When Culture Is The Wrong Context

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)

There are strange inconsistencies in Paul that make reading and understanding him difficult at times.  Sometimes he's clear and point directly at my heart.  Other times, I seriously wonder if I get what he's saying at all.  Here I think I get it, but I have a problem with his application.  For instance, this is where some are eating a 'separate' or 'personal' meal of 'good food' or something like that, while others without such resources don't get such a meal.  So the wealthy have a better meal, like first class on an airline.  It's something that's just a pat of the socioeconomic climate; it still persists somewhat today.

The problem that Paul points out is that this completely invalidates the meaning of the Lord's Supper or Communion in which this is happening.  Okay, so the cultural norm or expectation is unacceptable at the Lord's Table.  Got it.  Let's make that a rule...oh wait, the previous section has a cultural norm as the rule for women participating in worship.  So which is it?  Do we use the culture in which we live or not?  How much is allowed into the church, and where?

These are not easy questions.  They are the source of debate for centuries, actually two millennia.  Missionaries face it constantly, often in obvious ways.  We, in this country tend to ignore the problem, but to our own peril.  The 'American' culture is assumed to be favorable to Christianity, Scripture, and church practice.  And it is, compared to the polytheistic culture of the Roman Empire that deified living emperors.  But our modern American culture is not, actually, favorable to Jesus as the Christ, Savior, and Lord of Lord's.  Don't get upset, no human culture is.

So, the problem of navigating practice, meaning, and teaching of the things of the Creator of all things within congregations of Bible-believing followers of Jesus is tough.  It's not optional though.  Pastors, teachers, leaders of all sorts within these congregations have this as their primary responsibility.  Whatever they are called, their role is to lead the people along behind the Spirit of God as He guides us.  This will correspond with Scripture at every point; but how that Scripture is applied will take sensitivity to the Spirit who inspired it, time spent in study, and a dogged determination to be obedient over popular.  I tend to follow people who have this view, and avoid and criticize those who don't.

So, Paul's practice doesn't make understanding him easy, but he lays out the right path, the one we must follow in our congregations.  Some things are acceptable within the congregation and others are definitely not.  Culture cannot be allowed to dictate practice within the body of Christ.  Sensitivity and recognition of the culture must be considered along with practice, as the church must connect to people in order to influence the culture for Christ Jesus.  But the 'filter' must be Scripture, the Spirit of God, and diligent perseverance to be obedient over popular.

So, my application goes like this:  1) as a church leader, I need to have this filter firmly in place as I teach and lead.  2) I need to follow leaders who have this same filter (not those with the same views, but those with views derived from this filter).  3) This needs to be part of my teaching.  And since I'm writing this blog entry...I suppose number 3 is a 'gimme'.

Why Live By A 2000-Year-Old Book?

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.  Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.  No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:11-13 NASB)

I don't know how many times I've been asked that question, "Why do you pay attention to a 2,000-year-old book?"  It has the ring of a 'modern' question, one asked by modern, scientific, enlightened, independent thinkers.  I think it's ironic that it appears that this question was also asked by the early church; at least in its basic concept.

A lot of what Paul wrote in letters to churches was written to correct issues in those churches.  Since we only are able to 'eves drop' on one side of the conversation, we typically have to deduce the other side from what he says in correction.  As Paul writes to Corinth, in his instruction about food sacrificed to idols (a big deal in that city), he gets to this point in his discussion where he relies on examples from Israel's history; specifically in their travels through the desert to the Promised Land.  Initially that sounds like it would be well received, but he throws in verse 11, 'Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.'  He corrected something.

I believe that Paul defends his use of Israel's history to this church because they would not initially accept this a valid example.  They would take a 'that was them, this is us' sort of easy dismissal of such an example.  The people in Corinth were very different people, under very different circumstances, facing very different problems.  Or were they?

Paul sites some initial points of connection with the believers in Corinth: 'baptized', 'ate spiritual food and drink' (i.e. Communion).  The unifying things in the church were present in the 'people wandering in the desert'.  Yet God was not pleased with most of them, so it wasn't what unified them that made them acceptable to God; therefore neither was it baptism and Communion that made the Corinthian believers acceptable.

Paul goes on to site examples from their history, but begins it by saying that 'these things happened as examples for us...'  Why do that at the beginning, and then again at the end?  It's important; and I believe it's corrective of an assumption on the part of the Corinthian believers.  I suspect they thought that there was not much to be gained from studying stories that happened 2,000 years before.  Who cares? What does that have to do with me?  I'm not in the desert, I'm not traveling to some 'Promised Land', I haven't passed through the 'Red Sea', nor is there a cloud or pillar of fire traveling around with me.  Sound familiar?

Paul ties up this section of his argument (again, about food sacrificed to idols), with the statement above.  It's a verse that most modern believers pull right out of this chapter without looking before it, or after.  "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man..."  Paul's point is that a 2,000-year-old book is relevant for their lives because we're still people living in a 'fallen' world subject to the same testing and temptation.  I believe that a 2,000+year-old book is relevant for me today as a modern believer because I'm still a person living in a fallen world subject to the same testing and temptation.

Think about it, 'smoking' isn't covered in Scripture, but healthy dietary laws are; healthy living matters to God.  Drinking is covered in Scripture, but it seems it's still vilified by those who have been wounded by its abuse.  Buying a man's daughter as a debt-slave is covered, yet people still feel the Bible doesn't empower and protect women (see this blog entry if that one confuses you). 

All sorts of modern problems are assumed to be 'new' and the Bible irrelevant to address them.  Why?  Haven't we learned that all these 'problems' stem from a human condition internal to the person?  Haven't we discovered in psychology that people tend to behave in patterns established by their histories?  What, was that new with our 'modern culture'?  Seriously?  Freud relies on categories and diagnoses labeled for Greek Mythology because why? Because the Greek plays illustrated the very condition he 'discovered'.  Hello! Greek plays?  Yes, you find descriptions of the 'human condition' in Greek plays; and Hebrew and Christian Scripture as well.  You find them in these ancient texts because people really haven't changed that much. 

So maybe the ancient texts inspired and protected by the Creator of all humanity might be worth a good read.  Could He have left some 'clues' as to what works best?  Do you think He might have included some really good insight, like the insight only the Maker would know about what He made?  What do you think?  Perhaps? 

We, as people, will study our behinds off for an exam, for a degree, for a certification, for approval of human standards.  Why not work that hard on the texts inspired and preserved by our Creator?  Sure it's hard, I know it's not a simple thing to bring ancient languages into clear application on modern issues.  But wouldn't it be worth it?  People don't like to read, but they did to get through school.  Why for that, but not to really know their Savior? 

I write this as one guilty.  I know that there are portions of Scripture I avoid.  That doesn't excuse anyone, because I don't stand excused.  It's not a matter of how much of Scripture we avoid or don't read, we're responsible for all of it.  I know that, and yet I have avoided some vast tracts of genealogies, legal instruction, and prophecies on ancient foreign cultures.  I've pushed through Job, but gave into the tediousness of the poetic ranting, and skipped pieces.  I've read Revelation several times, but each time got so confused, turned around, and lost, that I again 'grazed' right over stuff to get to the end.  Don't even get me started on genealogies and land apportionment; wow, talk about 'dry'.  No excuse, at least not valid ones.

So, we all, as followers of Jesus, are to study Scripture, learn from what has been preserved.  We are to seek what our Creator wants us to know about His perspective on our world and how we are to behave in it.  It's not enough to learn from others either.  We have a responsibility to read for ourselves to know these things, to learn from God.  And then we can better seek the wisdom of others.  School is still in session.

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.

What Has Been Written

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Idolatry: Representative Worship

To whom then will you liken God?
Or what likeness will you compare with Him?
As for the idol, a craftsman casts it,
A goldsmith plates it with gold,
And a silversmith fashions chains of silver.
He who is too impoverished for such an offering
Selects a tree that does not rot;
He seeks out for himself a skillful craftsman
To prepare an idol that will not totter
(Isaiah 40:18-20 NASB)

One of the ideas in the Bible, Hebrew and Christian Scriptures both, with which I really struggle is the admonishment against idolatry.  In most cases, it seems that the perspective of the Bible is that the person worshiping the idol thinks that the object really IS the god rather than a representative OF the god.  The problem I have is that this is obviously not the case.  I fear it puts Scripture in a place of appearing silly.

That idolatry is representative of the 'god' is obvious for lots of reasons.  First off, I don't think anyone would either accuse an idol worshiper or seriously believe they think for a moment that the gold or whatever object in front of them actually performed the activity in their myths ascribed to the 'god'.  Some statue of Zeus isn't actually the person believed to be on Olympus.  It looks like, represents, the person believed to be on Olympus.  I don't think this is in dispute, not by anyone.

So what's the deal with such a clear and vehement imprecation against idolatry?  There is a clear prohibition against any sort of 'image' of man or beast or fowl in Scripture, I'm curious; why?  The usual answer is that it's distracting from worship of the One true God, Creator of those things normally cast or shaped, and the Creator of the things imaged. 

The point being that He is neither man nor beast, so there is no true representation possible.  The worship of the God of Israel reinforces this concept.  All items that could have been used as a 'focus' of attention during worship of Him were hidden.  The bronze snake from the desert was put in the ark along with the 'budding staff' of Aaron, the broken tablets of the Ten Commandments, a jar of mannah, and so on.  Then the ark itself was secreted away behind curtains within the deep dark recesses of the Temple.  So worshipers would only be able to see the building where they knew those object were housed, not the objects themselves.  The focus remained on the invisible God.

But the people bowing themselves before a figure of a man/bird/fish/lion-thing really didn't think that the object in front of them was whatever deity they worshiped.  They believed their deity was 'invisible' as well.  So why the hiding?  Well, I don't know.  I'll just say it and outright because I think anyone reading this already knows I don't know.  For most people the explanation in the previous paragraph is probably sufficient, so you need look no further for 'ideas' or 'theories'.  I will pose two.

First, I suspect that there is a psychological reason.  It is the Creator of this universe who also created our human brains/minds, and I believe He is well aware of our psychological make up and weaknesses.  So, I suspect that focus on the object seen becomes more important, more influential, and more fixed in our minds than the 'Invisible God of All Things'.  I think the truth of this is borne out unfortunately in churches where disputes over trivial 'objects' and 'trappings' sometimes take precedence over focus on the One True Invisible God.  So, they are distracting, but on a more psychological, deeper level than just what we see when we bow ourselves down to something.  In this way, a cross, statue, painting, window, or whatever can cause the same problem.  Some of you may be thinking Catholic right now, but any Baptists reading this could easily substitute 'carpet', 'drapes', 'paint color', 'furniture', or even people and note the same problem.

Beyond the psychological possibility I think another issue is the understanding of 'holiness'.  Simply put, anything exclusively dedicated to the service or use of God (or a deity) is holy; it's not to be used for common (profane) purposes.  Rather than get into a protracted discussion of holiness itself and how I believe God uses and defines the term, I want to look specifically at why the use of idols may damage His purpose in holiness.

Idols are closely tied to a 'shrine' whether small ones in a home or larger ones in a location, to entire temples.  Things in and around the idol, within the sphere of the 'shrine' are considered holy.  In a sense this is what the Jewish Temple was in Jerusalem.  The object within, but also the grounds around were considered holy.  It's clear in Leviticus and other places that this is what God taught the Sons of Israel.  But it was never the whole understanding of the term.

The people of Israel were also called a 'holy nation', a 'kingdom of priests', and designated as a 'chosen people' making even the normal 'common' person someone holy.  The nation was supposed to be a 'shrine', their communities, homes, and national boundaries.  This changes some fundamental understanding of 'holiness'.  There were prescribed behaviors they were to follow, not just in the Temple, but in their homes, communities, and as a nation.  There were elements of the very basic elements of their lives where God insinuated Himself.  There truly was no 'shrine' in Israel, they were the shrine.

It's the representative idol worship around them that distinguished them and made them different.  That is what made them holy; they were different.  Some, very powerful nations, considered them atheists because they would not worship idols.  They could not conceive of a form of worship that was not 'representative'.  These 'idols' formed the diplomatic means to connect nations, their myths formed common bonds, and their practices enabled trade and commerce.  Israel stands alone outside this 'fraternity' of idolatry.  Like circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and their dietary rules, this refusal to worship like the other nations caused difficulties for them wherever they went, with whomever they dealt.  That was the idea; it was by design; they were holy to the One True God.

So, that's my theory (or two of them), and while not very exciting or enlightening, and not even close to a full explanation; I think that between the three ideas, I have a better understanding of why 'images' are problems for my Master.  But I also think I have a good clear admonition to not let 'things' distract me from my Master; not people, crosses, flooring, clothing, trappings, sound systems, screens, music, or instruments.  None of this stuff or people should be able to drift my focus from my Master.  For, as the people of Israel considered themselves holy, so do I; psychologically and socially.

She Who Laughs Second

Then they said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?" And he said, "There, in the tent."  He said, "I will surely return to you at this time next year; and behold, Sarah your wife will have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door, which was behind him.  Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; Sarah was past childbearing.  Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?"  And the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, 'Shall I indeed bear a child, when I am so old?'  "Is anything too difficult for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah will have a son."  Sarah denied it however, saying, "I did not laugh"; for she was afraid. And He said, "No, but you did laugh." (Genesis 18:9-15 NASB)

So, in chapter 17, we have Abraham falling on his face laughing when El Shaddai tells him Sarah will bear a son.  Because of that the child will be named Isaac.  The child would be born in one year (..."at this season next year." Genesis 17:21b).

Here Sarah laughed "to herself" or literally "inside herself" when Yahweh said she would bear a son.  The timing is very similar to last chapter, "this time next year".  There are enough similarities between these two chapters that it would seem to be different examples of the same event.  That probably bothers some people, in fact it would probably bother a lot of comfortable Sunday school teachers.  But it shouldn't.

The issue winds up being one of inspiration and "inerrancy".  If these are the same event, but two very different perspectives, how can they both be "without error"?  Ironically, the people asking this question seem to be just fine with four different Gospels in the Christian Scriptures.  So why have a problem here?

As I've said before, my view of Scriptures, both Hebrew and Christian is "flexible" enough to incorporate such duplication without a problem.  In fact, in my estimation, that there are two indicates a stronger case for their importance and inspiration.  The Master I serve is not threatened by two different accounts of the same event of Him speaking personally with one of His human creatures.  Something so disruptive to any person's psyche could easily make various impressions at various times.  If He's not threatened, why should I be?

The point of application for me is that this is an example of my Master accommodating His human creatures.  He visits Abram, eats his food, changes his name to Abraham, discusses the covenant and circumcision, asks about Sarai, changes her name to Sarah, predicts her delivering Isaac in one year, they both laugh, the child is to be named Isaac for their laughter, and then comes the discussion of God "nuking Sodom and Gomorrah from orbit".

What makes it into Scripture is this event in two pieces.  In fact, there were probably other things said that didn't make it into the text.  Since there wasn't a transcriptionist hanging on every word, I can't be sure there wasn't more said.  So, my Master doesn't look at what was remembered, and say, "What have you done?! You got it all wrong!  Scrap that and go back and do it again?"  And the people editing this "anthology" of God didn't say, "Oops, we have two versions here.  Which one do we keep?  How do we 'meld' them if we keep both?"  Instead they kept both, and kept them distinct.  They recorded the two versions faithfully because they viewed them as both being inspired accounts of God visiting His servant Abraham.

God inspires the text to be written, but fails to protect the "inerrant" original texts?  Really?  So, He's capable of forming stars and galaxies, and subatomic particles, but protecting His inspired texts is just beyond Him?  That was too hard?  Read the text! "Is anything too difficult for the LORD?"  Is my Master sovereign over all matter except pens?  If these inerrant original texts were all that important for my Master to demonstrate His inspiration of them, is it rational to believe that He would not protect them?  If they no longer exist, then isn't it also rational to believe they're unnecessary to demonstrate inspiration? 

If followers of Jesus can agree that God is sovereign, why can't we also agree that the texts we have are the ones that God wants us to have?  And if we agree on that, why can't we accept them as they are without some sort of reference to non existent texts we don't have because God didn't preserve them?  Why fight over the very thing that reveals to us that our Master wants to bring us together and love each other?  The world going to hell will know our Master by our love for each other?  If there's no love shown, will they still know our Master?

Now, that being said, I still wade into arguments about versions and texts.  I still debate Sianaticus versus Vaticanus versus Alexandrinus.  I am not above weighing various text differences in order to translate a passage from Hebrew and Greek.  So, in a way I too contribute to the "war of words" regarding the words of my Master.  But I still need to live by what I discover as I delve into those words.  I must still open my heart and mind, both, to permit my Master to build faith and teach me obedience.  As I sift, I must also submit.  It does me no good, and is one of the darkest evils of my life, to work with Scripture but not permit it to enter my heart and mind.

The things I do as I study should drive these words of my Master deeper into my soul, not wear them as as a badge of honor on the surface.  If they have no impact on my life, I have wasted the amazing gift given to me by Master, the gift of His Scriptures, the gift given to His children across this globe.  And it is a gift that so many of His children do not have a chance to enjoy.  How can I neglect such an amazing gift?  I live in a land where I have no excuse and have an education that is supposed to impel me even more.  Time to grab the SCUBA gear and pen; I'm diving in!

I Am Uber-Conquerer Through the One Loving Me

One of my favorite passages in Scripture is all of Romans 8.  I'm not alone in this, because this is true for my wife as well.  We have fond memories of growing tied to it as well as deep meaning.  It ends with the declaration of victory through Jesus in verses 31 through 39.  In verse 37 Paul says, "But in all these we are 'uber-conquerers' through the One having loved us."  And yes, he does use a compound word combining "conqueror" with "over", so "uber-conqueror" is a valid translation even though it invokes current slang, ironically borrowed word from German.  Our two languages share a lot of words, so it works.

I like the victory plan or basis.  I am an uber-conqueror because of the One loving me, not because of me.  I suffer affliction, anguish, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, and/or sword (at least as Paul puts it in verse 35), but none of these can separate me from the Love of God.  In fact, not only do these fail to separate me from His love, but Paul makes another list to drive home his point; death, life, angels, rulers, present things, future things, hostile powers, height, depth, or any other created thing are all powerless to separate me from the love of God in Christ Jesus. 

Now this does not mean that my devotion never lapses.  I would have only one post to this blog if that were true.  It does not mean that I do not have times where I doubt, or fail to follow through, or become angry with God, or a litany of other things that damage my ability to rely on my Master.  Nothing inhibits His ability to hang on to me.  That is what it means.  So, the difficulties in my day; silly traffic, grumpy customers, family squabbles, and corporate mentalities; all serve to accentuate rather than diminish the love of my Master for His servant.  I am not what I am, a knight and servant, because I was the strongest, or bravest, or because I inherited the position from my dad or something.  I am in the role I am because my Master says I am.

What a relief.  One less thing to worry about, or rather the one thing that means I have nothing to worry about.  If God is for me, who can be against me?  What does the rest of my day really mean if I have already established that the love my Master has for me is as unassailable as He is.  The Judge is my adopted Father, and His Only Son is the Defense Attorney, Who already has been punished in my place.  Yes, this trial is rigged, and in my favor too.  Bring it on!  (queue the "Rocky" Theme while I bounce around with my hands in the air)

Inspired to the Impossible?

Paul refers to some writing familiar to the believers in Ephesus when he quotes, "Awake sleeper, rise from the dead, and the Christ will shine on you."  We don't have that writing.  Chambers uses this passage to point to different types of initiative, the sort inspired by human effort, and the sort inspired by the Spirit of God.  I have to wonder, though, if there really is a part that is mine.

I have had to struggle with seeing myself as powerless over some of my behaviors.  But, at the same time, I have had to take responsibility for them, rather than blame some nameless cause, and simply surrender to these behaviors.  It is a tension with which I sometimes have difficulty.  How can I be both powerless and responsible?  Truly the only reason for the tension is my desire to pass off the blame.  The easy answer is that I, by my own choices and actions, have developed patterns of thinking and behaviors which now have taken over and I am powerless to control.  All that really means is that I must have help changing the behavior and thinking patterns.  I fear dependency, but it is the only way I can be free from these things to which I enslaved myself.

From this I already know my ability to inspire myself is doomed to failure.  So, when is initiative inspired by Jesus, not myself?  When He asks me to do the foolish thing.  The problem is that I have very little problem coming up with my own set of foolish actions, so I have to be careful not to choose something merely because it is foolish, ascribing those things only to Jesus.  Such as, He tells the man with the withered hand to stretch it forth.  The man does and is healed.  On the other hand, Jesus walks by the funeral bier and reaches in to raise the young man from the dead and return him to his mother.  Yet Jesus calls Lazarus forth from the tomb, orders the paralytic to pick up his mat and go on his way, and the blind man to wash in the Pool of Siloam.

The things He asked people to do, if I put myself in the setting, are foolish.  The ones we think of most readily are the ones where Jesus does something; puts mud on the blind man's eyes (twice), touches the dumb man's tongue and puts fingers in his ears, and touches the leper.  There is this mixture of Jesus acting, and Jesus commanding.  So when am I waiting for the command and when am I waiting for the touch?  He commanded lepers to show themselves to the priests and offer the sacrifice Moses commanded, they went and were healed.  Not all lepers were healed the same way.  Which one am I?

When lepers travel to priests they venture to that place where they will suffer the most.  When a blind man has to navigate the narrow and noisy streets of Jerusalem to find a pool, he endangers himself.  When a man has a shameful deformation indicating, as everyone tells him, that he has sinned before God, why would he want to stretch it forth?  Jesus asked them to do the foolish thing.  The rich he told to sell everything, give it to the poor, and follow Him.  Not everyone was willing to do the foolish thing.  How willing will I be?

If I am willing, I will see the impossible happen, and Jesus will get credit.  If I attempt the impossible at the command of my Master, it will be clear that it cannot be me accomplishing it (hence the impossible adjective).  If it can't possibly be me, then it must be Jesus.  But if I attempt the foolish thing without His prompting, then I get the credit, whether I achieve the foolishness or it turns out for my benefit.  So I must listen for the voice of God, again; or rather, still.

So, I have heard, "Wait, worship, and walk before Me."  This puts my family in a difficult situation.  We can't tell people what we plan, and we look foolish.  We can't really prepare or we prepare for things we do not know will happen.  Either way, we appear foolish.  Employers want notice, property managers want signed leases, and we want to have closure.  It seems that I will not get what I want from my Master when I want it, but rather what He decides I need when He decides I need it.  He seems to think I do not need to know right now.  It appears what I need right now is the lesson in waiting, worshipping, and walking; and I am powerless to make Him answer sooner.