Unified Variety

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.  And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.  There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.  But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. (1 Corinthians 12:4-7 NASB)

So the first thing I learned about spiritual gifts from Paul in this chapter is that they don't form the 'litmus test' for a relationship with Jesus.  Now I learn that the differences are by divine design.  And Paul goes to great lengths to explain this.  Again, I infer from this that the church in Ancient Corinth just didn't get this point.

It seems that the gifting of the believers by the Holy Spirit became an opportunity to point at each other and judge their value by their gift; their value to God, value to the church, and value as a person.  That had to be frustrating to the Holy Spirit.  It also illustrates how easy it is for the deceiver to twist the work of God in the hearts of His people.   What was intended to empower the church for God's Kingdom became the thing that tore them apart.

In the midst of this discussion, Paul lists gifts mixed in with 'ministries'.  In fact, to begin, he uses three words, 'gifts', 'ministries', and 'effects'.  But the last one is simply a generic term for whatever is done through work.  So, 'works' might be better.  Later on the in this chapter it is combined with 'power' and we get 'miracles' or 'works of power' from it.  But here it's just work.  I think that using all three terms is important, saying that all three come from the same Spirit, all three are for the benefit of the whole body/bride/temple of Jesus.

All three things, including 'work' are called 'manifestations' of the Spirit, at least in most translations.  Great word, but not very common in our culture.  Other options for translating could be 'revelations', 'clear announcement', 'disclosure', 'making known', 'evidencing'.  But essentially, it's the obvious indication of the Holy Spirit of His presence and work within a church.  It's the Spirit of Jesus saying, "Here I am!"  But sometimes, these clear indications of His presence are used by His people to indicate their own importance over against their fellows.  What was supposed to unify is used to divide.

Now, I get at least two things from that.  First, the Spirit of God doesn't gift perfect people who He knows will only use it for exactly what He wants and nothing else.  Second, the Holy Spirit doesn't, when the wheels come off the rails, take it back immediately.  This seems to be a instance of our Savior putting up with imperfect people once again, tolerating their failures, weaknesses, and silliness; at least for a time.  This gives me hope because I'm so in there.  But it also convicts me of my own judgmental attitude.  How quick I am to point fingers at the imperfections of others, yet such imperfections are no more disqualifying than my own.  Even 'correction' within the 'Body of Christ' is supposed to be unifying.  But too often, in my heart, I'm divisive.

This 'unified variety' within the church is illustrated by Paul using the metaphor of a body.  As he wraps it up, he points out how weaker and less 'presentable' parts are held in higher esteem and/or modesty.  His point is that we don't treat those with more obvious powerful gifts with greater honor, there's no need to.  Instead, we should be honoring those with less obvious gifts more, protecting them more.  We, or I, don't do this in church, but I need to do it.  Whether ministries, or expression of gifts, or whatever work is done, those with the 'crap jobs' should be honored more than even the pastor.  That may sound wrong to us, and it sounded wrong to them too.  Paul's point is that those who are in obvious positions, out in front, before the crowd, they get their attention just in what they do.  It's the others who are so easily lost in the background.

When I visit a new church, figuring out who the pastor is from among the people never takes long.  Eventually he stands up before everyone and announces himself.  Not so the nursery workers, the church 'cleaning crew', or those who spent hours working on the grounds making sure the plumbing and electrical work on Sunday.  They don't stand up and announce themselves, they're the ones who are hard to spot, who's names I can never remember.  They're the ones church should take great care to protect and honor.

Some minister from a gift, some simply work it.  Both do so and the Holy Spirit is revealed.  Some are considered 'ministers' and others 'workers'.  Both are used by the Holy Spirit to reveal Himself.  So my pastor makes my Master obvious.  My worship leader (minister of worship, first worshiper, or whatever you call that position) makes my Master obvious.  And the people in the nursery wiping noses and changing diapers while teaching the Bible make my Master obvious.  Those on Saturday cleaning up after the 'thundering herds' of last week make my Master obvious.  The guy who everyone calls when something breaks, the small group leaders, the people others gravitate toward to discuss their 'issues', and those who others see in worship caught up in the presence of our Savior, all reveal the Spirit of the Creator, our Savior.

Somewhere in there I'm supposed to 'reveal' my Master as well.  To the extent that I do, I'm obedient to my Master with the gift and work He's given me.  To the extent that I lose sight of the work and gift given to me, and focus on to whom it might make me 'superior', I fail, and I sin. 

This is the second lesson on gifts I discovered and hopefully learn from this chapter.  Eventually, I will discuss with you an even MORE excellent way, but that's for next week... probably.

More Than Human?

For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? (1 Corinthians 3:4 NASB)

 Science fiction, one of my favorite genre's of fiction, often looks at the evolutionary development of humans beyond where we are.  What would we look like? What would we be able to do?  And often, something powerfully mental, sometimes insubstantial, yet almost 'godlike' follows.  As if the transition from flesh to spirit is evolutionary.  I'm not sure why people don't see what's being grasped for is what is promised in Scripture, but they don't.

Yet, one of my own personal ambitions is to be able to live my life in both the spiritual and physical realms simultaneously.  I believe that this is part of what my Master intends for His followers, but I have met very few who I would say live this way; perhaps I haven't met any.  I say that because it seems that such people aren't interested in pointing it out, so I'd have to notice and deduce it from their behavior and attitudes.

So, godless, atheistic Star Trek and Star Wars, and so many other science fiction movies and writings seem to believe in the eventual evolutionary improvement of humanity.  Yet, all the changes viewed in the past 1,000 years (or 2,000) only seem to indicate a downward spiral in the good traits, and a tidal increase in the basest traits.  The trend does not favor a positive evolutionary track for us homo sapiens.

Mostly, I would say that Scripture doesn't offer much hope that way either, except for this verse.  It is possible that Paul is operating out of an assumption on the part of the Corinthian believers about themselves; in that they believe they are spiritual and have left humanity behind.  But his wording in verses three and four leave open the possibility that he is comfortable with their terminology, just not their practice.  Therefore, I wonder if they derived their terminology from Paul's teaching when he was among them.  Is it possible to be more than human?

In answering this question, I have to move along the progression of Paul as he refers to the Corinthian believers, in verses 1 through 4 especially.  He begins by denying their 'spiritual' quality (a Greek adjective derived from spirit), but only in that he couldn't 'speak' to them that way, not denying the essential quality of the people.  In other words, he leaves open the possibility that they are spiritual, yet not acting like it.  He uses the comparison between 'of spirit' and 'of flesh', saying he spoke to them as 'of flesh'

In verse 2 Paul continues the image he introduced in verse 1 of them being 'infants' not ready for meat, and claims they are even then, still infants.  His support for this claim is found in verse 3.  Here his sentence begun in verse 2 is completed by stating they are still 'fleshly' (a slightly different word than used in verse 1, but very similar in meaning).  His support for his claim is their behavior in claiming a 'group' or faction within the church and the resulting strife over polarizing in said factions.  His wording is interesting though.

In verse 3 Paul says the Corinthian believers are 'fleshly' but also, 'walking about according to human' (anthropos, where we get anthropology).  This isn't the word for male or female, but the generic word for humanity at large; not even separated by people groups, but everyone.  It's possible that certain people groups were excluded in common use or reference; as slurs against one group or another.  But the word was used for humanity in its highest form, as opposed to 'gods' or other powerful beings.

So, then in verse 4, Paul now points out that it is these factions that indicate they are simply 'people'.  Let's not lose sight of the contrast between these references and 'spiritual' in verse 1.  While Paul doesn't come back to it, it still 'hangs in the air' probably more so in Corinth because it was their assumption about themselves.  He didn't need to keep repeating it, only his denial of the proof of it in their lives.

If Paul can and does adopt this terminology leaving open the possibility of its validity, then can we consider it as a possibility; that we we can be more than human?  Let me also then throw back into the argument that Paul does not deny that they are the alternative 'spiritual' but that they are not behaving like it.  In other words, Paul also leaves open the option that they are, even in the wrong behavior, still more than human.

I'm not going to 'unpack' that right now, I'm simply going to leave it and return to it later.  I have run out of time this morning, but I also have run out of a 'train of thought'.  If I am right now, more than human, what does that mean?  Hmmm.  Let me think about that.  I'll get back to you.

Of Temples, Teachers, and Teaching

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?  If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 NASB)

Pulled out of the rest of the chapter, and left in English without explanation, these two verses can be thought to refer to individuals.  This use of the reference to 'temple of God' sounds much like chapter 6 verse 19 in which the individual is in view.  Here the church is in view.

Paul has been referring to the church as God's 'building' and now becomes more specific than 'building' calling them the temple.  And it's not just a 'temple' including the precincts and auxiliary structures, this word refers to the inner sanctuary, the dwelling place of the god.  As temples make up much of the structures in downtown Corinth, this would have been a ready reference for them to grasp.  For Paul's Jewish background, this would have been the 'Holy-of-Holies' or inner sanctuary of which it was a part.

So what?  It shouldn't surprise me that the Spirit of my Master dwells in my church, considering He dwells in the individuals in it.  The key point that I believe Paul is making is the destruction of said 'temple'.  In other words, the problems which have taken up his initial discussion in these first 3 chapters are destroying the church.  So the 'leaders' participating in or inciting the polarizing factions are destroying the church with their worldly human wisdom both in patterns of behavior and teaching.  They are the ones trying to build on Paul's foundation, possibly trying to replace his foundation, but building with hay stubble and straw.

While Paul makes allowance that those who build on (teach in) the church may survive the test of fire (v.15), here he says God will destroy the one destroying the church.  There's no 'salvation' in that phrase, whatever allowance Paul makes in verse 15.  Combining these two verses in the same context helps make my point that arguments over 'eternal security' versus 'apostasy of the saved' are difficult and amusing (for me anyway).  So, I'm moving on from there.

What I see here is a serious warning which in my formative religious tradition was both ignored and experienced.  In the denomination from which I come, 'church splits' were not only common, but disastrous.  And each ensuing disaster became a lesson not learned.  Small community churches of the same denomination on facing street corners contained people who would not even look across the street.  Years later some knew of the division, but not why, yet still maintained the distance.

In the church I grew up in, we never had a split that formed another church, but I do remember 'groups' leaving the church to join another.  I suppose a case can be made that there were some churches that started from one or more of those groups, but they never lasted.  Even so, the division itself was seen as a viable option, regardless of these teachings of Paul.

These divisions were not due to 'sin', violation of clear core Scriptural teaching, or anything approaching that.  They were over 'personality differences', they stemmed from selfish ambition, bitterness of heart, lack of forgiveness, and envy.  Ironically, these are the same things that prompted so much of Paul's writing, and therefore lots of teaching available to those willing to read.  And yet, knowing the words and allowing them to affect the heart wasn't happening.

So the lesson for me here is that I have to not only read these words, study their meaning and unpack their implications, but I have to permit my Master's Spirit to impress them into my heart, my soul, and my mind.  They have to directly affect my decisions, my choices, and my thought processes.  The warning here is that if I get 'off track' and begin teaching out of my own bitterness, selfishness, fear, and envy; I will be destroyed by my Master.

It sounds harsh but the church, the bride of Christ, is at stake.  It is my Master defending His beloved, His betrothed, which is obviously not me, but His church; of which I'm supposed to be a part.  So, perhaps teaching a belief that I can be His beloved apart from His 'bride' is actually a contradiction.  Wouldn't removing such a contradiction strengthen the 'temple of God' rather than risk destroying it?  Hmmm.

The Mysterious Mind of God

Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; (1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NASB)

I think this chapter of 1 Corinthians sort of falls into two halves, perhaps not evenly, but somewhat topically.  I see the two pieces form around the concepts of 'mysterious wisdom' and 'spiritual depths'.  These pieces have a role in the rest of the letter, but here Paul says some pretty amazing things for believers to hold on to.  When truly processed and internalized, these elements can be tremendously empowering.

The first piece, 'mysterious wisdom' is in contrast to Paul's claim that he did not bring the good news of Jesus to the Corinthians with 'persuasive words of wisdom', but rather with 'fear and much trembling' which somehow relates into 'demonstration of the Spirit and of power'.  Yet Paul claims that he did speak wisdom, just not to everyone.  Such a claim would really irritate those to whom Paul writes.

So the content of this mysterious wisdom is a crucified Jesus Christ.  This mysterious wisdom was so well hidden that the 'rulers of this age' didn't even know it.  Had they known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of Glory.  Think about that for a moment.  Let it roll around in your head.  Let it connect to other stuff you have read in Scripture where it can. 

Essentially, Satan was duped, tricked, snookered, check-mated, out foxed, and hoodwinked.  Or, you could say he was too dumb to see what his Maker was doing right in front of him, and dumb enough to actually participate in his own destruction.  We don't normally think of the enemy that way.  Perhaps we give him too much credit, and God not nearly enough.  Sure, the devil is smarter than us and tricks and deceives us, yet he's no match for God.  So, why fear him?  Just step over him and move on.  Easier said than done, because to do so, we need the second piece.

The second piece is where Paul discusses the 'role' of the Holy Spirit, using the 'role' of the spirit of people.  So, if the spirit of a man knows the depths of his mind, it stands to reason that the Spirit of God knows the depths of the mind of God.  If/since we have been given the Spirit of God as a 'seal' of redemption, it therefore stands to reason that the One knowing the very Mind of God lives within us.  So, therefore, we have the mind of God.  Let that roll around in your head for  awhile.

So, all the stuff we can't figure out, the problems we think are so overwhelming, and dangers we face we face with the mind of God.  It sounds pretty cool really, but how many of us really think we have the Mind of God?  So why can't we figure out the universe?  Why all the debate over scientific detail when we have the mind of God?  Shouldn't we just know the answers?  Shouldn't we just know why people die as/when they do?  Why the rampant evil in the world if God is so loving?  If we have the 'mind of God' shouldn't these problems be solved already?

Yet, how many of us really spend time with the Holy Spirit?  He lives within, yet we ignore Him.  He's there 24/7, yet we don't spend two minutes with Him.  He scares us, yet He's the comforter.  He is mysterious, yet He is One revealing the depths of the heart of God.  He is unknown, yet within us.  He seems so far away, yet lives so close.  We have the mind of God, yet we attempt to think for ourselves, abhorred at the suggestion we let someone else think for us; even when that 'Someone else' is the One who formed us, and the rest of the universe.

The enemy, Satan, would love to have us let him think for us, but he's also just fine with us thinking for ourselves.  He can fool us, hoodwink us, trick, deceive, check-mate, and out fox us at every turn.  Of course he would love for us to think for ourselves.  But if the One making a fool of Him were to think for us...well, that wouldn't be as convenient for him. 

So, I suppose the question is, 'who do we support with our thoughts?'  I know I'm supposed to support my Master, thinking with His mind revealed through His Spirit.  I also know that I'm naturally inclined to resist such an influence.  So I guess the answer is that I need to 'change my mind'; a phrase now more pregnant with meaning than it ever has been for me.

Fear, Trembling, and Proof of Spirit and Power: Sharing the Good News of Jesus

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.  For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.  I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5 NASB)

Of all the problems, or rather excuses I have used for not sharing the good news of Jesus, the one that seems to get at the heart of all the others is how I think any such discussion will be perceived.  So, in other words, I fear what others will think of me.  This is something I struggle with in other areas of my life, but that it touches here too means that I 'opt out' of some of the things (and the resulting blessings) my Master has for me.

Paul seemed to have no such problem.  He was not trying to impress anyone, but says that he brought the good news of Jesus' death, burial, resurrection, and ascension with 'fear and trembling'.  But with that, he also says that the content was not 'persuasive words' but 'of demonstration of the Spirit and of power.'  This is very different than I see the good news going out today.

Considering these two elements, 'fear and trembling' and 'demonstration of the Spirit and power'; what would that look like in our day?  When I think of demonstrating the Spirit and power, I have thought of the 'charismatic movement', but not favorably.  When I think of fear and trembling, I think of weakness easily marginalized and ignored; more of a nuisance.  I don't think this is what Paul refers to in either element.

First off, I believe that 'fear and trembling' really refers to Paul conviction that what he presents is of immense importance.  His trembling is from the source and content of the message, not how it will be perceived.  The word for 'fear' is the general Greek word, 'phobos' where we get various 'phobias' from.  The word 'trembling' is also a general Greek word for 'shaking' either from fear or even cold.  But the context of the 5 places it's used in the Christian Scriptures lends a contextual meaning of 'anxiety of one who distrusts his ability to completely meet all requirements, but religiously does his utmost to fulfill his duty' (Strong's Concordance).  My question is whether the Corinthian believers understood it that way in Paul's use of it here.

There's much that I can't really understand looking back 2000+ years to try and understand about what was meant, and how it was understood then.  Having said that, I also know my Master's Spirit Who inspired these words, also works in me to understand them.  So, while I don't know for sure, here's what I suspect Paul is doing, and how I think it was understood:  1) I think Paul is using an intentional contrast between prominent speakers, speaking venues, and events and his own presentation of the good news of Jesus; but I believe he's using a degree of hyperbole to make his point.  I suspect his presentations did not all include shaking in fear on his part, nor did that make up the whole of his 'style' whatever that may have been.  So, some, at points, especially when speaking of the mighty acts of God on our behalf, sure, shaking in awe; but not all the time as he spoke.  2) Paul is beginning to make a case that, as the message preached is not about him or how he is perceived, just as the life lived in Jesus is not about them or what others think of them.  In other words, just as he was not afraid to show his consternation over the magnitude of what he preached, so they should not be afraid to live out the 'foolishness' of what has been done for them by their Creator.

Second, I believe the 'demonstration of the Spirit and of power' refers to miraculous things done among them through Paul.  Considering the context of other things he says in this letter, I think that's a fair assessment.  I don't think that everything was 'miraculous' in the same way, so just healing, or just raising dead, or just casting out demons', but I do believe that some of each of those was demonstrated among them.  Such things are not mentioned occurring in Corinth in Acts, but I don't really consider that a problem.  I lean that way because partly I believe Luke, as he wrote Acts, really considers those sorts of things to be commonly associated with Paul.  In fact I suspect, for him, they are such a regular occurrence that he stops mentioning every occurrence of them in Acts.

So, I'm left with a completely absent foundation for my fear.  It doesn't matter what others think of me as I speak of my Master Jesus.  What matters is that I speak of my Master.  And I do not need to wait until I have some sort of 'second blessing' of His Spirit because I believe that will come in the course of my obedience, the consequence of which will be increased boldness to speak.  So, while I know what I'm afraid of, I need to 'man-up', 'stand up' and go forth in spite of my fear.  What I should fear is the 'Sender' of the message, not the receivers.  That I don't is pretty dumb really.  So, the core of my problem is a lack of faith.  Well, that comes from my Master too, so that's no excuse either.  Better get up and get on out there!

Wild Ephesian Times

God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.  But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, "I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches."  Seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this.  And the evil spirit answered and said to them, "I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?"  And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.  This became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified. (Acts 19:11-17 NASB)

There is a saying of Jesus that has always given me the "shivers".  In Matthew 7:22-23, Jesus basically says that performing miracles isn't the "proof" it's that I obey His words.  That would be fine, but this is right at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, and He has just spoken some really hard words; "turn the other cheek," "love your enemies," "blessed are the meek," and so on.  It's a hard passage to get through unscathed.  Yet, not following these as a lifestyle is the indicator that my relationship with Him isn't what it is supposed to be.

Now, not to be legalistic, these elements to the Sermon on the Mount are not suggestions, and they are not laws.  Jesus transforms laws into a perspective derived from a relationship with Him.  In other words, these elements are not requirements, but evidence.  No evidence such as these elements, do whatever miracles I like, I'm still not "in" with Jesus.  I always puzzled over that because I have assumed that without the Holy Spirit performing the "miracle" it wasn't going to happen.  And then Ephesus in Acts 19, perhaps I have been mistaken.

Traveling Jewish Exorcists?  I suppose that makes some sense since belief in evil or unclean spirits wasn't especially a Greek belief, but still, putting the spirit under an oath to obey in the name of the Person someone else preaches seems like an odd practice.  Yet it demonstrates the power of the name of Jesus rather than the power of the exorcists.  It wasn't about Paul (who the demons knew about) but about Jesus (who the demons knew).  "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?"  It was about the name of Jesus.  Like the demons knowledge about Paul, these "Sons of Sceva" knew about Jesus.  They knew that His name was powerful, but they didn't know Him.

Handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul are going to the sick and possessed and they are being healed and freed.  But it's not about Paul, but Jesus Whom Paul preaches.  Read it carefully, "God was performing extraordinary miracles" not Paul.  One of my favorite little passages in the Hebrew Scriptures briefly tells of David's "Three Mighty Men" (2 Samuel 23:8-17).  These guys made Navy SEALS look like children (intense children, but still).  These are the guys SEALS want to grow up to be like.  But in these cases where one would defeat the Philistines by himself, it says that the LORD brought about a great victory.  The tough-guy was just a guy.  Sure they would break through the Philistine lines to draw water at Bethlehem, and break out again to bring it to David, but it was God working to bring victory through them.

I read of the miracles, but I have to remember it is my Master doing these things, not these people.  Argue as you may, it is the power of the name of Jesus and God Himself who does these things, not the traveling Jewish exorcists, or even Paul, or his handkerchiefs and aprons.  It never was about the people through whom my Master worked, it has always been about my Master.  Perhaps the reason "miracles" such as these are so rare in America is because we are so keen to make idols of humans.  It's so ingrained in our nature to focus on the person we can see, touch, hear, and blame that we become distant from the works of power of my Master.  Because we are merciless with these "idols" we create.  We set these people up, and crush them when they fall.

What I want is the wild Ephesian times to break loose in my town, and in my church.  It would be great if it became known as a place of miracles of my Master, not about certain people through whom the miracles came.  It would be wonderful if my Master performed healing of diseases, exorcism, raising the dead, and freeing from addictions.  It would be amazing and beautiful if, when asked what person in the community was responsible, no one could point to any one person.  If my Master shone through like the irrepressible sunlight through a break in storm clouds, that would be awesome to see.  So why hasn't it happened?

None of my handkerchiefs or aprons will help anyone I'm afraid.  Those of my pastor are probably in the same category.  It's not the quality of our leadership team to see people miraculously raised from beds of sickness or death, not yet anyway.  I believe that I and a lot of my fellow believers have a long way to go before our Master has the freedom to work in this way.  I really can't speak for all of us, but I know that I have a lot to work through, not legalistically, but relationally with my Master.  I want it, but I'm still caged by fear, shame, and pride.  I haven't yet let the Spirit of my Master loose within my heart and soul.  I should be consumed, but I'm not, not yet.  Not yet.

The Main Character Revealed

It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples.  He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."  And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism."  Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."  When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.  There were in all about twelve men. (Acts 19:1-7 NASB)

Discussions about the Trinity typically run aground on the Person of the Holy Spirit.  One of the linguistic difficulties encountered is the accident of language where "spirit" is a neuter noun in Greek and Hebrew (or rather, both masculine and feminine).  It's difficult to see such an objective reference as a "person".  But the use of the words shows these references to the Spirit of God acting.  That is not an "objective" reference.

In Acts 19, Paul is on his third journey through the region of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and comes to Ephesus.  When he gets there, he encounters some disciples with only partial knowledge.  The first reference to the Holy Spirit is as something received, and if that were the only reference we would be left with an objective reference.  But that's not how it turns out.  In verse 6 it the Holy Spirit coming on them, which changes the reference.  Now the 12 men are the objects and the Holy Spirit is the subject.

This may seem like a semantic issue, but it has important implications.  Remember that these men had not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.  In other words they were not even that familiar with the Scriptures.  The Spirit of the Lord is all over the Hebrew Scriptures, so a Jewish person would have encountered Him at several points in their study.  These are most likely Gentiles who have received a partial instruction into the saving work of Jesus.  Their immersion in water was for sorrow at having sinned against God, not identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus; good but not sufficient (i.e. it's not enough to be sorry for what we've done, we must accept Jesus' payment of what we owe for what we've done).

The understanding of these twelve men was incomplete.  Paul completes their training, immerses them once again in water, but this time into the name of the Lord Jesus (notice it wasn't into Jesus Christ - that would be a "Jewish" term; another clue that these are Gentiles).  After their immersion and Paul lays hands on them, then the Holy Spirit acts.  He comes on the men and they demonstrate His gifting.  So when Paul asks them, "Have you received the Holy Spirit" what he is asking them is if they have submitted themselves to His coming, His work, in them.  He isn't asking them if someone gave them a Holy Spirit.  Even Paul laying on his hands doesn't "give" the Holy Spirit.  What happened is the Holy Spirit waited until after Paul had done that to come on them.  It was the Holy Spirit Who chose when and what to do.  He acted.  Only a Person does that, not a 'thing'.

This understanding has to form the foundation for any discussion of what He does.  Submission to the Person of the Holy Spirit; allowing Him to decide when and what to do; and seeking His guidance in the study of Scriptures, prayer, and the rest of life; these are what is necessary to experience Him to a greater depth.  Tongues, prophecy, healing, interpretation, other gifts, are all easily focused on to the exclusion of the One giving such gifts.  We cannot afford to objectify the God of Scripture, not as Father, nor as Son, and certainly not as Holy Spirit.  Such is a sin of disastrous proportions.  He is a Person to Whom we submit.  Once there, we can then worship correctly, pray correctly, study Scriptures correctly, and then live correctly.

So, the Holy Spirit is One to Whom I submit.  To submit to Him is to submit to the Maker and Master of the universe.  He is the God of Scripture, the Creator of all things, and Master of my soul.  To Him I pray, and from Him flows power to accomplish His work.  I am a "smart" extension cord, not the Power Source.  But that probably means that I'm also a dysfunctional extension cord, if human attempts at anything "smart" are an indicator.  I think my track record bears that concept out as well.  But as I submit to my Master, He, the Holy Spirit, will work His work through me in the portion of the world in which He has placed me.  For instance, now I believe He is leading me to make my daughter's lunch and help her get ready for school.

Getting God's Attention

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)

The Philippian jailer would eventually ask Paul, "What must I do to be saved?"  This is a very important question for which to have an answer.  The person of Cornelius presents an interesting twist on it.  I wonder at what point was Cornelius accepted by God as one of His family?  In other words, when was Cornelius no longer in danger of going to hell, and assured of going to heaven?

In the opening verse of this chapter, the angel of the Lord tells Cornelius that his prayers have been heard and his giving has ascended as a memorial before God.  Is this something characteristic of one going to hell?  Would God hear prayers and accept memorials from one who is not His own?  In my opinion, Peter's revelation is also mine.  I realize that those who fear my Master and do what is right (in other words, seek to obey Him) are acceptable to my Master.  There is no partiality with my Master.

To bring this into the present, those around me who look, speak, possibly smell different than I do are acceptable to my Master when they fear Him and seek to obey Him.  I am in no way able to classify people on what they look like, their accent, or where they live.  In some sense I can look at their behavior, but I have to be careful here.  Obedience to my Master will not look the same for everyone.

There are many different legitimate ways to worship my Master.  There are plenty of activities not expressly prohibited by Him or obliquely referred to by Him.  I may not want to do or behave that way, but I must be sure to evaluate on Scriptural grounds rather than personal preferences or my cultural behaviors.  Now, why ask this question?

I have been asked about "people who have never heard of God or Jesus" and how they can be held accountable for salvation.  Paul is pretty clear in Romans that the world has enough clues to God's existence that everyone is responsible before Him.  "So," goes the question, "what about someone who has never heard but responds to this evidence of God in this world?"  Well, at that point, is where I believe this concept in Acts 10 (and Acts 8 with the Ethiopian eunuch) kicks in.  This statement by Peter indicates the criteria, fear God and obey Him.

But I have to concede two points.  First off, both Cornelius and the Ethiopian official had already responded to the Judaism of their day.  In other words, they had embraced something "monotheistic" which had been revealed by God already.  Second, they were both brought into the fold of believers by having the good news of Jesus preached to them.  Even though these events were divinely appointed, Jesus is preached, and they accept. 

Here's my answer to both points: so what?  In the first point, the setting is Palestine, but neither one of these people is from there.  Seeking God would only be found through Judaism at this point; Christianity is local at this point.  The second point I discount because this is the only way they would be brought into this story.  Had either one remained apart from the influence of Jesus' followers, we wouldn't know of them.  What I believe addresses this issue in this account is that the angel tells Cornelius that he's acceptable to God before Jesus is preached to him and he accepts.

So here's the lesson I walk away with, it's not about me nor my ability.  People will not be coming to my Master in droves because of me.  People will seek my Master because of Him.  For whatever lack in their own lives and culture, the answer they find will be my Master.  I get so afraid that I will mess it up some how, that my foibles and weaknesses will be the downfall of someone else.  I don't even try or fear what to say because I don't want to mess up.  And I don't want to be thought of as some religious nut or looked down on for my beliefs, and so on it goes.  It's all a lot of hogwash; ridiculous hogwash.  All my excuses come down to one thing: me.  So, now I see conclusive proof (like I didn't have it before) that it's not about me at all.  See how stupid I am, how can I be trusted with the good news of Jesus if I'm such an idiot?  Simple, it's not about me.  Since I'm without excuses, I guess I need to start jumping into those conversations.

The Odd Man In

Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually. (Acts 10:1-2 NASB)

One of the purposes of Scripture is achieved through irony, in that it denies the expected, and affirms the unexpected. This is one of the great lessons from the Master of the universe to us about Himself.  It's as if the point He's trying to make with us is that we can't reach Him, He must reach us.  By that I mean that He cannot be comprehended by our minds or imaginations, so He has to teach us about Himself.  If He didn't, we'd never know Him.

One of the truly laughable aspects to philosophy when it seeks to grapple with theology (of any sort), is how rules that cannot be assumed to be true are.  The fundamental assumption is way too often that anything or anyone responsible for our universe should somehow fit within the bounds of our ability to rationally understand it/him/her.  It puts the philosopher in charge, and the Maker of the universe in the "hot seat" to be interviewed and judged.  Could anything be more ridiculous?  With all we don't understand and all we know we don't know, why then would we expect that anyone responsible for all of it should be knowable?

Here's my basic premise:  I'm looking for the One revealing Himself to me, and Who's revelation is inexplicable.  So, for instance, God revealing Himself in a "Trinitarian Nature" is the sort of thing that matches this criteria.  God requiring that any relationship with Him be on His terms, that meets this criteria.  That any relationship with Him is always initiated by Him...oh wait.  Well, in a sense that's true, but only in an oblique manner with Cornelius.

Cornelius comes from a polytheistic background, "family of origin", and culture.  That background and culture has rewarded him with position and responsibility.  He controls 100 soldiers who are Roman citizens by birth, and birth in Italy, the Roman homeland.  Yet, he is in the land of Jews, who dislike the Romans in the same way bulls dislike bull riders.  And with all the unmistakable animosity toward him and his people, his presence and role in that land, he still seeks to leave his religious paradigm and adopt theirs.  And he's not alone, because many of his household and soldiers follow him in this choice.  This is an irony.  I have to assume that there are some very important details left out which explain how he came to this point in religious life, but the point here is that he has arrived at this point in his religious life.

God takes this guy, who has overcome a lot of barriers, and essentially introduces Himself to him.  The Ethiopian on the road home is somewhat like this.  He too had to overcome tremendous barriers.  He sought God anyway, and God essentially introduced Himself to him as well.  Here's my question, would I seek to overcome such barriers?

I have been given every advantage to find Jesus.  He surrounded me from my birth.  I was taught about Him from my earliest memories.  Regardless of how accurate that teaching was (some was spot, some not), I was equipped to carry on and learn from Him directly, from Scripture.  I haven't had barriers except the ones of my own deceitful heart.  I haven't had difficulties in seeing my Master, He has always been around me.  And so, in some way, I have become complacent with my faith.  It's been easy.

This one who had no advantage except by accident of military assignment, goes against everything he has been taught and brought up on to seek this strange god from a strange unfriendly land.  I have always had my Master dropped in my lap, and encouraged to seek Him.  In fact, to not seek Him would be to go against my upbringing and everything I have  been taught my whole life.

So what would I have done in his situation?  Would I have overcome the barrier of my resentments toward those who hated me?  Would I have sought to worship their god, their way, and honor them with help for their poor?  Seriously?  How easy is my journey to the Maker and Sustainer of the universe?  How easily do I take it lazily, stray from it on a whim, and treat it like a stroll through a park?  I am way too often a poor soldier for my King.

I have struggled with the possibility I believe what I do because that's what I was taught.  There may be still some truth to that, but I have wrestled with my faith, and still it remains.  I am now struggling with the thought that my Master brought me through the route to Him that He did because He knew I wasn't up to a more difficult challenge.  That should humble me, and yet it should also encourage me.  Consider the love of the Master of atoms and suns that He would arrange it so I would find Him.  The same love that sought out Cornelius and arranged for him to be in Palestine among a contentious people of God, also placed me where I would find Him.

How is a relationship with the Master of all matter not initiated by Him?  How am I, in my foolish weaknesses, not in the same line to see Jesus that Cornelius is in?  My barriers have always been of my own making, and yet my Master has always brought me through them, much like Cornelius.  They are different barriers, but the same love.  The Ethiopian eunuch, the Roman soldier, and me...not what you might expect. 

Paradigm Shifting on the Fly

Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate; (Acts 10:17 NASB)

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

All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. (Acts 10:45 NASB)

Another of the ironies in Acts 10 is the inability of Peter and those with him to conceive of Gentiles being acceptable to God.  The clues are all through all 4 Gospels, and one of my favorites is when Jesus is being interviewed by Nicodemus, the Pharisee.  In that conversation, Jesus cuts right to the point for the Pharisee when He says, "To enter the Kingdom of God, you must be born again."  We use that phrase in these days to mean something very different from what Jesus was getting at in this conversation.

For Nicodemus the Pharisee, his birth is what set him apart from all the other people on the earth; he was  born different, superior.  Being born a Jew meant that he was automatically tied to God by His sovereign choice.  What could be better than that; to be born into immediate acceptability before God?  So Jesus' words rocked Nicodemus, and I think that is why he struggle so much with what Jesus meant by that.

If human birth no longer is what determines acceptability before God, then Gentiles have as much opportunity as anyone else.  This point seems to be missed by the disciples.  I suppose the Ethiopian on his way home was at least a proselyte or something because Philip didn't seem to have a problem with him receiving the Holy Spirit. On the other hand it doesn't specifically say he ever did (but it also doesn't say whether he was a Jew, or a proselyte, or a native of Ethiopia at all).

The word translated "perplexed" is a Greek compound word made up of two prepositions and a verb.  It means "through not carrying over", as in "because of not making the connection" (carrying over referring to being carried across something, like the River Styx for a Greek).  So I think of it as "because of not being able to shift the paradigm" which is obviously a modern read on an ancient problem.  After the vision of the unclean animals in the linen vessel, Peter is struggling shifting his paradigm to include what he has seen and heard.  It isn't until he reaches Cornelius' house and hears his story that he finally makes the connection.

But Peter's companions from Joppa didn't get the vision, they hadn't heard the voice, and so they were completely unprepared for God receiving Gentiles in such a way.  They may even have been skeptical of Cornelius' story.  This catches them completely by surprise.  But why?  Weren't the clues around them?  What did Jesus tell them? "You will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and all the earth."  What did they think that meant anyway?

And there were other clues in the Hebrew Scriptures and so on.  Clearly the problem was how entrenched in their own Jewish culture they were.  Their paradigm wasn't constructed only from the Hebrew Scriptures or only from that and Jesus' teaching.  There was a huge element of their culture still embedded in their paradigm of which they may not have even been aware.  And even so, they had made huge strides in adjusting their world view already to accommodate what the Holy Spirit had done so far.  Perhaps they figured they'd "shifted" enough.

Now, what I've done here is constructed a framework with which I can support my own analysis of my cultural enmeshment.  How different am I in this problem?  I have a culture which has influenced me my whole life.  How many perceptions of what I read in Scripture do I filter through this cultural perspective?  In once sense it enables me to apply what I read, but on the other hand it obscures the message of my Master when what He commands strikes a stark contrast with my cultural assumptions.  There are just some things you don't do, or are considered foolish to do in our culture.  Sometimes I too quickly put a command or perspective of my Master into the basket of that time period rather than my own, "Surely He didn't mean that for today?"

There are somethings I'm not likely to do, like wearing clothes of only one type of cloth, or walking a second mile with a Roman soldier's pack on my back.  I freely confess that I'm not likely to do these, but what about loving my neighbor as myself?  What about when Jesus said we are to have that perspective in the Sermon on the Mount where we bless our persecutors, consider being reviled for His names sake as being happy beyond belief?  Do I accept these in my culture?  In the day of Paul, when he wrote that husbands are to love their wives as Jesus loved the Church selflessly, that was radically out of the cultural paradigm for both Jews and Gentiles.  It's radical for me, but I still don't do it, not like I should (like, I try, then resent having to - I'm a mess).

What I'm saying is that I need my paradigm, my world view, my mental framework through which I interpret and make sense of my world; I need that destroyed and reconstructed by my Master.  It makes me shiver just to write that.  How much would remain of what I have now?  It's uncomfortable to consider, in fact, it's probably so overwhelmingly huge, it becomes easy to ignore.  It's like how-big-is-our-sun huge, I can't mentally grasp it, so I don't think about it.  Too often I think the glory and majesty of my Master fits into that same category for me.  Yet, perhaps if I dwell for awhile on that, deconstructing my paradigm might be more imaginable.  So, I guess, once again, I shall start with praise for my Master.  Worship, why does it seem to always boil down to worship?  Probably because I'm such a slow learner.  Well, I seem to have some worship and "demolition" to do.

Holy Maintenance

Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." (Acts 10:15 NASB)

 Acts 10 fascinates me for a variety of reasons.  There is the barrier between Jew and Gentile breached, which seems so ironic to me since they didn't have a problem with the Samaritan barrier being breached.  There is the character of Cornelius who is both devout to God in that he prays and gives to the poor, but then when Peter arrives, bows and kisses the feet of a person as if he is a god of some sort; a throwback to his paganism.  The character of Peter that, even after such a dramatic vision of being told to eat unclean animals, still doesn't realize what's going on until he hears Cornelius' story; and even then is still a proud Jew benignly meeting with Gentiles.  There are lots of ironies in this chapter, and clearly the Holy Spirit is the true main character.

Something that is not so easy to spot because of how it is normally translated is the charge to Peter in the vision.  At first he is told to kill and eat from the unclean animals in the linen "vessel" and he refuses.  The next charge is always translated as, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."  In some way or another it is translated this way, and that is the most logical way to do so, as it fits the literary context.  An alternative that does not fit so well in the literary context, but I feel brings out a new depth of meaning is, "What God has sanctified (made holy), do not defile (make unholy)."  The imperative verb at the end of the statement has that option as well, in fact it would normally be used that way.  But in this case that doesn't fit as well, and is most likely not what Luke meant.  I want to explore it because of how that option affects my daily walk before my Master.

In the case of Cornelius, clearly God had sanctified him (or was in the process of it).  In my case, I am one caused to be holy.  People around me may have been made holy.  I have to admit that the process begins with the declaration that I'm holy, and then begins a struggle to keep me that way.  I can only suppose that it works in a similar way with others.  Here's the point of application:  It is an affront to my Master to consider myself unholy, or profane myself.  It is also an affront to my Master to consider someone else He has sanctified to be unholy or profane them.  In other words, I sin when I defile myself (duh, pretty obvious), but I also sin when I treat others as profane, or when I defile them (or cause them to become defiled).

Has anyone reading these entries ever noticed that I have this tendency to unpack a box I'm never going to be able to inventory and re-pack in one entry?  Well, here we go again.  There are way too many ramifications to this than I can address in this entry.  Let me just address these two: 1) I must consider myself holy to my Master, it's not an option.  2) I must seek to preserve the holiness of those around me. 

Sound obvious?  Well the most common ways they play out in my life is in compromise.  I compromise with myself, and permit myself to indulge in (whatever, food, play, TV, etc.) and leave off something my Master has for me to do.  When do this, I have taken myself out of His purpose, and chosen my own.  Not that every time I eat, play, watch TV or whatever I have abandoned the purpose of my Master, but in those times I have chosen that over what He calls me to do, then I defile myself. 

But I also compromise with other people.  In this culture that doesn't sound so bad, but in the context of the culture of my fellow believers, it's desecration of the individual.  One of the things that can often irritate my fellow church attendees is how our pastor is so dogmatic about sin being sin, and how God should be first, even in small things.  That really bothers people, and some have left because of it.  But if he did not do that, he would be desecrating the people to whom he preaches.  It's not a small matter, it's huge.  But I can be found in compromise as well.  His venue is out in front and obvious, mine is not always. 

Whenever I influence someone in my circle of believers to do something I know is contrary to the will of my Master for them, I desecrate them.  When I don't say what I know He wants me to say to another, to encourage them away from something outside His will, I desecrate them.  Whether it is refusal to confront a sin, the encouragement to sin, or even when I do not address something in Bible study that I should, or pull out something I should not; even then I desecrate or run that risk.

So what do I do?  For one thing, I must seek to perceive holiness in myself and others.  I must discipline myself to become aware of it.  There are obvious examples, and not so obvious ones, and I need to become aware of both.  But I also must discipline myself to set apart Jesus as my Master, and Him as the defining example of holiness.  And then I must submit to this holiness.  That will be the hard part.  It requires that I leave sanctification to my Master rather mine to control, and seek only to preserve what He does in me and in others.  Submission to holiness means that I subordinate my own view of others to His.  I cannot make another person holy, but I can help preserve the holiness my Master is creating in them.  This much my Master would have me do.  Submission, never has been one of my favorite things, but here I go again.

Dying For More Stuff

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property,  and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife's full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles' feet.  But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land?  While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."  And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. (Acts 5:1-5 NASB)

First off, yesterday and last night went better than yesterday.  The struggles were still there, but they were shorter, and I slept a lot better.  It was still insanely busy yesterday, but I was able to get mostly caught up at work.

 Now about this passage, one typically familiar to believers, but still very odd for all that.  The setting is the newly formed church in Jerusalem, bustling with far more people than they have resources to help.  Many members, including Barnabas, sell property and bring the proceeds to be used by the apostles to meet the needs.  Enter Ananias and his wife Sapphira.  They also sell a property (literally a field), and the word used for "kept back" has the range of meaning of being deceptive or secretive about it.  The word can also mean embezzle.

But even so, the property is theirs, the proceeds are theirs, which Peter points out.  Is there a requirement that they bring the whole thing?  Is it a rule in the congregation?  This is where the previous statements about "everyone had all things in common" is shown to be a general overview rather than a particular statement about everyone without exception.  And that makes sense.  It's still the way it is today.  To answer the previous questions; no, no rule is mentioned that all must have all things in common.  The problem facing this couple was the temptation to "appear" as if they too had all things in common with everyone else.  They wanted the recognition as being one of those (like Barnabas, everyone wants to be like Barnabas) without actually being like them.

So what if Ananias and his wife kept some of the proceeds back to pay for a new dishwasher, or to do some needed repairs to the parapet around the roof, but told Peter, "This is part of the proceeds, because we are using some for household needs"?  What would have happened then?  Would the Holy Spirit informed them through Peter that it's all or nothing, and killed them anyway?  I suspect not, but truly it's an argument from silence; that's not what happened.  Whatever their purpose, they didn't want others to regard them as the ones who almost gave generously to the poor.  They wanted to appear more than they were.

But there is an important element in what they did that causes their death, and it wasn't the use they had for the money, nor was it their desire to appear other than they were (we'd all be dead if it were just that).  Peter specifically accuses Ananias of lying to the Holy Spirit.  What I gather from this accusation is that these two people really either denied the power of the Holy Spirit or the Sovereignty of the Holy Spirit.  Actually, there are several other possibilities too as I think about it.  The underlying connection to them has to be a degradation of the Spirit of God within them to the point where He has no influence.  I would well imagine fear gripping all who hear of it.  How much danger am I in if that's the case?

In a sense, this couple thought they could get away with the deception even though they had seen evidence of the Holy Spirit working around them.  They denied His power and sovereignty over them.  Either He wouldn't know what they did, or He couldn't do anything about it if He did know.  This is what endangered their lives?  How often have I, with full knowledge that the choices before me include some clearly contrary to my Master, have still chosen the rebellious thing?  How often have I told myself that no one will know?  How is that possible if the Holy Spirit knows?  What does it say about me if, knowing and claiming to believe that, I do it anyway?  I have to wonder, why am I still alive?

Whatever the reason I still draw breath when I have acted as these two have, I'm not sure I'd either understand it if I knew, or whether or not it would benefit me if I knew.  I don't know.  But I am more aware of the grace with which my Master covers me.  I often wish it were a covering much like swaddling clothes where my arms would be pinned to my sides.  That would keep me out of trouble.  But it's not like that.  I have free reign to make those rebellious decisions.  And I exercise that freedom way too often.

Now is probably a really good time for me to exercise another freedom I have and go before my Master in prayer, thanking Him for letting me live.  I can see from this passage that I haven't earned that right, and yet I draw yet another breath.  That is grace.  Now, for gratitude.  May that permeate my day today.

Tough Times, What Should I Pray For?

When they had been released, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them.  And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, "O Lord, it is You who MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM, who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said, 'WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS?
 26 'THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST.'  For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.  And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence, while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy servant Jesus."  And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:23-31 NASB)

What do tough times really look like?  It is probably different for everyone to a degree, but by any standard, I'm not in tough times.  The problem is that I'm still holding my own pity-party.  You may have heard or even said one or more of the following, "My family's in turmoil!"  "I'm not a good parent, I don't know what I'm doing!"  "My work is driving me crazy" (okay, short drive for me) "Why is stuff so screwed up?"  "The future of my country is dark."  You probably have your own set, these are just a few of the things driving my emotions at the moment.  And you can see from my list that I serious have either very common issues, or vague things no one can fix.  Like I said, I'm not really in tough times.

But I have emotional responses to these things, disproportionate as they may be.  In those times, healing from my Master is always welcome, but what should I pray for?  Maturity perhaps?  Clarity?  Another perspective?  New focus?  I think I can roll all of that into the prayer that the believers in Jerusalem prayed when they truly faced a problem.

The threats of the Jewish leaders were real.  They didn't make sense, but they were real.  And it may have been the right thing to say the believers would obey God rather than man, but when the man holds a club over your head, it's not always easy to carry out.  Even if the club held over the head is popularity with the people, it's still hard.  A storm of persecution was coming, not that far away, and this was just the first breeze.  So what do they pray for?  They prayed acknowledging God and Who He is in relation to the problem.  They connected this current problem with the victory Jesus won in the previous crucifixion through resurrection.  Then they asked...for boldness to continue to speak and be conduits for God's miraculous works.  Seriously, I hadn't thought of that, not in my situation.

So, here's what it would look like, "Master, my family's in turmoil, You are the God of peace, please give me the boldness to be Your conduit of peace to my family."  "Master, I'm not a good parent, I keep making mistakes.  You are the Great Father of all, please grant me the boldness to face my role following fearlessly Your example."  "Master, I'm not enjoying the job You have provided me in this place.  But You are the God of patience, gentleness, goodness, kindness, and self-control; these are fruit You produce in me.  Please grant me the boldness to share that fruit through this job, seeing that as my role and my purpose."  "Master, as I look about me in this world, the things I see are really messed up and deviated from Your character, Your desires.  But You are still God, You still reign on Your throne, You are not surprised by these things, and are not unaware of those involved.  Grant me the boldness to engage what I see around me with the light You provide, bringing the truth the my Master is the true Master of everything."  "Master, the future of my country seems dark.  But nothing decided by the people of this country thwarts Your purposes, nor Your design.  Grant me the boldness to face this future with the confidence, not in me or my fellow countrymen, but in my King; and to share that confidence at every opportunity."

Once past the selfishness of these prayers, my view, my family, my ability, my fears, my my my; I really need to look at what the people under those threats really asked for.  They did not ask merely for boldness.  I can be boldly wrong, boldly contrary to my Master.  They asked for boldness to speak of Jesus and to participate in God extending His hand in wonders and healing.  These are things that would benefit others, even though bringing the threats home on their own heads.  The prayers above mostly help me.  They may sound good, and they may help me feel better, but they lack the focus of my Master.  Let me try a different set:

"Master, my family's in turmoil, and You are the God of Peace.  Please give me boldness to permit Your peace permeate my family and not let that distract me as I seek to glorify You in my neighborhood and community."  "Master, I am not doing a job as a parent that adequately glorifies You.  You are the Father of all things and people.  Please give me boldness to lead my child to glorify You in her world, seeing my example as I glorify You in mine."  And so on.

The weakness I see in me is still the focus on me, somewhat like yesterday's entry.  There are people around me in danger of going to hell without having heard from me that there is an alternative.  Perhaps my Master wants to work through me to do His work of saving these.  I won't know what He's doing in a life unless I engage them with the truth of my Master's love for them. 

Like I said at the beginning, I'm not in tough times right now.  Perhaps those times are on their way.  In the mean time, my task from my Master is to engage the place He planted me with news of His Kingdom.  So, I suppose today, as I speak with customers across this country in such dire straights, I should take every opportunity and seek every opportunity to share the Light shared with me.  Who knows, my job may not drive me so crazy if I do that. 

The Death of Ownership?

And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.  And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.  For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35 NASB)

I was going to just include verse 32, but then 33 and 34 jumped out and mugged me, crushing my props keeping my self-centered me-focused paradigm facade in place.  Stupid thing collapsed all around me.  Not only was my paradigm not fit Scripture, the supports for it were inadvertently keeping my Master's great power through my testimony and great amounts of grace away on purpose.  Yes, inadvertently on purpose; in other words, my props were preventing my Master's work in my life by design even though I didn't design them to do that.  I had designed them to support a point of view that took more ownership of the things my Master has let me borrow.  I didn't realize they would also prevent Him working in my life in great ways.

Think of things around you.  I have lots of "stuff" around me.  So much has accumulated over the years, and in my house, remains in boxes.  Regardless of how long the stuff around you took to accumulate, it may fall into the category which most of mine falls into, rarely if ever used.  To be fair, some of it is seasonal.  The space heater I can see in front of me is not something I'm likely to use in 100 degree heat of desert summers.  But some of it I haven't seen since we moved here.  That means it's already been unused through a winter, and therefore, isn't seasonal.

One claim has been that this view of ownership in verse 32 is "socialism" which it isn't, clearly.  The telltale indicator is that "...not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own,..."  So, this view of "stuff" was voluntary, not legislated.  It does have one element in common with socialism though.  It was a choice that was obedient to the Spirit of God.  In other words, like in Chapter 2, here this description closely follows the congregation being "filled with the Holy Spirit".  I believe that, from this and from the next chapter, this view of "stuff" was actually driven by the Holy Spirit, not just a human familial good will.  So, in the sense that it was inspired it is like socialism, but in the sense it is voluntary it is not.  This is also the reason I don't see it as an economic system, but rather as a character quality of this group.

Now before I run out and reshape my entire life around owning nothing, I must also note that I don't see this community view in every congregation.  The ones in Samaria and Syria which come later aren't described this way.  Some of the ones started by Paul in Anatolia and Europe have to be goaded into giving to support others (Corinth for instance).  So I'm not so sure this is a universal rule inspired by the Holy Spirit.  But I'm still not comfortable because the quality of a heart where this becomes possible I believe is a universal. 

It isn't hard to find examples where Paul draws on this concept in his ministry methods.  Nor is it difficult to see this quality in some of his letters, even his admonition to his fellow leaders.  But I also believe it shows up in threads in 1 Peter, and 1 John.  This quality that holds the things of this world so lightly as to consider them available to all believers is a testimony of my "alien-ship" here in this universe.  If I truly believe I have a dwelling somewhere else eternally with my Master why is my stuff here so important?  That's where this paradigm would testify so strongly of my faith, and where I would open myself up to my Master's grace and power.  As long as I hold on to this failed part of my paradigm and its limiting props, I hold myself back from my Master. 

It's time to disassemble.  I need this paradigm space for something else, something that views the stuff around me as stuff, not as my stuff.  It views my stuff as the stuff reserved by my Master for me in heaven.  So, it looks for and after my stuff, it just locates it somewhere else.  I'm thinking a yard sale is definitely in my future.

Where and How Do I Spend My Time?

Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46-47 NASB)

Culture has a huge part to play in how I prioritize my time.  But I can't blame everything on culture.  In the early days of the Jerusalem Church, being in the temple every day wasn't a huge deviation from their culture.  I don't think the traveling dinner was either.  But these things weren't common either.

In my culture, being at the meeting house or sanctuary is just another appointment or part of our week.  The meetings go on my calendar, and the Sunday worship time is something I know I'll do every week.  For some in churches in this culture, going to the church property for meetings and even worship can be usurped by baseball or soccer games if they're scheduled then.  Vacations always take priority over time at church.  And it seems that giving is only something done when church is attended, if at all.

When my wife and I were dating, we'd visit my family and attend my church when in town.  When we'd visit her family, we thought about finding a church to visit, but decided to avoid the uncomfortable feelings of visiting a strange church and spend more time with her family.  It's odd, but now, 20 years later, we don't even question that practice.  Is that a lesson I want my daughter to learn?

I can't help but look at the description of this group of believers in Jerusalem and feel like I'm missing something very important, actually several things.  I need to air them, examine their validity, and maybe make some changes in how my family spends our time through the week.

First, day to day they met on temple grounds and in one mind.  I get to our church grounds twice a week, only three if necessary.  I could easily add another day just to help clean the place, pick weeds, or whatever needs to be done around there.  And those are pragmatic reasons beyond the opportunity to just go and pray for those who go in and out of those doors, pray for my pastors and their staff, and pray for those who drive by and see our sign.  I can always do that.

Second, they broke bread from house to house.  The small group I have the privilege to lead decided on their own to serve dinner just before.  The dinner and ensuing discussions take up as much time as the study itself.  We spend time talking about all sorts of things sharing and learning about each other.  It has built intimacy that no Bible discussion could have.  We do that once a week.  For our culture, that's a lot.  And we are considering adding a regular, possibly quarterly (or seasonal) backyard barbecue into the mix.  So, there I think I have been led to follow the pattern of this Scripture to a comfortable degree.  But I also see the benefit of it.

The last things are the attitude of sincerity and unity that pervaded the group.  In my culture, we don't say what's on our mind, we use "tact" to beat around the bush, and avoid confrontation.  Ironically, that doesn't necessarily characterize our families.  So how intimate is a group relationship when we don't feel we can be honest, forthright, and don't feel safe to criticize?  This does not characterize church in most cases.  I do know one person in my church who doesn't have a problem with this, and I really appreciate him, as do many of our congregation.  He's not perfect, but he is respected.  He's both honest and forthright, but I never got the impression he was belligerent or mean, in fact he was a concerned about how he might be taken, but not deterred by that concern.  Why can't that characterize everyone or most rather than one?  I'd like it if it characterized me at least.

If these things characterized me, my Master's presence in my life would be noticeable.  It is beginning to characterize my small group.  That will become an influence in my church (we're not that huge that 10 or 12 people won't have an effect).  I hope that my life will begin to change and take on more of these qualities, but I will have to let it and encourage it.  It will affect my attitude toward my church, they will become a huge priority.  It will affect my life with my Master, He will have more of me to use for His purposes and Kingdom.  It will affect my influence in my community, I will be more bold to engage them with the good news I know, and they need.  And it will make an impression on my daughter who will see the validity not just sincerity of a Biblical-based church, and will seek that for the rest of her life.  Life change, that is the main effect; and my Master will add daily to the numbers of those being saved through this sub-culture.

Addressing The Need

And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. (Acts 2:44-45 NASB)

I assumed that the commune movement of the 60's and 70's in the United States was a new idea born out of the philosophical ideas of the times.  I was wrong.  This sort of thing has been going on since Civil War days, (technically before if you consider colonies in this light), and only received revived attention during the 60's and 70's.  They're still around, and one actually exists in the City of Chicago, born out of the Jesus Movement of the 70's.

The idea is not really a comfortable one for the sort of Americans I was raised by and around.  It goes against the idea that you own what you work to earn or gain or make.  But I grudgingly have to admit that the idea has much in line with Scripture.  I'm not comfortable considering the things I have worked to accumulate and "systems" I have setup to be the property of my "group".  I want to care for them, and I like them the way I have them.  I'm wrestling with the idea that this creates idols out of my "stuff".

I have always comforted myself in my life with my Master by saying out loud that all I have I have from my Master.  Easy to say, because I still have it.  I have learned over the years to then claim that I am merely the steward of these things, not the owner.  That is easy to say, but difficult to live out.  How available is my "stuff" to others?  The practice in Acts 2 is very different than my practice.

I have been taught that the majority of the 3000 souls added to the church on Pentecost were from out of town.  If that were true, there would be a large displacement of people to accommodate in Jerusalem.  This communal answer may have been a response to a very real and pressing need.  On the other hand, it reflects and attitude that whatever was possessed was available to everyone else in the group.  Regardless of how the idea came about, the attitude that made it possible is really what I'm after.

What would it be like if I considered my home computer network available to my church for whatever need they had?  What would it look like if my truck were available to anyone who had need of it?  How about our motor home? Utility Trailer?  What if someone really needed a vacation and wanted to go kayaking, would our kayaks be available or would they stay hanging from the rafters?  I have a lot of stuff.  I look at others, and I see some have more.  But I don't answer for how much I have, rather I answer for how I've used what I have.  One of the attitudes or principles that my Master considers important is how available this stuff is to His use in His Kingdom.  He wants to see that the things He has provided are available for Him to use for His purposes.

While my wife and I each struggle with this issue, we do so differently.  I am willing to share parts she is not, and she's willing to share parts I am not, and there are parts we both are willing to share.  Together we make one good believer.  Over all, we're willing to share what we have with others.  That sound pretty good doesn't it?  We're willing to share, but are we willing to relinquish?  The way the attitude of the people in this new mega-church responded was to sell off possessions and give the proceeds to those in need, whoever was in need, as much as they needed.  This takes "availability" to new levels for me.

I'm not sure that I would be willing to do that.  It hasn't been asked of me, but what if it is?  What if the only way I can meet a need is to sell something I like.  On a smaller scale, what if I cancelled my TV service and used the cost I've been paying to contribute more to those in need?  That's not something I own per se, but a service I enjoy and on which I spend a lot of money.  So, that might be someplace to start.  But what those kayaks?  What about the motor home?  Would I be willing (or able to talk my wife into) selling those and contributing the proceeds to the church for those in need?  What if the church itself is in need?  Isn't that "us" enough that we would consider that a need to sell and contribute toward?

The problem I see here is the required shift in my attitude and my view of my stuff.  It would need to be softened way beyond stewardship to "warehouse management".  It is hard for me to envision that what I have I merely hold on to so that it's available to those who might have need, in whatever way they may have that need.  I spent money on it, money I earned by working.  I have had use of these things, and want to continue using them.  So, seeing them as available to others, and really owned by the group rather than myself is a difficult mental shift to make.  But I'm wrestling with seeing any other alternative.  On this, I think I may wrestle some more.  This is a difficult thing to wrap my mind around.  Conceptually I see it, but the practice is wreaking havoc in my mind.  I clearly have more growing to do.

Who Am I To Be Used By God?

They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? (Acts 2:7-8 NASB)

Every time I have gone over this passage, I have wondered how they knew the group was from Galilee rather than "local" or whatever.  A miracle of speaking and hearing is performed, yet in a Galilean "twang"?  It just seems interesting that the crowd could tell.  I thought maybe John was wearing a tee-shirt with "Property of Sea of Tiberius" or "Fish Galilee" or "Zebedee's Fresh Fish Company".

I have often wondered what made it obvious.  From the statement it had to be obvious, so what was it?  Because that piece of information, that detail, factored into the amazement and astonishment of the crowd.  Sure they were hearing the great wonders of God in their own dialect, but from Galileans?  Now that was crazy.  The fact that they were Galilean removed any support for another explanation, it had to be divine. 

But why was that?  Are there no schools in Galilee?  Are there no teachers, mentors, or tutors?  Are the only schools in Jerusalem?  What about immigrants?  Couldn't immigrants from other regions explain a plethora linguistic ability?  There were so few that it wouldn't?  So, I return to Nathaniel's statement from John 1:46, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"  That was one place within a larger region, and Nathaniel was from the region, a Galilean shore-town named Bethsaida, like Philip, Peter and Andrew.  So even within the "Region of Illiteracy" there were places worse than others.  It seems Jesus Himself was from one of the worst.

Regardless of what made it obvious, it was a detail that contributed to the shock of the event for the crowd.  And I move on to wonder if that too was part of the design of my Master?  In using such obviously unqualified people, wouldn't the event have to be a work of the Maker of the universe?  In choosing such a group no one else would choose, my Master makes His mark indelible; it can't be missed, and it can't be otherwise explained.

So, am I, with all my failures; physical, moral and spiritual; one who glorifies my King through my weaknesses?  Sort of.  To the extent I am redeemed from my moral failures, yes.  To the extent that the work demonstrates spiritual growth and faith, yes.  But not through moral and spiritual failure, that isn't what displays the glory of my Master.  These illiterate speakers of various languages were not pointed out because they were excluded by their God, but because they would not be expected to speak anything but Aramaic, maybe some simple Greek to conduct business, and a few phrases in Latin to stay out of trouble; the common language of the day.  No one would expect them to speak the specific language and dialect of Phrygia.

So, yes, my Master can use one such as me for His glory.  He can make His handiwork obvious in the process, and it can clearly overshadow me in every way.  But He will do so when my guilt and shame are not what make it unusual or what competes for the attention.  Or will He?  My only comfort at this point is David.  Other than him, I don't know of an obvious sinner used by my Master.  In fact David was really a moral failure only after attaining the great blessings of God as king.  Perhaps his son, Solomon would also be an example.  I really can't rely on those though.  They were examples of what not to do, and that's not really the example I want to give.  Sure they are also examples of God's redemption and use of "broken vessels", but still, there was a sense of repentance and change that made the story of their moral failures able to be told.

Will my Master use me?  He can.  I hope He will.  I hope people will hear or see something in me and say, "That's impossible!  What can it mean?"  It would be awesome and humbling for people to see me and hear me, but not be distracted by me; to be able to be ignored so my Master can shine forth.  That would be really cool.  More than likely God will not be using me in this way, it would just be cool.  Maybe I should invest in a shirt from Galilee?

The Difference Between Son Powered and Wind Powered Life

So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.   They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.   Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles.   And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common;  and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.   Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart,  praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:41-47 NASB)

In Acts 2, much attention in the chapter and from believers is focused on the immediate effects of their speech and the ensuing sermon of Peter.  It seems the end of the chapter gets disconnected from the noisy event of the disciples being filled with the Holy Spirit.  I'd like to correct that problem.  I start by asking a very strange question:  Would you rather have the Son of God to follow, or the Holy Spirit to lead you?  See, I told you it was odd.

Hopefully, after some mental wrangling, the initial panic of heresy calms down and the decision is pondered as a "win-win" set of options.  I ask because of something at the end of Acts 2 that is amazing to me, especially as an American.  When I consider that 3,000 people from all over the world were added to 120 believers in Jerusalem, I have to wonder if the logistics of that was overwhelming to the initial 120.  We don't typically think about it, but 3,000 people needed jobs, places to live, food, all in Jerusalem.  Did Jerusalem's economy support such a surge in population?  The economy of Jerusalem at that time probably did not support such a surge easily.  As people left the festival to return home, the jobs actually decreased, not increased (although housing was more available).

So God has brought 3,000 souls to the church in one morning, most of them are from elsewhere and haven't lived in Jerusalem.  What do you do now?  The believers settled into an interesting pattern.  They continued in focusing on four things:  the apostles' teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread (communion?), and prayer.  In order to meet the overwhelming needs, the people shared everything (they had all things in common).  In fact, some sold property and used the proceeds to assist in meeting these new needs. 

Where did they learn that?  What in their Scriptures told them that was the correct response to such a need?  Would you believe the laws on tithing?  In Deuteronomy 14:28-29, a use for the tithe is given that is overlooked almost universally by Jesus' followers.  I suspect that part of the teaching of the apostles included a solution based on these principles.  There are other passages that could have been used, but this one specifically addresses those among the people who did not have any land among them.  At the time those in these categories were ineligible to own land among them (at least the "alien").  So while 2/3 of the tithe went to the temple (to be used for a party by the way), the other 1/3 was used to help the needy around them.

Two reasons I don't see the response of the believers to this need as a direct effect of the noisy wind-and-fire-tongue event is that they already had "received" the Holy Spirit.  They selected their Twelfth Man before this, so the Holy Spirit was already working in them to solve issues.  It was nice to have that twelfth guy once the 3,000 showed up, that was good timing (or God-timing).  And, second, it wasn't just the 120 (i.e. the ones in the room when it happened) that were sharing.  It turns out Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, had property in the area (or maybe elsewhere) who sold it and gave the proceeds to the apostles.  They eventually nick-named him Barnabas.  I believe he was an example of the scope of the sharing. 

So what I see is a Spirit-led response to need through generosity.  It's not that they were all "gifted" with generosity, the all responded in that way.  All needs were shared, and so were all the possessions necessary to meet the needs.  In the United States, we are offended when we're told, "you didn't build that."  We take our possessions very seriously.  The fruit of our labor is ours, we worked hard for it, we did too build it!  Yet Scripture asks us, what do we have that did not come from our Master?  Sure that's not what was meant when we were told we didn't build what we have, but I have to agree that I didn't build what I have apart from my Master's provision.  So is it possible that He has provided these possessions to me so that I might have more to give to meet the needs around me?

No one has the right to ask me to give my possessions to meet needs, except my Master.  The needs around me can be met by other sources, but what about His call on me?  I can't solve the problems, meet all the needs, and make everyone happy.  But I don't think the call is to either of those things, those are the jobs of my Master.  What He wants of my is the resources He has entrusted to me so He can use them to meet those needs, solve those problems, and bring happiness to the ones in need.  I have a few loaves and some fish (I'm always happy to give up fish).  I can't solve anything.  This isn't about solving the problems, it's about the things entrusted to me by my Master being available to Him for His purposes.  Well, I think some budget adjustments may need to be made in my household.  What fun...oh wait, I'm to be a cheerful giver.  What fun!  To see what God will do is one of the most fun things there is.  I just have to hold on to that thought.

Greetings From The Eternal Creator of All Matter: That's all I want

After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great." (Genesis 15:1 NASB)

After Abram defeats the victorious kings of the east with a small band of nomads and three brothers is when God says this.  "After these things..." refers to returning from the battle and after-battle party.  If Abram can defeat a large army of four kings why does he need a "shield"?  If he gave all the booty back and kept nothing, if his wealth was too great to support both he and Lot in the same place, then doesn't he already have a great reward?  He clearly wasn't looking for a reward, or he would have kept a portion of the spoils or the whole of it the king of Sodom offered to him.

So when God shows up again, why start His dialogue this way?  If I'm doing well, and I have just experienced a rousing success, why would God come to me and say I am your protection where you're strong.  Don't I need the encouragement where I'm weak?  Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss, as Abram dives right into, Abram's childlessness?  Why would the All-Knowing Creator of the universe dive into what is of little interest to Abram?

Abram brings up two things that argue against the promise that his "reward will be very great."  First, he's childless.  Second, a guy from his household, an employee, is set to gain all Abram's wealth when he dies.  This does not support the earlier promise of descendants like the dust.  Perhaps God does not include that in His opener, but Abram wastes no time going there.

Abram's change of topic couldn't have surprised God.  He goes there with Abram, so He must be okay with it.  So why not start there?  I believe at this point, questioning along this line is where I explore the character of my Master in greater depth.

Right off the top, I find something without having to "interpret" into the text, or theorize about what it means.  God and Abram have a very close relationship, like close friends rather than the God of the universe and a goat-herd.  I think that in the past, I have read passages like this and glossed over it so fast I missed a critical piece.  I assume that God is not that distant then like He is now (so many things wrong with that assumption).  I just put the people (including God) into that mundane bucket of "Bible people"; all who have experiences with God that don't happen any more.  It so disconnects the story from my life that making a practical connection back is nearly impossible.

God and Abram "discuss" things.  The opening of God is like a "greeting" as much as it is a promise.  It contains a promise, but it's like, "Hail, worthy friend" in format.  It's not so much a promise as it is a blessing.  It is the etiquette of visiting and hospitality in the Middle East.  And the King of the Universe, in the midst of forming stars and swirling galaxies, takes the time to visit His friend Abram, even following etiquette as He does so.  That is shocking! That flies in the face of the mundane, the ordinary, the imaginable.  Can you imagine if Mamre was also visiting, here is Abram introducing the two, "This is my good friend Yahweh, Maker of all things.  Yahweh, this is my buddy Mamre, but, of course, You already knew that..."

Of course, this is a vision, not a physical visitation (that comes some chapters later).  Still, it is a visitation, and God opens with a blessing.  It is like two people now a days greeting with a handshake.  Can you imagine, in a dream, God visits and greets you with a handshake?  How about with one of those shoulder-touch man-hug handshakes?  And this vision keeps going as Abram is awake, by the way, so this is not technically a dream.  In this account, there may not be someone visibly with Abram, but the conversation clearly indicates God was right there with Abram, visible or not.

Okay, the obvious application here is that I want that relationship!  Sure God doesn't  visit every day, but still, like this, once every 12 years or so, I want it!  It's just not acceptable to say that things are different now.  God didn't preserve this account for 4000 years for me to say that things are different, and that's just not how God works now.  Obviously He can.  Obviously He will.  Clearly it's not outside the realm of possibilities with God, and it is also well within the bounds of a relationship with Him.

I just saw a movie the other night where some guy who didn't believe in fairies is taken "Fairyland" and a forced to serve a sentence because of his "dissemination of disbelief".  People can imagine fairies, but having a sit down with God over coffee discussing the day is too fantastic.  Even the "Almighty" movies don't quite approach this level of intimacy with God.

Here's the sad part for me, I am a follower of Jesus, believing that God has raised Him from the dead, confessing Him as Lord and Master, claiming that He is both God and man.  That means that His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, has taken up residence in me.  The Spirit of the Living God resides in me.  It's not that I have "earned" this or that I finally convinced Him to visit.  He lives here.  What possible excuse do I have to NOT have this relationship?  What is wrong with me?  This should be the "normal" of my life, not the exceptional dream!

To be fair, there is a lot of talk about "quiet times" and "time alone with God" and I get that.  I've said it myself, and I believe that my time with God in prayer is vital to my relationship with Him.  But to be honest, not just fair, I have never had God visit ME, open the conversation with a normal social greeting, and He and I just dive right into a conversation.  Things have occurred to me, seemingly random, but clearly from the Spirit of my Master.  That's not the same thing.  I believe God has spoken to me, given me insight, and even spoken through me in Bible studies and sermons.  Those are not the same thing. 

Maybe my problem is that they should be, but to me, they are not the same.  My experiences in prayer, study, and speaking do not replicate the pattern I see in Genesis 15:1; they just don't.  I don't want to hear or make excuses for this.  I don't want to lower my desire, using the excuse that God doesn't work this way any more.  I have heard that since we have the Scripture He speaks through that.  I have heard that with His Spirit within us, He speaks through the promptings of the Spirit instead of like here in Genesis.  No!  I want this level of intimacy!  I want it! 

I want to know and be so close to God that no one can see me, talk to me, or even think of me without also seeing my Master, including Him in the conversation (or feel like they're interrupting), and thinking of my Master too.  I want to talk to Him like I speak with my wife, be as close or closer with Him than I am with my wife.  I can't jettison this desire because I've put my Master in a "new box" that doesn't include such things.  That's not acceptable to me.  I want the handshake-shoulder-touch-man-hug with my Master, Maker of all space, time, the earth, all matter, stars, and sub-atomic particles.  Is that too much to ask?