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.

Of Meat and Milk

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.  I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?  For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? (1 Corinthians 3:1-4 NASB)

Paul refers to the content of his teaching and describes two levels, meat and milk.  He refers to the food of infants and real food for the more mature.  And the teaching references are spiritual references, so I'm assuming the maturity is also spiritual.  I don't think anyone would debate that part, but the content of either I believe would be debatable.

Here, Paul writes to people who consider themselves 'spiritual' and even grade themselves in relation to the spirituality of others; competitively it seems.  Seeing this behavior Paul calls them 'fleshly'; the polar opposite of 'spiritual'.  Since he's writing to such people, is it possible that the content of his letter would constitute 'meat'?

I suppose the problem we face as 21st Century believers, followers of the same Jesus, is that Paul's letters are very often in response to problems within the church rather than to relate deep spiritual truth, the meat.  He is fixing things (or attempting to) for 'infants' so that the content would be expected to be more 'milk' than 'meat'.  This makes the debate about the content of his deeper spiritual content more difficult.  But I wonder if it 'peeks through' in some places.

When I think of 'building on a foundation' and compare or relate that to 'teaching' what I envision is what we call 'unpacking' a topic or truth.  Therefore, if Paul lays the foundation which is Jesus and Him crucified, then what is built on that foundation would be teaching stemming from that truth.  So far you should be saying, 'well duh.'  If you're not, you probably won't like where this is going.

Since teaching stemming from the truth of a Crucified Jesus would have been taught in a culture, over 2000 years old, there is a real possibility what Paul unpacked would not make all that much sense to us today.  For instance, in this letter, he spends an inordinate amount of time on the topic of food sacrificed to idols; not something we concern ourselves with as we shop in Walmart or Windixie.

So, some topics that constituted Paul's 'meat teaching' may have made little sense to us today.  On the other hand, much of what Paul teaches about spiritual gifts does seem to apply today, and gets largely ignored.  That may indicate we have more 'infants' than we thought.  It may also indicate that much of the 'meat teaching' of Paul would apply to us today.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is to catch glimpses of Paul's 'meat teaching' through his letters to churches.  On the other hand it would then be expected much more of this teaching to peek through in his letters to Timothy and Titus, perhaps Philemon.  But what about Luke and Acts?  Luke's writing is accepted because of his association with Paul, so it would also be assumed that Paul's teaching peeks through in Luke's writing.

Considering these sources, the pastoral epistles, to a lessor degree the church epistles, and perhaps below that Luke and Acts; what can be gleaned from them of the deeper teaching, the continued building and growth of Paul's teaching?  I don't truly know.  I don't believe I have spent enough time in depth in these works to be confident that I can relate what I would call Paul's deeper teaching.  But I will, or at least I hope to.  My goal is to work through the whole of Scripture from the original languages (not the original texts, but what my Master has preserved for me through today).  As I do, I will be looking for the gleanings of Paul's deeper teaching.

I suppose the lesson I learn from this passage is that there is more than even what I read in the 'milk' of Paul's teaching.  But part of what I learn from this more shallow teaching is that what lies below will correspond to what has been found already.  I won't dig to find some acceptance of a sinful lifestyle which he denounces in the more shallow stuff.  I won't find toleration of sin below.  I won't find a weakening of the deity of Christ Jesus down there.  I won't find some teaching that undermines the inspiration of Scripture in among the tilings as I mine the words of Paul.  I have no doubts about that, none.

I suspect I will find as I dig clearer understanding of what it means to perambulate before the throne of my Master every minute of every day, and the unimaginable joy found therein.  I will be characterized by peace, kindness, gentleness, and the wholeness sought so diligently by Eastern Mysticism in the wrong place.  But I also believe I will loose myself, forgetting somewhat who I am and what I have tried to make myself about.  Discovering instead that my striving was all for nothing compared to what my Master had for me all along, there will also be mourning over the waste I created, but only momentarily.  For I will also discover eternity.

Holy Heredity, Matt-Man!

Today’s entry in MUFHH is right at what I have been working on or moving toward these past ten months.  I get this entry, and I really like the way he put it.  The basic idea here is repentance.  Unlike much of the teaching in church today, repentance isn’t something I do, but a choice I make.  Repentance doesn’t mean that I start or stop doing something; that unit of measure is used by others to evaluate my repentance.  Repentance means I change my mind to agree with my Master about my sin.

One of the keys often missed here is that sin is not always what I do.  Sometimes it is simply a disposition.  I can do the good things for the wrong reason, and be sinning without anyone knowing, sometimes without me knowing.  The unit of measure for sin is my obedience to my Master, not the moral sensitivities of my fellow believers or human beings.  I have struggled with people pleasing for so long, I really find it difficult to change my unit of measure.  When I care more about what others think than I do about what my Master directs me to do, I’m in real danger.

In such a mindset, how can I not keep sinning?  And the stress level of that mindset is terrible.  The saying goes that I can please some of the people all of the time, all the people some of the time, but I can’t please all the people all the time.  Trying that is stressful.  I reduce the stress by trying to limit the population I try to please, but if their happiness depends on me, again, I’m in real trouble.  I don’t have that sort of power to make it work.

The way Chambers describes sanctification as realizing my need for His sanctification (process of being made holy), the Spirit of my Master acts to impart His heredity of holiness to me.  I fulfill the moral imperatives of my Master only when I own my need for His help, accept the work of His cross to pay my debt, and submit to the work of His Spirit in my own.  Then those impossible moral imperatives (like in Matthew 5) become second nature; His nature in me.

The work on my part in my salvation is submission, first and last.  I confess Him to be my Master on the frontend, and I live in submission to Him throughout the rest.  Somewhere in the eternity I have, sanctification becomes complete and I see Him face-to-face.  But right now, in this tiny scrap of time I have on this space rock I’m glued to, I’m still submitting imperfectly, living imperfectly, and struggling to focus on my Master more perfectly. 

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, October 6

Asking my Master for…

I’m not so sure that my abject poverty before my Master exhibits itself in asking for things.  In a sense it does, but I need careful thought to see when that is true.  For instance, when the details of moving were up in the air, but the move itself was not, I didn’t pray that my Master would make the details clear.  Instead I prayed for patience and peace while I waited.  The point of my spiritual poverty was at the lack of peace and patience.  I was called to wait, worship, and walk before my Master.  To accomplish that I needed those two qualities.  I didn’t have them, so I asked my Master.  The other stuff like details I didn’t ask for.  I figured to do so was to miss the point of having faith and walking without sight.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but my spiritual poverty has more to do with the “Fruit of the Spirit” than something physical or circumstantial I wish I had.  That may be what Chambers is getting at when he says, “The next best thing to do if you are not spiritually real is to ask God for the Holy Spirit on the word of Jesus Christ.”  Since the fruit of the Spirit are not fruit of my spirit, but the Spirit of my Master, asking for that fruit would be asking for more “spiritual reality”.  Although, I confess that I’m not entirely sure I understand Chambers at this point.

A lot of things in my present circumstance that I see now, I never thought to ask for.  It didn’t occur to me to ask my Master for house to move into when we arrived there.  It didn’t occur to me to ask that my wife and I would be able to move with our current jobs, keeping benefits and so on.  It did occur to us that one town might offer better home prices than another, but we still assumed proximity to the in-laws was better, and I guess we were wrong.  We’re just over 20 miles away, but on the way that way.

Is it a problem that these things we see now are things we did not ask for?  I don’t think so.  But I see points of my spiritual poverty and complete dependence on my Master within me.  I am weak when it comes to my particular brand of obsession, and even with some small distance from it, weakness abounds.  I still have fears and worries.  I take them captive to my Master, but then, later, I let them loose to run around my emotions.  I still have difficulty responding appropriately to my daughter.  She defaults to smart-aleck and I go off instead of breaking the conversation off.  She’s a pre-teen mess and I’m surprised and shocked.  Clearly I have a lot of growth ahead.

Chambers keeps referring back to passages in James where I am told to ask my Master for wisdom, but to ask with right motives.  I think that I do lack wisdom in a lot of areas, spiritually and circumstantially.  So, I have a lot of growing that will require a lot of asking of my Master.  My motives in those requests should be to grow closer to my Master, not to appear more spiritual to others or gain their approval.  Going into a new place with a new church, that is a real issue to watch.  The temptation will be there, but will I be conscious enough of myself to spot it and repent immediately?

My real need at this moment has to do with how I respond to my daughter.  The other details out of my control are my Master’s problem.  But my responses to my Daughter are weakness for me which will affect her and her walk with my Master.  She needs a loving coach, mentor, and leader.  She doesn’t need a bully, but does need firm boundaries.  She doesn’t need another buddy, but she does need a responsible emotionally mature parent.  I have some growing, humbling, and  relaxing to do.  I think my Master wants to work in her life, but I have probably been a hindrance.

I suppose that is enough to work on for one lifetime…I mean day.

Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost For His Highest": June 9th.

Haunted By The Master?

I have never regarded my relationship with my Master as if I were “haunted” by Him.  I suppose in a time when referring to the Holy Spirit as the “Holy Ghost” was common, such a term would be more common.  But I suspect that Chambers is unique in using this term for a tight relationship with the Master even in his day.

In Psalm 25:12, the psalmist (probably David again), is complaining of his plight and those seeking his undoing, but he is also seeking forgiveness.  He sees that part of the reason he is in the trouble he’s in is his own sin, not just wicked people.  So, I can easily see myself in this psalm.

Chambers begins this entry by asking, “What are you haunted by?”  He then proceeds to point out that when I am “haunted” by my Master, then that relationship will be my automatic default for my life.  That is what it’s supposed to be, and I’m still working to empty my life of everything hindering such a relationship. 

Haunting has such a negative feel to it that I would never have used it to describe my relationship with my Master, but I see the value in it.  But even as Chambers uses it, he changes what I would have thought it meant.  I would have thought it meant that the Holy Spirit was constantly around me as a “brooding presence”.  But he sees it as an unconscious connection to a person that is the first to spring to consciousness when good or bad things happen.  To me that’s different than “haunting”.  I’m not sure what I would call it, but I wouldn’t call it “haunting”.

I can see that in the last six months, I am much closer to this than I have been at any point in the last 10 years.  I remember when I was in ministry, I would have characterized my life this way as well.  But that was because I found ministry so overwhelming I was constantly driven to my Master.  I would seek sinful pleasurable sins occasionally when I thought I could get away with it, but my usual default was my Master.  So, really I am at a point even better than that.  I’m not even overwhelmed by ministry, and I’m more dependent upon my Master.

But I see, sense, feel, and can almost touch the vast grace of my Master poured out on me these past months.  A review of my blog entries shows a clear progression up from a pit, where now I see light at the mouth of it.  That is the work of my Master.  Here I see His fingerprints, there the marks of His chisel, again the texture of His brush.  His signature is not yet upon me, since I am not yet finished.  But one day I will have a new name which only He knows.  His final signature will be upon me, and I will finally be the completed work of art of my Master. 

Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost For His Highest": June 2nd.

Christian Magic Words and Co-Dependency

Hocus Pocus, or Abracadabra, or some other nonsense are common references to “magic words”.  It seems that in my history with my Master I have some of my own.  They usually cap off my prayers with, “…in Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.”  It may not be obvious, but two sets were just used.

The first set of Christian “magic words” is the more obvious, “…in Jesus’ name I pray” phrase.  I picked this up from vocal prayers I heard in church growing up.  But I can’t really blame my upbringing, because when I did learn that they were not “magic words” I still continued to throw them into my prayers, so I am without excuse.  I picked up a habit, which I still practice, now for more co-dependent reasons.

The second, less obvious set is, “amen”, which is the vocal punctuation in church for ending prayers.  At least it is now, which is sad.  Again, this is more habit, and a co-dependent one as well.  If I don’t end with that, other believers get upset with me that I didn’t “signal” them I was done praying.

What I have arrived at in my current walk with my Master are three very effective ways to irritate other believers with whom I may pray audibly.  First, I can begin by praying to the Holy Spirit.  I have no idea why that irritates people but it does.  No one has given me an adequate explanation either, they’re just uncomfortable with it.  The second is to skip the whole, “…in Jesus’ name I pray,” phrase, which is forgivable, except when coupled with the third irritant, skipping, “amen” at the end.

With these three irritants present in the same prayer, I can test the spiritual waters in a Bible study, church group, or even a single believer.  But that would mean their presence (or absence) were just a ridiculous as their inclusion in a prayer.  Prayer is not a tool used to test spiritual waters, like some sort of litmus paper or dipstick.  Instead, it is personal communication with the Creator of the Universe.  Any other use is profane.

So that brings me to Chambers’ point about what is prayer supposed to be.  Returning to John 16, this time verses 26 and 27, he points to the phrases Jesus uses to lead into the prayer of Chapter 17, where He prays that we may be one with the Father as He is.  The point Chambers makes is that, when we are one with the Father, we will pray with the “nature” of Jesus, thus praying in His name without saying those words.  I suppose that is one way to look at it.  And I don’t want to say he’s wrong, because I don’t really know if he is or not.  He’s probably right, especially considering the context with John 17.  I just want to put a simpler frame on it.

I believe that praying in the name of Jesus resonated with the disciples with whom Jesus spoke.  I believe that the term had meaning in their day we miss in ours, because we have lost the whole “monarchy” or “imperial” governmental structures in our day.  In their day, to speak in someone’s name meant to speak with the authority and the words given by another, more powerful, person.  So, when a soldier spoke in the name of his commander, he spoke with authority above his rank.  But he also spoke what he was told to say by his commander. 

I believe this is the meaning the disciples understood, although they may not have had a clear understanding of how it applied to them asking of the Father.  I can assure you that they did not consider the phrase to be “magic words” ensuring they got whatever they wanted.  Their understanding would also have included the clearly understood punishment if the soldier spoke something other than what his commander commanded.  The disciples would have been left with the conundrum of asking only after Jesus had revealed what He wanted them to ask for.  It’s as if the process was reversed; instead of them asking through Jesus to the Father, Jesus asks through them to the Father…sort of.

What this means for me is that prayer, whether personal or public, needs to be communication with the Master of the Universe, not a show, or a rote connection of phrases.  I know that my Master wants things for me.  Those are the things for which I ask the Father, knowing I have whatever it is, because I ask for what the Son wants already.  It sounds redundant, and it is.  But it involves me intimately in the process of my sanctification (making me set apart for service to my King).

So, today, this day of public worship, I will speak to my Father in Heaven, asking only for what my Master wants for me; nothing more.  I will do so with the phrase, “…in Jesus’ name I pray” being true without being said.  I will do so with the declared, “amen” missing on my lips, but present in my heart.  I may even speak to the Spirit of the Living God as well, since He lives within me, interprets for me, and moves me into prayer in the first place.  If that bothers you…

Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost For His Highest": May 29th.

Baptized, Filled, or What?

There is a division within groups of believers about specific belief regarding spiritual gifts.  One side believes that after a person is saved they then need the baptism of the Holy Spirit before they can truly live the life Jesus intended.  The other side of that view is that, at the point someone believes, they fully receive the Holy Spirit, and that IS the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I waded into this discussion while pastoring in Northern Idaho among the wackiest sets of believers anywhere (some were members of my church).  It was an interesting learning experience.  I waded into the discussion on the side believing that the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs when someone is saved.  As a result of what I discovered in Scripture, I had to modify that view to somewhere in the middle.

Perhaps a semantic issue is at work here.  The term “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is rare, not even occurring in some translations.  The term I looked up was “filled with the Holy Spirit”, which occurs rather frequently in Acts.  What I found is that the normal occurrence of the term was in reference to the present condition of the person which explained why there were able to take the action they did (or at least that’s my interpretation, and I can discuss that further if someone wants to pursue the subject).

There were only two exceptions to this, one more than I expected.  The first exception was the event of Pentecost where the believers were “filled with the Holy Spirit” as an event with reference to time.  That one I expected.  But, later on, in Chapter 4, the believers pray and are again “filled with the Holy Spirit” as an event with reference to time.  That one surprised me.  That indicated to me that this event can happen to the same people more than once. 

Why I say I ended up in the middle though is because the effect of the second filling was boldness, not speaking in tongues.  It seems that tongues came either initially, or isn’t referred to at all.  Unfortunately, this didn’t please either side of the discussion, and left me with more enemies than friends.  How dare I side with Scripture rather than them, what was I thinking?  Anyway, once again I found that my Master seems less interested in sides of arguments among His kids than the kids are.

So, to once again invoke the voice of my lovely wife, “so what?”  Well, what I believe from this is that I am full of my Master’s Holy Spirit.  But I also know that I can seek Him in prayer and experience the rush again of His Spirit enabling me to speak with boldness.  When I compare my abilities, skills, and knowledge against the onslaught of evil in this world, I don’t stand up well.  I need the resource of my Master just to stand, and the empowering of His Spirit to stand boldly.

Today, I endure the knife of a doctor before I head to work.  I face the last day of the fiscal month with my team behind and my manager under fire for it.  I look forward to a long weekend, but with lots of stuff in it.  Some of this I can handle, but a lot if it is beyond me.  So, knowing I face it with the power of the Spirit of my Master means that I can face this day with boldness.

Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost For His Highest": May 27th.

What Does My Master's Location Mean For Me?

Today's entry in MUFHH is one to which my response is really just AMEN!  Chambers has capsulized the good news which my Master accomplished in very clear beautiful way.  It included the time from Transfiguration to the Ascension.  The point he made is that by coming down from the event of the transfiguration, enduring the crucifixion, experiencing the resurrection, and ascending back into glory, Jesus completed what was left open in the transfiguration.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that, but it is certainly interesting to me.  Really, what I was pulled toward was the Ascension.  One of the interesting things about the resurrection, in terms of a narrative, is that it leaves the Savior of the World still in exile in His creation.  The Ascension completes the story with Jesus as the main Character.  The record of Acts continues the story with the Holy Spirit as the main Character.  The necessary transition is the Ascension.  Jesus said that unless He left, the Spirit would not be able to come.  The transition of the story pivoted on the event of my Master's disappearance into the clouds.

The effect on me is huge.  Because of this event, the Spirit has come.  Because my Master ascended, I am connected to Him and to other believers in unimaginable ways.  I am not constrained to my own abilities and devices.  I am freed to be available to Him.  I am free to obey, and empowered to submit.  I can fearlessly engage in every endeavor I am sent into.  I never move, think, or act alone.  The effect transforms my very existence into an extension of my Master's purpose, design, plans, glory, majesty, power, grace, peace, and so much more.  I am an impression of the presence and power of my Master into this world.  As mass causes an impression in spacetime, so I am such an impression of my Master in this His creation.  Hopefully, as effect of the impression of my Master through me, draws others to Him as mass attracts mass through spacetime.  Gravity pulling all things through the universe, and drawing them toward my Master; a cosmic astronomical ballet perfectly designed performed.

The Discipline of Being Loved

I once said that faith enables me to get into heaven, but love enables me to bring friends.  As I look at my life, I don’t see much of that love.  There is too much resentment and fear for love, way too much of the time.  I am improving, but I still struggle with keeping in mind how much my Master loves me.  When I’m in traffic, I am resentful of the other drivers who are in front of me, and choose to go slow.  When at work, I am resentful of customers who know me and call me for help, but spend their money with my teammates.  I have no right to resent anyone, not even my dogs.

Resentment in me stems from me, selfishness, self-centeredness, but mostly loss of focus.  Most of the time I resent, it is because I have lost focus on my Master and His voice.  When I focus on traffic, on getting to my destination as quickly as possible (within limits) I loose focus on my Master.  When I focus on making money (though yes, I am paid to focus on that) and think of my entitlement to it, I loose sight of my Master who provides even these sales.  I do not have the luxury to loose sight of, or focus on, my Master.  I don’t have the luxury to indulge in selfishness and self-centeredness either.

But when I focus on my Master, on His love for me which transcends imagination, then others in traffic, on phones, and at the end of the leash are again loveable.  They may be frustrating, I may not like what they do, but I can still love them, because I see what I do, and how my Master loves me.  This is one of the biggest reasons I start my prayers with “You love me.”  The other big reason is to work through the lie that I am not accepted.  When that lie springs up, I will tend toward resentment again.  I am already miserable at that point, resentment just puts icing on the cake (with fondant and flowers).

Focus on the love my Master has for me is a tremendous source of peace.  His Spirit then has the freedom within me to work His wonderful work and produce His fruit in me.  He brings forth evidence of His presence, and people wonder to look at me, knowing that it cannot be me.  Sure I can sound and appear intelligent, but only Jesus and His Spirit can bring out kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, peace, love, self-control, joy, and patience.  Those are not products of intelligence, but sure are more impressive.  The marvel of my Master’s work in me is the evidence those qualities provide of the truth of His presence and work.  Because if He will work in one such as me, then who would be unacceptable?  If He will take people like me, who would He exclude?  I have known Him and still rebelled.  What can be worse than having a personal relationship with the Master of the Universe, and rejecting Him as Master?  I have had all pretense and excuse removed.  I have no ground to stand on for my acceptability.  There is no reason, no excuse, no foundation for my acceptability within myself.  My acceptability is completely due to my Master choosing to accept me.  And that is love.

So who will I accept today who is unacceptable?  Will it be a cranky customer?  Will it be my manager?  Will it be my wife or daughter?  Or will it be the driver in front of me on the road who refuses to do what I clearly communicate to him telepathically?  Will I choose to accept without first requiring acceptability?  I know that when I focus on my Master, His love and acceptance of me, I can do that; I can accept someone without requiring them to earn that acceptance.  I’ve seen it happen.  I just want desperately for it to happen more.  Besides, I have a new quest, to let go of my desire to control what is not mine to control (mostly at work).  I can’t be bogged down by this issue.  I must focus on my Master, because I have some fears to work through, and I need to remember that He has my back.

Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost For His Highest": May 11th.

Intercession by Example

I have to admit that this intercession angle is really cutting into my “quiet time/blog time.”  Today, Chambers ties the work of interceding to the work of Jesus and His Spirit.  So, now I am faced with the example of my Master, and being an extension of His work as an intercessor. 

The story behind the April Fool is interesting.  Long ago, I believe during either the middle ages or just after, New Years Day was moved from April 1 to January 1 on the calendar.  Celebrating on April 1 corresponded to the beliefs of many religions, including the Hebrew Calendar (sort of, since the Hebrew Calendar is a “lunar” calendar, the correspondence varied every year).  I’m not sure the reasoning, but the change was made.  Anyone who forgot and celebrated New Years or said, “Happy New Years” on April 1 was referred to as the “April Fool”.  That is a very abbreviated version of the account, but the idea was the the person who was unaware that things had changed on them, or forgot something basic was deemed a fool.

Today, I am that fool.  Of course I should be doing intercession.  Of course I should be seeking the face of my Master in prayer.  But I have been blogging in response to Scripture and in response to the writings of another child of my King.  And this activity has sometimes taken the place of prayer.  On the other hand, I have been in prayer throughout the day.  I have sought my Master in the afternoons (not every afternoon, but I am getting there).  So, in the process of my day, I do intercede.  But I have let this activity interfere with the other.

So, today is the last entry and I will leave off writing for prayer.  I will instead of writing these entries in the morning, write them whenever I have time.  I know that they have been the catalyst of growth, the means of making myself available to my Master in the past 3 months.  I know that the growth I have enjoyed recently has been wonderful, but it is time to get back to the work of prayer and intercession.  Sure I can and do pray throughout the day.  But I have neglected this work of my Master long enough.  I will become that intercessor I should have been all along.

So, here I go, and good by for now…

You believed that?  Am I not an intercessor already?  Haven’t you read the last two entries?  I would be crazy to now isolate myself from the hands of my Master when He has begun to do so much.  Don’t be an April Fool!  Things have changed within me, and I would be a fool to return to my old busted ways of doing things.

But since I am also to be an intercessor, I will add that to my bag of activities which put me within reach of my Master.  Sorry for the prank, but it is the day, and I do love pranks.  If you are truly angry with me, comment…and I will intercede with my Master for you too.

Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost For His Highest": April 1st.

I Don't Get It...Or Do I?

Today, I am baffled by the devotion in My Utmost For His Highest.  What Chambers is talking about makes little sense to me.  I think I agree with a spot somewhere below the middle, but then I get lost again.  The point he is making is about carnality in my life.  But he states that no "natural man knows about it" and then that it comes from the conflict between the flesh and the Spirit where one "lusts" after the other.  It is at that point my eyebrows furrow and my eyes narrow, and my mind goes, "huh?"  He uses a capital S Spirit, so is referring to the Spirit of my Master who took up residence in me when I confessed Jesus as Lord and believed in Him as raised from the dead.  It is difficult to wrap my mind around the Spirit of my Master "lusting after" my flesh.  Seriously? Lusting? And after my flesh?

He continues into a monologue about setting the mind on the Spirit and not carrying out the deeds of the flesh, and I am no longer in 1 Corinthians 3:3 where he first references, and am now squarely in Romans 7 and 8.  In those chapters most translators do not necessarily agree whether the references to spirit are references to the Spirit of God which desires total influence over the person, or the spirit of the person which would the part of a person desiring to please the Master.  So, the confusion is not just here, but remains and is fairly common.  Chambers clearly falls on the side of the reference to the Spirit of God. 

So, the monologue continues into confession being a mark of the non-carnal believer.  What is going on here is that Chambers is referring to the response to conviction by the Spirit of God, the internal response.  In pyschological terms, it would be the question of responding versus reacting.  So, if I react to conviction from something I read in Scripture then I am being carnal.  If I respond in confession, then I am being spiritual.  After the confession it is my Master who makes the necessary change in me.  So this part I get, the first, not so much, and he looses me again at the end.

In the last paragraph he says that the proof that the "carnality" is gone is the surprise at my change in behavior or attitude.  Saying, "I would have been resentful over this in the past" or something like that is the indicator that carnality is leaving the body.  But isn't that a progressive experience rather than the mark of an event?  Or is it that carnality comes and goes?  If it does that, then does it ever truly leave or does it just go dormant?  Or is that a semantic question of little value? 

Either way, I agree with the reacting versus responding position as an indicator of whether I am being ruled more by the Spirit of my Master or my own silly passions.  And I suppose that being surprised by the changes that my Master is making in me would be evidence that, at least, my silly passions have less sway than they used to.  And I believe that I am experiencing that more lately than I have in a long time.  I have experienced more spiritual victory recently than I have at any other time in my past.  I think that is because I have a long way to go out of the spiritual hole I have dug over the last 20 years, but it's still progress up.  And progress up is good.  The credit goes to the Spirit of my Master, because my only part in this has been to make myself more available to Him.  The positive changes are His, and I have been recently surprised by them.

Part of what I have taken on as a responsibility on my part is the ritual actions of holiness (in a modern setting, rather than the ancient Temple setting).  These don't actually make me more fit for my Master, just make me more available to Him.  They don't make me qualitatively better than anyone else, just different.  They include the daily discipline of writing these blog entries, praying using the phrases, "You love me, You have my back, and I am at Your service."  The initials below my signature are part of it. These are just a few obvious ones, and as I said, they don't change me qualitatively, just make me more aware of my status before my Master on a more consistent basis.  In the blog I have confessed when my Master brings out deficiencies in my character and done so publically.  That helps me remain accountable to being submissive to Him in these areas.  I believe that actions of "ritual holiness" done right will look very different for different believers, so I don't recommend these particular ones for anyone else.  I found them when I sought the areas that my Master wants to grow me, and in response to those areas of growth, came up with actions I could take to increase my availability to my Master to bring about that growth.  If I were to make a recommendation (and I don't), that would be it.  My only recommendation is to love the Master.  The rest sort of falls out of that, whatever "the rest" might be.

Flying By the Seat of My Pants

When I was a younger adult, I had a sense of confidence that was fairly amazing.  And successes I enjoyed during this time taught me a very important lesson.  Often, confidence is the only thing I need going into a situation to come out successful.  But I also learned that sometimes it's not.  In my younger adult days I flew through life by the seat of my pants.  Now, this is not to say that I was reckless or random in my actions, it means that I went off my gut feelings of what I was supposed to do.  This morning, Chambers works from Luke 24:32 where the two disciples on the road to Emmaus say to each other, "Weren't our hearts burning within us as He spoke us, opening the Scriptures to us?"  He then gets at that "burning" within and how to respond to it.  He says go with it.

Now he points out that it is not something I can make happen, it is from the Holy Spirit.  I don't get to choose the timing of the burning.  Then he says to act on that emotion to the fullest extent, final conclusion.  But he also says to consider that conclusion first to determine ahead of time whether or not the emotion (burning in my heart) is really from the Spirit of God.  I often did the first, but not always the second.

Now I rarely do either.  But on the other hand, I rarely sense that burning in my heart from God's Spirit either.  I feel as if I have moved into the days of Samuel's boyhood, where a word from God was rare.  It isn't really, but my fear level is higher now.  It is somewhat because I have more to loose and more riding on me making the right decisions.  I have a daughter and a wife, who, believe it or not, like to have a house and food, and clothes (especially shoes for some reason).  Providing these things seems difficult if I am rash and just do whatever whenever.

While that may be true, what I forget when I am restrained by such fear is that my Master knows about those desires of my family and loves them even more than I do (shoes and all).  He does not only have my back, He has theirs as well.  That is a part of what is contained in my new statement in prayer, "and I am at Your service."  It declares that I am available to my Master regardless of the task.  I can say that only if I believe that He has control over the circumstances of my family as well as mine.

But fear is not my only enemy in determining to obey that "burning within" from my Master's Spirit.  The other piece of advice from Chambers is to consider the end-result of playing out the emotion.  I am not that great at that sort of pre-determination.  I say, "Oh, I hadn't thought of that" way too often to trust myself here.  But I have to.  I need to try to see ahead and determine whether the emotion burning within originates from my Master or myself (or the enemy).  Because if I don't check, and I because of that I don't act, I cut myself off from the purposes of my Master in my life.  These burning emotions, not expressed, will simmer at a low level in my life and burst out sideways.  Negative emotions as well as positive emotions left unexpressed can cause serious problems later.  I know that.  I still suffer consequences from this.  So, I see the need, and I need to fearlessly face it.

So, today, I will be open to the burning of the Spirit of my master in my life, should He bring it.  And I will consider the implications of expressing it.  And I will express it once I determine that it comes from my Master.  One practical way I can do this is one way I see these come on me.  I will sometimes be struck by an idea from a song or passage that plays on my mind and will not go away.  And while I am driving or just by myself, I will begin to formulate a sermon on it (as I once said, I believe I am a better preacher than pastor).  When those times come on me, I don't take the time to write the sermon out.  I know how, I just don't do it.  Perhaps that would be one way I could express such "burning within", at least that form.  I have a thumb-drive I keep with me most of the time, so there is no real reason I couldn't do this at work or home. 

So that will be one way I will seek to express the next "fire in my bones" as Jeremiah (another ministry buddy of mine) put it.  Perhaps if I like it, I'll post it.  Or perhaps, if it happens enough, I can make a new blog from them.  I'll bet they would be faster to read than if I preached them.  At least that has been my experience.  I am a preacher after all, so I am rarely without something additional to say.  Good day. :)

Does This Holiness Make My Head Look Big?

I am amused every time I tell other believers that the word "holy" is a word borrowed from pagans.  They seem shocked to hear that.  But the Christian Scriptures were written in Greek, a language of pagans.  How could the word not be a borrowed pagan word.  Almost all of them were.  What it means though is that the meaning was also brought over.  There was a pagan understanding of holiness rarely considered.  I consider it only because most of the places I have to practice holiness are "pagan" rather than Christian.

Paul, in his closing of his first letter to the church in Thessalonica wished for them that the God of peace would sanctify them (the process making them holy) all through; spirit, soul, and body.  He used words that referred to both quality and quantity, leaving no space in the believers life for the common or profane.  So, these believers were to practice this holy dispostion in the world around them; a pagan, sometimes hostile, misunderstanding, self-focused, and sometimes indifferent society.  It sounds familiar.  They really cared about Jesus followers only when the peace or commerce were disrupted.

So what does holy mean?  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanctification try this link.  It's informative.  The simplified definition includes purity from sin and the process of being set apart for God's use alone.  The second part is the normal use in pagan understanding, the process including a washing which where the first part is derived from.  In the Hebrew Scriptures, holiness was so important than an entire book was dedicated to both the Hebrew people and the priests who served God on their behalf.  God was very strict in how He wanted this holiness expressed by both priests and the rest of the people.  Unfortunately, the contents of the book of Leviticus have not made very interesting reading for most modern believers.

So how does this holiness play out in my life?  It must play out in some way which preserves the characteristic of being set apart, and also intersect with this unholy world.  That was forbidden in Leviticus.  Holiness was maintained by not mixing things, anything, even types of cloth (no wool blends!).  So how can I walk before this infinitely Holy God and be blameless as He calls me to be, when I have to interact daily with people who are anything but holy; they aren't even interested in being holy?

The short answer is, "I don't know."  The nice thing is that I don't have to know.  One less thing to worry about.  The verse after Paul expresses his wish for the believers sanctification (the process again), he praises the God calling them to be holy, and says, "He will do it."  He uses the future tense.  He uses the generic word for make or do.  He uses a short sentence, which for Paul should mark something as particularly special.  So what do I do?  I let Him.

Spiritual disciplines are activities I take which make me accessible to God and His work in transforming me.  They do not, in and of themselves, make me holy.  In fact sometimes they can become so distracting, they keep me from holiness.  I was never intended to be set aside to spiritual disciplines.  I was intended to be set aside for the work of God through His Spirit within my very soul, spirit, and body.  So, I live out my day, interacting with the pagan world, yet trying to set my mind on things above.  Somewhere in the midst of that struggle to remain between two worlds, God makes these adjustments and tweaks to the core of my being.  People around me notice before I do that there are qualities about me that are less about me, and more about God himself.  I become a tree bearing different fruit; fruit of the Spirit rather than my spirit.

It would be glaringly obvious to even the most casual observer that my cynacism, skepticism, sarcasm, and hautiness are probably not those "fruit".  So, the Gardener has a long way to go with this stubborn tree.  "More discipline, please," I murmur as I hold out my hands to my Master.  And with a sigh of resignation, but with a tinge of hope, I enter again into another day.  Perhaps today I will show progress and bear at least one example of good fruit.