is that nothing else accomplishes for me what love does.  It's the first lesson.  And I will see from tomorrow's entry that I suck at it.  Lovely.  I'm busy, but I'm wasting my time without love.  I'm active, but a hamster-on-a-wheel without love.  I'm whatever, but not before the throne of my Master, Who only wants to know that I love.  Hmmm...

Who Is 'In'? Who is 'Out'? How Do I Know?

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.  You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led.  Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:1-3 NASB)

My personal and group study of 1 Corinthians was driven by a desire to explore what Scripture says about 'spiritual gifts'.  There's a lot of controversy between groups and even within groups who call themselves Christians or 'believers' or 'Christ-followers' on this subject.

Few topics (actually none that I can think of) instill this sort of divisiveness between groups of believers.  One side fears this topic like no other, creating the most outlandish reasons for not permitting practice of spiritual gifts.  On the other side, it seems Scripture is almost optional, and personal experience preempts the inspired words of our Savior.  It's the oddest thing.  But it's not a new problem.

Paul enters into this topic toward the end of his letter to the Corinthian church.  He has beat them verbally over divisiveness and pride, ministers from outside and sin within, marriage and 'food sacrificed to idols'; and several other failures along the way, all actually quite common in our own day.  Having done all that, he turns to this topic.  What first stopped me in my tracks was how he began.

First off, this problem seems to be a Gentile problem.  I thought it would stem from either both sides or from the more Jewish among them, but it doesn't.  My error is probably in that I'm not familiar with pagan practices of the First Century Roman culture.  Clearly though, '...when you were pagans,' can't refer to Jews.  The second part though, that they were led astray to mute idols, obviously sets up what he says next, but I can't clearly make the connection.  "...no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, 'Jesus is accursed'; and no one can say 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit." How does that relate to the pagan problem of being led astray to mute idols?

And for those of you who, like me have blown by this while reading the chapter, never really paying much attention to it, consider that to really get what he's saying in the rest of this chapter, possibly the rest of this discussion, we need to get this introductory statement.  This forms the 'cornerstone' of the rest.  Without it, our understanding is skewed somewhat.

So, the problem isn't with the second part itself, that's pretty straight forward.  And really, it's not with the first part, that makes sense; sort of defines what a pagan is in the first place.  The problem is how the two connect.  So, here's what I do with it:  Paul is defining who is in and who is not in a relationship with God versus over against an accusation that some are still 'pagan' in their practice.  Sounds simple enough.  But, he's doing this only because it's not as 'obvious' to the Corinthians as it should be.  What I mean is that the church in Corinth was accusing each other of not being 'led by the Holy Spirit', and since this falls here in the letter, I'm assuming their accusation had to do with this topic.

This should sound rather familiar because it still happening today.  Groups that overly focus on spiritual gifts tend to 'grade' believers on how 'gifted' they are, and on whether or not they have certain gifts.  Paul is starting out clearly arguing against such judgements.  So, to begin my own study here, I will say the same thing Paul is saying, "STOP IT!"  Very therapeutic.  Okay, that's out of my system. 

I find it interesting that the only determining factor between those who do and those who don't have a relationship with Jesus is the declaration that He is Lord.  Why is the also the element we have the most problem living out as well?  I hesitate to stand and accuse the people to whom Paul is writing as I'm actually standing with them accused of a similar problem.  My specific behavior is different, but the problem is the same, "Is Jesus truly my Lord if I behave this way?"  I must declare Jesus is Lord, which can only be done by the Holy Spirit.  But I must live that out; behave consistent with that statement; and declare with my life that He is my Lord.  Then others will see through my life that He is Lord of all.

The point here is two-fold: 1) the determining factor of who is in and who is not is declaring Jesus is Lord, not 'gifting'.  2) My declaration that Jesus is Lord should be obvious to both the blind and the deaf (what I say and what I do - calm down, it was a metaphor).  Okay, now I'm ready to discuss gifting...or rather 'unity of the church.'

Non-Communal Communion?

Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.  What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22 NASB)

The practice of Communion or the Lord's Supper in modern congregations has probably changed from the pattern gone wrong here.  That's just a guess and a gross generalization, but I seriously doubt anyone gets drunk from the miniscule amounts used in those small plastic cups, nor considers the little square crackers satisfying of hunger.  Something seems definitely different here.

It is possible, I suppose, that the practice of the Lord's Supper/Communion in the very early church was  patterned off of the Jewish Passover meal, but abbreviated in some way.  Regardless of whether it did, or to what degree, what seems clear is that a much more substantial meal is involved.  What is also clear is that this meal has become more substantial for some and not for others.

There is a distinction between those that are abusing the meal and those 'who have nothing', and this is most likely a distinction between the wealthy and poor.  Since, in the setting in Corinth, churches were 'house churches', and the wealthy would be the most likely hosts, this would have to be happening either by the hosts, or at least in their households.  The divisions Paul has already pointed out among them back in Chapter 1 seemed to be between groups/households; where this additional division is more socioeconomic within households.

I host and lead a Bible study on Thursdays, and one meeting a month includes a 'pot luck' meal.  We don't consider what we share together to be a "Lord's Supper" or Communion, but I can imagine adding that element.  In our church we celebrate Communion every week, and do so along common conventions used in modern Evangelical Protestant churches.  So, we use 'juice' rather than wine, and miniscule crackers.  Due to the frequency, I don't see a need or much value to adding such an element to the Bible study's monthly meal.  I'm going to need to look elsewhere for application here.

If I look along the lines drawn by Paul in describing the problem, there are those who have nothing being shamed by the behavior of others.  There are those who seem to be proceeding with a meal on their own, and are well into it by the time others arrive, and are drunk by the time the others arrive.  The result of this behavior is that those who are not waiting, both despise the church and shame those with less. 

I have to wonder why those who have informed Paul haven't addressed this with the ones practicing it.  Or have they to no effect, not having the 'authority' or recognized respect to make the correction?  I think it's more likely this is happening in some 'household churches' and not others, and Paul is hearing from those for whom it's not a problem.  There is a difficulty with this view, though.  Paul also refers to 'when you come together as a church' which could refer to a single gathering of the entire collection of households within the ancient city of Corinth in one place.  That would have to be a big place, and serving a meal as part of it would be a big undertaking.  On the other hand, we really don't know just how large this church was if assembled all together.  Perhaps it wasn't all that difficult to put together a meal for everyone.

I think it most likely that this problem existed in some house-churches and not others.  I suspect that the meal was regular, but not every meeting.  And I think what happened is that the hosts had developed a 'preferential' practice among the others in their socioeconomic circles within the group to have their own version of the meal exclusive of the others meeting to worship in the house.  But that's a lot to derive with any certainty from what Paul has written.  It could just as well have been a larger communal meal.  My application I think would be easier if it were many separate practices, so I will pull it from there.

I see the application for myself here to be in not making those without feel any less accepted or blessed by my Master.  I have a nice house, well suited to hosting.  Consequentially, I believe my Master provided it for that purpose.  In essence, my wife and I went looking for such a house.  This is the house that my Master enabled us to acquire.  It fit all and more that we looked and hoped for.  We are amazingly blessed.  I believe that I honor the One providing the house when I make it available to others, and seek to bless those who visit.  So we host a Bible study.  We seek to council and mentor here.  We seek to meet here for meals with groups or other families.  We have had travelers we didn't even know stay the night (THAT was one of the best blessings so far!).

On the other hand, how we practice this abbreviated form of the meal at church is also important.  In our church some share it with their kids, and that takes time.  Some hold up an element before God, and this is visible to others.  Some look to others around them and say something as part of their practice.  In all of this there is potential for abuse by me.  I may not eat more or drink more, nor is there much danger of me bringing my own more tasty crackers (Ritz?) and juice (raspberry grape?).  So the more direct application would be in how I treat or think of my fellow worshipers.  Do I despise those who take so much time to share with their kids?  Do look with jealousy or contempt on those who hold up the elements?  Do I wonder what was said by those whisper something to a companion as part of the practice?  Do I consider myself as above all that, or consider those as 'theologically inferior' or 'flawed'?  There's really a lot of room here for me to be just as faulty as those in Corinth, only no one would know in my circumstances.

I believe that there are lots of ways to practice the Lord's Supper in a communal fashion and treat it and those around me with contempt.  And that is something I must guard against.  And there are also lots of ways that I can cause those who have less than I do to feel less than I am (when they may very well be much more before my Master).  The reality is that this passage has all sort of possible applications for me, because I have all sorts of flaws to which it speaks.  I am blessed, but that does not make me somehow superior.  I share the Communion plate with many, and there are many very valid and meaningful ways we who share the plate practice the 'meal'.  The best question might be, 'Do I honor my Master among all my brothers and sisters?'  That is a question I should answer at home and as we worship together each week.

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.

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.