Living As If Raised Into Something Entirely Different

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investing in the Eternal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knowing the Good Because of the Bad

For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.  For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. (1 Corinthians 11:18,19 NASB)

In our culture, we are trying to get rid of competition.  It's a philosophy that seems to believe that aggression is inherently evil, that aggression comes from competition, and therefore competition must be eliminated to also eliminate the evil aggression.  Ironically, it's not working, not really.  I believe it's another attempt at the enlightenment philosophy which claimed that humanity is reaching/evolving toward a pinnacle in which we will attain perfection.

There are a host of problems with this philosophy which was supposed to have failed in World War II, but continues feebly to try and impose itself on people today.  The search for and the striving to create Utopia is a lot like the building of the Tower of Babel.  Which is a lot like the eating of the forbidden fruit in the Garden.  Which is a lot like children.

The church, or 'collection of those called out of society by their Creator', is supposed to be where the Spirit of our Savior creates this 'Utopia' within a society.  The problem with church has always been the same, the people.  From Paul's day down to our own, the human creatures making up the church have always marred the clarity of the Utopian concept set down in Scriptures.  And yet, there is a 'purpose' to such marring.

Paul, in his statement in verse 19, is probably being ironic or sarcastic toward the congregation.  He's probably both castigating one group and encouraging another, but he still said it.  So, since the Spirit inspired it, what does He mean by it?  I think it's wrong to create an entire 'theology' around any single statement in Scripture, and I'm not going to do so here.  But his statement does seem to correlate with another philosophical position: There is no understanding of light without darkness as a comparison.

I think a philosopher said something like, 'I did not know light until I had experienced darkness' or some such.  The typical application in philosophy is that difficulty in life enhances the enjoyment of the good times.  I believe it's the height of irony when those following such a philosophy turn around and try to rid society of competition.  Does anyone truly 'win' or even succeed if no one loses or fails?  How would we even know or understand the question without both extremes present?

The writer of Ecclesiastes uses this concept as a theme throughout that book.  But in that book, all the success and 'winning' paled after a time (there was no failure - and so it became 'failure'), and he realized that only God gives meaning to success, failure, gain, or loss.  The real reason humans rebel against God is because we realize how we are truly such 'losers' compared to Him.  Who wants to feel that?  Yet, by not accepting that, we then deny ourselves the realization that we are truly 'winners' because of Him as well. 

Selfishly, we want to be winners without Him, apart from our Creator and Savior.  The true evil of humanity is not in what we perpetrate against each other, it's the reason we do so; to add another brick to the tower to heaven.  But our rebellion doesn't change the truth that apart from our Creator we lose.  Our rebellion doesn't change our need to embrace our Savior to win.  Erasing competition, winning and losing from our culture doesn't change that either.  The failures and pains of life will continue to illuminate, in sharp relief only shadow can create, our need for the success and relief provided by our Creator and Savior.  This is where I find the 'faith of a child'; everything is provided to me by my Father.

Who Am I To my God?

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand
or marked off the heavens with the span of his hand?
Who has gathered the dust of the earth in a measure
or weighed the mountains in a balance
and the hills in the scales?
Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord,
or who gave Him His counsel?
Who did He consult with?
Who gave Him understanding
and taught Him the paths of justice?
Who taught Him knowledge
and showed Him the way of understanding?
(Isaiah 40:12-14 HCSB)

One of the frustrating things about Job is that God never answers Job's challenge as to why Job was suffering.  It is a difficult book in which to find a 'comfortable' answer to the problem of evil and suffering in the world.  God's answer to Job is essentially to ask, 'Who are you to ask me anything?' which is not what we want to hear.  It works for Job though, and he is restored.

Here, in Isaiah's word of encouragement to the Jewish Exiles in Babylon, it sounds somewhat similar to God's response to Job, 'who are you to question God?'  The questions sound silly compared to who God truly is and what He's done.  They are supposed to sound silly.  They bring into sharp relief the faith of the people; the lackluster, thin, weary faith of a people tired of their circumstances.

So, God has measured all the waters in the hollow of His hand.  In the day of Isaiah, the world was thought of as table on legs (pillars) and covered by a dome.  But it was surrounded by water.  Think about it, water came from the sky, so there was water up there.  Water could be found by digging deep enough, so there was water below.  There were streams, rivers, and a sea.  Water was everywhere.  So when God holds the 'waters' in His hands, that's more water than we might first imagine.  It rivals the water we know is on the earth today.  The idea is that the hands of God are big hands.

God has marked off the heavens with the span of His hand.  So that dome over the earth He hammered out in creation, He measures it with the space between His pinky and thumb spread out, a span.   But we know the 'heavens' to be much larger than a dome over the earth.  We've renamed it 'the universe' and it is immeasurably huge.  I don't think the imagery needs adjusting though.  I suspect that using the imagery of the universe being God's 'desk decoration' would fit nicely into the point the writer is trying to make here.

He has measured the mountains, the dust, and hills in scales.  Again, God is unbelievably HUGE!

But who has guided Him?  Who has given His Spirit direction or counsel, increased His understanding, taught Him the ways of justice or knowledge, or understanding?  Obviously, no one.  It's a rhetorical question to draw out the silliness of the people's lack of faith; their irreverent questioning of the unknowable One.  Later on, the poet states that God's understanding cannot be measured for depth. 

But the poet is writing to encourage, to lift up, and lead people out of their focus on their circumstances.  He is leading them to turn their focus on their God, their Maker, the One having created all things, including their enemies.  He is posing these questions much in the same way God posed them to Job, to lead him back into faith.  It's as if to say, "I've got you covered, why would you doubt Me?"

So, I read these questions.  I too look at my circumstances.  My biggest issue is that I don't like one particular aspect of my job.  But it's my wilfulness and not the job that is the problem.  My focus has been on me and what I want.  I'm being selfish.  I have excuses for being selfish.  I have plenty of them.  But then I have to ask these questions.  Suddenly, my selfishness stands in stark contrast to my Master's character.  Had He been selfish, He would have left me lost.  But He redeemed me.

So, having been redeemed by the One whose understanding cannot be measured for depth, why would I then be frustrated by an aspect of the job He provided?  Am I smarter than Him?  Should I have counseled Him, or taught Him the way of understanding, or the paths of justice, or anything?  Duh, of course not!  Even asking the question is silly, but my lack of acceptance of what my Master has provided does exactly that.

What I mean is that when I refuse to accept willingly the circumstances provided by my Master, then I ask those very ridiculous questions.  He led me to this place, provided this job as I went, and has kept me in it as I have worked.  But this past year, I have fought it.  I have railed against one particular aspect of this job and convinced myself that is is not in my character to do it.  What am I thinking?! Seriously?

How can I charge that an aspect of the job given to me by the One having created me and shaped my character, the One constantly changing me, metamorphing me more into the image of His Son, gave me a job that is inconsistent with my character?  Really?  I know more about that than He does?  I know enough about the purpose and direction He is taking me that I know this is the wrong job?  And I know this because there is only one aspect I don't like.  You see how amazingly ridiculous I'm being about my job? 

I will accept my job.  I will take on the spiritual discipline of my job, all it requires, and I will learn to love it, and through it, my Master more deeply.  I will start today, hour by hour, and do the thing I'd rather not do.  I will do it in the afternoon's when I'm tired, the mornings when I'm sharp, the mid-day when I'm ready for something else, and the end of the day when I'm having trouble seeing the point.  I will do it.  I will do it for my Master Who gave it to me; Who blessed me with it, and sees a purpose in it.  I will do it.  To me, that is faith; small and somewhat petty, but faith.

Wait of The World

Why do you say, O Jacob, and assert, O Israel,
   "My way is hidden from the LORD, And the justice due me escapes the notice of my God"?
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth
  Does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable.
He gives strength to the weary, And to him who lacks might He increases power.
Though youths grow weary and tired, And vigorous young men stumble badly,
Yet those who wait for the LORD Will gain new strength;
  They will mount up with wings like eagles, They will run and not get tired,
  They will walk and not become weary.  

(Isaiah 40:27-31 NASB)

I 'stylistically' broke up the above passage into some sort of poetic structure.  The meter is lost in translation, and the parallelism is obscured somewhat.  I went through and connected the poetic parallels to a degree (there are overlapping elements I didn't 'map').  And I peered into the message the writer was sending to his audience on behalf of his Master.  Strangely enough, I learned some things:

1. The people of God complain (even today) about Him.
2. The complaints of God's people are expressions of thin faith or no faith.
3. The qualities of the God of Israel refute the complaints of His people.
4. Two of those qualities, endurance and the source of endurance in people, form the focus of this message.
5. Even those expected to outlast everyone come to the end of themselves at some point.
6. Those relying of the God of Israel never do.

These are the surface things, clearly stated and supported by the parallelism and comparisons of the passage.  But then I add myself to the passage; I am the complainer, I am the one tiring out and fatiguing.  And I am the one with thin faith.

The question beginning this passage is an excellent one, "Why complain?"  Why would I complain about my Master?  What circumstances could I be in that would refute or even disparage His eternal qualities and promises?  What has He done that is not sufficient for me?

The 'audience' of this passage reside in exile from their homeland.  They are captives and cannot return.  If they did, they would return to rubble and ruin.  They were 'waiting' on their deliverance, and it was slow in coming.

This is not my circumstance.  My life is ridiculously good, hilariously so.  And yet, my problems still obscure my view of my Master's eternal qualities.  How can this be?

My view is obscured because I focus on me.  The litmus test is my perspective, my feelings, my thoughts, my attitudes, and my actions.  When all those things within my boundaries become my 'world' I will complain about my Master.  I complain because all those things are insufficient to accomplish anything but to point out how insufficient I am to deal with this world. 

Hopefully, I wake up quickly, refocus on my Master, and gain that sustaining perspective found only with my Master.  I'm not waiting on my 'deliverance', I'm waiting on my Master.  Paul can say that he can do all things through Christ who strengthens him because of his focus on his Master.  That's the only way.  And so it is for me.  Will I be distracted by my circumstances and complain, or will I wait expectantly on my Master and mount up as if I were an eagle?  I'm ready for some 'flight time'!

Adrift in a Sea of Tranquility?

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

This is a familiar passage.  It fits in the middle of Paul's discussion of love in one of his letters to a church in Corinth, and that discussion fits within a larger discussion of the place of various gifts of the Holy Spirit and how they were to be used in the context of a church.  So this is a kernel within a kernel; a 'heart' if you will.

When I read this, I can't help seeing all my faults and immediately start trying to justify and explain myself.  I'm suddenly an adolescent again, and it's the 'shark tank' of high school all over again.  You may have a different response.  Whatever your response, I have a suggested one, one that just dawned on me this morning, one I don't remember having before.

Read just this all at once without stopping or thinking about the individual pieces (there's no period until verse 7 anyway).   Don't think about yourself, think about what this would look like if you were to see it.  Think about someone with these qualities.  You may first have to get through the images of 'pansy', 'weakling', and 'idiot', but once through those, what do you see?

I see something really amazing.  After the 'dust' of fighting, fear, and anger settles is this person who remains unperturbed in middle of it all.  The last lone survivor; the very picture of tranquility when all is chaos around them.  But the picture is really a 'video' for when the dust settles, this tranquil person begins binding the wounded, and comforting the hopeless, even the ones who persecuted and tormented them.

The only way I can imagine this as a possibility is to think that such a person does not see the world as we see it, but rather as a small part of a larger whole of the Kingdom of my Master.  Then these 'acts of war' are understood as mere teacup tempests.  But what my King has done for us overshadows all the darkness dispelling whatever obscures and casts wicked shadows.

Imagine waiting patiently, not provoking those who provoke us, not remembering wrongs suffered, covering everything, believing everything (choosing to be naive), never loosing hope, and never giving up.  It sounds foolish, like totally opening myself up to the damage others do intentionally or not.  Where are the protective boundaries?  How are these wise decisions that protect myself and my family?

Yet it is a demonstration of unwavering faith in Jesus, and all that He has done for me.  After that, nothing else really matters, like my own boundaries to protect myself, protecting my family, and so on.  It sounds dangerously foolish, but it's not.  Jesus said that no one can be His disciple unless he hate his own family and even his own life.  What do we think He meant by that?

This really unsettles me, disturbs me, and I don't like it at all.  It scares me to expose myself like this to an unfriendly world.  But then there's this tranquility that I really crave at the core.  I really want that.  The way I'm working in this world is wearing me out, and I'm stressed.  I really do crave the peace and tranquility within the chaos this passage describes.  But am I willing to give up my fears in exchange for faith?   Am I willing to trust my Master so implicitly, so thoroughly?  Are you?

My Taunt Is Better Than Your Taunt

The Philistine said to David, "Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?" And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.  The Philistine also said to David, "Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field." 

Then David said to the Philistine, "You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. This day the LORD will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the LORD does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the LORD'S and He will give you into our hands." (1 Samuel 17:43-47 NASB)

There is a lot of debate about the text of chapter 17.  There are plenty of seeming inconsistencies, theories to reconcile them, grousing about whether David was even a real historical figure, and so on.  If it weren't for these controversies, many scholars wouldn't have received their doctorates. 

But one piece which is not so hotly contested because it lacks inconsistency, is documented in the best texts, and fits well in the narrative as a whole are the taunts between David and Goliath.   The giant has been taunting all day, early to late, and no one comes to fight.  Finally out comes some good-looking shepherd boy and he's out of good insults.  But the shepherd's not.

Essentially, the giant said he would feed David to the birds and animals.  David said he was going to give all the Philistines to feed them, oh, and cut off the giant's head.  But David also reveals his motivation. He wants everyone to know, Israelite and Philistine, that the battle belongs to God, and He delivers however He wants.

David turns the issue around on the armies.  It's no longer about giants and swords, bronze and iron.  Now it's about God and those opposed to Him.  Once the battle is framed this way, giants, metal, and numbers no longer matter.  And neither do texts, theories, and archeological evidence.

I learn that the things I face aren't really about what I know or don't.  They aren't about what I can do or can't.  Not even what I want or don't want factors into the things I face each day.  The life I live is about my Master.  In a sense, David proclaimed that he had been crucified with the Messiah, and he no longer lived, but the life he lived he lived in faith in that Messiah having loved him and gave Himself up for him (Galatians 2:20).

As David lived and testified, so it is for me.  Can I stand before giants and assembly and proclaim that it is all about my Master?  Will  I?  What about today?  What about my work day?  Sure, perhaps in the drama, I can stand bold, but what about the daily grind upon my soul?  Can I stand even then?  And this is not about perfection, it's about being consistent, honest, and real.

The major problems in my life are not the crises, but the routines.   I can face the crises in faith, and have repeatedly.  It's the routines that grate on me, but it is also the routines that get the job done, any job.  If I don't face the routines faithfully, then I won't be prepared for the crises (ask a firefighter).  I may endure it, I may even shine during, but I will be working under a handicap I created, my lack of readiness.

I want the fun, the adrenaline, the surge of excitement.  I need to be faithful in the routines so when my Master calls me to stand before the assembly and giants to proclaim that this is all about Him I will be ready to obey.  Practice, practice, practice, small victories to gain more faith for the larger ones.

So today is about the routines, my giant to face.  Today is about doing what I need to do rather than what I want.  Today is about my Master; like every day, including tomorrow, and Saturday, and so on...

Bearding Bears and Lions, Building Faith

Then Saul said to David, "You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but a youth while he has been a warrior from his youth."  But David said to Saul, "Your servant was tending his father's sheep. When a lion or a bear came and took a lamb from the flock, I went out after him and attacked him, and rescued it from his mouth; and when he rose up against me, I seized him by his beard and struck him and killed him.  Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, since he has taunted the armies of the living God."  And David said, "The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine." And Saul said to David, "Go, and may the LORD be with you." (1 Samuel 17:33-37 NASB)

One of the things I did after high school and in the Army was to actually read the Bible for myself.  My parents had given me a very literal translation, and it introduced me to many of the peculiarities and vagaries of Scripture.  There are a lot of these, parts of stories I had heard from nearly infancy that were always left out.  Like David grabbing a lion or bear by the beard and clubbing him to death.  I didn't remember that story that way from the Bible stories I heard when I was young.

I've been to zoos.  I've seen lions.  I've seen the ones with big manes, and I've seen the California mountain lion which has none.  There were lions which once roamed Palestine, I believe now extinct (since the 1800's).  But I also believe they were somewhat like the mountain lions, though some had manes.  In any case, evidence suggests they did exist in David's time, they were often a plague on the populace, and killing one was rare or unheard of.  Except here.

Big cats are often huge, some more than 500lbs, and lions are second only to tigers in size.  Most researchers believe that Eurasian brown bears would have been the best option for bears in Palestine.  Any of these, male or female could easily have been 500lbs.  So, big bears and big cats versus a young guy.  This is one of those instances where it's hard to wrap the mind around such an event (which seems to have happened more than once to David).

David doesn't just fight the bear/lion, he grabs the lamb from the mouth, and when the bear/lion gets angry (go figure), then he grabs the face/neck (whatever is meant by 'beard' in Hebrew, Greek is 'neck') and 'strikes' it.  His list of implements later is a staff and a sling.  I'm guessing the sling was of little use when he had the thing by the neck/face, so I'm going with 'staff' as the weapon used. 

Can you get an image of this?  David goes up and grabs the 'meal' from the animal almost three times his weight.  When it gets mad ('rises ups against him'), he grabs it right near the jaw (the dangerous end) and beats it with his big stick.  This should have been caught on video, it would have redefined 'viral' on YouTube.  If you get a picture of this in your head, you can see why the 9-foot giant in the valley didn't seem all that big of a deal.  A couple of 500lb tooth-and-paw eating machines are a good warm up for a loud-mouthed 9-foot blasphemer with a sword.

The thing is, I'm not sure I'm ready to face the first, even to get ready for the second.  Not that there are many lions or bears where I live, but still, there are things, scary things, that when I face, build my faith in my Master.  Can I face boredom, meaning that I don't get to do what I want, but go ahead and do what I should but don't want to?  Can I face embarrassment, meaning that I do the thing that will draw the derision of others even though it's what my Master commands of me?  Can I face the anger of others, confronting the wrong instead of letting the status quo of sin continue?  Can I humble myself, letting go of my pride in what I know, what I've discovered, and what I've done and exalt others, even in my heart?  Can I?

These are the small animals, the basic faith-testers, not even the big animals or the giants.  Do I have the faith for even these?  These are the 'enemies' I face.  These are the ones I deal with daily, that howl about my day, prowling about my life.  There's no adrenaline, no surge of 'fight-or-flight' reflex, not that much emotion at all.  But there is fear, in each case.  And it is fear that erodes my faith, and therefore fear that must be faced and destroyed.  Obedience is the method, my tools are prayer and Scripture, and my time is now. 

So, Where Was That Spirit From Again?

Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him.  Saul's servants then said to him, "Behold now, an evil spirit from God is terrorizing you.  Let our lord now command your servants who are before you. Let them seek a man who is a skillful player on the harp; and it shall come about when the evil spirit from God is on you, that he shall play the harp with his hand, and you will be well." (1 Samuel 16:14-16 NASB)

On the 14th, I wrote an entry in this blog about what it meant for me that my Master would send an 'evil spirit to torment'.   My conclusion was that all things come from my Master, and therefore I will praise Him more.  It's one thing to say that, and sing nice and lovely to praise my Master more.  But what about when bad things happen?  Oops, hmm, didn't thing about that.

So, while I write a lot of blog entries on theology and philosophy, what I do to put bread on the table is sales.  Part of my struggle with that is that I'm not really a 'salesman'.  I'm really a teacher who teaches people to buy smarter.  Sometimes that works well and in my favor, and sometimes it doesn't.  But it always works in the customers favor.  Because of this, I have developed a long relationship with several of our customers.  Recently my company put forth a company-wide effort to delight our customers.  It hasn't quite trickled down yet.

In my sales department, we have a rule that says that if a sales rep leaves a voicemail with a customer, they own the sales for the next two weeks.  The idea is that we recoup sales lost from customers hearing the message but calling into the general queue without mentioning the rep who left the message or who order online.  This protects the sales credit for the rep who prompted the sale.  Sounds good right?

What happens when my long-time client (seven years!) calls me direct for their annual order, and as I go into their account, I find that one of my teammates has left a message a few days ago?  Now I have a choice.  I can pass off the customer to that sales rep since I don't get credit, and let that guy do all the work.  Or I can  keep the customer, enter the order, but just put the other rep's credit on it; maintaining the relationship but without the benefit.

I have complained about this, and have been shot down every time.  I leave a lot of messages for customers, but I very rarely get much in the way of sales from it.  The idea is that if I leave more messages, I'll get more sales.  I hate that idea.  It does work, just statistically speaking, it has to.  But it's without skill, without relationship, and fails to measure anything but the ability to leave more messages than the next guy.  It drives me nuts.

So, I do two things in protest.  First, I maintain my sales relationships I have with customers to the degree that I can; I enter the orders, even with other reps credit (as I did in this case).  Second, I give those sales away when I have left a message but someone else has an established relationship.  If they get the call back because they have an established relationship, I believe they should get the sale (I'm not as generous when the customer doesn't call them back though).  Both of these things only hurt myself.  But both actions preserve my values.  My values aren't in line with what I do, the rules under which I do them, nor the wishes of my managers.  I hold my values anyway.

But what does this have to do with my Master and sending evil tormenting spirits?  Well, I also believe that while I do a lot of 'planting' and 'watering' of customers and sales processes in my job, it is my Master bringing the results.  If all things are from Him, and He knows all things, then He knew and arranged to have my co-worker leave that message days before my customer called me.  I can get frustrated with the system, I can get frustrated with my co-worker (for doing his job, right, that makes sense), I can get frustrated with my manager; but each of those things is the wrong response.

What I am learning through this is to receive from my Master's hand whatever He decides to give me; when and how He decides to give it.  But also to let go from my hand whatever He wants to take.  If He really brings the sales, than they are His not mine.  Can I let go of what I believe I am entitled to receive?  Can I relent with my Master?  It's one thing to say all things come from Him, it is another to be okay with it.  Can I be okay with it?  "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I shall return.  The Lord gives, and the Lord has taken away, Blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21).

Will I accept this?  Will I still praise my Master when He takes away sales on which I was counting?  Will I, having lost almost nothing compared to Job's loss, say as he said, "Blessed be the Name of the Lord"?  This is where my 'culture' and 'society' influences begin to weaken, and the message of Scripture begins to come home to me.  Yes, I will accept; I will praise my Master; I will bless His name, sing songs of praise all the more intensely, and live out the belief that all things do in fact come from my Master.

Even Prophets Fear Sometimes

Now the LORD said to Samuel, "How long will you grieve over Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have selected a king for Myself among his sons."  But Samuel said, "How can I go? When Saul hears of it, he will kill me." And the LORD said, "Take a heifer with you and say, 'I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.'  You shall invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; and you shall anoint for Me the one whom I designate to you." (1 Samuel 16:1-3 NASB)

"Samuel! You've just confronted King Saul and told him God has rejected him, you've just finished hacking the captured King Agag to pieces before God and the all the elders of Israel.  What are you going to do now?" Somehow, it never works out that the prophet says, "Go to Disneyland!"  Great courage, shown in the work of God, major victory for the righteousness of God, and then comes some sort of wavering of faith.

It's weird, but I do it too.  Samuel faced down Saul and yet now, when God tells him to stop mourning the wayward king and go anoint someone else, Samuel is afraid of Saul.  Why does faith evaporate? Further on in the story, one of my favorites: Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel.  He faces them down, humiliates them, God sends fire, and he and the people slay all the prophets of Baal.  Then he runs away from the Queen who won't even come out to face him.

So, why do great demonstrations of faith in the face of powerful foes wind up followed by demonstrations of fear?  Moses gave every excuse imaginable and some not to be excused from leading the people of God out of Egypt.  It's a character of the prophet that there is this fluctuation between faith and fear, and in some cases, obedience and compromise.  But like I said, I do it too.

The other day, I had a great encouraging meeting with our pastor to discuss the marriage mentoring ministry God is putting together using my wife and I.  That night I can't sleep, and temptation is nearly overwhelming.  The next day, I'm really tired, don't have coffee to make, and have to constantly fight off temptation all day at work.  It was brutal.  What was going on?  Why the fight?  Why all of a sudden do I have this struggle when it hasn't been for almost a year?  Oh yeah, victory and progress against the enemy; he's worried and attacking at full strength.  Duh.

We think if spiritual warfare in terms of casting out demons, but more often than not, it is much closer to daily life.  More often than not, the spiritual warfare I face is the concentrated attacks of the enemy when I'm weak: Hungry, Angry, Lonely, and/or Tired (HALT).  Sometimes temptations are of my own making: wrong place, wrong time, wrong thinking, and compromise of any sort bring them on.  But other times, it's an attack of the enemy, sometimes subtle, and sometimes not.

I suspect that this "mourning of Saul" that Samuel was going through was the wearing on him of the enemy.  He was "sulking" in a sense because he had become attached and invested in who he knew had become a failed king.  It was more than just worrying about what Israel would do for leadership without Saul, it was about mourning a hope and a person.  He was attached to what God did not what He was going to do.

God regretted.  And then He moved on.  Samuel mourned, but couldn't get out of it.  That is why I think he was under the attack of the enemy.  He had just hewed to pieces one of the enemies favorite pawns, King Agag.  His whole nation was unable to be redeemed, they were so under the sway of the evil one.  Of course Samuel was a target; one of revenge.  And for whatever reason, even with all his demonstrations of faith, the attack of the enemy was working.

But God didn't stop using him.  And He won't stop using me, even though I struggled with the old me, the old struggles, the ones that no longer characterize me.  I am not that person, so why does the old thinking and behavior reemerge and threaten to overwhelm me?

I notice something about resurrection and spiritual warfare.  When my Master raises the dead, their new lives are better than the old ones were.  When the enemy raises deadness, old ways and thinking, it is more like a zombie; neither alive, but not yet dead.  The resurgence of the old ways should be expected as this new ministry progresses.  And I need to remember two important things: 1) this is normal, all people of great or small faith encounter these struggles when things are good; 2) it is the enemy using my dead nature, not the 'real me'.

Sometimes, in my life, I have found that the best tactic in spiritual warfare is re-framing my circumstances in their correct spiritual warfare 'frame'.  Once I admit what I'm going through is spiritual warfare and not what I suspect it is, the energy and power goes out of it.  The enemy tries to hand me a 'frame' to use in understanding my experiences, and I too willingly take it; "it's their fault", "it's my fault", "it's about who's at fault", "it's hard", "it's scary", "what if ___", on and on.  When I'm able to re-frame what's happening as an attack of the enemy ("this is not from my Master", "this is the enemy", "this is not who I am", etc.) I can feel the energy level change, and peace comes.

The real indicator is that the 'frames' of my Master bring peace, and the 'frames' of the enemy destroy peace with fear and confusion.  So, perhaps the most powerful tool of spiritual battle is a spiritual 'framing hammer', big, heavy, cross-hatched head, long handle, you know the kind.  Used in prayer and study of the Bible, such a 'hammer' can demolish the frames of the enemy, and construct frames based on my Master's views.  Now, where's my tool belt and hard hat?  I've got some frames to replace...

Faith Versus Courage: What Wins the Battles

Then Jonathan said to the young man who was carrying his armor, "Come and let us cross over to the garrison of these uncircumcised; perhaps the LORD will work for us, for the LORD is not restrained to save by many or by few." His armor bearer said to him, "Do all that is in your heart; turn yourself, and here I am with you according to your desire." (1 Samuel 14:6-7 NASB)

Then Saul said to Ahijah, "Bring the ark of God here." For the ark of God was at that time with the sons of Israel.  While Saul talked to the priest, the commotion in the camp of the Philistines continued and increased; so Saul said to the priest, "Withdraw your hand."  Then Saul and all the people who were with him rallied and came to the battle; and behold, every man's sword was against his fellow, and there was very great confusion. (1 Samuel 14:18-20 NASB)

As I read 1 Samuel 14, the whole of it turns on this concept of courage and faith.  In combat, courage is not a luxury, it's a necessity.  But courage is not as simple as just being able to charge the machine gun nest and be shot.  Courage means doing what you fear to do, not what your brain tells you is ridiculous to do.  Sometimes it's faith that inspires the ridiculous.

I pulled the two passages above because both introduce engaging the enemy, and both demonstrate courage (even the second one).  But one demonstrates faith where the other does not.  The success of the battle was determined by faith, not courage.

The setting is that 600 Israelites are in Geba and Gibeah, facing 30,000 Philistines; so the odds are lopsided in the extreme.  Raiding parties have gone out looking for the Israelites (like recon-by-fire) because they've hidden in crags, holes and so on.  The Philistines know the people are out there, just no idea where.  So, it's not really a stalemate, it's more like a lull before the Philistine "boot" crushes Israel.

So, in the midst of this "lull", Jonathan and his "armor bearer" decide to engage the Philistine garrison on their own.  The reason is Jonathan figures numbers aren't really a problem for God.  That's his reasoning, even though it's ridiculous, from a military standpoint, for two people to take on an entire garrison.  But his reasoning derives from his faith, so, from a military standpoint, two people walk with the army of the Maker of the heavens and the earth.  Now the odds are still lopsided, but the other way. 

That's faith: to see the "unseen" and be sure of it in the face of what is seen.  Again courage faces fear, real or imagined.  Faith discerns what is unseen and walks in confidence.  Sometimes faith looks like wisdom, sometimes it looks like extreme foolishness.  Sometimes it takes courage to move belief to faith (belief in action). 

Saul realizes the Philistines have been engaged, but not how.  He musters the troops (600-2) and discovers his son and his armor bearer are gone, so now he knows how.  Then he calls for the Ark to inquire of God (possibly he calls for the priest with the Ephod...long story).  But when the battle grows he decides he has enough to go on, and calls the 598 to follow him in joining the battle against the 30,000.

This still takes courage.  It's still extremely lopsided odds on the surface.  I'm pretty sure Saul wanted to know if he should engage the enemy.  But then he figured that the momentum of battle was already there, so he needed to act quick to keep it in his favor.  It makes sense from a military standpoint.  In fact it made sense to those who had run away, and those who had joined their enemies as well.  The people came from their hidy-holes, and even those in the Philistine camp rejoined Israel in the battle switching sides...again, as it were. 

Joining the battle as it had clearly turned against the Philistines at that point was a no-brainer.  Everyone got in on it, but they knew Jonathan had started it.  It was clear that the faith of one brought the victory, not the 600 in Gibeah, not the return of those in hiding, and not the return of the unfaithful among Philistines.  Courage was displayed on the part of many, but faith was displayed by one.  Courage didn't bring victory, it was faith.  Okay, it's possible to see it as courageous faith, but it is still faith in its essence, not courage.

So what do I learn?  I learn that reasoning, sound foundational principles of leadership, finance, and planning are not the keys to success.  They are important, and I don't discount them; I have skills in all of them.  But the key to success is reckless abandon to my Master in faith; belief in action.  So when I'm faced with extremely lopsided odds to accomplish the work of my Master, I don't need to "figure it out" using foundational principles.  I need to act on my belief that the Master of the universe leads me into the fray.

Stubborn Student, Stubborn Teacher

Now the Philistines took the ark of God and brought it from Ebenezer to Ashdod.  Then the Philistines took the ark of God and brought it to the house of Dagon and set it by Dagon.  When the Ashdodites arose early the next morning, behold, Dagon had fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of the LORD. So they took Dagon and set him in his place again.  But when they arose early the next morning, behold, Dagon had fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of the LORD. And the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off on the threshold; only the trunk of Dagon was left to him.  Therefore neither the priests of Dagon nor all who enter Dagon's house tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod to this day. (1 Samuel 5:1-5 NASB)

Being stubborn is sometimes an admirable trait.  Sometimes being stubborn is indomitable,  sometimes abominable; it all depends on what isn't being given up.  Chapter's 5 and 6 in 1 Samuel depict a stubborn people, victorious in battle, but losers on the religious front - and stubborn losers at that.

From the inside looking out, the Philistines just seem silly.  They hold onto their belief in Dagon even though he winds up face down before the captured box of Israel.  They believe this box represents the God worshiped in Israel, and they see what happens to their idol when in the presence of the box, but still persist in worshiping an inferior god.  Why is that?  It seems silly, at least from the inside of the people of God looking out and those on the outside.

From the outside, when the culture and cultures around the Philistines are honestly considered, it makes a bit more sense.  The gods of nations holding to "pantheons" of gods aren't burdened with certain assumptions about their gods.  First off, they don't assume gods are "all-powerful" or omnipotent.  This is partly because there are many gods and a hierarchy among their ranks.  Then there is also the belief that certain gods are responsible for various things in the world, and they use those things against each other occasionally.  They fight amongst each other.  They lie, cheat, steal, and are like people in many ways, just really powerful ones.

So, in that context, being "wrong" only means for that moment.  Dagon beat this Israelite god in battle, otherwise they wouldn't have the box, right?  So Dagon being face down twice isn't an indicator that there is One God, or that this God is more powerful than the others necessarily, at least not for them.  It may mean that this foreign god was able to get the best of their local deity a few times; "the best out of three falls and all that."  It could mean several things that didn't necessitate belief that Dagon wasn't real or that he wasn't powerful enough to be worshiped, or that the Philistines should abandon their ways and gods and join Israel (the people couldn't even win a battle with their god among them - why join them?).

Sometimes, I'm a slow learner.  I keep banging my head against a wall, confused by my headache.  Why isn't what I'm doing working?  Perhaps I should just keep at it.  On the flip side, persistence in obedience to my Master seems so...difficult.  When I don't see the results I want, I use the pragmatic American philosophy and try something else that "works".  Why is it so easy to be stubborn with the wrong things, and hard to be stubborn with the right things?

But this account of the Philistines and the gold box of Israel continues.  Plagues are inflicted on the city holding the Ark of the Covenant.  Then they move it because, "...His hand is severe on us and on Dagon our god."  The next town suffers the same, and the third, and so on.  For seven months they continue to move and the plagues move with the box.  Finally they decide to give it back to Israel.  This God of Israel is persistent, even with students who persistently don't get it.

I believe that my Master was working with the Philistines to get their attention and lead them to Himself.  I believe He did that with the Egyptians as the Israelites tried to leave with Moses.  I believe that He does that repeatedly throughout Scripture with foreign peoples.  And He doesn't give up either.  There are lots of examples of God using Israel to reach Philistines, Edomites, Amonites, Syrians, Phoenicians, even Babylonians and Persians.  His work with foreign powers is fairly consistent.  So why this persistence?

Again, I believe that these are examples in the Hebrew Scriptures of my Master's grace toward other peoples besides Israel.  They weren't chosen, but they were shown grace.  There is a desire on the part of my Master to relate to these peoples.  In some cases the Chosen People were a hindrance, in others they were the messengers; much like church today.  The grace of my Master hasn't diminished, and while culminated in Jesus and His death, burial, and resurrection, it didn't start there; and it doesn't end there either.  One day, examples these peoples whom my Master has tried to reach for thousands of years will stand before Him together with His chosen people.

So the question is two-fold.  Am I willing to learn from my Master?  And am I willing to be a messenger rather than a hindrance?  It's amazing how closely linked those two are.  It helps to have the first one answered before working on the second part.  So, back to school for me, as I apprentice to the Maker of Stars and Tracer of quarks.  Hmmm, where's my slide rule?

The Hard Road Back

But while the disciples stood around him, he got up and entered the city. The next day he went away with Barnabas to Derbe.  After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God."  When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14:20-23 NASB)

Difficulty after difficulty, after difficulty, and yet Paul and Barnabas still go back through the way they came.  This is interesting for a rather obscure reason.  On a map, these two wound up in Derbe, which is really on the road to Antioch where they started.  It would have been shorter to go to Tarsus (where Paul was actually from), and then a short trip back to Antioch.  But they didn't.  They took the much longer route back the way they came; back through all the trouble they had experienced.

Why do that?  Why not move on?  The answer obviously lies in what they did as they passed back through.  They did the following: 1) Strengthened their souls, 2) Encouraged endurance in their faith, 3) Appointed elders, 4) Commended them to the Lord.  This was so important that it was necessary to risk their lives, and civil unrest to do so?  Yes, it seems it is.  So, in our culture and the churches within it, does this seem like a huge motivating factor?  Do people seem ready and committed to strengthen souls, encourage endurance in faith, to support leadership, and commend their fellows to the Lord with prayer and fasting?  Or are we more interested in our own petty squabbles?

Even if some were willing and interested in those four things, would they risk their lives for it?  To my shame, I would have to say probably not.  I include myself in this because I don't know if it has been my track record either.  In my church, I should be so focused on these four things I should be willing to risk my life to do them.  I should be willing to put myself in danger to encourage the faith of people, to strengthen the souls who attend, to support leadership, and in prayer and fasting, commend my brothers and sisters to my Master.  This should be something I do, not because I'm a pastor (because I'm not), but because I follow my Master and want the things He considers to be important to be important to me. 

Consider how different church would be if these four things characterized those who attend.  Let's forget membership for a moment.  Let's consider instead a level of commitment characterized by activity.  Forget the rolls and lets examine the "roles".  What if those walking through the doors had these four things at heart?  There are a lot of problems in churches today, finances, internal personality conflicts, relational stress, and response to cultural pressure to conform to America instead of Scripture.  So, what would these problems look like if these four priorities were common among those showing up for worship and all the other stuff that goes on throughout the week?

Well, finances wouldn't be a problem.  Giving is a heart and faith issue, not an economic issue.  If these four things were the priority, there would have to be faith necessary to give.  Besides, leadership can't truly be supported by those unwilling to give.  The heart that withholds is adversarial towards leadership, often perceived as "grasping" and dangerous (ironically, by grasping dangerous people).

Internal personality conflicts and relational stress would be almost non existent or short-lived.  How can people characterized by prayer and fasting for each other be at eachother's throats?  Think about what sort of conflicts would arise if those involved were motivated first by strengthening the souls and encouraging the faith of those with whom they were in conflict?  They'd be over things like being of service to them, breaking down barriers of pride to permit fellowship and service, standing strong in facing a crisis in faith.  I would welcome those conflicts!  Bring them on!  These would be conflicts where we would be fighting to face the enemy united as the body of our Master.

What about cultural pressure?  A church characterized by these four motivating factors would stand and face those pressures in strength of numbers in faith.  No problem.  Scripture would be held high and studied vigorously for the truths revealed by the Spirit.  The Spirit of the Living God would rule against the feeble abilities of human reason and philosophies.  It would be a simple thing with these four things in place to perceive the difference between the perspectives of our Master and the conflicting views of our culture.  We would be driven to divide the two very widely in our lives and in our church.

I suppose, in all of this, I have some work to do.  First in my own life.  Prayer and fasting is not something to take lightly, and it is not something done to address a light problem.  As it turns out, these attitudes are actually part of a conflict I see brewing in my own church tomorrow.  My church is on the brink of making an enormous mistake from which we may not be able to recover.  The Master of the universe seeks obedient people to use to do His work, and I don't think He's finding enough of them in our congregation.  The leadership of our church needs to address this issue in a united fashion.  Man I hate missing meals.  Oh well.  Perhaps going into this conflict hungry will help tone down my emotions.  They're running pretty high right now.

No, Seriously, What's Really Bothering You?

Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.  And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him, saying, "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them." (Acts 11:1-3 NASB)

When Jesus ministers on earth, several of his most poignant services are to Gentiles.  For instance, Matthew records the centurion who came to Jesus asking that his servant be healed, but only that Jesus say so, not that he come to the centurion's house.  Jesus makes an interesting comment in this account (Mat. 8:11-12) where He says that "many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness"

You might be led to believe that Jesus was referring to Gentiles.  After all, the context was His comment on the faith of a Gentile.  Yet, we find that Jesus' disciples seem to miss this reference, even after His resurrection, after the filling by the Spirit on Pentecost, and after Jesus tells them to spread His good news to the ends of the earth.  So, why the confusion?  Perhaps it lies in that there was an assumption that the disciples carried with them as they heard these words, saw these things, and looked around them to follow suit.

Those in Jerusalem in this passage are referred to as "the circumcision" (literally, "the ones from out of circumcision").  It is an odd designation to give to disciples in Jerusalem.  It gives the impression that it doesn't refer to all of the disciples, but to some.  Yet weren't they all Jews?  Why refer to some of them as "from out of circumcision"?  I suspect that this group was marked by views that were specifically tied to this distinguishing feature of Judaism.  It was one of two that marked Jews distinctly from the people around whom they lived.

When they hear of Gentiles receiving the word of God, they go to Peter, but ask a different question.  It's not that Gentiles heard the word of God.  It's not that Gentiles had faith in Jesus.  Their issue is that Peter ate with the Gentiles.  He had crossed a line of demarcation between the Jews and Gentiles.  He had ignored a separation that this group held sacred.  An assumption is revealed:  To come to God through Jesus, one must first be a Jew.  Peter's testimony reveals that God has accepted these Gentiles as they are without requiring them to separate from the rest of the Gentile world into Judaism.  Suddenly the comment made by Jesus that many would come from the east and west and that the children of the Kingdom would not takes on a more dire meaning.

Two thousand years later, it's easy to look back at these people and scoff.  But don't I do that?  Don't I assume that my Master only accepts people like me?  Seriously, if I don't go to all sorts of people, (and I live around all sorts of people) then am I really declaring that my Master calls and draws people of all sorts?  Or is it that I really want to reach people like me, people in my comfort zone who are easy for me to talk with?  It is difficult for me to say that I believe as Jesus said, that many will come from all over (east and west, not just west) and dine in the Kingdom of my Master, yet withhold myself from those from all over.

I admit that I hear of the work of my Master and rejoice.  That's good.  These of the circumcision didn't, so I'm better off right?  And this issue isn't over for them, they cause trouble over and over throughout Acts.  So, I'm totally better off, am I not?  I'm not.  I'm can't speak for you, but I can tell you that I haven't gone to the weird people around me.  I can tell you that those around whom I'm not comfortable, I keep quiet about the amazing truth in which I live.  Jesus, the Maker and Sustainer of this universe, loves me.  But He loves them too.  They need to know that.  They may reject the knowledge, but they need to at least hear it to reject it.  I've kept quiet.  Shame on me.

Warming Up the Light Bulb

While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you.  But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself." (Acts 10:19-20 NASB)

And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.  That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me." (Acts 10:28-29 NASB)

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." (Acts 10:34-35 NASB)

  In our culture, we say that "the light bulb finally went on" to mean that we finally understood something.  It's an idiom that comes from the invention of the light bulb by Thomas Edison.  What is implied, but often missed is that understanding is often progressive.  Thomas Edison didn't just invent the light bulb while working on something else.  He had tried many times and eventually came up with the right mixture of elements and circumstances to make the filament glow.  Sometimes, that is how my understanding of my Master seems to happen.  Peter seems to have experiences like that as well.

The word translated "misgivings" in verse 20 is a Greek compound word of the preposition "through" and the verb "to judge".  In other words, the Holy Spirit didn't want Peter to decide through his own judgment whether to go with the men or not.  Peter had not "turned the corner" yet in his understanding of the vision he just had, so he was being prompted in his progress.  He asks the men at the gate, "why are you seeking me?"  He is seeking to progress his own understanding.  He wants the light bulb to go on.  But it doesn't just yet.

Once he reaches Cornelius' house, he still is not quite clear except that he is supposed to be there, the Holy Spirit said so.  So, he again seeks some clarity.  He asks for the context of this summons.  He wants the puzzle pieces he is missing.  He seeks the glowing filament.  Yet, it glows faintly already.  Peter says that he has been told not to call "any man unholy or unclean."  The bulb glows faintly because he has attached his vision of animals for food to people for association.  He has made that much of the connection, but he is still missing some parts to the puzzle.  How far will God take this acceptance of Gentiles?

The account details that Cornelius gives Peter completes his picture to a degree (more comes before he finishes his sermon).  As much understanding as he has, the light bulb glows.  Now he is able to understand that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob now accepts the sons of Ham and Japheth.  It was difficult to finally understand and accept, but Peter finally reaches that conclusion.

How often am I so in the dark about the character of my Master that I miss what He is doing around me?  How long does it take for the light bulb to go on over my head?  Why does it take so long sometimes?  And what can I do to help it along in the progression?  Well, first off, way too often unfortunately.  Sometimes however long it takes to finally discuss something with a fellow believer.  Usually because I really like my own ideas, and am not really ready to test them with others.  Currently I have a group to field this stuff with so I have fellow believers who evaluate my opinions and help me gain clarity.  But that only helps for some things.

There are other pieces of understanding that only come through obedience to the part I do know.  Peter had to obey by going with the strangers in order to discover the rest of the story.  If he didn't leave Joppa until he had a complete picture, he never would have left.  I have to obey the parts I do know in order to reach a better understanding of the pieces I don't.  Sometimes it will be in retrospect, sometimes in the midst of the obedience, sometimes it won't come at all.  Since my understanding really is the progression of my Master revealing His character and will to me, I only get as much as He wants me to know.

So the combination of seeking the wisdom of others and obedience to the part I know makes up my progression to "illumination".  For the light bulb to go on for me, I need help, and I need to be faithfully obedient in the progression.  I need to let the bulb warm up some times.  And I have to be willing to accept as much light as my Master gives me.  It bewilders and shames me that I am so content to be so dim sometimes.  Time to jump in and mix it up!  Get dirty and discover more truth!  Weee!

The Real Trial of Stephen

But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55-56 NASB)

Stephen stood before a council of the elders of his people, a crowd made up of those jealous of him, and sprinkled with those paid to lie about him. He is on trial. It looks grim, even from the beginning. The charges are false, yet not far enough from the truth that he going to be acquitted. And the council of elders has hated and been jealous of his fellow believers for months now. This will not end well for Stephen. Except that this is not the real court scene.

The council of leaders imagines themselves to be the judges. The throng of haters imagine themselves to be the jury. The lying witnesses imagine themselves to be the only proof either way. And they are all wrong.

It isn't until after the discourse of Stephen stripping the people and leaders of any pretext of being "godly" sons of Israel or true worshippers of God. Once the leaders and people are whipped to a burning hot fury that the true courtroom scene is revealed to Stephen, and therefore to us. Sealing his fate, he shares it with all the others in the room. Rather than hear reality, they rush him and take his life, ironically in the form of a judicial capital punishment.

Stephen is fully in tune with the Spirit of his Master, and sees the real courtroom. God is the Judge, and Jesus stands at the right hand of the Judge as Defense Attorney. God is Stephen's judge, and the Son of God is his Defense Attorney? This trial hasn't been lost, but won in a complete reversal. Stephen is shown his victory, heaven. He has acted in faith in what he hadn't seen so far, but knew in his heart. At the end, after his obedience, he sees the object of his faith revealed.

The wicked unjustly execute the righteous, and inadvertently, send him to reap his reward. Oops. Wait, no, but Stephen died, horribly crushed and battered by large stones. That's bad, isn't it? No, it just hurt for a little while.

Stephen saw the heaven opened. He saw his destination. These evil deluded ones around him were the pawns of Stephen's Master to bring him home. Stephen was bound to the feet of the One before all will bow and confess as Lord to the glory of God the Father. It was the kangaroo court, the mock trial, the flim-flam crooked job that provided his vehicle. Those who imagined themselves to be in control were in turned controlled by the One truly in control.

Now, the question for me is, can I stand, and, in faith, face the angry crowd unjustly accusing me? Will I speak the words of my Master rather than the words of my own defense? Will I seek His glory above where He stands to defend me beside His Father? Will I speak with the confidence that heaven is real, and waits for me to arrive? Do I truly believe that my destination makes all things I endure and face here mere trivia? Can I stand as Stephen stood, face the crowd he faced, and speak as he spoke?

Yes...and no. Yes, in a way, knowing the end, I can face intense adversity when challenged. But honestly, Stephen demonstrates daily faith in power before he is ever on trial. That's where I struggle and fail the most. In the daily battle to maintain my focus and determination. Where my heart is the determining factor in continuing to do what I find tiresome and pointless, that is where my faith tends to wear thin. The problem is that I have lost the "point" to a lot of what I do during the day.

I work at a job where mental flexibility and gymnastics is critical. That is also my strong point. But it is in between those times where I need that mental acuity where I struggle. In order to get to those times, I have a boatload of small repetitive tasks that have to be accomplished in a flurry of activity. Because I fail so often to connect those in importance with the things I love to do, I flag in my determination to do them. They become tiresome, and boring, and "pointless". They are not, but I begin to perceive them that way. Not at first, but rapidly, about the fifth or so task.

Stephen daily lived out the power of his faith, performed signs and wonders, not of himself, but of his Master. His life was headed for this mock trial, but he lived daily only in the light of his Master's face. What I need is that daily focus. The "tasks" are the things I do in the light of my Master's face. They may not seem like "signs and wonders", but when I am able to touch the life of someone and bring the light of my Master's face into their world, that is a sign and wonder in itself. These tasks I struggle with so much are not for my manager or company, or even for my clients. They are for my Master, the real Master I serve. They are not empty tasks, but opportunities; opportunities I have been missing way too often.

Ready To Be Healed?

Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the ninth hour, the hour of prayer.  And a man who had been lame from his mother's womb was being carried along, whom they used to set down every day at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, in order to beg alms of those who were entering the temple.  When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms.   But Peter, along with John, fixed his gaze on him and said, "Look at us!"   And he began to give them his attention, expecting to receive something from them.   But Peter said, "I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene -- walk!"   And seizing him by the right hand, he raised him up; and immediately his feet and his ankles were strengthened.   With a leap he stood upright and began to walk; and he entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God. (Acts 3:1-9 NASB)

It's been a while since my last post.  Vacation and the length of time it takes me to push through passages in the Christian Scriptures have limited my free time unfortunately.  But that isn't all.  Sometimes I just haven't been intentional in making the time.  It's not impossible for me to make shorter entries as I work through a passage rather than only longer ones after I've completed it.

I wonder if I need to be more like the lame man in this account.  There are a few things about his response to Peter and what happens to him that make me wonder about him.  For instance, he gets up.  Peter takes him by the hand, not the whole body.  The man tries to stand.  This attempt to stand works, but I wonder if it's his first time trying.  Am I trying to "stand" in my spiritual life?  Have I given up?  Is "Peter" just on his way, it's the hour of prayer, and I'm in my routine, will I be ready to stand?

The other thing I note is his response.  Sure he leaps up when Peter pulls his hand and his ankles and feet become strong, but he keeps leaping as he walks, praising God.  So, when my Master reaches into my life and changes the thing I clearly can't, do I just then saunter off happy to be free of the "burden" or whatever?  Where's the celebration?  Where's the self-degrading celebration of praise to my Master?  Or do I just not want to make a stir with my problem, and then not make a scene with my cure?  So, God works in my life and I just keep the event to myself?  Is that the purpose of my Master?

As I imagine this lame-from-birth beggar, something in this guy's life never came to terms with his lame feet.  He was never able to accept it.  But unlike so many who claim that attitude, I don't believe he stopped trying to fight it.  He stood when Peter took his hand.  He had been lame from birth, why would he know to do that?  I suspect he'd been trying.  Something in himself would not accept himself in that condition.  So, when the day of his healing came, he was ready; his expectant hope was fulfilled.

I suppose if every lame beggar in Jerusalem were healed, then I could use this as a formula for healing and restoration, but they weren't.  This was the Spirit of God in the life of this particular lame beggar.  He was born this way so when this day came, his Maker would be glorified.  So, while I can't form a "theology of healing" from this, what I can do is form a model of faith.  The expectant hope of this man was fulfilled.  Faith is built on such hope (Hebrews 11:1).

So, what's the faith model?  The man tried when pulled.  I know that much.  I may not know what attempts he made before that moment, but I do know he tried when pulled.  He was ready enough to leave his condition that he took the offered hand and used useless legs to rise.  I can only surmise what sort of condition he was in, or what practices he had practiced leading up to this time.  So, they're not the formula, the formula, the lesson, is in the inspired piece, the fact he stood when pulled.

The application from the lesson is that when my Master pulls me, I take hold that for which I have been taken hold of, and press on (Philippians 3:12-14).  This was a temporal healing at a point in a man's life, but he was celebrating praising God.  It was also a movement toward the heavenward call.  When my Master pulls me, isn't He pulling me heavenward?  Shouldn't I also leap and praise Him?  He's pulling me, who am I to be pulled by the One forming stars?  Why should I not stand?  Why would I not be willing to rise?  Legs, or heart, or mind, or hands, what of mine have I given up on?  That is not acceptable, not when I have this clear example that I am being called heavenward by my Master.  There is no excuse for giving up, it's never too hard, I am to rise when pulled, and leap and praise once raised.  Pardon me while I stretch some creaky joints; it's not the age, it the lack of use...shame on me.

How to Face a Tough Quest

Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he owned, "Please place your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live,
 but you will go to my country and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son Isaac." (Genesis 24:2-4 NASB)

The servant is never named, but according to an earlier chapter, Abraham has one in his household who will inherit his possessions if Abraham never had children.  This could be the same guy.  If so, the servant is from Damascus, and not from the region to which he is being sent.  Abraham came from a place called Haran, but when the servant gets there, the name has changed to Nahor, another brother of Abraham.

So the information that Abraham is able to provide to his servant is dated, and much will have changed (not just the name).  The hope here is that just as news of his family reached him in Hebron, he will have some idea of what his servant is to expect here.  Even so, this is going to be a difficult task.  The only way to be free from the oath is if he finds someone and she will not return with him.  He still needs to find someone.

Where do you start something like this?  Besides just traveling to the region, some sort of approach needs to be decided on to achieve success.  The impression from the servants chosen approach is that he had no idea of names.  That would seem strange since at least Bethuel was mentioned to Abraham in Hebron.  But without knowing the status of families, who's still alive, who's well regarded or not regarded at all, it may not be safe to just go around asking after a family.  Besides, this servant may not know the customs and practices of this region.  Who knows?

But, it could be that, among all the other pragmatic approaches open to the servant, he still decides to throw the whole thing into the lap of the God of his master.  If that were the case, once again, the faith of Abraham has touched another life, and influenced one of his household.  Of course, Abraham did say that his God would send a messenger ahead to prepare the wife for his son, still it took faith to rely on that this way.

Even the quality of the test was fascinating.  Only someone who was selfless or hospitable enough to water his camels as well as him would pass the test.  There is a quality of character required.  It's not just that he tests, but the qualifications he's looking for as well which make this an act of faith.  Abraham stipulated only that this person come from his family.  The servant goes further and seeks someone with character qualities as well.  So, he demonstrates not just faith, but devotion to his master.

The question I ask myself is, "Do I demonstrate this faith and devotion to my Master?"  Do I have the faith to approach my insurmountable tasks with a faith that relies on my Master rather than my own wisdom?  Do I have the devotion to my Master to seek the quality that will glorify Him the most, or do I simply do the minimum to achieve the plain statement of the task?  I am reminded of the parables of the talents.  What do I do, double or triple what is entrusted to me?  Or do I bury it and give it back as is?

Right now, I am being kept from doing what I want to do to work in a crisis situation at my church.  What I have tried has not worked, people have not responded, and what I had hoped to accomplish isn't going to happen.  I've been here before. 

When I was considering coming out here, I had no job prospects, but I did know that my company employs remote sales people all over.  So I tried to find something like that.  I couldn't.  Ones I had seen less than a month before had evaporated.  Every option I tried, including trying to get a position created I knew we needed failed.  This is not new ground for me.  It looks rather familiar.  In that prior experience, I had to resign myself to the work of my Master, and move on what I did know.  He had revealed that I was to go, and when.  I would just do that and leave the rest to Him.  He came through even before we left.

As it turned out, my Master provided me an opportunity I wouldn't have even considered.  In fact, had it been offered to me initially, before all my own efforts, I may not have taken it.  But by the time that I had exhausted all my options, I was ready for whatever He provided.  So, what was needed was provided only after I had exhausted my efforts.  The solution could not be claimed by me, but was clearly the solution of my Master.  Here and now I have another opportunity to experience the same problem-solving work of my Master.  I am still adjusting to letting go of my own solutions, but still.  I know where the solution will come from.  That is enough.  I think.

Methodical Obedience

So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. (Genesis 22:3 NASB)

My wife and I finished watching "Taken" where a father uses his special ops skills to rescue his daughter from an overseas human trafficking mob.  I can't do that, I don't have those skills.  The list of things I can do to fix such a situation forms a very short list.  I want that sort of ability, of control, but I don't have it. 

Seeing that movie was scary for two reasons beyond the obvious one.  First, it scared me because I know that can't be done anyway, not by one person anyway.  Second I was scared because I know what it means that I want that sort of control; it separates me from my Master, the One truly in control.  Such desire, when given room in my soul, is me grabbing the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  It's me wanting to stand in the place of my Master in my life and world.  Want it all I want, it's not going to happen, so the only result is separation from my Master.

Abraham has been told to take his only son (the only one left because of God), and go burn him completely on an altar to God.  His response is to follow very methodical steps to accomplish this, steps that ensure his success rather than failure.  He rises early not to waste time.  He saddles the donkey to ensure he could pack all he would need.  He took help with the bags so he could do the climbing necessary (on Mount Moriah), and not have to worry about leaving the bags behind.  He split the wood for the fire that would soon be consuming his precious son.  What's not in this verse, but later on is that he had fire prepared even before they ascended Moriah.  He was methodical even on the trip.

In obedience to my Master, being methodical to ensure success is an excellent quality.  But when my Master tells me to do something repulsive, shocking, and that I know will shatter my personality, I might not be so methodical.  The thing is, I should be.  I don't have to understand.  I don't have to know what is going on that I can't see.  I don't need to see from the perspective of my Master.  All I have to have is faith that He sees, that He knows, and that He understands.  I don't need the "knowledge of good and evil", I need the faith to leave that knowledge in the hands of my Master; to obey Him without reservation, holding nothing back from Him, not even my family, not even my sanity.  I can barely imagine such faith.

Now I suppose that Abraham thought that the fulfillment of the promises God had made of all Abraham would receive through Isaac wasn't his problem, it was God's.  I suppose that he held that perspective and that this thought empowered him to be obedient in this horrific exercise.  But still, there had to be some level of willingness to also sacrifice the blessings he was to receive from God for his relationship with God.  There just had to be.  In the games of "what if..." that played through the mind of this parent, there had to be some level of resignation that he might not have those blessings after all.  But he would have the connection with God.

Do you wonder if at this point Abraham had to also weigh whether or not he wanted a relationship with such a god?  Keep in mind that in this cultural environment, worship that included child sacrifice wasn't unheard of.  Things done in worship that would be crazy to us were not that crazy back then.  But there were plenty of worship options that didn't include child sacrifice.  Abraham could have opted for one of those on the religious "cafeteria plans" in vogue at the time.  He didn't.  He took God as He is rather than as Abraham wished or wanted Him to be.  It may not be popular, but it is necessary for true faith in my Master.  But I have to say, I'm not enjoying this part of the journey.  Faith is shockingly hard sometimes.

Specifically Precious

He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." (Genesis 22:2 NASB)

One historical context of this is also a literary context.  God had already told Abraham to send Hagar and Abraham's first born away into the desert.  Because of God, at His command, Abraham had lost one precious son.  Isaac wasn't always Abraham's "only son", and there, as here, it was the fault of Abraham's Master.  This passage cannot be understood, and Abraham's faith cannot be really understood, without that context.

As the writer of Hebrews points out, Abraham figured God would raise Isaac from the dead or something since the promise given to Abraham was to come through Isaac.  But I also believe that Abraham had arrived at a place through faith that would accept the removal of the promise of land and seed.  As long as Abraham continued to hold conversations with God, he would do anything asked, and give anything requested. 

I was discussing the Calvinist theological position with a professor at school once (well, more than once, but in this one instance) and I asked if Calvinists could ever be sure that they were one of the "elect".  The answer is "no", but from their faith and behavior, the answer was "more than likely."  In other words they assume so.  But with that assumption had to come some sort of acceptance that even if they were designed to be "objects of wrath" and not the "elect" they would faithfully walk to that eventuality and glorify God with their life here on earth, and in whatever they were designated for after this life.  Essentially, any true-blue Calvinist has to accept that as part of their position.  Before you condemn that posistion, ask yourself if you have that same level of devotion to God?

In a way, Abraham shows that level of devotion, but in the things of the life he knew, not the one he didn't.  It was more real and visceral than some nebulous possibility or low probability.  This was the flesh of his son.  He was about to kill and burn up completely the child of his old age, irreplaceable, even by his Master (unless, like the writer of Hebrews said, he received Isaac back from the dead).  The gut response, the required level of devotion and faith is actually to a point most self-proclaimed Christians would be unwilling to go.  It suddenly deviates from the bounds of our definitions of God and therefore we cannot follow.

But it deviates from our definitions, and steers us directly into Who the Maker and Sustainer of the universe truly is.  The question for me is will I remain in the popular definitions of my fellow believers, or follow my Master "off reservation" (pun very deeply intended) into Who He truly is.  Will I agree to sacrifice everything at His command?  Will I follow Him to the exclusion of my wife, at the sacrifice of my only child?  Will I renounce my job, home, church, and anything else precious to me at the request of my Master?  Is He truly my Master?  Is He truly Lord of my life?  And, to the point, am I truly His servant in a relationship with the True God of the universe?