Healing School Ponderings

Last week May 18-22, Marcia and I, along with 7 others (3 more from our church, and 4 other Dunamis folks), attended the week long Healing School at Bethel church in Redding, CA. I took some notes and wanted to reflect on them personally, and share those thoughts with anyone who is interested.

General Observations

I've already had a lot of teaching on Divine healing, including teaching from the Dunamis project (I've actually taught some of those lessons), several books, miscellaneous teaching at other conferences and seminars, and attending the Randy Clark school last year in Redding. So, in many ways, there weren't a lot of surprises or completely new ideas here. Most of the teaching we received reinforced what we already knew. But that's a good thing, because there are a lot of challenges and frustrations when one engages in healing ministry of any kind. Most of these reminders I'll include below in my other remarks.

That said, I'm very glad I went, and for many reasons. Going with our church and Dunamis friends helps us carry back some of the nuances from the Bethel culture that bring wholeness to our church and our Dunamis team. The culture of honor alone (cf. Romans 12:10b), is one that turns any silly notions of competition, or validation through ministry on it's pointy little head. The culture of dwelling in the Presence (e.g. John 15:4-7) is just simply the only atmosphere, not to mention prerequisite, for any real and fruitful ministry, and yet we can so easily get distracted by the very people and the very needs we minister to that we step out of His presence in order to do them. Other Bethel "Culture of Heaven" values are: grace, generosity, joy, faith, revelation, healing, and worship. Since cultures are more caught than taught, it was good to be there and watch their culture in action.

Basic Teaching on Healing

Teaching on healing from Bethel (and Randy Clark, and many others) begins with this: Jesus healed everyone who came to Him for healing. He never turned anyone down because of their lifestyle, their lack of faith, or because they "weren't ready yet," or needed to learn a lesson. While it's true that Jesus didn't heal everyone he saw (cf. John 5:3-9), there's not a single record of Him turning down anyone who came asking. Put that together with Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Hebrews 13:8), and you have to come to an inescapable conclusion: we can expect healing today.

Another basic teaching is that it is always God's will to heal. This one is a trip-hazard for some of us--especially us Calvinists who believe everything that happens is in God's will, and some people are sick and remain so after we pray. But remember that it's also God's will that all people will be saved (1Timothy 2:4), and yet not all will be saved. To explain this apparent contradiction we talk about the active will and permissive will of God: God permits things to happen (sin, for example), though He is not the direct cause of those things. While God turns all that happens to us to our good, He does not directly cause everything thing that happens to us. We know this is true, because it is the thief who comes to steal and kill and destroy, not Jesus; Jesus comes that we may have life, and have it to the full (John 10:10). It's important not to attribute the devil's work to God. (There's much more that could be said on this, but I'm not writing this blog entry on the nuances of the will of God.)

If it's always God's will to heal, why doesn't everyone get healed? I'll deal with that important question below.

A Sort of Random Look at My Notes with Some Further Reflections

Confession: I'm not very good at taking notes. I tend to focus on what the speaker is saying and taking notes sometimes makes me lose the next thing the speaker says. So I tend to only write down things that really catch me in some way that I want to make sure I don't forget.

(I'll put my note in bold and my reflection/thoughts in regular type face.)

Faith looks to Jesus, not inward to one's heart. This was from Chris Gore on the first night. Chris was talking about how we assess our level of faith. Faith is a pretty big deal, since without it, it's impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). When we turn inward to our own hearts to assess our own faith, we turn away from Jesus and to ourselves. This is a good way to get depressed, since we can quickly become aware of all those things that compete with faith in our hearts. As we turn toward Jesus in faith, our faith grows and is encouraged. Introspection is not always helpful, and habitual introspection is self-centeredness, plain and simple. It's not about us. Not even our faith is about us. Instead Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith... (Hebrews 12:2, NIV84).

To have the peace that passes understanding (Philippians 4:7) means I need to give up my right to understand. There are mysteries in God and in what God does in us and for us that we may never understand in this life, and maybe not even the next. If we limit what we allow into our lives based on what we understand, we have created a barrier between us and anything in God that is beyond the capacities of the human mind. The longer I live this Christian life, the more I'm convinced that understanding is overrated. Lining up all the little truths in a sensible pattern, satisfies the rational mind, but rarely is worth the effort, judging by the actual fruit in ministry such projects produce. One can dance around the mysteries of the Trinity for pages and pages, and still come to the same conclusion: it's beyond human understanding (or else fall into heresy). Understanding is highly valued in Reformed and Calvinistic circles, and by the modern mind. Many things in Scripture are clearly understandable, including the basic Gospel message! But God is much bigger than our human capacity to understand, and often our attempts to understand these mysteries is merely a fool's errand, a wild goose chase, or as the Bible sometimes puts it a chasing after the wind (Ecclesiastes 1:17).

If it's our burden, it's our glory; if it's not our glory, it's not our burden. Here Chris was speaking about what we feel when we pray for healing and nothing seems to happen. If we are not the one's doing the healing, we cannot take the glory, but neither can we take the blame. If we do take the blame, we're believing that it's really up to us to heal, and we should be taking the glory when someone does get healed. Of course some people do find a perverse validation when they pray for the sick and they get healed, but that's just wrong and we all know it. But if healing is what Jesus does, then it's not up to us, and we have no business taking the blame for it. This isn't to deny that we may be out of step with the Spirit at that point, but then our assignment isn't to do better at healing, but get back in step! Also, if God could use Samson, even while he was a moral failure, He can use us, even when our faith or our walk isn't what it should be.

If the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17), then if we're not living in joy, we've relocated ourselves outside the Kingdom of God. Joy is an essential attitude in the Kingdom, it's the second thing listed in the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). Joy is one of those things we find in the Presence (Psalm 16:11; 21:6). Jesus even prayed that, among other things, his disciples would have the full measure of my joy within them (John 17:13b). Believers should be happy people--the happiest people on earth! Let's put an end to this knuckle-dragging, 'what a worm am I' false piety and get into the Kingdom where there is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit!

This should not be interpreted to mean that we should never be sad, or never grieve the loss of a loved one. That may be where we are for a season. But our lifestyle should be one of joy.

Laughter is the best form of prayer, because joy releases the Kingdom. God laughs at the schemes of the enemy (Psalm 2:4). Chris Gore reminded us that Psalm 2 does not say God laughed, but God laughs (present tense--ongoing action). When we laugh at what the enemy intends as stealing, killing and destroying, we put him in his proper place. He has no authority, because Jesus has all authority. When we laugh at the enemy, because we know and believe that Jesus has all authority and that all the enemy's schemes against us are doomed, or will be turned to our favor (Romans 8:28), we bring in the Kingdom we are laughing from. When we get anxious and fearful, we succumb to the lie that the enemy can actually harm us, but that's a lie. The one within us is greater than the one in the world (1John 4:4) every time, all the time.

The Gospel is not a prisoner exchange program (Danny Silk). Simply put, we were not taken out of bondage to sin and the devil, just to be put in another bondage to "Christian" legalism. We are not under the Old Covenant laws. We are called into the freedom (e.g., John 8:36, 2Corinthians 3:17) of a Father/child relationship (Romans 8:14-17; Galatians 4:6-7; 1John 3:1).

Sin: Whatever violates love. The only law the New Testament believer is under is the law of love (Romans 13:8-10; 2 John 6). Sin is no longer fixed to the myriad of rules found in the Old Covenant, but in the simple rule that we love each other, and love God above all.

Manage your love, not your sin. Following up on the previous two, Danny suggests that our focus be outward (toward others & God) rather than inward. Like Chris, when talking about faith, Danny stresses the importance of turning our efforts outward. Managing sin, puts the focus in the wrong place: on us. Sin management usually looks like trying really hard not to do something and then punishing ourselves when we do. But the more introspective and self-focused we are, the more we cut ourselves off from our source of strength: God (1John 4:7-8). When we live a life of love, the management of the inner life sorts itself out, or rather gets put into alignment by the One we're following. If love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:10b), then let's be about loving people.

Do we think we are better parents than God? When our kids break the rules, what do we do? One thing we don't do is kick our children to the curb for every single infraction until they get their life sorted out. We don't disown them for a moment of selfishness, or foolishness, or even defiance. They're our kids! We love them even when they mess up. Even when they really, really mess up. We don't think we're better parents than God, do we? Really? In fact, Jesus said the best fathers are evil compared to our Father in heaven (Matthew 7:9-11; Luke 11:11-13).

There are two rules for us: love and believe. Yes, I know earlier I said there was just one: love, but we are also commanded to believe, which actually is the context for our love relationship with God.

If fear wasn't controlling you, what would you do? (Dawna DeSilva, I think) Something to ponder. We are no longer slaves living in fear (cf. Romans 8:15). So, if fear wasn't an issue, if you weren't afraid of what might happen, or might not happen, what would you do? Fear is often rooted in a belief that something is bigger than God. Can we laugh at that?

A thought to prayerfully ponder.

Five aspects of a healing ministry (Chris Gore):
1. Words of Knowledge & Prophecy. Moving in healing ministry is often accompanied by receiving specific information from God about parts of the body that need healing. This comes to the healing minister in many ways: the 'still, small voice,' sympathetic pain (pain felt in one's body that signals pain in another person), a picture, or perhaps some other way. When a word of knowledge comes, God intends to do something.

2. Laughter. Laughter is good for the soul and good medicine for the body (Proverbs 17:22). As discussed above, laughter also characterizes and so brings the Kingdom as well.

3. Thanksgiving. Simply being thankful for what one has, for the healing one has received (no matter how small), often releases more healing. Instead of being frustrated that pain diminished only 10% (for example), be thankful for a 10% reduction of pain! If nothing seems to be happening, be thankful for what God has done in the past. Gratitude is also an essential Kingdom attitude.

4. Declaration. For those who aren't familiar with this term, a declaration is a prophetic act that creates a new reality by declaring it. In Ezekiel 37:4, Ezekiel is told: "Prophecy to these bones and say to them 'Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord!'" He spoke the words God gave him and created a new reality. God spoke the universe into existence and then made us in His image. Our words have power. (Maybe I should write a blog on this topic; it's much bigger than I can treat fully now.)

When Jesus and the Apostles healed people, they didn't pray for healing they declared healing. They said things like "Get up!" or "In the name of Jesus, get up!" It's interesting to study how Jesus healed (He never seemed to do it the same way twice!). Sometimes he did stuff with spit and mud, but most often He just spoke the new reality into existence.

5. Testimony. When there is a report of God healing someone of X, the sharing of that testimony often carries with it the potential to release the healing of X in others. Maybe this is because testimonies release both faith and expectation.

6. Prophetic Action. This is a bit strange, but sometimes a simple act of stepping over an imaginary line, or stepping forward, or taking hold of something in the air can release healing in a person (I've seen it happen!). This is one of those things that can offend the understanding, but I talked about the limits of the understanding above. Understanding is overrated, and actual healing is much better!

Don't focus on the problem; focus on the Problem Solver! This is so critical, it's hard to overstate. Often healing ministries struggle and even fail because we pay too much attention to the sickness, the injury, or whatever. The more we look at a problem, the bigger it seems to get. Before long the problem starts to look bigger than God (Who by this time has faded into the background, if not sunk beyond the horizon!).

Don't focus on the missing leg, focus on the leg that's missing. Obviously related to the above statement. Heaven already has what we need. We don't bring earth up to heaven; instead "Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven." That is, our task is to bring heaven to earth; along with all that's in heaven for us. Don't focus on the illness, but on the health, not on the injury but the restored body. While we're at it, don't focus on the darkness, just bring the light.

Bring life where there's death (Eric Johnson). I was so interested in Eric's talk I hardly took any notes. But this stuck out as significant. The believer's task is primarily to bring life where death reigns. Jesus said His role was to bring life to the full. As His followers, that's what we do too. We don't merely bring the truth of the Gospel, we bring life from the God Who has given us new life. This should break off from us the impoverished idea that the Gospel is primarily about getting different thoughts in our heads. We need more than better thoughts, we need a new life! We have new life in Christ (not just new truth). It's true that lies can rob us of life (and usually do!), but the point of the Truth is to give us life. We carry that life in us, and can carry it into places where death has gotten a foothold. When we do, we should remember that the life we have has already defeated death, so there's no need for anxiety.

What happens when I pray and the person doesn't get healed?

I already discussed above that we shouldn't take the burden, if we won't take the glory. But that's not a complete response to this question.

Our track record in healing is not directly related to our theology or spiritual maturity, since Jesus sent out the 12 and the 72 long before they even understood Who He was. So let's stop blaming ourselves. 

Nor should we blame the one we're praying for! It's not their lack of faith, sin in their lives, or bad theology. When Jesus healed the man at the pool of Bethesda, he later found him and said, "Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you" (John 5:14). Apparently the man was not morally perfect--but then who is? And who has perfect faith, or perfect theology?

One thing we should never do is to try to make the Bible fit our experience. If the two don't agree, which one is wrong? Obviously, it's our experience that needs to change, not the Scriptures. There was healing in the New Testament church by the Apostles and other believers (if the gift list in 1Corinthians 12, is any indication). This has not changed. There is healing for us to do too.

When we try to understand Scripture in the light of our experience, rather than the other way around, we run into all sorts of problems. Yet it's been pretty much a standard to make God into some sort of abusive parent, teaching His children lessons by making them sick, or injuring them. If that happened in your house, you'd be arrested, and rightly so! Imagine: "Son, you're getting kind of proud of your athletic abilities, so I'll need to break your arm, but it's only because I love you." Or how about this one: "You've been misbehaving quite a bit lately, so I'm going to give you an injection of cancer cells and hope you can straighten out your life before you die." What?!! You would never stand for that with a human father, how can we project that onto God?! Besides, God is smart enough to know how to teach us what we need to know without having to hurt us, or make us sick. It's the thief that comes to steal and kill and destroy, not Jesus (who is a perfect representation of the Father).

Of course God can use a broken arm, or cancer, or anything else to teach us what we need to know. But that's more like a father helping his child learn from his or her mistakes, or learn how to be positive even when things go badly. The father didn't control the child into making the mistake, or deliberately bring bad things into his child's life. He just helps his child grow because of them. So too with God. The worst that can happen to us, God turns to our advantage.

When healing doesn't happen, we may have to resist the temptation to try to understand, and simply seek the Lord for His counsel or consolation. I have books that deal with this topic in a chapter or two, and I can barely summarize all the thoughts here. I think I've summarized what I heard last week from the Bethel teachers.

Let me add one more thought, not one I've heard from Bethel, though. In Daniel 10:12-13, Daniel had been praying and the answer to his prayer was delayed in coming because of what appears to be a spiritual battle between the Prince of Persia and the archangel Michael. Daniel didn't know this until the battle was over and Michael succeeded. I think that sometimes there is a spiritual battle going on for someone's sickness that we don't know about. Elijah, when he knew God was sending rain, still had to pray for it 7 times before it rained (1Kings 18:41-44). Our job is to persist in pursuing healing until it comes, even if it takes a long time. I don't mean 24/7 prayer (unless God says to do that), but persistence, not giving up, like the woman and the unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8).

There's more of course!

Yesterday, a friend of ours let us know she wouldn't be going to class with us because she was sick. We prayed for and released healing, Marcia called and talked about some of the things we had learned and she was healed and made it to class after all, and was deeply blessed by both the healing she received and the content of the class last night.

We carry the Holy Spirit within us, and with Him the presence of Jesus. So wherever we go, we change the atmosphere. The God of healing isn't just "up there somewhere," He lives within us. We don't have to call Him down, He's already here. When we prayed for healing for our friend yesterday, I was most conscious of simply releasing the power of Jesus in me toward her. I don't have a junior Holy Spirit, or a weak Jesus in me, nor does any believer. We need to get over the idea that somehow we are weak and worthless, and remember that we have been clothed with power from on high (cf. Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8), and God loves us enough to have sent His Son to restore us to our rightful place as His children. If God values us, we're not worthless, no matter what our self-evaluation tries to tell us.

One of the other things we had reinforced for us is the perspective of praying heaven in, rather than praying hell out. There's a tendency among some intercessors to be focused more on praying out the enemy, than praying in the Presence. I've heard them wailing in 'travail' as they 'wrestle in prayer' against the spiritual forces of darkness. There's no need for that. Whenever the enemy shows up, we need to remember that he's already defeated (e.g. Colossians 2:15; 1Peter 3:22). It's a whole lot easier to turn on a light, than to chase darkness out of a room. This is also true spiritually. Besides, spiritually speaking, we don't just want a demon-free environment, we want an environment saturated with God's presence. A demon-free environment may still be dominated by an atmosphere of the world, or the flesh -- a merely human atmosphere. But that's shooting too low. Our target is and should always be God's presence when we pray for a person or a nation (or anything in between).

I may do some more reflecting as I continue to process what we learned. It was a lot!

No More Pastor-Centered Churches

I've been thinking a lot about the role of pastor (or whatever we call the person in this role) in the last few years and my general and somewhat vague thoughts are beginning to coalesce around the theme of "pastor-centered, vs Christ-centered church." This is my first attempt at trying to articulate in writing what I'm thinking here. I hope it makes sense.

The Pastor-Centered Church: What does it look like?

When I'm using the term "Pastor-Centered" church, I'm thinking about a congregation that has it's activities and decision-making process centered around one person: the pastor (or senior pastor, for churches that have more than one). If the pastor doesn't visit someone in the hospital, one might hear the complaint: "The church has not visited [someone]." When a major decision is being made, all eyes turn to the pastor to hear his/her opinion, the rest of the discussion responds (positively or negatively) to that opinion. The pastor sets the agenda for the discussion just by being there.

In a pastor-centered church, the major portion of the ministry and all the important and critical ministry is done by or with the direct participation of the pastor. If the church were a country, the pastor would be the president, and in some countries the king or queen.

A pastor, in a pastor-centered church, is either fighting that tendency to make him/her the center of all activity, or fueling that tendency. Fighting it is not easy. I know. Pastors who are paid by their congregations are expected to perform in certain ways; this includes 'running the show.' "That's what pastors are paid for," some would say, or think, or assume.

For some pastors, this is a relationship they embrace, endorse and promote by what they say and what they do. They are everywhere, know everyone's issues, attend all the events of all the families, and fully embrace the status they enjoy as the one everyone looks to for advice, whether spiritual or not. If they are not liked, they are loved--at least that's their expectation of themselves. If someone doesn't like them, or leaves the congregation, they take it very personally. Such pastors often take on this role self-sacrificially, as an act of servanthood (at least that is the conscious thought process in the pastor's mind).

Psychologists and sociologists call this relationship co-dependence.

When church members minister vicariously through a pastor with a need to be needed, we have a pastor and a pastor-centered church that are sick, but don't know it. This is certainly not the arrangement envisioned for the church in the New Testament.

The Christ-Centered Church

(I hope this doesn't look like a cheap shot: calling one model 'pastor-centered' and the other 'Christ-centered. I just didn't know how else to describe a non-pastor-centered church. What or Who is at the center of such a church, if not Christ? I'm open to suggestions for a more neutral sounding way of describing the alternative.)

The Christ-Centered church is one in which the leaders (including the pastor) understand that their task is not to do all the ministry, but to see to it that the church does all the ministry. They take their cue from Ephesians 4:12, understanding that the task assigned to them by Christ is to equip God's people for works of service... The Greek word translated "service" is diakonia, which is also means "ministry." That section ends with the assurance that when this is done, many good things happen ...as each part does its work (Eph 4:16). God's design then is for everyone to have a part, and also for everyone to do their part.

When a church leader takes on ministry that belongs to others, he is usurping both their role as ministers and Christ's role as the one who assigns ministry! This is not servanthood, regardless of the thought process in the pastor's mind. It may be self-sacrifice, but if it is, it's a sacrifice to the wrong god.

In the Christ-centered church the pastor is mostly interested in empowering the ministries of others in the congregation. Such pastors equip others by helping them identify their gifts, by calling out the "gold" in them, by believing in them when they don't believe in themselves, by encouraging them, by lifting them when they make a mistake, and a host of other things. I have found that helping people discover their gifts is not enough. Most people need to be 'pastored' in their gifts: nurtured, corrected (gracefully, of course), encouraged and provided opportunities to risk using them.

(While were here, let me suggest that there are often many, many pastors in a congregation, not just the one with a title. For much of the history of the church the one with the role we call 'pastor' was not usually called that. They've been called minister, parson, reverend, and a number of other things. Only recently has 'pastor' been the primary term. My official title in my denomination (Christian Reformed Church) is "Minister of the Word." I wish we could choose a different term than 'pastor,' but that may not happen in my lifetime, so I'll continue to use the title, even though it's imprecise.)

In Acts 6:4, the apostles decided that some ministry was a distraction to their primary task, which they understood to be prayer and the ministry of the word. In the pastor-centered church, often the pastor gets to those things last, or does them along the way. They are not often the main focus of the pastor's life. The pastor who understands the central importance of prayer and the ministry of the word, is more likely to try to work toward the Christ-centered church model we find in Ephesians 4:11-16 (and elsewhere). It's the only way to do it!

Closing Thoughts

I don't really have much more to say on this, and I'm not sure if I've just created a straw-dog to knock down, or addressed a real issue in a helpful way. As I said, these thoughts are still coming together in my mind, and I'm not sure I have it all sorted out.

On the other hand, I do see some relationships between pastor and church that are unhealthy, not in merely specific circumstances, but systemically. There is something about keeping the pastor on a spiritual pedestal and assigning him the Lion's share of responsibility for all the ministry in the church that is just plain wrong, if not blatantly immoral. Maybe I'll write about this more as my thoughts on this form into a more coherent presentation.

Thanks for reading. I'm open to your comments.

The Kingdom Family

I want to write about something I've been thinking a lot about recently. It's really changed the way I think about Church and Kingdom. It's the idea that both are really all about family. I don't mean biological family, but biological family is a shadow, a pattern of the reality found in the Kingdom.

The North American Problem with Family

I grew up in North America. So I live with a North American world-view. I am even more aware of this mindset after living for a year in Costa Rica (as a language student), and in the Dominican Republic as a missionary mostly to Haitians living there. That experience made me aware of some of my cultural assumptions more than anything else.

One of the things that became evident to me is that in other cultures family means something other than what it means in the culture I grew up in. Without trying to articulate what family means in those cultures, let me just make this observation about family in ours: family is the launching pad to your real life.

In North America the important thing is one's work, one's job, one's life calling. It doesn't matter if it's painting houses, running a Fortune 500 business, or preaching the Gospel: the important thing is that we do our job, and do it well. We admire the person who sacrifices all to work hard and build up a successful business, or to advance in the workplace, or to simply do his/her best to make his/her employer look good, make money, etc.

What is clear is that one's family is not the most important thing in the lives of most North Americans, one's work is. From work we get purpose and meaning, we matter to society and to ourselves. At least that's how we see it. In fact, it's what we assume to be true, without even thinking. And despite the slogans of what people wish they had done on their deathbeds, North Americans are more likely to skip a family vacation than to skip a day of work to attend an important family event. And we expect them to, and admire them for it.

This is not the way it is in most of the world.

Given all of this, we tend to understand Church and Kingdom in terms of individual sacrifice and achievement. We tend to understand the relationships in the Church and the Kingdom of God more in terms of policies, procedures, and expectations of a "contribution" (by which we mean doing something around here). We tend to run our organizations more like machines, with the people in them like cogs in a wheel, here to help the machine function. We even talk about Spiritual Gifts that way.

Basically we value people for what they can do for us, not because we see them with intrinsic value (though we would deny that with our words, while affirming it with our actions).

Kingdom Culture is not North American Culture

If we read the Bible as an individualist, we will see terms like "God the Father" and "children of God" as metaphors, instead of basic realities. Since we tend to assume that the purpose of family is to get the kids out of the nest and independent, we will understand such references as metaphors for launching us into our 'real' work in the Kingdom (from where we get our identity and purpose). And while we might not say it that way, the way we live demonstrates our actual beliefs and assumptions.

In the Kingdom of God, independence is a problem, not a goal. The entire goal of most families in North America is at odds with the basic assumptions of the Kingdom of God: it is only in dependence on God and in community with other believers that we can find our identity and purpose. Notice I said "community with other believers;" I should have said as "a family of brothers and sisters," but if I say that to we North Americans, we get the wrong picture in our heads. We don't know what family in the Kingdom looks like, because we have never seen anything like it in our daily lives.

Joseph: a Story of a Family's Restoration

In reading and preaching through the Joseph narrative in Genesis (chapters 37-50), I was struck as never before by how family dynamics drive the story. If we begin with the assumption that God could have rescued the family from the coming famine by simply stopping it from happening (we agree that's within God's power, right?), then there must be another purpose for the story. What might that other purpose be?

As I read the story, what becomes clearer and clearer is that Jacob's family is extremely dysfunctional. There is jealousy and envy. The oldest, Reuben, slept with his step-mother's maidservant. Jacob obviously has a favorite: Joseph, who comes on the scene looking a like a tattle-tale and a bit of an entitled brat. The brothers all want to kill him (except for Reuben and Judah), and instead sell him into slavery (where he'll likely die in forced labor). Jacob, in self-centered despondence, abdicates his role as father and the rest are on their own. Judah even leaves the family, takes a Canaanite wife and his family goes downhill. He ends up sleeping with his daughter-in-law, believing she was a prostitute. This is not good.

Without re-preaching the series here, let me say that one way of understanding the Joseph narrative is to see it as God's way of restoring Jacob's family, so that it would be the 12 tribes of Israel. The family was on the brink of disintegration, but God, through Joseph and the crisis of famine, pulls them back together. It is out of this family that God builds His people.

Fast Forward: the New Testament Church

The New Testament is full of the language of family: brothers and sisters, God as Father, the household of God (Eph. 2:19; 1Tim. 3:15), etc. It is the language of belonging, more than the language of function and purpose (as we North Americans understand purpose).

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. (John 1:12-13)  

When we read John 1:12-13, do we understand that when we come to Christ we enter a family, or do we see this merely as a metaphor for something else? And what sort of family do we come into: a place of belonging, or a place of launching? Do we read that God is our Father in the sense that He equips us and sends us out of the house, or in the sense that He never leaves us, but empowers us as we go together? Do we understand that God is our Father because we are "born of God" (as opposed to by a biological father)? Is He our Father really, or metaphorically? What kind of a Father is He: the kind we grew up with, or something more?

How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! (1John 3:1a)  

When we read 1John 3:1, how do we understand what John is saying? Do we see here that we are given a new identity?

Consider all these references to treating and loving each other as brothers and sisters: Romans 12:10; 1Thessalonians 4:9-10 (e.g.), and the dozens of places where fellow believers are called brothers or sisters throughout the New Testament. These are more than nice ways of speaking. This is not mere poetry or sentimentalism. The Biblical writers are telling us of the new reality we are living in and the new identity that we have in Christ.

If we really are children of God (1John 3:1), then that is the most important thing about us, and it's the most important thing about our brothers and sisters. In fact, our brothers and sisters become for us more than "fellow believers" they become family; we belong together and to each other.

The Family Business

In some families, all activity and relationships revolve around the family business. Family members gain or lose value in the family as they contribute, or fail to contribute to the family business. This is not healthy. When the members of the family have value only insofar as they contribute to the success of something outside of the family (the business), the highest value in the family ceases to be family; it becomes making the business successful. Lamentably, this makes perfect sense to everyone in such a family.

For some of us, Church and Kingdom are the family business for the family of God. So, we treat people in the family the way the above, dysfunctional family does: people are only valuable insofar as they contribute to whatever it is the family is doing: running this program, that outreach, holding this small-group, etc. The exceptions we make are for those who are old or infirm, but we will say things like "But you can still do the work of prayer," meaning they might still be valuable to us, if they could at least do that. It's the wrong message! Sure they can pray, and should! But their value is not in what they can do, it's in who they are as sons and daughters of God Most High!

The Business of Being Family

The more I read Scripture, the more I pray and worship, and the more I try to live this life we are called to, the more convinced I become that God's major project is not so much saving souls as it is (re)building His family (which is the purpose of saving those souls!).

One of the major works of the Holy Spirit that is often overlooked is found in Romans 8:15-16

For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.   

and Galatians 4:4-7

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

The Holy Spirit reunites us with our true Father. In so doing, He incorporates us into God's family. Nobody is adopted into isolation, or into independence. When someone is adopted, they are adopted into a family.

In God's family, everyone has a place. This does not mean that everyone has a 'job.' It means that everyone belongs. Whatever 'job' we have in the family of God, is an expression of belonging, not a requirement for it. We don't do what we do in God's family in order to belong, but because we belong. The only qualification for being in God's family is met in Christ and applied by the Spirit of adoption.

If we only have value because of what we can do for God or for each other, we are not sons or daughters, but slaves. A slave has value only in what the slave can do for the family. This is not who or what we are.

Sometimes we need to be reminded, and sometimes we need to remind others: I belong; you belong; we belong together. If the Spirit lives in you and in me, we are family, because we have the same Father. Nothing else qualifies you to deserve my honor or attention as much as that truth does.

What the Church is supposed to be about, and what the Kingdom of God actually is, is this: God's family being God's family. The business of being family, is the family business in the Kingdom of God. This includes, by the way, finding those brothers and sisters who don't yet know they are our family. It includes extending the love we have received from our Father to others who need it (and who doesn't?). It includes just about everything most churches and most ministries already do. We just do those things out of love, and not for love; out of belonging, not in order to belong; to be more like our Father, not to gain his approval (which we already have).

When we begin to see all of this in terms of family, as the governing perspective on all ministry and what the Church is supposed to be, a qualitative change happens: the family business becomes the business of being a genuine and healthy family.

[There's more to say on this, but this is a good stopping point for today.]

Improvisational Faith

Teaching Music: a Metaphor

There are two basic ways to teach or learn music: by rote and by theory.

The rote method teaches the music student to repeat exactly the notes written on the page. These notes were (allegedly) written by a master musician. By repeating the notes exactly the student is making music. Later the music student is instructed in how to 'artfully' repeat the notes, with subtle shades of color (tempo, dynamics, etc.), to get the 'feel' of the piece. Only master musicians ever think of reinterpreting a piece of music, giving it their own 'feel.' Even fewer actually compose anything 'meaningful.'

The theory method starts with the concepts of chords, scales, time and key signatures. From some rudimentary basics, like the major I, IV, V7 (1, 4, 5seventh) chord pattern for a song, the pattern is first replicated in different keys, eventually adding the IVm (6minor), along with the rest of the basics of chord theory. Then perhaps the minor patters: Im, IVm, V7 (1minor, 4minor, 5seventh), with their variations. In scales one finds that the relative minor of a major scale, plays the same notes, but from a different starting point (as in the keys of C major and A minor). Further exploration of scales discovers the other more common of the less common scales: Dorian and Mixolydian. More complex aspects of music theory can be introduced, and built upon as the student continues to grow.

The first method prepares students to reproduce what someone else as created. The second prepares to the student to improvise with what someone else has created, and better prepares students to compose their own music.

Which of the two methods above (obviously oversimplified for the sake of illustration) is more like living the Christian life?

Repeat After Me

In my limited experience most religious training, most discipleship training, most Sunday school lessons, most sermons, most theological training, are patterned after the first type of musical training. It takes it's cue from the phrase "the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). With the emphasis on "once for all." "The faith" is basically something that doesn't change and isn't subject to change.

Despite the limitations I'll point out below, there are some tremendous advantages to this approach. First of all, it's much simpler! You may have noticed the difference in length between the two paragraphs on teaching music. That's reflective of the complexity of the second approach as compared to the first. A simpler approach is an easier way to get started, and certainly easier for the amateur teacher/discipler to follow.

And certainly there are unchanging, basic truths of the faith we must all know! These things must be at our finger-tips! Things like the truths summarized in the Apostles Creed:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
      creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
      who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
      and born of the virgin Mary.
      He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
      was crucified, died, and was buried;
      he descended to hell.
      The third day he rose again from the dead.
      He ascended to heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
      From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
      the holy catholic* church,
      the communion of saints,
      the forgiveness of sins,
      the resurrection of the body,
      and the life everlasting. Amen.

*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places.
[Okay, there's one more issue here, Jesus didn't "descend into hell" after He died. He was in paradise with one of the thieves, as he promised (Luke 23:43). This is to be understood as a summary of his sufferings, not the next thing that happened after being buried.]

Like kids learning memorizing the "times tables," memorizing some basics is a great way to master important, unchanging truths, that don't require knowing all the theology behind it to live successfully in our daily lives. Believing in "the forgiveness of sins" for example, is essential to the Christian life: both that we are forgiven through Jesus, and we are supposed to forgive others.

The problem with this approach, is that it doesn't handle the unexpected very well. This approach can have a Christianity that works on paper, or within the confines of a church building, but life can throw some real curve balls, social trends and fly off in crazy ways, advances in medicine have created complex ethical dilemmas we have yet to fully solve. Simply asserting old answers doesn't fully address the new questions. But if all we have is 'rote' learning, all we have are memorized answers. In other words, the rote learning method doesn't teach us how to improvise (adjust to a changing world) within the boundaries of the Truth, and anything that isn't simple repetition can feel like a threat to "the faith...once for all entrusted to the saints."

I think that in many ways Evangelicals are having no impact on changing social trends because our "answers" are to questions no one is asking. Saying the same answers in a louder voice, just doesn't help, and makes us look like we are as out of touch as we often are.

Just Make it Up as We Go

On the far, flip side, and perhaps in reaction to the rote method is a bit of Christian craziness that tries to live without anything as settled and with nothing established "once for all." These folks jump on an out of context phrase of Scripture like a pack of hyenas on a stray sheep. They create entire theological structures out of something that was meant to say something completely different.

Two shining examples:
One uses this argument to suggest we don't need Bible study at all: "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2Cor. 3:6). Therefore, since we have the Spirit, we don't need the Scriptures. The word Scripture comes from "scribe" which means to write using letters. But the Bible says, "The letter kills," so we need to stay away from the Bible, and focus on the Spirit.

Here's another example, I heard from folks who were actually taught this at some point: If you don't speak in tongues, you're not saved. "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" (Rom.8:9). Since the initial sign of having the Spirit is speaking in tongues (insert various 'proof texts' here), then if you don't speak in tongues, you don't have the Spirit and therefore do not belong to Christ.

The contrivances of such an approach become sometimes comical, sometimes pathetic and sometimes spiritually dangerous. Some of the extremes of Adventism (e.g. David Koresh) show some of what can happen, along with the bizarre case of Jim Jones, and some other lesser known, self-appointed apostles, prophets, etc. If you really want to read about something weird, check out the Adamites. I wonder if there are limits to the strange things people will do and still believe they're following Jesus.

There has been a lot of weirdness done in the name of "freedom in the Spirit." And let's face it, the Pentecostal movement has resulted in a great deal of weirdness (not to dismiss it's tremendous contributions). Some third-world Pentecostalism can hardly be called Christianity, and has in many places been just as susceptible to syncretism (blending of Christianity with 'traditional' religions), as some branches of Catholicism (Haiti, with which I have some acquaintance, comes to the foreground of my mind here).

I'm reminded of this quote, and would apply it to the Christian life in its entirety (not just the moral aspect of it): "Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere." - G.K. Chesterton. "Total freedom in the Spirit" is sometimes just another term for being stupid.

Improvisational Faith

If we put the freedom in the Spirit together with radical submission to the Word (the Bible), we have either a paradox, or a symbiosis. Those who hold tightly to the rote side of the equation are suspicious of improvisation and tend to consider it second-rate music. Those who hold to a freer approach to music, tend to view the accomplishments of 'rote-style' musicians as boring and uncreative.

It's my belief and experience that the coming together of these non-fraternal, but twin concepts is what will give a greater and fuller expression of what the Christian life is supposed to look like than either of them apart from each other. Imagine a church radically devoted to the Word, in-depth study of the Bible, wrestling carefully with a Biblical theology, at the same time completely devoted to following the guidance of the Spirit and ministering in His power in every moment--not willy-nilly, but in complete harmony with those Scriptures. 

This is like musical improvisation. The skills required for improvisation require a great deal of the knowledge and application of music theory. To create sounds that engage not only fellow musicians, but non-musicians requires a mastery that goes beyond mere rote learning. It's actually a higher standard, in my opinion (though I don't consider myself a master musician in either camp!).

When Jesus told the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), the one person in the parable that gets thrown "into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 25:30), is the one that gave back to the master exactly what he had been given. He took what was entrusted to him and carefully protected it, not risking it. He did so out of fear--specifically a fear of the Master. It was an act of utter faithlessness (actually it was belief in a god that doesn't exist!).

What we have been given "once for all" is supposed to be invested, used, put to work in this world. Doing so means risk, it requires creativity, and though it's not mentioned in the parable, the investment plan would benefit greatly under the guidance of the Spirit (cf. Gal.5:25--living by and keeping in step with the Spirit). The talents (truths) entrusted to us are many, not few, and should be invested, not hidden, stored, or locked away in thick, dusty books.

In music the confluence of a solid understanding of music theory, together with an inspiration in the moment can create something wonderful and amazing. In the Christian life, a solid understanding of Scriptures properly understood (good theology), together with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can also create something wonderful and amazing. A well-trained musician doesn't think about the theory as he/she is improvising, it just comes out naturally because the theory has become a part of his/her musical self. In the same way, a person steeped in Scripture and Biblical theology, doesn't need to run through a check-list in the moment; these things have become a part of his/her ministering self.

Word and Spirit were always meant to be together. The Spirit that inspired the words of Scripture to be written, is the same Spirit that heals the sick, inspires prophetic words, gives dreams and vision, transforms lives, and more! To divide one from the other suggests a schizophrenia in the Spirit that does not exist, except in our minds. The fullness of the Spirit includes and embraces both parts of His ministry: the faith once for all entrusted to us  in His Word (Jude 3), and being led by the Spirit and keeping in step with Him today (Gal. 5:18, 25).

Both, my friends. Both.

Imagination and the Interpretation of Scripture

I've been preaching quite a bit of Old Testament narrative (the so-called "historical" material) lately and it's got me to thinking about honest and proper interpretation of this kind of Biblical literature.

Why Don't You Just Tell Me What You Want Me to Know?!

One of the things about narrative, the stories we find in Scripture, is that they don't always come right out and say why they're there. We don't get nice, neat lists of the seven things we need to grow in to live more faithfully (as in 2Peter 1:5-7). We get stories of people messing up, arguing with and complaining to God, wiping out entire towns, calling down fire from heaven, and sometimes seemingly just going about their lives.

Just Say "No" to Moralism

One approach to these stories is to reduce them all to moral lessons. So David and Daniel become model moral heroes, standing against the Goliaths of temptation, or against persecution for faithfulness. And it's not that we shouldn't be ready to kill the giants of temptation, or remain faithful no matter what, but as we read the stories, the point isn't to be more moral, the point is: God is at work among His people and that He is on the side of those who act in faithfulness in response to His faithfulness.

The moralism approach is such a temptation, especially for teaching children, because we want them to behave. We feel the same about the spiritually immature. If we can just get them to behave, we'll all feel better about things. And the meta-message of that approach is: Christianity is basically a religion of morality, and if we're moral, God will love us more (or at least other Christians will).

However, the message of the Gospel is not a series of lessons in morality designed to earn us God's favor. In the Gospel, while we were still sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).

This isn't to say that there aren't moral lessons in Scripture. There certainly are! What I'm saying (and I'm not alone) is that when they come, they do not come as conditions for a relationship with God. They come as lessons in how to respond to God's faithful relationship He has already established with us.

A further consideration here is that many (though not all) of the moral heroes are also portrayed in Scripture as deeply flawed. David commits adultery and covers it up with murder. Abraham takes God's promise into his own hands and sleeps with his wife's servant (granted it was his wife's suggestion), and lies about being married to his wife Sarah--twice. And how in the world could Samson be anyone's moral hero (though being really, really strong is really, really cool)? Samson is so morally flawed, our theology of Divine empowerment--specifically whom God chooses to empower--needs to be adjusted to account for it! And Esther? She denies her Jewish identity in order to sleep with the king in some bizarre solution to the king's previous bad decision. Yes, she has her moment (a highly commendable and admirable moment!), but until that moment she is no moral hero and seems more of a moral coward (hey, I didn't write the book).

And yet, this approach is the primary approach to Scripture for many preachers, and a whole stack of children's Sunday School material. Appalling! This is not the Christian message!

Problems with the Christocentric Approach

One approach that is very appealing among Reformed (and some other) students of Scripture would seek to find foreshadows or "types" of Christ in every portion of Scripture. People who use this approach are very committed believers and often excellent preachers or teachers. I do not mean to impugn their character or commitment to God or His Word in any way. However, there's a problem: while Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of all the Old Testament points to, He is not the direct or even indirect object of every passage of Scripture. Sometimes the point is that without God, things go from bad to worse (which is my summary of the book of Judges).

I don't mean to say that we can't preach Christ every time we preach any Old Testament passage. I'm not disputing the importance of Christocentric preaching. I'm fully in favor of that!

What I'm talking about is making a Biblical character (for example) into a "type" of Christ, but then ignoring all the ways they're not. For example, Joseph is often depicted as a type of Christ, for the way that he rescues the people of God from certain doom. In that sense, he is, but in other important senses he is definitely not. Jesus does not test our loyalty withholding His true identity until He is satisfied we can be trusted (Genesis 42-44). Jesus does not enslave entire nations, nor participate in their exploitation by the rich and powerful (Genesis 47:13-25). Jesus, unlike Joseph, was in constant contact with His Father, while Joseph, even when he was second most powerful in Egypt, didn't even write home.

We can talk about "types" of Christ in the Old Testament, and we should, but not at the expense of ignoring how they fell far short of the Christ we know as Jesus. When we miss, or overlook the flaws, and the ways these "types" are sometimes "anti-types" of Christ, we dishonor both the Scriptures and the Christ they point to.

And characters aren't the only way folks try to find "types" of Christ in the Old Testament. Such "types" are found in laws and regulations, in the tabernacle/temple, in the feasts etc. I prefer to see these things not as "types" of Christ at all but prefer the way the book of Hebrews talks about them: "shadows." At their best, all of these rituals, festivals and practices are two-dimensional, substance-less substitutions for the real thing. They only tell us when we look at them, that we're not looking at the light that casts such a shadow. All of the interpretational analogies in the world that show the connection between the Old Testament temple practices and the Jesus of the New, in my experience fail beyond the point of being merely "very interesting." It's only if such errands help us understand Jesus better, that they are worth the effort. Like end-time charts they can be intricate in design and research and yet be no more transformative than watching reruns of Gilligan's Island.

Hopefully, I'm just preaching to the choir here.

Allegorical Oopses

Oddly, many of the early church fathers and certain parts of Pentecostalism both engage in a form of Scripture interpretation called "Allegorical." What is meant by that, is what we find in Tommy Tenny's book and film about Esther "One Night with the King" [sorry I'm not in the mood to find a link to either]. I'm not saying that the book, nor the movie are bad, nor that what they try to teach isn't right somehow. It's just not what the story of Esther is actually about.

The same could be said of the David and Goliath story. As an allegory it tells us how to confront our giants, or how Jesus defeated satan, or how the church must stand against the world. While it's true that we need to confront our "giants" and that Jesus did defeat satan (not with a sling, but with a cross), and that the church must stand against the world, the story of David and Goliath isn't about those things.

Allegories fail in the details. To allegorize Esther as the Church and King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) as Jesus, requires ignore some significant facts: Xerxes is depicted as a pompous, short-tempered, heavy drinker who is constantly making questionable decisions, and who even after choosing Esther, has nothing to do with her for weeks at a time. Esther, meanwhile, denies her identity to fit in, is characterized by compliance (until the moment of crisis), and uses a careful plan to force the king into a corner where he must act to undermine his previous plan. In other words, you have to leave out some of the most important stuff in the story to make the allegory work!

(I'll get to a better way to look at Esther below.)

Expository Limitations

Of all the approaches to Scripture, the one most championed in Reformed circles is the expository method. Expository interpretation looks to find all the text says without adding anything to it. It uses a method called exegesis (in contrast to eisegesis). Exegesis comes from two Greek words and means to "lead out," that is to begin with the text and lead out, what's already there without leading anything into it (eisegesis means "lead into"). It's a very useful method and one I use more than any other. It keeps me honest--or at least tries.

But I've discovered that this method is limited. In fact, it's sometimes so limited it can't tell us what we need to know. This is because the expository method, while it forces us to look at the text, doesn't help us look at the meta-message of the text. That is to say, sometimes the main message is not what's said, but what is implied but left unsaid.

Last week, as I've been preaching through the life of Joseph, I came to Genesis 47:13-31. God is not mentioned at all in that section of Scripture. The details of Joseph managing the famine on behalf of Pharaoh, resulting in the enslavement of an entire nation while Pharaoh gets obscenely wealthy, seems like more information than we need. It almost seems out of place (and a number of commentators believe it actually is!). Looking at the text from an expository point of view alone, I couldn't find the meaning or purpose of this passage. I know and believe that all Scripture is useful for instruction (2Timothy 3:16), but I couldn't find the usefulness of this passage using expository methods alone. The moralistic or allegorical methods came to mind (the Christocentric didn't at all--Jesus doesn't enslave people!), but those didn't help either. I thought a bit about the 20% tax as a forerunner of the 10% tithe, but there were too many problems with that idea, and it was quickly dismissed.

Expository interpretation can tell us what is in the text, but it can't always tell us why. Sometimes it can, but not always. It's very helpful in understanding the Epistles, not so much for narrative or poetic literature (like the Psalms). Sometimes we need more than seeing and understanding what's written. Expository studies give us information well, but don't always give us the transformation God intends for us to receive as we read His Word.

Like the scientific method, the expository method gives us facts, but doesn't always give us Truth.

Sometimes we need prayerful imagination along with exposition.

Prayerful Imagination

Let's take another look at Esther. The book of Esther is known by Bible students for the fact that it does not contain the word "God" in the entire book (nor prayer, worship, or any reference to the temple sacrificial system). This has led some to either reject the book, question its place in the Bible, or to simply refuse to preach on it. (Perhaps this same fact leads some to see the book as an allegory, rather than historical narrative!)

However, if we take the fact of the lack of the name of God in the book is a literary device, rather than evidence of the spurious nature of the book, the book begins to open up. What do I mean? I mean this. I believe we are suppose to read Esther asking this question: Where is God in this? As we read each of the many stories that make up the story of Esther, we can ask and should be asking this question. And as we ask it, the book opens up to remind us of one extremely important fact: God is always and everywhere working out His purposes (even if it doesn't look like it at the time).

In other words, our imagination can help us see beyond what's written to the meta-message that we are supposed to hear. The meta-message of Esther is that God is acting, even when it doesn't seem like it. The meta-message of Genesis 47:13-31 is that even while the world willingly enslaves itself to worldly powers in exchange for survival, God graciously rescues, provides for, and protects His people; or while worldly powers treat people like subjects to exploit, God treats them like family. I believe that's what we're supposed to see in that passage: the message that isn't there explicitly is the message we're supposed to hear most clearly.

That passage was locked for me until, through prayer and meditation on it, I began to see that unless God had acted with Joseph the way he had, all of Israel (Jacob) and his children would also have been enslaved to Pharaoh. Then I began to see the conditional 'blessing' of Pharaoh, compared to the gracious blessing of God. The contrast between how Pharaoh (a god to the Egyptians) treated his subjects in need and how God treated His becomes staggeringly obvious--once we see that this is the contrast of vv.13-25 with v.27. There is no mention of God in this text so that we will look to see where He is. In this text He's in Goshen with Israel, as He promised (Genesis 46:3-4).

I'm not recommending imagination for it's own sake, nor imagination apart from careful exegesis, nor imagination apart from yielded prayer. That would be utter foolishness. But I am trying to say that when we read Scripture carefully and honestly (which the expository method is most helpful with, IMHO), we must also use our imagination to contemplate what the unspoken message (if any!) of the passage may be.

Sometimes this is obvious. Sometimes, it takes a week's worth of praying.

Offering Our Physical Bodies to God

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. (Romans 12:1)  

I was singing a new song in my prayer time a couple of weeks ago, rededicating myself to God. I found a simple chord progression, containing a bit of tension & urgency and as I began to sing I wanted to sing about giving God my whole self: spirit, soul, & body. Here's what came out of my mouth: 

Here's my heart,
Here's my soul,
Here's my body;
Take it all.

Giving God our Bodies too

As I began to sing that song, something interesting began to happen to me. The first was that I found it strange to be offering my body to God in a worship song. Maybe I had done so before, but I didn't remember doing it. Secondly, I found it strange that I was finding this strange. It's not strange to offer God our hearts in song, or our souls, but our bodies?

I did a quick search of my song databases for "body" and "bodies" and though I found a few references to the fact that our bodies are God's temple, and will be raised on the last day (as well as references to the Church as the Body of Christ, and to Christ's body on the cross, or risen, etc.), I did not find a single song that gave voice to the command above: offering God our physical bodies.

Why is that, I wondered. Why are we quite free to offer God our hearts & souls, but then ignore offering Him our physical bodies? Are we latent anti-materialists (those who believe physical matter is evil), or Gnostics (some of whom believed the physical body was irrelevant)? Is there something in us that wants to hold at least something back from God, or assume that God isn't interested in anything besides our hearts?

What is going on here?!

The Resurrection of the Body (or not)?

When we say the Apostles Creed (that ancient summary of apostolic teaching), we say that we "believe in the resurrection of the body." I sometimes wonder whether people actually believe what they're saying. After all, the way they talk about heaven and the afterlife, it makes you wonder why God would even bother with raising our bodies. Our bodies don't seem to be necessary or even preferable to the life of a disembodied spirit in heaven.

I know that's not how the Bible talks about life after death, nor about what will happen when Christ returns. But it is how a lot of Christian folks talk. A few less sophisticated ones will just tell you that they don't believe that God is going to raise our physical bodies at all; He'll just give us new, spiritual bodies. That's not a Biblical idea, but it certainly fits their theology of the afterlife better.

But that isn't what the Bible says, is it. Here's the relevant quote:

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (1Corinthians 15:42–44)  

The body that is buried is the one that will be raised. It is raised into a different sort of body than it was, but it is not discarded, left behind or forgotten. At the resurrection, these same bodies we're walking around in today, are the bodies that will be raised that last day. They will be transformed into spiritual bodies, but we don't get a different body.

When Jesus was raised from the dead on Easter Sunday. His transformed body was different than it was, but it was still His body--complete with scars and the ability to eat fish (Luke 24:36-43). Jesus even invited Thomas to examine his wounds and put his hand into His side (John 20:27). And yet, he could simply appear in a room (Luke 24:36), or vanish (Luke 24:31). The same, but different.

"The Misdeeds of the..." What?

I have sometimes puzzled over this verse in Romans 8:

For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. (Romans 8:13)  

What does Paul mean by "the misdeeds of the body (soma)?" Is this just another metaphor for whatever it is "flesh (sarx)" stands for in this passage? Or, is there a sin problem directly related to the physical bodies we have?

The Bible talks about us as having a spirit, soul and body. Yet for some reason we tend to assign sin only to the spirit and soul parts of us. I wonder why.

My body has desires. When it's hungry, it wants to eat. When it's thirsty it wants to drink. When it gets tired, it wants to sleep. From time to time, it wants sex. It doesn't always want what's best for it either. My body really likes potato chips. It seems to crave at least some things that aren't good for it, or good for the rest of me either! 

So can our bodies sin? Can they misbehave? Are our bodies actually capable of "misdeeds?" I know that many translations just have "deeds" here instead (Greek: "praxeis"), but the implication is the same in the context. Commentators want to skirt the issue of the physical body being anything but a neutral entity in their discussions, but Paul often contrasts body and spirit (as in the passage from 1Cor. 15 quoted above). I wonder whether we are reading our assumptions about the neutrality of the body into the text, thereby missing the possibility that our bodies, as well as our souls and spirits are fallen and need to submit to God. 

If we open that door: that our bodies as well as our spirits and souls need redemption, transformation and submission to God, then we can also begin to ponder whether Paul's use of the term "flesh" might mean something more than the sinful tendencies of our souls, or sinful attitudes, etc. Some passages more than others tend to lead me to leave that door open (e.g., Gal. 5:16; Eph. 2:3).

In 1Peter 2:11 we read that we are to (literally) "...abstain from fleshly desires which wage war against your soul." Most translations put "sinful" in place of "fleshly (Greek: sarkikos)," and we should acknowledge that to do so is an interpretation of what Peter means to convey. What if Peter is telling us something important about a spiritual battlefield we rarely think about? The world of Peter's day, as much and perhaps even more than the world in our day, encouraged indulging physical desires of all kinds (food, drink, sex, etc.). Consider with me for a moment that the ancient world (along with our own) is being pulled into sin not merely by corrupt souls & spirits, but by our physical bodies also damaged in a way that pulls it in sinful directions.

As I write this, I want to make clear that I'm pondering, not concluding.

"Offer Your Bodies as a Living Sacrifice"

Back to the verse quoted at the top of this blog entry:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. (Romans 12:1)  

In spite of, or perhaps in addition to, Jesus teaching that God wants us to worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24), Paul urges us to offer our bodies to God as an act of worship. It is interesting that Paul does this and that so few composers of worship hymns/songs pick up on it as significant.

When I began singing that song (above) to the Lord, offering Him my heart, soul and body, I found myself giving something I'd not consciously given before--at least not in that way. It was a curious and wonderful prayer & worship experience and it has changed the way I think about myself in relation to God. I'm not sure I intended to, but I think I had assumed that He didn't really want that part of me--the physical part.

Maybe you've seen the slogan: "We are not physical beings having a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings having a physical experience." What that slogan does, is minimize the significance of the Biblical teaching that we are body, soul and spirit, not spirits merely inhabiting bodies. I don't just have a body, I am one. If my body hurts, I hurt. If it's sick, I'm sick. When it's hungry, I'm hungry (etc.). If you punch my body in the nose, you hurt me, not just my nose. Sexual assault doesn't just damage a body, it damages people. Physical abuse injures people, not just people's bodies. We are bodies and souls and spirits. This is an inescapable reality that slogans can't trump.

When we offer our bodies to our marriage partners, we engage in a deeply personal and intimate act of trust in relationship. The offering of our bodies is offering a significant part of who we are. As we make ourselves physically vulnerable to each other, we risk being more deeply loved, or more deeply hurt than we could be in most other human relationships. Our bodies are a significant and essential part of who we are. Offering our body to someone is not something we should take lightly, or do as if it's insignificant. This is no less true when offering our bodies to God.

If you have never done so, join me today in exploring how we can offer our physical bodies to God, in every way that would please God. Join me in resisting the temptations to indulge those physical desires that would move me away from God. Join me in worshiping God with my physical body: in my physical posture as I pray and worship, in my voice, in what my hands choose to do (or not do), in what I eat or drink (or don't), and in every other way I can submit my body to Him.

I'm wondering. I'm pondering. But I'm giving Him my all--including my physical being.

Besides, He lives in here--inside my body--anyway. Make it a home fit for Your glory, Lord.

Seeking the Manifest Presence of God

A while back I wrote a blog dealing the the question: Does God "show up," or is He omnipresent. That blog entry dealt with some of what is meant by that phrase "God showing up." Is that just bad theology, or something we should pay attention to. In that blog I made the distinction between God's "general presence" and His "manifest presence." (The manifest presence means that God makes His presence known to us experientially.)

Today I'm going to be writing about what seeking the manifest presence of God is about, and the importance of seeking His presence as a core value.

Is the Manifest Presence of God Real?

The first question to ask about this notion of having a direct experience of God's presence is this question: is that a real experience or merely a psychological "wish projection." Some would suggest that having a direct experience of God is not possible for the ordinary believer today. Of course atheists would assert this, but some who call themselves Christians would too. Any claim of an experience of God is dismissed as merely self-deception; a reinterpretation of feelings of peace, calm, or whatever as actually just assigning the name of God to one's own inner emotional life.

How do you argue against that? What proof could anyone give to someone else, that a direct experience of God is not actually an experience of one's own inner sense of peace, or wonder? How could I convince you that it's not just some sort of self-hypnosis, or worse: the result of psychological manipulation by clever spiritual leaders?

I can't think of a way to prove, beyond any doubt, to a skeptic that an experience of God might be real, let alone that I had one. But then, I can't prove that I wasn't created 3 seconds ago with a 57 year long memory.

So let's ask a different question:

Is the Manifest Presence of God Taught in the Bible?

First, do we find evidence in the Bible when God's manifest presence was experienced by Biblical characters? The answer to that question is obviously "Yes!" From Adam and Eve hearing God walking in the Garden in the cool of the day (Gen. 3:8), to Moses and the burning bush (Ex. 3:4-6), and in the tent of meeting (Ex. 33:7-11), to the priests not being able to enter the temple because of the glory of God (2Chron. 7:2-3), to Isaiah's vision of God that overwhelmed him (Isa.6:5), and more.

Second, do we find anywhere in the Bible where we are encouraged to seek God's manifest presence? Related to this is another question: Is the manifest presence something exceptional, for exceptional people in exceptional circumstances (as in the examples above), or something for ordinary people in everyday circumstances? To answer these questions we'll take a look at a few different passages.

In Psalm 105:4 we read this: "Look to the Lord and his strength; seek His face always." To seek God's face, means to seek the presence of God. God's "face" is often used in the Old Testament as a metaphor for God's presence. This makes sense, doesn't it. I can see your face, when you are present. I might be able to see a picture of your face, or a video, or even a streaming video of your face. But seeing your face--seeing you face-to-face--is seeing you directly. Besides, God didn't allow images of Himself to be made; He wants us to seek Him, not a representation (a re-presentation) of Him.

In this Psalm, it's not the spiritual or political elite that are being called to seek God's face (presence). Everyone is called to do so! The same is true in Psalm 24:6, and Psalm 119:58, and assuming David is giving voice to the cry of every heart, also Psalm 27:8. And this is to say nothing of the myriad of passages that urge us to seek the Lord, especially this verse: But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deut. 4:29), echoed in slightly different form here: Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. (Isa. 55:6), and stated as a promise here: You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. (Jer. 29:13).

"Holy" Distractions in Seeking the Manifest Presence

I don't know about you, but I find myself spending more time and energy seeking information about God than in seeking Him directly. I suppose it's a product of growing up in a spiritual tradition that treasures the Bible so much. Even the study above, demonstrates how steeped in the Bible I was growing up, and continue to be today. I don't think that's bad--not at all!

At some point, the students of maps should get out of the library and see the places the maps describe. As a matter of fact, a person can only fully understand the maps, if that person has some experience of the places on them, or at the very least similar places.

The Bible teaches a lot about God, but it also teaches us to seek Him, and promises that if we seek Him we will find Him. This is not only true in the Old Testament (from where my examples above come from), but also in the New Testament. Paul prays for the Ephesians, who were already believers, and in the only epistle he wrote that didn't directly address specific problems in the church, that they would have the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that [they] may know Him better (Eph.1:17). (By the way, that word for "know" here is a word that means to know personally, by experience, not just to know about, or know theoretically.)

If the Bible is like a map for our spiritual lives, then among other things, it tells us that God's manifest presence is a place we can go, and a place we should go. The Bible is more like a manual for spiritual life, than an encyclopedia of spiritual knowledge. It points beyond itself to something more--someone more: God Himself.

Another objection is found in this strange statement: "you're not seeking God, but just an experience of God" (as if that somehow disqualifies the quest as improper). But think about that statement for a minute. How could one find God, without having an experience of Him? What if I said, "you're not wanting a nice juicy steak, you're just wanting the experience of a nice juicy steak." Does that distinction even make sense? Of course not! In the same way we can't taste a steak and fail to experience the steak, we can't taste and see that the Lord is good (Ps. 34:8), unless we have an experience of God. Or to be more direct, it is impossible to find something we can't experience (how then would we know if we found it or not?!).

Is it proper to seek an experience of God? Absolutely! The only ones who aren't seeking such an experience, are the ones who are satisfied to live as spiritual orphans. The Bible holds out more for us than a life of spiritual abandonment! God is not an absent Father!

Seeking the Manifest Presence of God

How do we do this? How do we seek God's presence? How do we 'look' for it--for Him?

The most obvious answer, of course, is that we seek and find God's presence in prayer. Not in the prayers of petition, obviously, but in waiting, or listening prayer. The concept of waiting on the Lord in prayer has been lost by many Christians. They don't know how to do it, or why one would want to. Maybe we don't wait, because we don't expect Him to come. I'm not going to wait for a bus in front of my house, since there's no bus route here. Nor would I wait for God, if I believed He's not coming my way.

Another way we seek and find God's presence is in worship. Worship is a kind of prayer, of course, but it's a specialized sort of prayer. It's the kind of prayer that lingers in the adoration and praise part of praying. As we acclaim God's goodness, love, power, majesty, glory, etc., He responds and often meets us in those moments, sharing with us from Who He is. We worship in words, in song, through many of the Psalms, in artistic expression or in silent awe. In whatever way we worship, we find that He comes to meet us in our worship of Him. Isn't that amazing?!

Just as important is that we seek Him in the context of the believing community. It is often in the context of corporate worship, or corporate prayer that I have felt the manifest presence of God most strongly. There's something about God's people gathered together to focus on Him that so often changes the atmosphere for everyone in the room. I think maybe God just likes it when His kids all get together.

By experience I know that usually when I miss the manifest presence of God, it's because I wasn't looking for it. We don't usually find what we're not looking for. This is not to say that every time we seek His presence we find it as soon as we begin. That's not true either. God likes to be sought, and He draws the best out of us when our seeking requires our whole heart (not just a bit of time and attention).

Worship leaders need to find ways to become aware of God's manifest presence among His people. Worship leaders are often caught up in the logistics of the meeting (what is supposed to be happening now, or next?), and can miss the evidence of the purpose of all their planning: God's presence among His people. That's not the time to change the subject or go on with the meeting! That's the time to linger, to notice out loud so others can tune in as well, and ask for an increase! I'll freely admit that this is something I need to grow in, but it is something am growing in.

When we seek Him, we will find Him. He is within reach, not far from any one of us (Acts 17:24).