Arise! Shine! Your Light Has Come!

Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you. See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. (Isaiah 60:1-2, NIV)  

I preached on this text on Sunday and decided to share some thoughts on this passage for today.

Darkness Covers the Earth

It doesn't take much to see the darkness covering the earth in our day. Evil seems to get all the headlines: Ferguson & New York killings and response; ISIS continues to kill almost everyone that isn't ISIS; the lost girls of Nigeria are still lost. Even the natural realm seems to be corrupted: Ebola, Cancer, Alzheimer's, Hurricanes, first drought and now flooding in California. This is to say nothing of spiritual darkness: Robin Williams committed suicide; domestic abuse in the NFL; the continued attacks on Christianity and Christians across the globe; waning church attendance; and a general spiritual malaise and apathy even in many congregations.

The world can be a pretty dark place at times. It can seem overwhelming. If you look at it long enough and closely enough, it's hard not to conclude that hopelessness is the only rational attitude.

It was into a world as dark as ours, and in many ways even darker that Jesus was born. Jesus is born into the Roman world, an empire run by thugs, by intimidation, by public torture and execution and by mercilessly putting down any real or imagined rebellion. They took money in large amounts in the form of taxes and tribute from wealthy and poor, robbing nations of their own inheritance, their own means to thrive.

There was terrible corruption in the Jewish religious system on the day Jesus was born. The high priest was now named for political reasons and not without the approval of Herod. Of this Herod it was said that you would be better off being his dog than his son, since his dogs had a better chance of not being killed by him. This is the Herod who rebuilt the temple. He made it beautiful on the outside, but all of temple worship was tainted by the corruption of compromise with Herod and Rome. While they managed to keep out idols and gentiles from the courts, they allowed the influence of Rome and of Herod in they way they led the people.

Even the Pharisees, who saw themselves as preserving pure Judaism, as opposed to the compromisers, exchanged the intent of the writings of Moses for mere laws and rituals that they believed were required by God for His blessings. They were severe in their devotion to the Bible they had (what we would call the Old Testament), but they had missed the point of turning their hearts to God, and became insistent on mere outward obedience.

Into that world, in an oppressed country, in a small, obscure village, in a barn (because there wasn't any other place for His parents to spend the night), Jesus enters as a baby. Small and helpless: Savior of the world. Before He was 2 years old, that corrupt king (Herod) tried to kill Him by killing all the boys in town.

Into our own personal dark worlds, Jesus comes. He still enters our world, so full of hopelessness and cynicism. He enters through the Spirit, Who still hovers over the dark places, where no one can really live. He enters lives damaged by bullying, by hurtful speech, by prejudices, by abuse of all kinds. He enters our darkness, sometimes unnoticed.

Jesus Appears

Into this dark world the Light begins to shine. Jesus came, not as in idea, not as a projection of hope, nor an apparition. He could be seen, heard, touched (1John 1:1-3). You could shake His hand. If you were close enough, you could count the whiskers on His chin. If He spoke, you could hear his accent. He became a human being, with all our limitations (though He never stopped being God). 

One of the craziest things you'll ever hear is: God was born as a human baby boy. If the Bible didn't say so, and I suggested it, you would have every right to reject the notion as both lunacy and heresy. The absurdity of this--of Jesus being the very Son of God--is one of the things that eventually got Him crucified.

The message Jesus brings is summed up by John in 1John 1:5: This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. When Jesus, being God enters our dark world He brings the light of God with Him. Into this dark world, so full of death enters Jesus: In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. (John 1:4–5). Jesus brings life and light and the darkness doesn't have a chance.

A New Day Dawns

The Lord Himself rises upon us! In Isaiah 60:1 we read the glory of the Lord rises upon us and in verse 2 we read the Lord rises upon us. God's glory and His presence in the Bible are often two ways of talking about the same thing. When God's glory rests over the tabernacle or fills the temple, it is God Himself, His presence resting over the tabernacle and filling the temple. This rising glory is the rising of God's presence upon His people.

His glory rises like the rising of the sun. It signals a new day. The night--the time of darkness--is over! The light chases off the darkness and we can see things as they really are.

The glory of the Lord rises upon us, His people. It doesn't rise over the whole earth (yet). But it does rise upon us. There may be (and is) darkness in our world, but there is supposed to be light among us.

Jesus birth signals the dawn of that new day. History pivots on that point in history. Our calendars reference that point in history (even though, through a miscalculation--Jesus was probably born about 4 B.C.). We who live on this side of Jesus birth, live in a new era. The impact of His birth, His life, His ministry, His death and resurrection, are still felt today.

The light He brings is an everlasting light (Isaiah 60:19). Light bulbs burn out. The sun will eventually burn out (in about 4 billion years or so). Nothing tangible lasts forever. All the light and enlightenment we humans find on our own is fading and temporary. But the light Jesus brings won't go out. It is still shining today. It shines in us who follow and believe in Him. It shines through us.

We can arise and shine, rather than merely arise and reflect, because the God's light is in us, through His Spirit. According to Jesus, we are the light of the world (Matthew 5:14-16). We have a light to shine in this dark world. It is the light of God's glory, God's presence among us and within us.

This is the day of Emmanuel: God with us (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23). And while we might think of Jesus as up in heaven, His promise is to always be with us (Matthew 28:20). He does that now through His Holy Spirit, Who is God with us and God within us.

So Get Up and Glow!

Arise and Shine! In every way the light of God has come into you, shine! In every way His light has transformed you, shine! Remove the bowl and let your light shine (cf. Matthew 5:15). Shine! Blaze! Glow! God Himself is with us and within us. Let Him shine out!

Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you. See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. (Isaiah 60:1-2, NIV) 

Worship as a Basic Value

A recent blog post (Is Evangelical Worship Headed for a HUGE Crash?) shared on Facebook got me thinking. I responded to that Facebook post and in thinking about this week's blog, thought I'd write some of my thoughts on worship in the church.

Worship as a Staged Performance

I'm going to be harsh here: worship transitioned from congregational singing to staged performance (in some churches) because Evangelicals and those in the Reformed stream* do not value worship per se very highly--especially in comparison with teaching/preaching. In my experience in visiting some evangelical churches, it would not be difficult to conclude that they don't value worship per se at all.

What we have are songs performed with excellence, sometimes great songs with a great message. Yet, while on a sabbatical a couple of years ago, I often watched the musicians as they performed and got the distinct impression (against my assumptions) that the were singing and/or playing instruments, but not worshiping. They wanted to do a good job for the pastor and those gathered. But I can't help but think of this verse ...don't be like [those who] love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full (Matt. 6:5). I know that's harsh. But if we're singing to impress the pastor or people, and they're impressed, we get all we were after.

The shocking thing is that in some of these churches I visited the lack of participation by the people gathered there, was not a topic of interest to the worship leaders, the teachers, or anyone else that took hold of a microphone. No one said anything like "Join us in the next chorus," let alone "Let's worship our great God through song this morning...," or anything of the kind. It seemed fine that the people there weren't there to worship.

The height of irony came when in a few of these churches they would repeat the contemporary mantra: "Christianity is not a religion but a relationship" but then give neither evidence, nor model of doing any relating to God in the service! In at least one of those services where that mantra was spoken, there wasn't a single prayer said from those leading meeting. How can we relate to God without talking to Him, singing to Him, or even just waiting in His presence?! Despite the claim, the experience was religion without relationship - at least that's how I experienced it (and I was trying not to!)

What is clear to me as I visited those, and many other churches, is that while singing might be valued somewhat (if the lyrics have some important theological meaning), what's called "the worship time" is often just the warm-up act for the real reason we're there: the teaching (AKA message, AKA sermon). Judging only by what happens, the worship of God is not the main thing; teaching about Him (and what He wants, expects, or offers) is.

What Do I Mean by "Worship?"

For many, particularly among Evangelicals and Reformed, we have fuzzy ideas about what we mean by the term worship. From a practical perspective, it may mean: "what we do on Sundays' when we gather as God's people" - whatever that is, we call it 'worship.' In other words, worship = the Sunday service. Worship then is--and I hesitate to use the term, anticipating objections--a set of rituals called our "order of worship." (Charismatics and Pentecostals are not immune to this temptatation; it's just a different set of rituals.)

Here's my definition of worship: Worship is the heart directed toward God in adoration. Therefore, worship is primarily vertical: God directed. Even corporate worship, as we encourage each other is and should be much more vertical than horizontal. Worship is something that comes from within us, from our spirit, our heart. It is primarily an internal thing expressed externally.

Jesus said the kind of worshipers the Father seeks are those who worship in spirit (or the Spirit) and in truth (John 4:23-24). I don't think God is interested in musical "excellence" nearly as much as we are. What He is interested in (more than we are?) is what is going on in our hearts, the hearts of His people, as we worship.

We Reformed and Evangelical tend toward the intellect, much more than the heart. We're sort of suspicious of emotions and other heart stuff, and while we give it lip service and say things like "believe it with your heart, not just your head," we are still usually speaking to the intellect when we say it. I think that's why we tend to emphasize teaching so much, and also why we tend to devalue worship, or just not think about it as something to value.

But worship involves our entire being, not just our intellect, but our emotions too. They include the emotions of gladness, joy, gratitude (Psalm 100), and as I read the Psalms, it's hard to think of a human emotion that doesn't get caught up in worship somehow. In fact, worship must involve our whole being--all of who we are. Worship that is merely intellectual is as impoverished as worship that is merely emotional, or merely ritualistic, or merely music. It is supposed to involve heart, soul, mind and strength.

Intellectually-centered 'worship' will tend to raise the value of those things that address the intellect and devalue those things that don't. And this is, I think, what has happened in many Evangelical and Reformed churches. Even if we resist the tendency toward a performance-centered worship band, the songs sung are not always seen as of central or primary importance. Sometimes the opposite problem surfaces where congregational preferences replace authentic worship with mere singing of favorite Christian hymns and other songs. It happens because church leaders don't value authentic worship nearly as much as good, Biblical teaching, and so let it slide.

Worship as a Basic Value

Let me just say it: We value worship to the degree that we value the presence of God.

Now we believe that God is present with His people when they gather, whether we sense His presence or not. Right? If that's true, then what is the proper response to God's presence, if not worship? Is it not improper, if not offensive, to fail to worship God--in spirit and in truth--when He is among us? I mean really, truly, and from the heart worship Him. I don't mean sing 'peppy songs' or, grand and glorious hymns, or get all emotional; I mean worship as discussed above: hearts directed toward God Himself in adoration.

If the people who gather on Sundays don't know how to worship, we need to teach them, show them, help them, and lead them into authentic worship.

This is why I think we should just kill the role of "worship leaders" and resurrect in it's place the role of "lead worshipers." Just as there are those prayer warriors who embody prayer in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests... (Eph 6:18), there are those who embody and model worship in spirit and in truth. They should be encouraged and empowered to lead God's people in worship. I don't mean that they should worship in front for the people, but lead the people in worship. If they're not following, you're not leading (you're just out for a walk). Lead in a way that others follow.

The worship crash in the article above will happen, unless lead worshipers begin to focus on the worship of those who gather. The gathered should not be seen as the audience, but as the gathered worshipers. The band, the singers, the organist, pianist, guitarist, or whoever and however it's done in your church, should be there for the sake of helping the gathered to worship in spirit and in truth.

BTW, if we just change titles (worship leader to lead worshiper) and don't change expectations (of those leaders and the congregation), it won't help. I hope you understand that I'm not talking about new names for current ideas. I'm talking about changing job descriptions.

It's Not Just the Evangelicals and Reformed Who Are in Trouble Here

These same issues are also found among charismatic and Pentecostal groups. I've been to charismatic gatherings where worship was not highly valued; where good teaching and power-ministry were the center of focus. I've been to Pentecostal gatherings where the worship seemed more about the worship leader getting the gathered to respond in a certain way, than in focusing on God's presence.

The worship band, as performers for an audience, has not left charismatics, nor Pentecostals immune from its insidious influence. Let me suggest that the larger the church, and more professional the band, the greater the temptation to shift from God-focused congregational worship, to something having more to do with musical prowess and crowd-pleasing. (However, smaller churches are in no way exempt from this either!)

Two Concluding Questions for Worship Leaders, Lead Worshipers, Pastors, Preachers, etc.

1. If God showed up on a Sunday morning, would you notice, and would it matter?
2. Since God is always present in our Sunday gatherings, are we looking for Him?

I hope those questions make a positive shift in your preparation for Sunday and your leadership of God's people on Sunday.


-------------------------
*I have many Reformed friends who would object to the term 'Evangelical' as applying to them. Not based on theological objections, but for historical and stylistic (emphasis) reasons. So I will continue to distinguish these two streams, understanding 'Reformed' as that group that emerged primarily from Calvinists in Europe, and 'Evangelical' as those that emerged from American Fundamentalism, when that movement needed to turn outward toward mission and evangelism. These terms are sometimes used in different ways by different people; even some Pentecostals see themselves as Evangelical, despite the distinct ways those movements came into being.

Leadership in the Kingdom

There is really a lot more to this topic than what I'm going to write today. But I wanted to write about the heart of Kingdom leadership, because it's a topic that is widely misunderstood not only among Reformed, charismatic and Pentecostal leaders, but the western church in general (IMHO, of course).

Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. (Luke 22:24–26)

This is Jesus' clearest teaching on leadership. Yet we often miss what He is saying to us in it because of our assumptions. Hopefully what follows will clarify some of this for us.

Magisterial Leadership

In the church today there are some common assumptions about leadership that have crept in over time that actually do violence to the passage above. There is an idea of leadership that assumes, without reflection, that leadership means getting other people to do what the leader wants. This is the model for leadership that most often comes to mind when someone talks about "strong leadership skills." A strong leader is someone who, through force of personality or skills of persuasion is particularly good at getting people to do what he or she believes should be done. The model of church leader as CEO, which crept into the church from the business world, is what we're talking about here.

Some people like these sorts of leaders and are attracted to them. They want this kind of "strong leadership" because it feels so good to be under such a confident person. It meshes with our assumptions about humility and submission to authority, and so we justify it on spiritual grounds as well. But I think we like these kinds of leaders because they absolve us of responsibility for our own decisions: we let them make our decisions for us.

Such leaders do not think of themselves as abusing their authority at all. As in the quote above from Jesus, they call themselves 'Benefactors' and believe to the core of their being that they are leading for the benefit of those they lead. It may be lonely at the top, but that is a burden they are willing to bear for the sake of those who need to be led (and by led, they understand: telling them what they should do). But I think these sorts of leaders are actually serving their own vision for the Church much more than than Jesus' vision for His people.

I believe that such a view of leadership, as it exists in the Church, is directly connected with one's view of God. For those who understand God as One who holds His power over people in order to get them to do His will, that God rules and reigns over everything by enforcing His authority through His power, believe that this is the way authority works and is supposed to work in the Church as well. For these folks the authority exercised by pastors, elders, etc., is authority delegated from the top down for the purpose of compelling, if not requiring, compliance and obedience to God's ways.

I also believe that such a view of leadership is connected to one's understanding of the human condition of those in Christ. That is, such a view generally assumes that people, at the core of their being, are sinful and their sin needs to be restrained.

This is called the Magisterial View of church leadership. Church leaders then are seen as magistrates who rule on behalf of, and under the authority of the King of the Church for the purpose of maintaining order and discipline, and administering the laws and will of that King.

Those living with these assumptions about leadership, about believers, and about God will often think of themselves as servant leaders, considering their willingness to lead--in all the ways that isolates them from others ("it's lonely at the top")--as a kind of selfless service they offer others. Many under such leadership would agree.

By now, you may assume that I'm not supportive of that view of leadership, nor that view of God or who we are in Christ. You'd be right.

Servant Leadership

So, if leadership in the Kingdom isn't "telling people what to do," what is it? Let me state it briefly using a definition I heard, and then explain further. Leadership in the Kingdom is not about holding authority over people but under them.*

In Ephesians 4:11-13, Paul explains the purpose of leadership and authority in the Church as the preparation of God's people for works of service (v.12). Paul goes on to state the ultimate goal being that believers attain to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (v.13). That is leadership exists for the sake of body of believers, not the other way around.

Now that word translated "prepare" in the NIV(84), is better translated as most other modern translations have it (including the NIV2011): "equip." To equip someone is to give them what they need to accomplish something. Now what's clear here is that what they are equipped for is works of service. It does not mean, and cannot be translated "equip...with works of service," that is: give them a job to do. The Scripture assumes that they already have one, probably given along with their spiritual gifts.

The task of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers is to give people what they need to do the works of service God is calling them to. This is quite the opposite of giving people what they need to accomplish the "works of service" God gave the leader.

To lord it over (from the passage above) is the verb related to the Greek noun for Lord (κύριος), which means "owner or master." When we lord it over someone, we become their master, their lord. Like a slave owner, it is the right of the master to tell the slave what to do. We don't want to do that! Jesus is Lord, not church leaders. And Jesus doesn't call His followers slaves, but friends!

...but not so with you...

In saying "not so with you," Jesus is telling His disciples that we should not take our cues about leadership from the world--not from government, not from the military, and (in our day, I would add) not from business. There is a temptation to look at how other successful leaders lead successfully (outside the Church) and follow their example. But Jesus says ...not so with you...

Our cues need to come from Jesus Himself, Who did not come to be served but to serve (Mark 10:45). He empowered those around Him with authority to do what He was doing, first the 12 (Luke 9:1-2, e.g.) and then 72 others  (Luke 10:1), presumably with the same authority, since they had the same assignment.

In Ephesians 5:23, the husband (acting as head of the wife, as Christ is head of the church) is to imitate Christ who, as head of the church, gave Himself up for her. That is, the sort of headship he is to exercise is the self-giving, self-sacrificing kind--in imitation of Christ. This is leadership in the Kingdom of God.

The view of God that drives this view of leadership is that God is a Father who loves to see His children succeed at what He calls them to. That God equips us with everything good for doing His will (Heb.13:21). That God is not so much over us as with us; not so much telling us what to do as inviting us to join Him in His work.

Such leaders understand that who we are in Christ is, at the core of who we are, good; that the old, sinful self has been displaced by the new self. Such leaders believe that God's Spirit is actually producing the fruit of righteousness in people, and while this is still a process, it is well under way. Such leaders understand that people don't need to be controlled as much as encouraged to be who we really are in Christ: God's workmanship [masterpiece], created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do (Eph. 2:10).

A Few Practical Examples

What does this really look like? It's one thing to say what not to do, and another to show the alternative.

It looks like a pastor stepping aside from a favorite task, to make room for a member beginning to come into his/her own as a leader. It looks like a worship leader, passing the mic to someone with potential (but still less skill) who needs the experience of leading worship to come into their own. It looks like a leader encouraging a member to step into a position that they are nervous about, even though the leader believes they are ready. It looks like the seasoned leader counseling the new leader not to give up, even though they've just made a major blunder - not stepping in to fix it, but equipping the new leader to know how to "clean up their own mess."

It also looks like a leader who celebrates the accomplishments of those who are coming into their own, finding their own ministries, finding their own 'voice' in teaching -- even when the leader knows he/she could have done better themselves. It looks like the leader who comes to the defense of someone who risked stepping out, and became the object of someone's criticism (even when the critic has a point).

It looks like a leader cleaning up the kitchen so that the person who usually does it is freed up to step into a ministry better suited to his/her gifts. It looks like a leader letting a 'pet project' die, because those making it work with him/her are better suited for other ministries.

It looks like Jesus sending out 12 and later 72 others with authority, long before they really knew what His ministry was all about, and Who He really was. It looks like God empowering the frightened and ill-equipped disciples with the Holy Spirit so that they would become who they were destined to be. It looks like Paul encouraging a young Timothy to be true to his calling and his identity in Christ, reminding Him of what God had said about him and given to him -- believing in Timothy, when it seems young Timothy was not believing in himself. It's Paul refusing to tell Philemon what to do about Onesimus, while opening a door for Philemon to display what his faith really meant in the context of his relationship with Onesimus.

This sort of leadership requires that leaders believe that God's people are trustworthy in their deepest selves. The other sort of leadership usually betrays a belief that people are sinful in their deepest selves. To some extent both have a point. But the servant leader believes the One in us is always ultimately stronger than the sin in us.

Sometimes We Serve by Leading

There comes a time when a decision has to be made that affects the larger group, perhaps an entire congregation, or even a denomination. Such decisions come in times of crisis, and sometimes are simply matters of procedure or policy. At such times the decision may not please everyone, in fact it probably won't.

The point of servant leadership is not to please people, but to equip them for works of service. In those ways we lead by serving. But at times we need to serve by leading. Let me explain.

Leaders who are part of the governance structure of an organization need to make decisions that relate to how that organization functions. Will we baptize the children of believers, or believers only? Will we accept women as elders or not? Will we support this mission cause, or that one? Should the carpet be blue or red? Shall we meet at 10am or 9:30am? The list goes on.

Sometimes in these discussions a polarization can happen among the leaders, or among the congregation (or other members of the organization). The longer indecision lasts, the greater the potential for polarization.

As a former volunteer firefighter, one of the things I learned early on is that in a crisis situation it is better to make a decision quickly than ponder which decision would be best. We can always adjust the plan as we go, and we can always learn from our mistakes. In those cases, the officer makes a plan and assigns duties so that the task can be accomplished: the officer serves by leading.

In the Church too often we ponder and ponder... and ponder some more, trying to avoid making a mistake. But sometimes the bigger mistake is to do all you can to avoid making one! There are times when it is better to move forward and adjust as you go, than to only go forward if you're sure it's the best course of action.

I'm convinced it's better for those entrusted with making that decision, pray for God's wisdom and make a decision based on their best understanding of God's will. There are a dozen traps to avoid here, and discussing them all would require another post. However, let me say this: unless all the power to make the decision rests with those in the room, entrusted with making it, expect trouble. The servant leader will always refuse to be manipulated, since that just makes someone else a master, and we only allow for one master in the Church: Jesus.

This blog is already longer than I originally intended. There is so much more to say on this topic, but I really must get on with my day.

-------------------------
*That's not original, but I don't remember who is the source for this quote.

If You Love Me . . .

One of the verses I memorized as a child was John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (RSV).

I need to admit that when I memorized that verse, what I thought it meant was something a bit passive aggressive like this: "If you really loved me, you would obey me." It was that sort of subversive, jab that made me feel like I could never do enough--especially since we were taught growing up that we could never keep His commandments perfectly.

But that's not what the verse says, does it.

As I was soaking this morning, this verse came to mind again and I heard it a different way. What I hear now in this verse is something like this: "I don't want your obedience, if you don't love me. If you love me, keep my commandments, otherwise don't bother." (I obviously exaggerated the meaning a bit to make my point.)

What the Pharisees got so incredibly wrong about God and about the Torah (the law of Moses), was that they thought that obedience not motivated by love was valuable to God. It isn't. It never was. God was never interested in mere obedience for the sake of obedience. He never was a control freak. What He always wanted was our hearts. Did you know the phrase "all your heart" occurs nine times in Deuteronomy? God is more interested in our hearts than certain actions. He wants us to follow His ways as an expression of our love for Him - He has always wanted that. Just doing what He says, without love, means nothing to Him.

David picked up on this greater truth when he writes: You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise (Psalm 51:16–17). What David knew was that the sacrificial acts, prescribed by the law, meant nothing to God in themselves. He understood that God was always after our hearts.

When Jesus tells us "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (in the context of a larger discourse), He is not saying He's more interested in our obedience than our hearts. He's saying He's only interested in our obedience, if our hearts are turned toward Him in love.

Actually, the word "obey" isn't even in that verse. It's the word "keep" (τηρέω). In context it can have the practical translation of "obey" (as some translations have), but that's not the heart of this word, and in my opinion not the best translation. To keep a command is not merely to obey it, it's also to keep watch over it, to guard it, to preserve, in short: to treasure. While we would not treasure a command by ignoring it, neither should we obey a command without holding it dear. We hold it dear, we keep it, we guard it, we preserve it, because we love Him. Because we keep them carefully, we show that we love Him (see John 14:21).

Another thing to point out is that the word for to keep is in the future tense: you will keep. It's almost like a natural or necessary outcome. It's sort of like this: "Do you want to keep my commandments? Just start loving me and the rest will take care of itself." Not that we can claim to love Him and then not pay attention to what He says! No! If we love Him, we'll hang on His every word--everything He's ever said or done. And because we love Him, we'll want to do all He says.

And you know what? When, out of our love for Him, we do what He says, we can know that we have His love and the Father's love too; not only that, we'll have a revelation of Jesus himself who says to the one who loves Him, that He will show myself to him (John 14:21). How cool is that!

Stir up you love for Jesus today and watch what happens!

Does God "Show Up" or is He Omnipresent?

I was asked this question recently (not an exact quote): "What do we mean by God 'showing up' isn't He with us all the time?"

That's a good question. I hope I can dignify it with a good answer.

The Omnipresence of God

One of the basic teachings on the nature of God is that God is omnipresent. That's a compound word from "omni" a Latin word meaning "all,"  and present (meaning exactly what it means); so omnipresent means all-present, or (clearer English) present everywhere. Not only is God present everywhere, He is everywhere there is, all at the same time. This is one of the ways God is not like us, nor anything else in creation. There are many passages of Scripture that teach this. I'll mention two here.

Psalm 139 demonstrates this truth:

Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. (Ps. 139:7–8)

As does Jeremiah 23:23-24:

“Am I only a God nearby,” declares the Lord, “and not a God far away? Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?” declares the Lord. “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” declares the Lord. (Jer. 23:23–24)  

We cannot hide from God because He is everywhere. At the same time, wherever we go, we can be assured that God is already there.

The doctrine of God's omnipresence might sound a bit terrifying for those who are in rebellion against Him, but a great comfort to those who are serving Him, who are His children.

Once asserted, the truth about God's omnipresence would seem to silence any discussion about God "showing up." I mean, He didn't really "show up" because He was already here/there, right? This seems to be a matter of simple logic that if God already is somewhere, He can't go there. As I am writing this in my study, I'm in my study. It would not make any sense to say that although I already am in my study, I'm "showing up" in my study now. It's pretty simple. Right?

Yet God Does Come, Appear, "Show Up" in the Bible

In Genesis 3:8, after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we read this: 

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. (Gen. 3:8)

Apparently, (or at least most Bible scholars agree) it was God's custom to take a walk with Adam and Eve in the cool of the day. He was always there, nothing was hid from Him (as it says in the passages above), and yet He seems to "show up" with them to go for a walk.

In Deuteronomy 12 God tells His people about the uniqueness of the tabernacle (later it was replaced by the temple). The people were to bring their offerings and sacrifices there, not just anywhere. In verse 7 we read this:

There, in the presence of the Lord your God, you and your families shall eat and shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to, because the Lord your God has blessed you. (Deut. 12:7)

God is everywhere, but if that's true, He seems to be especially present in His tabernacle (later temple). In fact, God appeared in a special way to Moses on the mountain to tell him these things (and much more, of course). The pillars of cloud and fire were said to be the Lord guiding them (Ex. 13:21, e.g.).

One of the most dramatic examples of the Lord "showing up" is in 2Chronicles 7 at the dedication of the temple of Solomon:

When Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the temple. The priests could not enter the temple of the Lord because the glory of the Lord filled it. When all the Israelites saw the fire coming down and the glory of the Lord above the temple, they knelt on the pavement with their faces to the ground, and they worshiped and gave thanks to the Lord, saying, “He is good; his love endures forever.” (2Chron. 7:1–3)  

This is to say nothing of the numerous times God appears to people, or of angels who stand in the presence of God--I could go on, but I think I made my point. The Bible talks about the omnipresence of God, but also talks about His presence on certain occasions, and makes no apology for asserting both truths. Is it a dilemma, a paradox, or what?

God's General Presence and Special Presence

One way of thinking about this to resolve the apparent contradiction is to consider God's omnipresence as a sort of general presence, and these other occasions as instances of God's special presence. 

Imagine a family patriarch or matriarch sitting in a chair in a living-room full of family members. Imagine everything is going well, and this patriarch or matriarch is enjoying the get-together immensely, though up until now has remained silent, simply enjoying the laughter and fun. Now imagine that patriarch or matriarch in the middle of a conversation, standing ready to speak. All eyes turn to him or her and the conversation stops. What just happened? He or she was already in the room, but now his or her presence fills it in a new way. Grandpa or Grandma was there, but now something else about them, some purpose or awareness "shows up," and all sense it.

In a similar way, though God is always and everywhere present, sometimes He seems to get up out of His chair (so to speak), and we notice. In fact, we may not have noticed God's presence before but now we do. We may even say "God just showed up." He was always there, and in a general sense, we may all know that. But now, something happened to draw our awareness toward Him.

A simple answer to the puzzle would be to simply assert that our experience of God "showing up," is merely a subjective matter. That is, He always was "in the room" it's just that we now experience that more clearly. That's a real possibility. This is Jacob's response to the place where he used a rock for a pillow, when God "showed up" in a dream about a stairway to heaven (Gen. 28:17). I suppose that many times this is true.

But that doesn't seem to fit the entire picture in the Bible. There are times when God's presence seems to be intensified, as during the dedication of the temple (as noted above). In those cases, God's presence is intensified and unmistakable. It's sort of like always being in the room, but standing up in order to be noticed because He has something important to say, do, or demonstrate.

Does God Still "Show Up" at Our Meetings?

I've heard the idea of God "showing up" referred to as something silly, since God is always at our meetings, in fact Jesus promised "Where two or three come together..." (Matt. 18:20). So God is present in our meetings, perhaps in more than the general sense of God's omnipresence, but in some special sense, whether we know it or not. Right?

Well yes! That's right! Now, Jesus isn't actually talking about gathering for worship in that passage, He's probably talking about people coming together in agreement (perhaps after resolving conflict-check the context). But I do think it applies in the sense we usually quote this verse as well: whenever and wherever we gather in His Name. We even have the promise at the end of Matthew that He is with us always and forever with us (28:20).

Yet, there seems to be times, from at least a subjective perspective, when God's presence seems more real, more obvious, easier to experience. I am willing to grant that this may be entirely subjective, but I would be more comfortable saying that God's Spirit, Who lives within us, opens the eyes of our hearts so that we can know (experience) Him and His goodness more clearly (cf., Eph. 1:7-8). 

In Paul's injunction to keep on being filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18), the results are authentic worship and authentic relationship (vv.19,ff). But there's something else going on there: being filled. "We already have the Spirit within, so how can we be filled?" one might ask. This looks like yet another example of the general and special special presence of God (this time in the person of the Holy Spirit). But it's not merely subjective; it's not "tuning in" to the Spirit. This is a passive imperative in the Greek text, meaning that this is something that happens to us (passive), that we are instructed to let happen (imperative). We don't do it (subjective), God does it to us. Further, we shouldn't read this as happening merely to individuals, but to people gathered together as the Church.

So yes, the Bible teaches both the omnipresence of God and that God at times seems to, or really does "show up" in our lives and in our meetings. It's not silly or nonsensical to say so, though some assert that it is. Furthermore, it follows the Bible's teaching about God and how He is at work among His people.

God "Turns Up the Volume"

Let me end this blog entry on an entirely subjective note (why not, right?). There have been times when I have experience God's special presence in a way that seemed like God's presence was not only felt, but seemed to intensify as the meeting progressed, or as the personal prayer time continued. It felt like God turned up the volume of His presence. 

This echoes the often heard refrain of many Pentecostals and charismatics: "More, Lord!" A prayer God sometimes (often?) answers by increasing the volume, or intensity of His presence. It's happened too often for me to dismiss as mere wishful thinking, or self-delusion. Too much good stuff happens when God "shows up" in this way: physical/inner healing, prophetic words/visions, supernatural peace/comfort, wonderful and amazing worship, and more!

This is sometimes called "the manifest presence" of God. That is God's presence made known, visible, able to be experienced. But I no longer understand this as sort of an on/off switch, as if God is all here, or not here. In my experience, it's more like a volume level on an audio device. Maybe we 'hear' better and better as we become aware of Him, or maybe He intensifies the manifestation quality of His presence so that we 'hear' better and better. But that's what it's been like for me many, many times.

In some meetings, I think folks get too satisfied with low levels of God's presence, when God is ready to "turn up the volume" even more. I've even been in meetings where God's presence fills the room, hearts are awakened to His presence, people begin to respond to His love and grace, and then we move on to the regular agenda for the meeting. [sigh] To be honest, I've done it myself: I thought I was supposed to. [deeper sigh] I've learned to always ask for more--for God to turn up the volume.

In the stories of revivals and awakenings throughout history, there are so many accounts of the manifest presence of God "taking over" a meeting. I think we should allow it in our meetings too. If all we have to offer the world and each other are truths about God, or moral imperatives from Him, we can expect the yawns and disinterest we get. But if God is among us (1Cor.14:25), then we have something to offer that everyone needs and wants more than anything else (even if they don't realize it) , since the God who "shows up" is amazingly, wonderfully, completely and in every way good.

The Normalcy of the Supernatural

This blog reflects some pondering on my part, not any definite conclusions (but some tentative ones).

Uh... Is This Supposed To Be A Model For Us Too?

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power,so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. (1Cor. 2:1–5)

We know that Paul went to Corinth after making his famous Mars Hill (Areopagus) speech (Acts 17:16-34). It's the message Paul spoke to a group of philosophers in Athens in which he notes that the Athenians even have an altar to an unknown god. In his speech Paul connects their experience, and even their history and philosophy with the Gospel, building a bridge between their culture and the good news of Jesus. It is artfully done. That speech has been often held up as a model for cross-cultural evangelism. A few churches have even been named after this famous speech.

However, when Paul gets to Corinth, he doesn't do what he did in Athens. One might think that if he was successful in Athens, he might have tried it again in Corinth. And to a degree he did - in the synagogue at least (Acts 18:5). 

And while we don't see in Acts what Paul actually did in Corinth that qualified as a demonstration of the Spirit's power, Paul's words in 1Corinthians suggest that this demonstration of the Spirit's power was more significant to him than his words. In fact, Paul clearly states that he didn't want their faith to rest on wisdom (eloquence, persuasion, words), but on God's power.

Here's my question: What if that's supposed to be a model for us?

We live in a time that is full of words, eloquence and competing wisdoms. Religion is treated often as one option among many for dealing with life's problems. Truth is seen as relative, if not altogether unimportant. A scientific mindset believes nothing that is not empirically verifiable (a view which doesn't stand up to it's own test, but is believed nonetheless). While the term "new age" is almost never used anymore, the concepts still dominate those who are "spiritual but not religious."

A few months back a young man came to our house to do some electrical work. When he found out I was a pastor he said he believed in science. He was a practical guy. If you hook it up right, it works. That's what made sense to him. I let him talk wondering about how to challenge his mindset. A few apologetic arguments came to mind, but I didn't think they'd work on him. So as he was talking I prayed, asking God how to engage this likable and talkative young man.

What came to mind was that he liked evidence, so I gave him some: a man who had a broken forearm, where the radius and ulna were both broken as confirmed by x-ray. But the tissue was too swollen to cast, so he had to wait a few days (Friday to Monday). On Sunday he came for prayer, we prayed. The next day he and his wife came to our house honking their horn; they did a second x-ray (normal procedure), and one bone was not broken, though the other was. (I know that seems bizarre to me too--why one and not the other?)

I also told him of a few other healings I witnessed or participated in, some of which had definite, scientifically verifiable results. His response was "Man. You just rocked my world!"

That is one example of several similar conversations I've had with "pre-Christians." It's amazing what a miracle--a demonstration of the Spirit's power--can do. In the above case, I'm not sure where that young man is. The important thing for this blog is that the recounting for direct evidence of God's power did more than an apologetic repartee was likely to accomplish.

The Big Questions: Is God Real?

50 years ago, it seems like the big question was: Is the Bible true and reliable? People wanted to be convinced of the truth of Scripture, or the truth of Christianity as opposed to competing truths. That's not the big question anymore (at least not in my experience). Nor was it the big question in Paul's day. That means the battle for truth won't win many converts, because that's not where the questions are--it's not where the open doors are. 

The big question about God is: Is He real? Does He exist? How could we know? The failure to come up with a sure-fire argument for the existence of God has led many to conclude that agnosticism (not knowing whether God exists) is the most rational position to take. All the other arguments, whether from design, ethics, universality of religion, etc., don't persuade, because all of them have a way around them. There's always some way for people to rationalize away whatever they don't want to believe.

However, when a verifiable supernatural event happens, there is no argument left. Two x-rays side-by side, don't lie and are not subject to subjective interpretation. A woman whose Achilles tendons are torn, who after prayer can do toe lifts and knee bends is hard to argue against. A woman who leaves her walker behind for the first time in years (with a poor prognosis for ever walking unassisted) is more than "mind over matter."

A physical healing miracle is a pretty powerful persuasive tool in today's world. Yes, this 'argument' can also be resisted, but only at the expense of accepting empirically verifiable evidence as one's standard for truth. 

A physical healing miracle also demonstrates that God cares about us in very specific and observable ways. It's not just a truth to hold on to, it's a truth we can sometimes see with our physical eyes.

If the supernatural is meant to be normal for us and even identify us as followers of Jesus (Mark 16:17-18), then maybe we should put at least as much effort into exploring supernatural ministry as we do exploring careful theology. 

Let me be clear that I'm still on this path of experiment, discovery and understanding. I'm pondering here, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that living a supernatural life-style will do more to advance the Gospel than writing a clever tract, memorizing a evangelistic argument, or hauling someone to church. In fact, if we're not cessationists (those who believe that miracles have ceased), then I wonder whether we can see the supernatural as even optional; either it's not available to us, or it is, and if it is, and if it is God working in our world, who are we to set it aside?

A Good Father (?)

Is God Always Good?

It was recently reported that a father, acting alone, deliberately gave his own child a life-threatening illness that could cause permanent damage to his liver and possibly other internal organs. The child, a well-liked, outgoing, star basketball player, is now in intensive care. When asked why he did it, the father is reported to have said, that his child was in danger of becoming prideful; the illness, he hoped, would teach him humility, and remind him of what is really important in life.

The above story, thankfully, is fictitious. But what do you think should happen to such a father who would do this to his own daughter, or son? I'd say he should be evaluated for psychiatric problems, if not simply jailed on charges of child abuse. Would you agree?

Yet, this is the very thing folks sometimes say about God, when someone gets a deadly illness: "I got sick, because God must be teaching me a lesson."

A few years ago I'd led a group in this responsive declaration: L:"God is good!" P:"All the time!" L: "And All the time," P: "God is good!" (maybe you've heard or done this too). Someone challenged me by saying, sometimes what God brings into our lives isn't good. He then went on to talk about some of the hardships he and his family had faced. I wasn't quick enough then to challenge him in return by reminding him that maybe it wasn't God who was the source of that hardship. But I recognized the perspective. Some of the following is a result of my pondering that discussion.

There are ways of construing the Calvinist idea of Providence, Predestination, or God's Sovereignty that effectively makes God the source of the pain, suffering and hardship of His own children. In my opinion, it takes God's sovereignty too far, attributing to Him what the devil is doing, what a fallen humanity is doing, or what is the result of the fall into sin has done to a perfect creation, or whatever other source of suffering their might be. It can even construe God a responsible party in the sinful behavior of human beings (e.g., "It was God's will that the drunk driver hit my car and put me in the hospital."). The idea that God causes sinful behavior would be vehemently denied by those who assert it, but you can't have it both ways: either God does not cause murderers to kill people, or there are some things that happen that God does not cause to happen.

I grew up within Calvinism and know the mental gymnastics performed to get out of the above conundrum. Such convoluted logical systems never satisfied me, however many times someone might invoke the word "mystery." Something can't be both a cause and not a cause at the same time and in the same way. The argument often sounded to me like this: "God caused it, but God didn't cause it in such a way that He is the cause of it." Huh? That doesn't make sense.

I've come to understand the Bible's teaching on God's sovereignty as it intersects with the evils of this world this way:

All that happens is within God's will, but not all that happens is God's will.

In Romans 8:28 we read "...in all things God works for the good of those who love him..." Notice it does not say that everything that happens to those who love him is good. Nor does it say that whatever happens, it is the best thing that could ever happen to us, once God gets a hold of it. It certainly doesn't say whatever happens to us is God's will. God doesn't kill babies in their sleep (SIDS), give people cancer, or Alzheimer's, blow the legs off of young soldiers, direct the insane to throw their children off of bridges, or any of those things! That's not God our Father's best plan for His children!

What we do read in Romans 8:28 is that whatever happens, God will work it out for good. In other words, no matter what happens to us, no matter it's source, no matter how evil, God will work it out for our benefit. I wouldn't want to use this verse as a sort of "quick-fix" for genuine emotional or physical pain, or anything of that sort. But as a statement it does ring as a promise to hold onto, as the good God will workout of the situation unfolds, often slowly, over time.

Sometimes the good that comes out of it is that those who were the objects of evil behavior become advocates or counselors for others who are. That in no way suggests that God wanted someone to get bullied, beaten up, or raped. It does mean that God will find a way to turn it around for some good. It certainly doesn't mean it will be easy. It just means that (unless we resist Him) God meets us wherever we are and brings us out of brokenness into wholeness; making us stronger in the end than we were before, and perhaps able to be a part of His ministry to heal others who have shattered hearts (cf. Isaiah 61:1).

I don't believe our Father in heaven ever gives His children illness or injury.

God is a Good Father to His Children

In one parable, Jesus compares God to a human father who is asked for bread, or fish. Such a father would not respond to the request with something useless (a stone) or harmful or unclean (a snake). Then he says that since human father's, who are evil, know how to give good things, "...how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him?" (Matthew 7:11). There's that word "good" again. God our Father gives good and perfect gifts (James 1:17); whatever isn't good and perfect isn't from Him.

In Jeremiah 32:40, we read this promise from God "I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them..." This promise is for us. In fact all God's promises are "Yes!" in Christ (2Cor.1:20). This promise tells us of God's character and His plan. He is good! He is good to us! He will never stop doing good to us! I think that makes it pretty clear: if it's not good, it's not from God.

It's certainly true that there is more of God than we can know. But it's also true that what God reveals about Himself to us we can know. God knows how to speak our language. When He says He's good and won't stop doing good, we can take Him at His word, without trying to redefine "good" to include "bad stuff." No! Good means good. God knew what He was saying. He didn't fudge on it or leave room for ambiguity. It's as plain as it could be. If it doesn't fit with our theology, then what should change: our theology, or His word? I trust I don't have to answer that for you.

Some might suggest that if there are things that happen here that God isn't doing, then I feel less secure or certain. Okay. I get that. If God controls and is the source of everything that happens, then I can rest easy. It would be nice (though we still would have to figure out how to talk about sinful behavior, etc.). The bigger issue though is that it's not what the Bible teaches.

But I've got good news for you: the devil may be active, people may do bad things, creation may be disordered enough to give illness, earthquakes, tornadoes and the like, but God promises that whatever comes at you, He can turn to your good. I also believe that nothing can happen that will thwart His ultimate plans or purposes for you or all of humanity.

But doesn't God chasten His Children? Yes He does. Hebrews 12:5-13  reaffirms that truth. Notice what's going on here though. In this passage the author, in the context of resistance to living faithfully before God, perhaps persecution against the church, encourages us to endure whatever happens as discipline. Further the term for discipline here means to train, instruct, correct (it doesn't mean punish). That is, endure it as if through it God were training you to become a better person. In other words it's saying the same thing as Romans 8:28: whatever happens, God will make you a better person out of it.

Now, if we sin against Him, there is another kind of discipline that comes (for example, 1Cor.11:32). In these cases, God seems to withdraw His protective covering over us so that we get a taste for the reality we are living out of when we sin. But He only does that in a way that He knows we will ultimately be driven back to Him. Let me put it another way: if we begin walking away from Him, at some point He let's us go, so that we'll find out how dumb that was and run back to Him. There may be painful consequences to our choice to walk away from Him, but He will limit even that to what He can turn into something to ultimately benefit us!